MSE News: Illegal music downloaders face internet blackout

donny909

cliffski wrote: »

Christ what ill-informed drivel.

99.99% of copyright infringement is done through P2P or through anonymous file hosting. The compelte and utter pathetic drivel that "but kids will sit outside the front doors of people and hack into their networks!!!111111" is simply pathetic.
Firstly it is in YOUR INTEREST to secure your wireless inetrnet, to prevent hackers snopping on you anyway.
Secondly, the idea that kids will sit there 24/7 downloading gigabytes of movies through your connection without you noticing is laughable.
Secondly, are any of you pro-piracy 'theft is great!' kids actually even VAGUELY aware of what the bill contains?

It asks for a system to be put in place where copyright owners can arrnage for the ISP to send warning letters to repeat-infringers. After the FIFTY SECOND instance that ahs been reported by post, they will consider the imposition of technical measures. Firstly, the limiting of bandwidth, and then after the idiots continue to blatantly steal music and movies even after this, it would eventually resort to disconnection, and you would be well within your rights to contest it in court.

You people think this is unreasonable?
Get a life.

I am happy to have a system where the court is introduced on day 1, on the first offence, if you prefer that? I'm sure you are all entirely innocent and not thieves, and able to argue this convincingly in court, with the ISP records showing what you downloaded. Because none of you are just trying to cover the fact that you steal music and movies and expect the rest of us to subsidise your lifestyle right?


Truly sad.

Say what you like but it's an equally fair situation to say downloading of copyright material is illigal and so is being accused and punished for downloading something you did not.

Don't try and put the situation in a way that avoids my point by simply saying it's all nonsence. Do us a favour and check out google and youtube. See what numbers of results come back when searching for hacking secure wireless to realise the info is rife on hacking secure wireless.

It's ill-informed drivel from the likes of you and the MP's to not realise that hacking secure wireless is rife to know the bill is useless in it's form. Don't stick your fingers in your ears or head in the sand and pretend hacking wireless connections does'nt happen because it does.

How on earth can you simply

99.99% of copyright infringement is done through P2P or through anonymous file hosting. The compelte and utter pathetic drivel that "but kids will sit outside the front doors of people and hack into their networks!!!111111" is simply pathetic.
Firstly it is in YOUR INTEREST to secure your wireless inetrnet, to prevent hackers snopping on you anyway

How ill thought out that comment was, as no matter how material is transfered p2p, direct file hosting etc the use of your own or hacked connection to do so makes no difference. Your post seems to suggest that hacked connections cant be used simply because it's p2p methods (or file hosting) in your own words that is the cause of 99.9% of illigal downloading.

Can you please explain to the 99.9% who obviously don't know how the downloading via p2p technology or direct file hosting means it cant be done through a hacked secure wireless connection. As thats pretty much what you seem to be suggesting.

MikeyH

mrsyorkie wrote: »

This is very interesting. How do you do this and who was your ISP and how did you find out they kept copies of your emails?

No secret, though it probabaly belongs in another thread. It's Virgin Media. When they changed mail platform a few months ago they warned that we may get some older emails repeated. I was stunned when I started getting copies of emails dating back as far as 2002 and I wrote to them asking why they even had copies of my emails from that far back, that it must at the very least breach Data Protection principles.

Their first answer was that they agreed with me, but that the police had instructed them they must keep all emails. They claimed they had taken the police to court in 2006 but that the court also ordered them to retain all emails indefinately.

I asked, even if this unlikely story were true, why they had emails from as far back as 2002 rather than 2006 and they claimed that prior to 2006, the Data Protection Act required them to keep all emails for at least 6 years

I then asked for pointer to the part of the DPA which required this, as I simply didnt believe it, and asked for the court case reference so that I might look it up. They failed to proide the former and refused to provide the latter, claiming that it was internal business information not for release to the public.

I pointed out that court cases in this country are public, and that all I wanted was the case reference to look up the details for myself. They replied that they didnt have those details and that even if they had, they would not supply them, and that they could not assist me any further with my queries.

Wierd or what?

MikeyH

cliffski wrote: »

Firstly it is in YOUR INTEREST to secure your wireless inetrnet, to prevent hackers snopping on you anyway....


I am happy to have a system where the court is introduced on day 1, on the first offence, if you prefer that? I'm sure you are all entirely innocent and not thieves, and able to argue this convincingly in court, with the ISP records showing what you downloaded. Because none of you are just trying to cover the fact that you steal music and movies and expect the rest of us to subsidise your lifestyle right?

Truly sad.

1. It may or may not be in a person's interest to secure their wifi. But they are not legally required to do so, even if they get a nice letter from the minister suggesting they do. Given this is to remain the case, the question is "Why should an internet account holder be held responsible for everyone who uses his/her connection to download, whether they are known to the account holder or not and whether their use of the connection is known to the account holder or not?"

