Illegal downloaders face life net ban

"ILLEGAL downloaders could soon be banned from using the internet for life after a controversial bill was passed in the UK's Lower House of Parliament."
www.news.com.au...
i think a life time ban is a lil bit over the top and what about youtube? looks like the big corps are getting there way with controlling everyone and everything


[edit on 9-4-2010 by CYRAX]

LOL!

If this happens there will be a revolution before morning (As... someone important.. once said)

May the day come when all information is FREE!


[edit on 9-4-2010 by freebourn]

So they'll what? Blacklist a name and force ISPs to not take a customers money and provide them with a service? Threaten to sue if the user is allowed service?

How exactly do you ban someone from the internet and why am I not surprised they'll write up laws to favor the recording and entertainment industries before even thinking of banning the "rampant sexual predators" from the internet.

Doubt they will ever get away with this, i mean are you going to have to scan your ID to use the internet at a mall one day?

It's an act of desperation.
You cant stop someone from using the internet, or downloading copyrighted material.

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know how this works.

How can they tell if someone illegeally downloads something?

Even so, do they not even get a warning first?

Nice one UK gubbermint...

Good to see Australia isn't the only place in the world where idiots are in government

I'd really like to see them enforce this one, actually...If I were able, I'd lay the arse out of this failing on Betfair for so much I'd be paying my debts of for a century if I lost...

And that's because I wouldn't lose...For starters, people banned are going to be banned from internet cafes ? From using other people's interwebz connections ? Gimme a break...

Somehow I don't think the ISP's are going to be too compliant with this law, and I think you'll find it will be legally challenged in some way...

There is a clear push by the Zionist controlled media and entertainment companies world wide to have western governments prop up their ailing business models via legislation like this and ACTA....

If I were banned, I'd give the gubbermint $1000 if they could catch me using the interwebz whilst said ban was in place...Any half intelligent computer user could think of many ways to get around this in five minutes...

a lifelong ban for illegally downloading??
how extreme is that then?

the politicians passing this law really have some nerve. what about all that money they stole when claiming false expenses?? do they get a life ban from claiming in future? i'll bet they're still at it.
if you or i falsely claimed an amount of money and was caught, we would be charged with fraud and jailed.
as far as i can see they are carrying on as normal as if none of what they did happened.
what a bunch of hypocrites!

one law for us and NONE for them.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by doobydoll]

reply to post by GoodFella


agreed

internet today is a must have

and a lot of people dont even know that what they are downloading is illegal

another thing, HOW THE HECK THEY WILL CONTROL WHO OR WHO ISNT downloading illegal content, if most of the networks are wireless and anyone can connect at

how can they prove that it was you that did it and not someone that got into your network without permission

thats just a desperation move, and I am sure they will try to get some people that dont have any idea what they are doing is illegal

instead of going after the people spreading virus, spams ... they want to go after "illegal" stuff ... whatever

Originally posted by Kram09
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know how this works.

How can they tell if someone illegeally downloads something?

Even so, do they not even get a warning first?

well, if you download something directly like a file from a website like www.website.com/illegal_music.mp3 they will know, but they wont be able to tell if it is really going to your computer or someone else in your network exactly, but they will be able to know if it got to your home network, not the computer

if you use peer-to-peer like torrent, edonkey, limeware, and these kind of softwares, they will probably search for illegal files, download them and get the IP list of people sharing them and get the addresses from the internet service providers

the alternative is to download things in some private groups, like private torrents and to download files with other names like instead of download illegal_music.mp3, you can encrypt the file and get with some other name format, there are already this so people can upload files to websites like rapidshare.com and do not get them taken down

you can use a proxy in your connection with some encryption so they cant know what you are downloading, since everything will come encrypted

I have no idea how such a ban could be enforced. There seem to be countless ways around it and I can't imagine any technological implementations that would allow to ensure an individual is not using the internet for the rest of their life.

I also agree that the internet and it's community of diverse and intelligent people from all around the world would not sit idly by while watching the systematic destruction of the internet. Here in Germany, our courts just ruled against a proposition to force internet providers to ban sites with content deemed to be inappropriate under the guise to fight child pornography after a petition with thousands of signatures fought such a development.

However, I am sure with enough pressure from the EU, that court decision would be overruled in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by catfishman
I have no idea how such a ban could be enforced. There seem to be countless ways around it and I can't imagine any technological implementations that would allow to ensure an individual is not using the internet for the rest of their life.

I also agree that the internet and it's community of diverse and intelligent people from all around the world would not sit idly by while watching the systematic destruction of the internet. Here in Germany, our courts just ruled against a proposition to force internet providers to ban sites with content deemed to be inappropriate under the guise to fight child pornography after a petition with thousands of signatures fought such a development.

