MSE News: Illegal music downloaders face internet blackout

dp555

All I can say is...WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO??!?! If this was passed, what else will be passed?

jamespir

mylittle wrote: »

"SSL" :T use that keep off torrents.

whats ssl then

Eric_Pisch

jamespir wrote: »

whats ssl then

secure sockets layer

google SSL DOWNLOAD

mylittle

jamespir wrote: »

whats ssl then

Ok so cause i carnt posts links yet you will have to copy and paste
check
wikipedia
and search
Transport Layer Security (TLS)


Simply it encrypts all data from the server ie http,ftp,nntp etc etc to your computer, so your ISP does not know what your downloading or uploading, they see the traffic but carnt read it..


*****Forgot to post*****
Also NEVER pay to download from a illegal site,

choydogs

This is good news.

joeypesci

scotsbob wrote: »

The bill will mean that anyone accessing the internet has to provide ID, you will not be able to access wifi in a bar, cafe, shopping centre, train etc unless you can do so.
The bill gives the government the authority to block acces to any Web site they want, just like they have done with the National Enquirer site to prevent UK citizens getting information about Iraq.
The bill gives organisations like Sony the right to get an ISP to cut off a subscribers connection without going through a court.

None of the above has anything to do with getting "other peoples fruits for free"

It will not stop people sharing magazines, newspapers, computer games, music or movies. People will do it they way they did it before the Internet, simply by copying to a disc and passing it hand to hand, or through the post.

I don't believe the gov have anything to do with blocking the The National Enquirer. That is a US owned mag and they have to pay their own web hosts or ISP if they host themselves, money for all the traffic to the site. If the whole world is able to read their site, that's a hell of a lot of traffic and more money. So they simple just block all traffic from outside the US. So not a gov thing. Simple way round it is to use a proxy.

The gov and Mandy don't seem to realise this bill will just make people encrypt their traffic via VPN. This same industry said the VCR was going to kill the movie industry and that the tape was going to kill the music business.

Although downloading copyright works may not be legal. The people here attempting to say "You wouldn't like me coming round and taking your car would you." Seem to have missed the point. If you get copyrighted music, you're taking a copy and the other person still has theirs. You are not depriving them of that object. If you come and take my car, you are. If you come and copy my car then you won't have deprived me of my car, we now both have one.

Although still wrong, you have to also realise, witch the industry fails to always mention in court. That a download ISN'T always a lost sale. People will download what they can get for free, just because it's free. They may never use it, never want to use it, but its just free. So at the end of the day, that is not a lost sale as they would never have gone out and purchased said product in the first place.

joeypesci

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?

A government thing I think. Working for an local council in IT I know we forced by local gov to archive all our e-mails. Even if someone leaves their e-mails need to be archived before their mailbox is deleted.