Yes. Do. There is no polotical government on the internet, and we do not go through a voting process to decide which centrals we use, therefore there is no democracy, so anarchy provails.

Well I dont buy music for the video, so stop making them. Also, if music was digitally distrobuted, all this stuff about glass masters is unfounded.

Id like to point out that this is the whole ideal beind the internet, no?


Scott

p.s. you may be able to see whats going on over port 80, but could you see inside an rsa security stream on the same port, i doubt it, not without a lot of time.....

For many uses its important to have encrypted traffic.

If we spend a fortune developing tools to allow us to crack encryption on the fly to see whats in the packets, it'll only be a short time before the technology is used for nefarious means.

Think about a secure encrypted credit card transaction.

If your ISP can see whats in it, so can anybody else who the traffic passes through.

Answer, live with the fact that folks can see your credit card details, or create something better that people can't see into.

As soon as you have something that people can't see into, the battle is back to square one, except your ISP has spent a lot on the first wave of encryption crackers, and is still unable to see whats passing over its network, and thus is potentially liable for fines.

Costs go up, and nothing changes.

This is without even considering the arguement that your ISP has no idea if you are legally allowed to use whatever you are downloading.

How many music industry related companies have been put out of business so far because of illegal downloading.

Answers on a postage stamp to......

Usual prize?

I would imagine a fair few, but I feel very strongly about the privacy / blocking thing. I am really just keen to ensure what I want as private, stays as that. Government, music company or not. I dont care who it is, I have a right to my privacy, and I want to excercise that.

Notheruser is making a very good point here.   I have a band and we have produced our own home recorded, studio mixed and mastered album.  We had it professionally printed and shrink wrapped in a run of 1000 and the whole thing, excluding time cost us £2000.  The translation into physical hardware was half of that cost.  At a professional level, there is far more money sunk into the record/mix/master side and the studio have great bulk production deals. 

And anyway, I like owning a physical something

Regardless of the rights and wrongs there a major technical issues with what is suggested.

1. The ISP would have to identify exactly what is being transferred. That could only be achieved by decoding all encrypted traffic which they obviously couldn't do. If this goes through and ISP's will be liable they will have to block all encrypted traffic.

2. Even if the ISP can identify what is being downloaded, how do they know if the person downloading has the right to download the file? It could be legal for one user and not for another.

It is totally unworkable.

also the good news, they would have to block BBC iPlayer and Kontiki

Why?

Your post illustrates the point perfectly though - there's no way to know if what is being downloaded is legal or not.

iPlayer only allows you to download stuff from the Beeb, which the copyright agreement allows you to do perfectly legally.

To an ISP, it doesn't look much different to downloading stuff which isn't legal.

On the point of copyright, If you went to my website, and saw a nice photograph (well they are all nice, aren`t they) that you wanted, and downloaded it without my permission, that would be illegal. How long does it take to do that? how quickly will the ISP be able to track the person who has just downloaded a copyrighted photograph from my site, and informed them and myself of the situation, Meanwhile, the same thing is happening across the photographic/image hosting world, with a fair few of those downloads being "authorised" on a person to person basis. Because if you were sticking by the rules, you would email me and say " can I download a copy of your photograph red arrows 001 .jpg (for example) and I would say Yes. then you download a "legal" copy...... same file.... which is legal,   which is illegal?
 

Anarchy is not the opposite of democracy!

You may not buy music for the video - neither do I, but that doesn't get away from my original point, that music companies have huge overheads associated with promoting bands. Are you suggesting that we should simply dispense with MTV and all other "video" music channels, do away with live music (tours cost a fortune to promote), and anything else in the music industry which costs big bucks, so that music is as cheap as possible?
"All this stuff about glass masters" was making the point that the production of physical CD's is only a fraction of the cost of the entire production - even if you stopped making CD's, bands / production companies would still have very large costs associated with making music.

Actually if you look at the history of the internet, no this was never the idea / ideal
Do you really think that's okay? What about low-lifes sharing kiddy-porn on the internet? Are you saying that's okay too? If you say "anything goes" then anything goes!

How did we get to free speech from piracy! They're hardly the same thing - one is about liberty, the other is just theft! No-one is suggesting there should be censorship - only that people should use the internet within the boundaries of the law!

I wasn't suggesting otherwise - I was simply pointing out that some posters seemed to think that they could disguise their activities by tunneling it over port 80.

I agree with the posts which say this is technically a nearly impossible problem, though this does not excuse the attitude which some people display - i.e. because we can't stop it, it's okay to steal!

Anyone who has visited your website has downloaded the images you have on there, which will be stored in a temporary location on their computer for a while.

Phil

IMHO, the AudibleMagic solution consists of automatically connecting to a popular tracker and retrieving a list of peers.

This, in their opinion, constitutes a list of copyright infringers.

This avoids having to break decryption, as the tracker has a list of all the IPs in question.

However, this raises some interesting points:

1.  Is the item being shared actually a copyrighted item, and is it infringing copyrights (i.e. has the copyright owner given permissions?)

