Beerman Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 The recorded music industry's trade group has told internet service providers (ISPs) to freeze the accounts of customers who illegally fileshare. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has written to Tiscali and Cable & Wireless asking them to suspend 59 accounts for "illegal filesharing". Until now, the BPI has focused on individuals, rather than other firms. The ISPs should now "put their houses in order and pull the plug on these people", said the BPI. We have said for months that it is unacceptable for ISPs to turn a blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement Peter Jamieson, BPI chairman The internet has made it far easier for people to share music files and thus to breach copyright. 'Unequivocal evidence' The BPI says this latest move will enable the record industry "to deal with a greater volume of cases more quickly and efficiently". BPI has identified 17 Tiscali IP addresses and 42 Cable & Wireless IP addresses which were used to upload "significant quantities of music owned by BPI members". While the BPI can identify which service providers have customers breaking filesharing rules belongs, only the ISPs themselves can identify the exact customers. It was unacceptable for ISPs to turn a "blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement", said BPI chairman Peter Jamieson. "We are providing unequivocal evidence of copyright infringement via their services," he said. "It is now up to them to put their house in order and pull the plug on these people." Both Tiscali and Cable & Wireless had terms of use which banned copyright infringement, the BPI said. C&W acknowledged it had an "acceptable use policy" for itself and its ISP, Bulldog, which covered illegal filesharing. "This would normally mean that any accounts used for illegal filesharing are closed. We will take whatever steps are necessary to put the matter right," the firm said in a statement. Tiscali, meanwhile, said it does not freeze customer accounts automatically when asked to, but can do so following an investigation, Reuters reported. The firm did not respond to phone calls. BPI has taken legal action in 139 filesharing cases. The four that have gone to court have produced verdicts in BPI's favour, while 111 individuals have settled out of court. Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandpabruce Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 It's a good thing that it wasn't the British Pornographic Industry getting on the ISP's case. They would all be out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vid2man97 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Yeah, they tried that in Canada (must have been about three years ago now) and the judge told them (poor music industry) to take a hike. There were a lot of good legal reasons including invasion of privacy between ISPs and their customers, fluid addresses and so on. I personally don't assume there's a lot of privacy when I connect my computer to the rest of the world. And there's also a long standing tax that Canadians may or may not know about. For years we've payed a hidden tax on blank media of all sorts including cds. This was all to go to the recording industry to act as compensation for the fact that music will get copied by people from lp to tape, tape to cd and so on (for personal use). It was a compromise on 'copyright' infringement long before it became fashionable for the industry to complain about net file sharing. Kind of unfair for people using cds for data backup to subsidize the musical art world but it seemed a fair thing to do. As a result (for now), it's still legal to download, but illegal to upload. Some theory about you don't know that you're not getting a download from someone who doesn't have the rights but you clearly know that when you upload, you don't have the rights. Sounds a little obtuse but that's the world of the courts and laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerman Posted July 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Yeah, they tried that in Canada (must have been about three years ago now) and the judge told them (poor music industry) to take a hike. There were a lot of good legal reasons including invasion of privacy between ISPs and their customers, fluid addresses and so on. I personally don't assume there's a lot of privacy when I connect my computer to the rest of the world. And there's also a long standing tax that Canadians may or may not know about. For years we've payed a hidden tax on blank media of all sorts including cds. This was all to go to the recording industry to act as compensation for the fact that music will get copied by people from lp to tape, tape to cd and so on (for personal use). It was a compromise on 'copyright' infringement long before it became fashionable for the industry to complain about net file sharing. Kind of unfair for people using cds for data backup to subsidize the musical art world but it seemed a fair thing to do. As a result (for now), it's still legal to download, but illegal to upload. Some theory about you don't know that you're not getting a download from someone who doesn't have the rights but you clearly know that when you upload, you don't have the rights. Sounds a little obtuse but that's the world of the courts and laws. I have a friend who worked for Cox Communications (New Orleans) and he told me a few years back that all they cared about was that you weren't sharing your media and didn't care that you downloaded it. But, if they saw a huge amount of bandwidth, they'd question it. He also said then that in the future, the tv networks (he meant free not premium) would fix it so you couldn't record the programs. Already I'm reading that networks are planning broadcast flags when HD kicks in so that you can only record to certain devices and not copy, burn or distribute. Seems they want to sell their Friends, 24, Lost etc dvd's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbrewst Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 He also said then that in the future, the tv networks (he meant free not premium) would fix it so you couldn't record the programs. Already I'm reading that networks are planning broadcast flags when HD kicks in so that you can only record to certain devices and not copy, burn or distribute. Seems they want to sell their Friends, 24, Lost etc dvd's. I'm using DirecTv and already I've noticed that I can't record alot of programming to my settop DVD recorder.I get the message "the program you are trying to record is protected........" or something to that effect.That's not only on HD channels but Standard Def as well.Just wondering,does this happen with TiVo as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn98109 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I have a friend who worked for Cox Communications (New Orleans) and he told me a few years back that all they cared about was that