2. Yes, I think the courts should be involved if there has been an "offense" alleged and most certainly BEFORE anyone is punished for such an alleged offense. Because until they are, we dont know whether there has been an offense committed or not.

3. The ISP records would not show what I downloaded. Indeed, they cannot show what I download. Even in cases where people are not using encrypted connections, the ISP records can't say *who* was downloading something.

donny909

Futher to my last post, and to add to it. Sure we all know it's important to protect your wireless connection.

Originally Posted by cliffski
Firstly it is in YOUR INTEREST to secure your wireless inetrnet, to prevent hackers snopping on you anyway....

Do you realise there is not 1 encryption on ANY wireless router in the domestic market today that cannot be hacked in about an hour?. In fact the main slightly less secure encryptions but more known ones can be hacked in minutes?. Would you still feel the same if you thought your connection was secure and you then got a letter suggesting you secure it because illigal downloading had been traced to your ip number?.

In fact connection hacking does not have to be done by "kids" sitting on your door step with there laptop as you put it. A typical street might have a single connection that could be picked up by as many as 18 seperate other houses or more depending on how close together they are. And it's also not about snooping as much these day but to steal a connection for illigal downloading or other immoral purposes.

How would you then address the issue or what is your opinion if everyone uses the most secure protection there router allowed for yet they were still getting hacked?.

MiserlyMartin

keith969 wrote: »

Andrew Heaney, (Director of strategy and regulation) TalkTalk:


"....In the meantime we stand by our pledges to our customers:

• Unless we are served with a court order we will never surrender a customer's details to rightsholders. We are the only major ISP to have taken this stance and we will maintain it.
• If we are instructed to disconnect an account due to alleged copyright infringement we will refuse to do so and tell the rightsholders we’ll see them in court."

Its time to switch to Talk Talk.

Dinosteveus

MikeyH wrote: »

No secret, though it probabaly belongs in another thread. It's Virgin Media. When they changed mail platform a few months ago they warned that we may get some older emails repeated. I was stunned when I started getting copies of emails dating back as far as 2002 and I wrote to them asking why they even had copies of my emails from that far back, that it must at the very least breach Data Protection principles.

Their first answer was that they agreed with me, but that the police had instructed them they must keep all emails. They claimed they had taken the police to court in 2006 but that the court also ordered them to retain all emails indefinately.

I asked, even if this unlikely story were true, why they had emails from as far back as 2002 rather than 2006 and they claimed that prior to 2006, the Data Protection Act required them to keep all emails for at least 6 years

I then asked for pointer to the part of the DPA which required this, as I simply didnt believe it, and asked for the court case reference so that I might look it up. They failed to proide the former and refused to provide the latter, claiming that it was internal business information not for release to the public.

I pointed out that court cases in this country are public, and that all I wanted was the case reference to look up the details for myself. They replied that they didnt have those details and that even if they had, they would not supply them, and that they could not assist me any further with my queries.

Wierd or what?

Extremely.
I've never heard of this before, did you get some Legal advice on this? Something isn't right.

MikeyH

Dinosteveus wrote: »

Extremely.
I've never heard of this before, did you get some Legal advice on this? Something isn't right.

No I didn't. I took the view that I could continue to waste time and money on legal advice or I could just stop using their mail servers and use my own through an encrypted vpn connection so that they couldnt keep copies of them even if they wanted to. The latter was the most straight forward option, although I hope someone somewhere has the money and time to challenge this legally.

mylittle

"SSL" :T use that keep off torrents.

chriswatts

cliffski wrote: »

99.99% of copyright infringement is done through P2P or through anonymous file hosting. The compelte and utter pathetic drivel that "but kids will sit outside the front doors of people and hack into their networks!!!111111" is simply pathetic.

Firstly just because you only know of P2P and anonymous file hosting doesn't mean that most of the copyright infringement is done through P2P. It's more likely that 99.99% of copyright infringement detection is via P2P and other methods just aren't detected. The most busy groups on Usenet news happens to be the binary groups and probably accounts more than 0.01% of illegal downloads. It's probably way harder to detect downloading from Usenet than it is P2P and the fact that most of the binary groups haven't been pulled is amazing! :eek:

Secondly I submit for evidence that someone will try to share your wifi connection, a video that's notorious on the internet, stupid wifi lady. I can only assume that the person she was stealing wifi off turned the broadcast function off and changed their wifi name, thus why she can no longer see the connection or connect. Although this lady does seem to have not much upstairs, I suspect that had they just encrypted the connection, in a built up area someone would have tried to hack it.

irish_eyes_r_smiling

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Its time to switch to Talk Talk.

wish O2 would say this also!