2.  Is providing a partial match for a copyrighted item copyright infringement?  If you only have 5% of the item in question, could that be shoehorned into the 'fair use' doctrine?

3.  Anonymous proxies like Tor completely obviate this method

4.  To identify copyright infringement, one would presumably have to download the entire item from the tracker.  While downloading, did the automated system also 'make available' the same item to other peers.  If so, this would constitute an authorised party disseminating this information and make any copyright infringement claims null and void.

5.  Will there be a judicial due process in this procedure?  Will the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI go through a court to gain an injunction and if so, where is the opportunity for the alleged infringer to defend themselves? 

6.  When will the various recording industry bodies actually realise that the system is screaming out for an affordable, legal download system.  The success of iTunes is but one example of a company successfully monetising the system.  Rather than spending billions on a partially effective screening, filtering and identification system why not invest those billions into giving the consumer what they want?

Alienating your customers is not a great way to do business. 

There is an excellent interview on El Reg with the chief of the IFPI which highlights the steps they're trying to take.  I spot several flaws in his argument and I'm sure plenty of other people see them too.  However, they are determined to ram this through government if the ISPA don't agree to their demands. 

I see troubling times ahead for ISPs.

B.

No-one has named any yet.....

But that aside. I have been given the odd one or two music DVD copies in the past (I prefer live concerts) and I have subsequently purchased a full legal copy for myself as I like genuine items with the extras sometimes missing from pirated copies.
This has the result of a sale where there may have been none before so the music industry has benefited from an illegal copy.

An excellent point Phil! Isn't permission for this "download" implicit in it being on a publicly available website though? If I put a picture on my website, it is clearly my intention that people should view it. To view it, it must be copied to their machine in some form (whether it goes into cache or not), therefore I have effectively given permission for the download. What I have not given permission for however, is for it to be used in any other context. The fact that I have permitted anyone to download it for viewing does not imply that they can for example, use it on their own web site.

shutter - I'm sure you'd be pretty annoyed, and rightly so, if one of your red-arrows pictures appeared on a commercial poster for an air-show or something? It's your picture, you didn't give permission for its use, so it's a breach of copyright.

The situation with music is similar - if I make a CD and someone buys it, or I make it available for download, I'm effectively permitting them to use it for their own listening pleasure. In exchange for a fee, I'm allowing them certain priveleges. What I am not doing is saying it's okay for them to do whatever they like with it. You can debate the pros and cons of whether or not this is a good thing, but as the law stands, when I create a piece of music, I own the copyright, and I alone have the right to decide what I want other people to do with it. If I decide to give it away, i can do that, but likewise I can decide that I want to charge for every use of it, and my right to do that is protected by the law.

Barry - iTunes is an excellent example of "an affordable, legal download system", but even though the tracks are very cheap, people still download these tunes and give them away to their friends, and/or convert them to other formats for P2P sharing. Lowering the cost no doubt helps, but goes nowhere near to eradicating the P2P wholesale theft of other peoples property. In iTunes and other download systems, thankfully a relatively high proportion of the money goes to the artist. But this begs the question, how can costs be further reduced (if that's what's needed to stamp out piracy) without hitting the musicians in the pocket? An awful lot of brilliant musicians cannot make a living out of their sales - if prices go lower, this will only get worse. If it does, musicians, studios, producers etc. will either say "why bother" and leave the industry, or standards will drop.

There's been a bit of chat about "rights" here, (as in, people have the right to do whatever they like with their internet connection) - P2P sharing without appropriate permission is taking away someone's "rights" to their own intellectual property. Surely we all accept that we should exercise our "rights" within the law?

notheruser- how did we get to freedom of speech from piracy, easy - censorship. Thats the way things are going.

No I dont agree with kiddie porn, and never have done, never will do. But that is policed a different way.

Im not sure if you are aware of the debate which surrounded the IWF system, and the way in which we were assured it would never be any more that kiddie porn prevention... well guess what, heres a good way to put the system to use. (not saying you guys would, but the theory is there)

Its my connection, and I will download illegal things if I want to - do I agree? Partly, because it falls on the persons name who rents the connection, not the ISP and all they really are is transit. I am not about to pay £x more per month, just to PN can install a censorship system.

Tbh, the internet is about freedom of speech, all you have to do is google things, and you will find a lot of anti government / anything propeganda, which is technically illegal, its slander... but are we censored for it...thats right, no. We arent. Why should music companies be any different?

What next, videos, pictures... a tax on the letter "w". It has to end somewhere. If they made things more affordable, then they wouldnt pirate so much.

£2000 for 1000 discs, yeh ok, £2 per disc £3 to turn a profit... but I've seen docs that record companies can produce discs for 12p a cd, and then go and charge £3 for it... is it any wonder people dont buy into it.

Do away with music chanels, nah... but is there any need for the expensive CG, all the fancy cars and explosions.... Kelly's band produced a home made video, now look at cd's which sell 10000 copies in their first week, £30k, not bad for  £1.2k worth of discs huh?