Anti-piracy plan to make ISPs liable for illegal downloads

[hamba]

Anti-piracy plan to make ISPs liable for illegal downloads

A radical plan to tackle internet piracy, which would make broadband providers legally liable for music and films downloaded from unlicensed websites by their customers, is being considered by the government.

In exchange, internet service providers (ISPs) would receive a small payment for every film or music track downloaded legally by their customers, which could make them millions of pounds in additional revenue.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Berr) is considering a range of proposals ahead of possible legislation early next year, but the profit-sharing plan, submitted by consultancy Ingenious Media, is believed to be favoured by ministers. "Officials are treating it seriously," according to an industry source.

It is thought to chime with the department's latest thinking on how to resolve the dispute, which centres on using a carrot-and-stick approach to encourage ISPs to crack down on illegal sites that offer free content and drive consumers towards legitimate, paid-for alternatives.

Berr is expected to publish its recommendation on piracy in January, following a long consultation on peer-to-peer file sharing that ended in October.




James Robinson
The Observer, Sunday 21 December 2008
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

 

[karym6]

Why dont we just pay an Internet tax instead, like Sweden?

 

[MFCGMFC]

Why dont we just pay an Internet tax instead, like Sweden?

do you not think we get taxed enough?

illegal downloads allow to us to have a wee bit extra in our pockets, there is a recession you know!!

Cheers
MFCGAVMFC

 

[TheWakeUpCall]

So they want to make the people who legally pay for music and films to pay extra, to cover the costs of those getting it for free...

That's great motivation to buy instead of getting for free isn't it!

 

[nozzer]

Not exactly likely to work !

People will simply move to using ssl or other encrypted technologies to prevent their ISP's actually seeing anything regarding data content.

 

[ms2005]

Not exactly likely to work !

People will simply move to using ssl or other encrypted technologies to prevent their ISP's actually seeing anything regarding data content.

I always wonder about that, if I go to say NZB Matrix and download a NZB at say 8.4GB, then all of a sudden I download 8.4GB of SSL encrypted data, I'm pretty sure that would be sufficient evidence to adduce you were illegally obtaining copyrighted material.

 

[digidude]

unless its a very small file downloaded from an actual site via HTTP, everything i download is SSL encrypted, wether its a single (paid for) mp3 file or a demo 8.4G file

 

[Explosivo]

the day i cant get anything for free off the internet is the day i stop using it.

 

[karym6]

unless its a very small file downloaded from an actual site via HTTP, everything i download is SSL encrypted, wether its a single (paid for) mp3 file or a demo 8.4G file

it doesnt matter if the data is encrypted by SSL, the ISP will still be able to see the source address of the files you are downloading.

If the ISP's really wanted to track downloads, there wouldnt be much to stop them.

Look at Sweden, for a small fee on top of their monthly subscription, they can download whatever they like from wherever they like.

 

[havelln]

what about cloned modems what they going to do about them

 

[nozzer]

it doesnt matter if the data is encrypted by SSL, the ISP will still be able to see the source address of the files you are downloading.

If the ISP's really wanted to track downloads, there wouldnt be much to stop them.

Look at Sweden, for a small fee on top of their monthly subscription, they can download whatever they like from wherever they like.

Sure, they can see the source address but they cant actually see the data content. There may be circumstantial suspicion of what you are doing but no concrete proof. All the download site have to do is offer several large but legit files and you have plausible deniability.

The Swedish idea is probably ok except for the small problem that those of us who dont download pirate Video or Music might just object to subsidising those who do.

 

[daveleebond]

and its not free, since i have to pay a monthly fee to my ISP, pay for my hardware and pay for the electricity it uses.

I too only use newsgroups through a SSL provider, can't remember the last time I even downloaded from a torrent site.

Does anyone still use DC++ ?

 

[toler8]

I'm pretty sure that would be sufficient evidence to adduce you were illegally obtaining copyrighted material.

Yes, they would no doubt know you were up to something dodgy but without having the proof of exactly what you have been downloading its a non starter.
Most files from newsgroups are split into multiple rars and the filenames are only a bunch of initials that don't really give much of a clue to what it is, and with ssl its going to be a bit of a job for the isp to track what your doing.
I think, if this happens, they will probably go for easier targets like torrent users.

 

[karym6]

Sure, they can see the source address but they cant actually see the data content. There may be circumstantial suspicion of what you are doing but no concrete proof. All the download site have to do is offer several large but legit files and you have plausible deniability.

The Swedish idea is probably ok except for the small problem that those of us who dont download pirate Video or Music might just object to subsidising those who do.

the content doesnt matter and there would be no circumstantial suspicion - all the ISP would need to do is check the source address. Then they would be able to find out what it is that is being downloaded. So SSL acheives little in this instance.

Offering large enough legit files wouldnt acheive anything, as the ISP would be able to start what ever download is available.

