Bittorrent legit downloads will they be effected?

[Yamahahahahaha]

All internet and communication logs are held for 2 years under EU legislation to fight terrorism iirc.

ISPs should not take on the burden for what is not their problem.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

why though? they aren't the police...

but they are the ones providing you with the broadband line, they should atleast assist. With that attitude in my eyes downloading illigal content will never stop making the UK a hotspot for illigal criminal activity.

who knows whats monitoring you to be honest. Goverment agencys could be doing anything. Not like anyone can really stop them. Obviously they proably dont care about you though so your fine anyway. But well if you were butying nukes on ebay... thats another matter...

Hopefully will be monitoring lines, this is a way to stop crime at its best.

ISP's should just do their jobs, provide people with internet. The only time they should take action against a user if is they have a reason to. Such as, a letter from an anti-file sharing company.

No matter how much ISP's throttle or choke ports it's going to make a difference. People will continue to use the internet as they like and no-one is going to stop them. The only thing that throttling / choking does is irritate people.

Yep, I agree with you there. However, using the Internet to download illigal content is just wrong and we all know it is.

It's copyright infringement, not stealing. There is a difference. Sure, it's illegal either way but I keep seeing people referring to it as stealing and it's an incorrect statement.

It's not the ISP's job to spy on their customers to see whether they're up to no good or not. Even if ISPs did get the kit in to do deep packet inspection it still wouldn't do anything for encryption so it's pointless.

It is stealing in my eyes. Might aswell walk into a stop pick up the content and walk out without paying in that case?

ISPs don't monitor your traffic to see if your money-laundering, or most other illegal activities you can do on the internet. Why is sharing of copyrighted files a special case?

Sharing iligal files is something that has gone big, which is failing to be controlled.

All internet and communication logs are held for 2 years under EU legislation to fight terrorism iirc.

ISPs should not take on the burden for what is not their problem.

In that case people caught 3 times in a row downloading legal content (with evidence) should have their net connections cut.

 

[Phemo]

Hopefully will be monitoring lines, this is a way to stop crime at its best.

It won't make one bit of difference when properly secured communication is used.

 

[growse]

but they are the ones providing you with the broadband line, they should atleast assist. With that attitude in my eyes downloading illigal content will never stop making the UK a hotspot for illigal criminal activity.

As far as social ills go, I'd rather we spent time and money trying to fight serious crime on the internet, like child porn production, money laundering etc. Besides, in the age of cheap encryption, any ISP based solution is going to be wholly ineffective.

Yep, I agree with you there. However, using the Internet to download illigal content is just wrong and we all know it is.

Well, it's unlawful. Lets not start imposing our own moral judgements on other people about whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. Lets call it how it is.

It is stealing in my eyes. Might aswell walk into a stop pick up the content and walk out without paying in that case?

Thankfully, your eyes are irrelevent. The law says it isn't stealing, so as far as anything that matters is concerned, it isn't. The reason the law says that it isn't theft is because (from what I can see) the definition of theft requres deprivation of property from its owner. In the case of unlawful filesharing, there is no deprivation, because a copy is made.

Sharing iligal files is something that has gone big, which is failing to be controlled.

And again, why is this a massive problem for society that ISPs should care about? Big compared to what? How do you measure the material loss or harm to the victim? Who is the victim?

 

[tolien]

Besides, in the age of cheap encryption, any ISP based solution is going to be wholly ineffective.

If you're going to throw billions at it just to catch the big bad file sharers, you could throw another few billion around and break the encryption

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Well, it's unlawful. Lets not start imposing our own moral judgements on other people about whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. Lets call it how it is.

Thankfully, your eyes are irrelevent. The law says it isn't stealing, so as far as anything that matters is concerned, it isn't. The reason the law says that it isn't theft is because (from what I can see) the definition of theft requres deprivation of property from its owner. In the case of unlawful filesharing, there is no deprivation, because a copy is made.

And again, why is this a massive problem for society that ISPs should care about? Big compared to what? How do you measure the material loss or harm to the victim? Who is the victim?

Yeh, its wrong.

I still think it's stealing even if it is a copy. Internet users STILL take without buying therefore stealing.

Because ISPs are the one providing you with the materials to access data all around the world from the comfort of your own home. It's a massive problem because its beginning to become something that can't be controlled. The victim is movie/music/games artists and I don't no how you measure material loss or harm, however we all know its a problem now to these people.

 

[growse]

Yeh, its wrong.