you weren't sharing your media and didn't care that you downloaded it. But, if they saw a huge amount of bandwidth, they'd question it. He also said then that in the future, the tv networks (he meant free not premium) would fix it so you couldn't record the programs. Already I'm reading that networks are planning broadcast flags when HD kicks in so that you can only record to certain devices and not copy, burn or distribute. Seems they want to sell their Friends, 24, Lost etc dvd's. Does that mean if I had broadband and was downloading all 5 million updates to Norton FW 2005, they'd catch me for illegal downloading? (I keep downloading and downloading, and there are additional files on the computer, but the downloads are still there when I go back. It's something I do (on the Win98 SE) when I figure I'll be sitting there for around 20 minutes reading pages.) Lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbrewst Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Not sure Lynn but I'd be willing to bet they can tell from records what IP address you're connected to and be able to differentiate that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerman Posted July 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Does that mean if I had broadband and was downloading all 5 million updates to Norton FW 2005, they'd catch me for illegal downloading? (I keep downloading and downloading, and there are additional files on the computer, but the downloads are still there when I go back. It's something I do (on the Win98 SE) when I figure I'll be sitting there for around 20 minutes reading pages.) Lynn Lynn, I never asked what was considered heavy usage. I think somewhere in the fine print, my ISP has a limit. I'm pretty sure you'd have to do alot to get in trouble. I can say that with DSL (Bellsouth) you can have an FTP account and webserver but it's against the rules with cable. I'm using DirecTv and already I've noticed that I can't record alot of programming to my settop DVD recorder.I get the message "the program you are trying to record is protected........" or something to that effect.That's not only on HD channels but Standard Def as well.Just wondering,does this happen with TiVo as well? In my testing of Vista MC beta, I've run into that many, many times for analog and digital channels. I could not even record a rerun of Lost. Funny, HBO let me record. I think in this case, it's the DRM in Media Center. I wonder if you could record the same program in VHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn98109 Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Lynn, I never asked what was considered heavy usage. I think somewhere in the fine print, my ISP has a limit. I'm pretty sure you'd have to do alot to get in trouble. I can say that with DSL (Bellsouth) you can have an FTP account and webserver but it's against the rules with cable.In my testing of Vista MC beta, I've run into that many, many times for analog and digital channels. I could not even record a rerun of Lost. Funny, HBO let me record. I think in this case, it's the DRM in Media Center. I wonder if you could record the same program in VHS. Let's see ... VISTA ... Video Industry Strikes TiVo Again ...? VISTA is really just a carrier of DRM, right? Lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerman Posted July 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Let's see ... VISTA ... Video Industry Strikes TiVo Again ...? VISTA is really just a carrier of DRM, right? Lynn DRM should stand for Digital Restrictions Management since it's only going to get worse in the near future. Microsoft, I think, is trying to stand on the fence because they are fighting to keep their stuff from people who 'steal' and they can't allow people who use their software to be able to do things that would harm another's digital rights. However, they know people can find away around anything if they want it bad enough. If anyone cares, MS explains the 'benefits' of their DRM here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbrewst Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 In my testing of Vista MC beta, I've run into that many, many times for analog and digital channels. I could not even record a rerun of Lost. Funny, HBO let me record. I think in this case, it's the DRM in Media Center.I wonder if you could record the same program in VHS. I was wondering the same thing as I was typing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bimicher Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 I'm using DirecTv and already I've noticed that I can't record alot of programming to my settop DVD recorder.I get the message "the program you are trying to record is protected........" or something to that effect.That's not only on HD channels but Standard Def as well.Just wondering,does this happen with TiVo as well? If all programs have some form of DRM in the future then that might quickly kill the market for stand-alone recorders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggrussell Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 If enough people protest by stop watching any TV that is 'protected', I think the industry woud get the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerman Posted July 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 If enough people protest by stop watching any TV that is 'protected', I think the industry woud get the message. Why do I feel the industry will never really get it? They keep paying actors ridiculous amounts of money and then can't charge enough for commercials to pay for it so they have to hock dvd's almost as soon as the season ends. Pretty soon, the advertisers are going to add a surcharge to all their products just to cover their commercial fees. Maybe there is hope as the record industry has finally started to proactive instead of reactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandpabruce Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 About 10 years ago, I was talking to my daughter about what could be done, for my type of work, on a computer. I told her that computers were still too slow for me and I wanted a faster computer. She told me that she just wished that technology would slow down. I told her that I wanted it to increase ten fold. Last weekend, I told my daughter that I wished technology would slow down at least with respect to the OS world. I never thought that I would say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vid2man97 Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 Now the music industry wants to go further. Under the pretense of a redefinition of copyright laws, they are in essence hoping for money from ISPs simply because the music is being sent over their cables. I never realized the delivery man had to pay a tax to the owner of the goods being delivered. What an interesting new concept. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5188054.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.