Users face Net ban in crackdown on pirates

[Debaser]

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... 353387.ece

In this day and age, a prog must be available to stop ISP's from seeing what is being downloaded.

[emuler]

Password protected archives with meaningless file names.

Protocol obfuscation helps a little bit, but the problem with open source software is that the ISP has the same access to these resources as you do, and can quickly work out a sniffer.

[ARTHORIUS]

thanks for the infos

[Debaser]

So we have a week to download as much as we can

[ARTHORIUS]

And then what we will do????

[Debaser]

Hope anyone in the UK doesnt get an email!

[emuler]

You go back to basics, with true p2p sharing.

eg.
I take a movie, RAR it with a password, then RAR it again with a different password, and name it with a alphanumeric code, not revealing the actual file name inside.
I set up a web server on my computer and host the files I have created as above, and post the links on this site.
Any member of this site can then download these files from my computer. No ed2k, no torrent, just direct downloading.

Unless the ISP or one of the law enforcement agencies becomes a member of this site, no one is the wiser. Without the password no one can see what is being transferred.

This is a pain, of course, but in these days of massive bandwidths, perfectly workable for small communities like ours.

[FLL]

Relax. It sounds like a LOT longer than a week before it becomes a problem if indeed the legislation passes. It could well pass with significant changes, or not at all right away. And the details are important: does a complaint have to be initiated by the copyright holder against a downloader, or is the ISP expected to proactively snoop on users? Big difference. If the copyright holder must initiate a complaint, it's unlikely to affect FLM much since much of the material here is old or TVrips.

Even if it passes in a severe form, who knows at what point the law will become effective? It will take time for the ISPs to set up a system to deal with this.

In the US there is much more resistance to invasion of privacy than in the UK. Becoming less so though because many naive people (i.e. much of the population) automatically stop objecting whenever the government falsely cries "it's to stop the terrorists!" The discussion here lately is after the ISP and Cable TV company AT&T agreed to a deal with Hollywood to monitor and stop P2P traffic. Many people believe it is so that AT&T gets a favorable deal on movie distribution via the net, i.e. get rid of illegally downloaded movies and people will be forced to buy them and AT&T gets a cut. Maybe that's why the British ISPs seem willing to go along, too. The negative response here means it may not ever actually happen, though. Another large ISP, Verizon, has in fact publicly rejected the idea.

In this day and age, a prog must be available to stop ISP's from seeing what is being downloaded.

There is, an Anonymous VPN... virtual private network. It means that all network traffic is encrypted and routed via a third party. Originally developed to allow people to work from home while connected to their company's network, for now at least it's a decent alternative for P2P use. One such is Relakks, out of Sweden. It's not free but it's available at a reasonable cost. For 6 Euros a month (50 Euros for a year) all your websurfing and P2P looks like it originates from Sweden. It's a venture associated with the Pirate Bay people. It works quite well with one minor problem: it's listed on some of the IP block lists, because there's nothing to stop the RIAA or MPAA from using it to disguise themselves. Still, lots of people don't use those blocklists and P2P still works pretty well.

[ARTHORIUS]

Hoping you're right

[Debaser]

Thanks for the interesting feedback folks.

I also found this.......

5 Reasons Why Illegal Downloaders Will Not Face a UK Ban

Written by Matt on February 12, 2008
There’s been a lot of buzz about a story The London Times ran this morning under the headline “Internet users could be banned over illegal downloads,” which also appeared on the BBC website under the even more alarming headline “Illegal downloaders ‘face UK ban.” Time to get a couple of things straight.

The Times says “people who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week.” Actually, this story is complete balderdash. But the fact that this nutty proposal is getting anywhere at all illustrates how ignorant the powers that be are about downloading.

Let’s get a couple of things straight –

1. This proposal was a draft consultation green paper, defined as “a proposal without any commitment to action.” The government receives many of these on a daily basis. They are like junk mail at Number 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister’s toilet paper is more important than most green papers, and both are usually filed in the same place.

2. This proposal is totally and completely unworkable in the real world. ISPs will not accept liability for the contents of packets (nor should they), and it would be impossible for them to open and check if every single download and upload was legal or not without the entire Internet grinding to halt. This isn’t in the best interests of the government, the ISPs or the voters. Banning customers and exposing yourself to billions in liability isn’t a good business strategy. Criminalizing six million citizens and inconveniencing the rest is not a vote winner.

3. It would be impossible to tell the difference between illegal downloading and legal activities such as downloading software patches, using torrents to share stuff legally, playing online video games, using VoIP, photo sharing, telecommuting, and many others. The resistance from the private sector would be as strong as it would from the general public.

4. The very idea of this goes against the ruling of the European Court, which says EU member states are not obligated to disclose personal information about suspected file sharers. It would also fly in the face of Article 10 of the European freedom of expression laws, which gives every European the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

5. WiFi piggybacking and encrypted packets make it impossible to tell who is downloading what in the first place. These techniques are only getting more sophisticated, while for the most part, the content industries collectively remain as dumb as a box of hair.

So in summary:

Insert Toilet Flushing Sound FX Here

This idea makes as much sense as trying to ban people from singing ‘Happy Birthday’ to each other over the telephone network, or burning down libraries to protect the publishing industry. But what’s frightening about such ideas is that they are still taken seriously all over the world by powerful decision makers in government and industry who have absolutely no clue about how the Internet actually works, or the damage such laws could do to democracy.

Before there is any more discussion about this, the music and film companies need to definitively prove illegal downloads cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues. CD sales are falling because nobody uses them anymore, and Hollywood is in rude health despite the pirates. There should be no more talk about changing laws and spending tax payer’s money on this ‘problem’ until someone proves there really is one.

Furthermore, if there is a problem, tax payers shouldn’t have to pony up in the first place. The content industries need to stop braying at governments to protect inefficient business models and look at the real solution that’s been staring them in the face for ten years.