In Sweden, people pay a subsidy on their internet bill that takes care of royalties etc. I dont think it is so much an idea of a small part of the population subsidising those who want content, but more of a situation where there is no confusion at all about media on the Internet. If you want a film/book/album/game and you can download it from the Internet, then you can.

I wonder how much more stricter policing of the Internet will cost compared to a subsidy?

Also, someone made a point on cloned modems? Thats not really part of the issue, its a seperate crime at the moment, one for VM to sort out. But I would imagine things like this contribute to piracy.

 

[nozzer]

the content doesnt matter and there would be no circumstantial suspicion - all the ISP would need to do is check the source address. Then they would be able to find out what it is that is being downloaded. So SSL acheives little in this instance.

Offering large enough legit files wouldnt acheive anything, as the ISP would be able to start what ever download is available.

If the session is fully ssl encrypted then the ISP has absolutely no idea of what you are asking for. All they know is that you are connected to a site. Everything else in the session is encrypted so they dont get to see filenames etc.

There's also other forms of encryption including encrypted virtual tunnels. Apart from knowing source and destination IP's the ISP can see nothing. If your worried about them seeing destination IP then its relatively easy to go through an encrypted proxy. The ISP cannot track you beyond the proxy (not legally anyway)

 

[karym6]

If the session is fully ssl encrypted then the ISP has absolutely no idea of what you are asking for. All they know is that you are connected to a site. Everything else in the session is encrypted so they dont get to see filenames etc.

There's also other forms of encryption including encrypted virtual tunnels. Apart from knowing source and destination IP's the ISP can see nothing. If your worried about them seeing destination IP then its relatively easy to go through an encrypted proxy. The ISP cannot track you beyond the proxy (not legally anyway)

That is of course the ISP doesnt provide Internet access to the proxy in the first place.

Also, why bother with a virtual encrypted tunnel? As far as I know, this is just a tagline to sell substandard VPN-alikes to regular people.

I think your idea is flawed on many levels. Even if, and thats a big if, anyone could be that bothered to download an album or film through an anonymous proxy using SSL or a VPN, the ISP would still see huge amounts of data going to that customer on ports that are not associated with normal web traffic. Its like sticking up a 50ft tall neon blinking sign saying "Nothing illegal being downloaded here, honest".

The ISP will also see where the data is being sent from and if anyone else downloading from the same source isnt encrypting their traffic they will be able to see exactly what is in the transfer. Also, why use an encrypted proxy? This seems like a blunt approach to the problem, if your ISP is using deep packet inspection this wont really hold back a lot of data from them (apart from the contents of the session). Why wouldnt someone just use an anonymous proxy instead?

 

[nozzer]

Your assuming here that the ISP's are willing to spend a lot of time and effort trying to unravel a trail that, at the end, may give them a hint of a suspicion as to what you are up to. I can tell you now, they wont bother !

These plans are not the idea of ISP's. The ISP's know they are mainly unworkable and would be quite happy to show that.

Deep packet inspection, btw, is really a misnomer. ISP's are only allowed to inspect various headers. Once they start actually sniffing into data then they fall foul of various wire tapping and privacy laws.

 

[karym6]

Your assuming here that the ISP's are willing to spend a lot of time and effort trying to unravel a trail that, at the end, may give them a hint of a suspicion as to what you are up to. I can tell you now, they wont bother !

These plans are not the idea of ISP's. The ISP's know they are mainly unworkable and would be quite happy to show that.

Deep packet inspection, btw, is really a misnomer. ISP's are only allowed to inspect various headers. Once they start actually sniffing into data then they fall foul of various wire tapping and privacy laws.

An ISP can carry out DPI as and when it wants or needs to, they keep the data for an extremely short time. Should the government ever enforce a system by which the ISP's police the Internet, then they will have to use this method.

In the UK, we dont really have a concept of 'Wire tapping' laws like they do in the US. Phorm is potentially illegal in the UK, but not under any one law. This would make it hard (but not impossible) to prosecute over. However, we are not talking about Phorm here, we are talking about ISP's inspecting their own traffic. I think the acts concerning this topic are the Data Protection Act, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Act and the Fraud Act.

I think this may be turning into two distinct discussions; Those who dont want their access to media blocked in any way, and; Those who want everything for free.

 

[sez123]

my neighbor just received a letter from virgin to say she has been downloading and that the letter she has received is a warring and any more downloading she will/may recieve a fine, are we now to say that we should not be downloading any music or movies??
And what about all the sites posting movies and music....

 

[karym6]

my neighbor just received a letter from virgin to say she has been downloading and that the letter she has received is a warring and any more downloading she will/may recieve a fine, are we now to say that we should not be downloading any music or movies??
And what about all the sites posting movies and music....

You may not know this - but a lot of those sites are offering illegal content.

Basically, if you dont pay any money for media, then chances are its illegal. Not always illegal, but probably a lot more often than not.