I still think it's stealing even if it is a copy. Internet users STILL take without buying therefore stealing.

Well, I guess you're entitled to that opinion. Doesn't make it true. Unlawful filesharing is currently neither criminal nor stealing whether you like it or not :/

Because ISPs are the one providing you with the materials to access data all around the world from the comfort of your own home.

Well, that's a slightly excessive burden of responsibility. Are BT responsible if i use a phone to commit a crime? Should BT be actively listening in on my calls just in case I use it for a criminal act? Should BT be actively listening in case I use it to commit a *civil* act, even if it's not against BT? Because that's effectively what you're arguing.

It's a massive problem because its beginning to become something that can't be controlled.

Why the obsession to have everything controlled? Do you have an untapped authoritarian streak?

The victim is movie/music/games artists and I don't no how you measure material loss or harm, however we all know its a problem now to these people.

I'm intrigued why you keep on presenting your arguments as though it's something that 'we all know'. Be surprised that there's a lot of people out there who disagree with you, including myself. I do not accept that unlawful filesharing represents a direct material loss to artists. I'm open to be convinced, but have yet to hear a convincing argument.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Well, I guess you're entitled to that opinion. Doesn't make it true. Unlawful filesharing is currently neither criminal nor stealing whether you like it or not :/

So your expressing your feeling and opinion then yeh? Wheres the proof that it isn't stealing? Yes, it's my opinion, thats why I am expressing it.

Well, that's a slightly excessive burden of responsibility. Are BT responsible if i use a phone to commit a crime? Should BT be actively listening in on my calls just in case I use it for a criminal act? Should BT be actively listening in case I use it to commit a *civil* act, even if it's not against BT? Because that's effectively what you're arguing.

I am not arguing anything I am expressing how I feel. Yes, if the service is used and they are providing a service the company that provides the service should infact monitor and help cut down crime and illigal activities as much as possible.

Why the obsession to have everything controlled? Do you have an untapped authoritarian streak?

I don't want anything controlled, however when it comes to illigal activities if theres a way to catch people then I am all for it. I don't download anything illigally at all and your here to express your feelings. I guess your one of them then thats 'filesharing' illigal content judging by your expression in this thread?

I'm intrigued why you keep on presenting your arguments as though it's something that 'we all know'. Be surprised that there's a lot of people out there who disagree with you, including myself. I do not accept that unlawful filesharing represents a direct material loss to artists. I'm open to be convinced, but have yet to hear a convincing argument.

If they disagree then they are promoting illigal file sharing, is it right to steal something that you don't own. Might aswell go into the shop and steal from a shop it's the same thing except you gotto get off your fat arse and go to steal directly.

Appoligies for going offtopic too admins/mods/users.

 

[growse]

So your expressing your feeling and opinion then yeh? Wheres the proof that it isn't stealing? Yes, it's my opinion, thats why I am expressing it.

I don't think you follow. The law defines it as not stealing. It's not my opinion. it's what the law says.

I am not arguing anything I am expressing how I feel. Yes, if the service is used and they are providing a service the company that provides the service should infact monitor and help cut down crime and illigal activities as much as possible.

Currently, copyright infringement isn't criminal. it's a civil offence, which I believe makes it unlawful. ISPs are under no obligation to look out for other private companies' interests, nor should they be.

I don't want anything controlled

Yes you do - you said so earlier. You want ISPs to have direct control over what people can and can't do on the internet at the whim of other companies who may have a civil case against some users.

however when it comes to illigal activities if theres a way to catch people then I am all for it. I don't download anything illigally at all and your here to express your feelings. I guess your one of them then thats 'filesharing' illigal content judging by your expression in this thread?

If they disagree then they are promoting illigal file sharing, is it right to steal something that you don't own. Might aswell go into the shop and steal from a shop it's the same thing except you gotto get off your fat arse and go to steal directly.

We've already covered how it isn't stealing, as currently defined in UK law. So that point is moot. And if you really think that anyone arguing against your black and white conclusions that 'OMG downloading is teh worst crime in teh worlds!' is also guilty of that crime, then you need to grow up and start thinking. This topic is a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and from what I can see, a lot more complex than you can grasp.

Go and do some research, and some reading, and educate yourself as to what the legal situation is and the various copyright laws that apply here. You'll do yourself a favour.

 

[Theguy]

I think its getting a wee bit heated in here guys.. a tad personal on both sides of the argument eh?

optitech-uk - why does it matter if growse is a "file-sharer?" we are not auguring that its ok to file share, we are auging that ISPs should not monitor what we do if thats legal or lilegal unless, warrants ect are issued..