However, I am sure with enough pressure from the EU, that court decision would be overruled in a heartbeat.

Thankfully your courts ruled against the government trying to enforce internet filtering, Catfishman

Here in Australia the gubbermint is proposing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons (won't somebody think of the children). We're fighting a battle to try and make people see how bad this kind of censorship is, but there are a lot of conservative people in favor of it...

It wouldnt be so tough to ban home internet access. They could just blacklist you or your home.

But how would they keep me from using a mobile device at a hotspot? Register my MAC? So they'd have to sell network cards like guns and register each one to its owner? There is software that can mask my MAC. What would they do then? Black market network cards?

This idea is too stupid to comprehend.

well this news article shows that alot of people will be banned
'Four In Five People Download Illegally'
Online piracy seems to have become a way of life for Brits, with 82% of people surveyed admitting illegal downloading.

A file sharing program

File sharing programs are the most commonly used tool for illegal downloading

A large number of searches for 'free music' prompted the survey of British attitudes towards internet piracy.

Of 1,607 people questioned, nearly a third said they had downloaded a film while it was still showing in the cinema. Almost a quarter (24%) said they had streamed movies online.

Of those that said they had downloaded files illegally, 35% said they had used torrent websites.

Peer-to-peer websites were more commonly used, with 78% saying they had used them.

Over half of those polled - 52% - said they'd tried streaming illegal video and music content.

Most Downloaded Files

1. MP3s - 76%

2. Movies - 71%

3. Videogames - 68%

4. Software - 65%

5. TV shows - 60%

6. Sports - 57%

7. Images - 53%

8. Databases - 21%

Percentage shows the amount of people who admitted to online piracy including illegal file streaming.

The survey found men are more likely to download illegal files, with 85% saying they had, compared to 79% of women.

When asked, "What are your thoughts with regards to illegal downloading?", nearly half, 47%, said they did not think of it as crime, whilst 11% said they would never do it.

Saving money was 64% of people's reason for downloading, whilst 26% admitted to being "too impatient" to wait for films and music to be officially released.

MP3s are the most downloaded files, according to the study, with three quarters of respondents admitting to having downloaded music illegally, whilst 71% of people admitted to having streamed or downloaded movies online.

Mark Pearson, managing director of the MyVoucherCodes.co.uk website that commissioned the survey said the reason people do it is because it is so easy.

"Government and internet service provider initiatives against piracy seem to be falling flat in honesty, and if we're to combat illegal downloading, the issues of availability and repercussions needs to be seriously looked at," he said.

Liz Bales, Director-General of film and TV anti-piracy body the Industry Trust for IP Awareness said people need to realise that if they continue to watch content illegally there will no money to make it.

She said: "If the public is allowed to be hoodwinked by the idea of 'free' it poses a threat to the future creation and diversity of film and TV.

"Without the public's support for genuine content, the films and TV shows they love simply couldn't get made."

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


so they will ban all 4 5 people that uses internet at your home? but you will be able to acess free wireless on your neighborhood internet too

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Faiol]

it just shows how desperate hellywood and music buissnes is ( and i only mean people who take largest profit from such creations.
The most funny thing about them is they tend to state non sales (blamed on pirates) as loss. when i can bet you 80-90% of people who downloaded something would not pay for it if it was not availible on net.
they list 100% of piracy as a 100% loss.
they are the dinosaurs of modern information era.

i have 1 example.

Bill Gates turned up in Poland some 10years ago and was talking with our gov.

1year later we have antipiracy law. what it states is kinda tricky because if you use direct downloads like rapidshare etc. your almost ok (you will be finned but only if owner of the right sues you) but when you use p2p programs like torrent of edonkey you are charged for distribution of stolen goods lol.

to add icing on a cacke the company i hate most now - apple - for thier patent grabing and cosmic prices (i never bought anything from them and never will).

explain to me how can you patent an gesture on a frickin screen ...
yup apple did it all modern touch phones have multitouch .. but you will nopt see pinch to zoom out etc...

its like i could patent my sound of fart if i find someone sound identical i should sue them ....

this whole copyright stuff is out of hand.

I think more people are moving to newsgroups now rather than torrents any way, and with SSL all they can do is see how much bandwidth you are consuming...not what you are actually downloading. Course you have to pay compared to torrents, but max line speed,more choice and better security is worth the small price.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by Solomons]

another case
James Burt to pay Nintendo $1.5m for illegal uploading of New Super Mario Bros
A QUEENSLAND man faces financial ruin after illegally copying and uploading one of its new games to the internet ahead of its release.

24-year-old James Burt, from Brisbane, will have to pay Nintendo $1.5 million in damages after an out-of-court settlement was struck to compensate the company for the loss of sales revenue.

Nintendo said the loss was caused when Burt made New Super Mario Bros for the Wii gaming console available for illegal download a week ahead of its official Australian release in November last year.