 

[Daegan]

I think its getting a wee bit heated in here guys.. a tad personal on both sides of the argument eh?

You made the best point anyway. ISPs throttling torrent traffic isn't about unlawful file sharing, it's about usage that has a detrimental impact on the performance of their network. In that respect those ISPs don't care what you're torrenting, they'll hammer it regardless.

 

[Rabtech]

I backup/share family pictures (weddings/holidays the usual stuff you dont want to lose) and other files to an offsite server (at a friends) via encrypted VPN. I technically am file sharing, although as the ISP doesnt know legal traffic from illegal and unable to check if its BT traffic etc because the packets are encrypted, why should I be penalised. The whole file sharing subject and how to deal with it runs extremely deep.

Whilst Im a big supporter of traffic management 'properly implemented', its going to be an interesting few years ahead with worldwide ISP's.

 

[tolien]

Can we get back to the point, rather than the moralities of "filesharing".

It's all about priorities. The ISP has a set amount of bandwidth at some point in their network (whether it's UBR/segment bandwidth with the cablecos or Centrals with BT Wholesale ISPs), and more traffic than they can pass.
Bulk traffic can happily be slowed down, things like HTTP/email/gaming can't (because they'll stop working).
It's irrelevant to the ISP whether it's the latest WoW patch or the Star Trek movie you're downloading, it's the fact that it's not going to make much difference if it runs a bit more slowly (versus web pages not loading and pings in the seconds).

 

[Paul11]

that makes a lot of sense now..

as before i was thinking that ISP's would monitor to see if i was downloading anything illegal, when the reality is that they just want to make sure that the speed of their network isnt affected by me downloading large files (irrelevant of what they are)

this i can understand. (from an ISP point of view) but still as a customer i want unshaped and untampered with downloads..

 

[Daegan]

but still as a customer i want unshaped and untampered with downloads..

That's not the whole story though, because you also want low latency, and most tellingly as a consumer you also want low prices. For most ISPs something has to give along the way.

 

[Audigex]

You made the best point anyway. ISPs throttling torrent traffic isn't about unlawful file sharing, it's about usage that has a detrimental impact on the performance of their network. In that respect those ISPs don't care what you're torrenting, they'll hammer it regardless.

Exactly this... if suddenly everyone decided that the POP3 protocol was the best thing to use, and it was using 80% of the bandwidth for 20% of users (or whatever the statistic is) they'd be onto it like a shot.

Personally I think they should have to guarantee your speed as 50% of what it's rated as, no matter what. Eg if I paid for 8mb/s, they could throttle it in times of peak usage, but to no less than 4mb/s.

If they can't do that, they're over-selling their service. ISPs are getting away with too much with regards to "up to"... either they provide the service or they get out of way of those who can. I pay for x mbps, I should get that all the time... not 2/3 of that at the best of times and less at peak hours.

 

[tolien]

Of course they're "overselling the service". It's the only way they can offer any service at all without charging hundreds of pounds for it.

 

[russ0r]

If they can't do that, they're over-selling their service. ISPs are getting away with too much with regards to "up to"... either they provide the service or they get out of way of those who can. I pay for x mbps, I should get that all the time... not 2/3 of that at the best of times and less at peak hours.

Of course they're overselling. ISPs have to pay silly money to BT for their internet pipes.
If you want a truly unthrottled, unlimited service then go speak to BT wholesale. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. It'll only cost you something like 300 quid a month for a 512k ADSL.

It's my opinion that this is 90% BT's fault. The network structure in this country really needs changing before we'll see any sort of improvement on ISPs overselling and connections being throttled.

By the way you won't find any ISPs who can provide the service you're looking for. They've already gone out of business.

 

[tolien]

The problem's largely Ofcom's, who should have a) encouraged proper competition (and thus prices would've dropped) and b) not forced BT Wholesale to provide ADSL to every last part of the UK (and also, thus prices would have dropped).
That huge, reliable, national network didn't come cheap, and when 50% of the country don't have a choice but to pay some part of BT (whether it's Wholesale or Openreach) and Ofcom's setting the minimum prices Wholesale and Openreach can charge (and have an objective of "promoting competition") you can hardly be surprised when those prices are higher than they might be.

 

[Paul11]

is there a plan for upgrading to fibre network in the UK ?

if the UK was all fibred up, would this solve the problem ?