Under Australian law, copying and distributing games without the permission of the copyright holder is a breach of the Copyright Act.

Nintendo applied and was granted a search order by the Federal Court forcing Burt to disclose the whereabouts of all his computers, disks and electronic storage devices in November.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage

* Nintendo, Google make web search game The Australian, 2 days ago
* Nintendo's 3-D revolution for video games Adelaide Now, 23 Mar 2010
* Downloaders watched for movie piracy NEWS.com.au, 2 Mar 2010
* Nintendo wins battle against game pirates NEWS.com.au, 19 Feb 2010
* Wii pirate pays $1.6m Adelaide Now, 9 Feb 2010

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

He was also ordered to allow access, including passwords, to his social networking sites, email accounts and websites.
The matter was settled between Burt and Nintendo last month.

Burt will have to pay Nintendo's legal bill of $100,000, the Federal Court in Melbourne ordered on January 27.

Nintendo said in a statement on Tuesday it was able to trace Burt by using sophisticated technological forensics after the game was uploaded to the internet.

The company said it guarded it intellectual property rights to protect the interests of it consumer, own interests and the interests of game development companies.

"Nintendo will pursue those who attempt to jeopardise our industry by using all means available to it under the law,'' it said.

Piracy was a significant threat to the gaming business and the 1,400 game development companies who contribute to providing games for the company's platform.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin said the illegal upload had marred the release of the new game, which Australia was able to get ahead of other countries, which was unusual.

"It wasn't just an Australian issue, it was a global issue. There was thousands and thousands of downloads, at a major cost to us and the industry really,'' Ms Lappin said.

"It's not just about us. It's about retailers and if they can't sell the games then they have to bear the costs associated with that.

"Once it's on the internet it's anyone's really.''

Ms Lappin said globally the company had a major network against piracy.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by CYRAX]

Originally posted by Faiol

Originally posted by Kram09
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know how this works.
How can they tell if someone illegeally downloads something?
Even so, do they not even get a warning first?

well, if you download something directly like a file from a website like www.website.com/illegal_music.mp3 they will know, but they wont be able to tell if it is really going to your computer or someone else in your network exactly, but they will be able to know if it got to your home network, not the computer

if you use peer-to-peer like torrent, edonkey, limeware, and these kind of softwares, they will probably search for illegal files, download them and get the IP list of people sharing them and get the addresses from the internet service providers

Good morning,

Hate to break the ignorance bubble here, but they really can't tell what you are downloading be it from a website, or from a torrent, without what is being referred to as "Deep packet inspection".

Your computer connects to other computers on what is referred to as ports. 80 being web, 21 ftp etc etc. Just connecting on a port does NOT tell anyone what you are doing.

All information on the internet is transferred as "packets". These are small bits of information that as themselves are not very descriptive. It is only when all of these streamed packets are put back together that they become a file, and upon examination of that file may be determined to be illegal.

Now, just the transfer of an mp3 is not illegal. You could have created your own mp3, and an illegal file isn't a file until it's put back together. So, the reality is that your ISP can't actually identify what you are doing, until they also receive the same packets, and put that file back together and then examine it. Think extreme privacy violation at this point.
There is no obvious difference in packets that are streamed as your email, your personal taxes or pictures of your kids.

The reason people are being sued by RIAA or the MPA is because these groups are also participating on torrent sites, usenet and other area's of the internet and when you connect to THEM, they CAN record your IP and other information. This isn't a violation of your rights as you are connecting to their infrastructure for parts of that file. This is where programs like "Peerblock" or "Peerguardian" come into play. These programs do more than just protect you from the MPA or RIAA, they actively block connections to your machine from groups hired by the MPA or RIAA to track your file sharing habits. They also block known malicious groups interested in your habits for their own reasons.

ISP's have taken the steps to filter, or throttle connections on the common torrent ports, ftp, limewire, emule, edonkey and others. So it is necessary to adjust your own programs port assignments. If your program doesn't allow you to change the port it is using, change programs.

Also many of these programs require that you port forward the connecting ports in your router to your machine. In this respect they CAN identify your actual machine, even down to the machine access code of your network card.

Lastly, I would like to comment on what is a "file". A series of packets, is NOT a file. A file is a product of a program or part of a program with a start bit and an end bit. Without both, that file cannot be put back together and identified. So a share ratio of 0.5 would not technically be considered sharing, but you should consult an IP attorney in your region if you want to be perfectly clear.

..Ex

reply to post by Faiol


Yeah, if somebody within range has an unsecured and broadcasting hotspot.

You wouldnt be able to subscribe to your own service but youd still be able to get onto somebody elses.

Unless some sort of mandatory security was enacted and anyone with a "banned" user using their connection were treated as enabling criminal activity.