[Proto Omega]

I never share my stuff through torrents and such as I never use them but will the news today about movies and music downloaded illegaly affect usenet downloading?

[Ernie_C]

Originally Posted by Proto Omega

I never share my stuff through torrents and such as I never use them but will the news today about movies and music downloaded illegaly affect usenet downloading?

This is about catching people who are sharing what doesn't belong to them to share. There is no law against sharing what is rightly yours to share.

Only you will know and be concerned if you are sharing what isn't yours.

[Croker]

As I understand it, Usenet and direct download sites such as Rapidshare do not constitute "sharing" in the same way as it would if you have a shared torrent folder.

Where this current campaign ties in to those who download directly is anyone's guess at this stage.

I'd be interested to hear anyone else's opinions on this matter, however!

[Ian Dudley]

Originally Posted by Croker

As I understand it, Usenet and direct download sites such as Rapidshare do not constitute "sharing" in the same way as it would if you have a shared torrent folder.

Where this current campaign ties in to those who download directly is anyone's guess at this stage.

I'd be interested to hear anyone else's opinions on this matter, however!

Ultimately, if the record industry can identify who is uploading or downloading copyright files to or from Usenet, I'm sure they would consider going after them.

However, these days usenet isn't anything like as popular as it used to be, and they'll get far quicker and easier returns going after peer to peer users who form the bulk of what is going on.

TBH, the importance of the recent announcement is not in the action they are taking today. Its in the ISPs agreeing to cooperate in a structured way for the first time. This has been coming for ages, as the only effective way the record industry (or anyone else) could try to persue illegal file sharers was via the ISPs, using TOS violation clauses or similar.

ISPs have historically refused to get involved in this, which has stopped serious enforcement at the first hurdle. But that has now changed. Never mind what they are doing today, give it a couple of years and you'll see things becoming increasingly draconian.

Why the change? Because downloading music, etc is now a prime sales point for ISPs. Most of them now rate thier bandwidth in terms of how quickly you can download an average song. This puts some power back to the record labels, as they can threaten to block a particular ISPs users from thier download sites. Since the record companies have something the ISPs need, they can demand a price for it.

[Croker]

Originally Posted by Ian Dudley

Ultimately, if the record industry can identify who is uploading or downloading copyright files to or from Usenet, I'm sure they would consider going after them.

However, these days usenet isn't anything like as popular as it used to be, and they'll get far quicker and easier returns going after peer to peer users who form the bulk of what is going on.

TBH, the importance of the recent announcement is not in the action they are taking today. Its in the ISPs agreeing to cooperate in a structured way for the first time. This has been coming for ages, as the only effective way the record industry (or anyone else) could try to persue illegal file sharers was via the ISPs, using TOS violation clauses or similar.

ISPs have historically refused to get involved in this, which has stopped serious enforcement at the first hurdle. But that has now changed. Never mind what they are doing today, give it a couple of years and you'll see things becoming increasingly draconian.

Why the change? Because downloading music, etc is now a prime sales point for ISPs. Most of them now rate thier bandwidth in terms of how quickly you can download an average song. This puts some power back to the record labels, as they can threaten to block a particular ISPs users from thier download sites. Since the record companies have something the ISPs need, they can demand a price for it.

I agree with pretty much all of that, but I wonder how much joy the record/movie industry would get out of Rapidshare, for example? Consider - Rapidshare don't need to provide services in the way ISPs do. They don't have to worry about being forbidden from selling MP3s; all they have to do is allow people to upload and download files. When Rapidshare are notified that a file is copyrighted, they take it down for checking, and remove it if necessary. In short, they can argue that they're not encouraging piracy, and comply with requests to remove material.

However, I doubt that would satisfy the record/movie companies if everyone moves over to sharing via Rapidshare. Would Rapidshare really give up their customers' details to the BPI (or similar), I wonder? Or would they fight it out on privacy reasons? I'm hoping it's the latter!

[Ian Dudley]

Originally Posted by Croker

I agree with pretty much all of that, but I wonder how much joy the record/movie industry would get out of Rapidshare, for example? Consider - Rapidshare don't need to provide services in the way ISPs do. They don't have to worry about being forbidden from selling MP3s; all they have to do is allow people to upload and download files. When Rapidshare are notified that a file is copyrighted, they take it down for checking, and remove it if necessary. In short, they can argue that they're not encouraging piracy, and comply with requests to remove material.

However, I doubt that would satisfy the record/movie companies if everyone moves over to sharing via Rapidshare. Would Rapidshare really give up their customers' details to the BPI (or similar), I wonder? Or would they fight it out on privacy reasons? I'm hoping it's the latter!

I'm not familiar with that particular service, but I forsee a time where once an ISP or other carrier becomes aware that a user is doing illegal things with thier bandwidth, they become an accessory to the crime if they don't take action. i.e. they know a crime is being commited using thier equipment, they know who is doing it, and they dont take action to stop it.

This goes against the traditional ISP policy of not being responsible for the traffic they carry, but ultimately is how things will have to evolve. Just like phone companies aren't responsible for what you say on a call, but if they become aware you are breaking the law with your service they'll cooperate with authorities to stop and prosecute you.

Now that the ISPs have taken the first step towards cooperation, the above scenario is almost inevitable. As by taking action they are acknowledging the illegal activity and that they are aware of it, so over time they will find it very hard to justify not taking action against it.

Incidentally, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I may have downloded the odd song in the past, but I was never under any illusion that what I was doing wasn't illegal. I have no time for those who try to jusify copyright theft. Whatever your lofty reasons (and I struggle to beleive that most people's reason isnt just to get stuff for free), there is no moral justification for stealing someone elses property, no matter how unfair you think what they are doing is.

If you disagree with the record companies, boycott thier products or lobby the artists to break away from them, but dont steal from them. It's no different from trying to campaign agaisnt the evils of supermarket dominance by shoplifting....

[bjjgann]

Also remember these people illegally sharing files chew up the majority of the bandwidth available to all of us which has led to download caps. With these people off the network, hopefully download caps will be eased and I can legally download HD films from Xbox Live at the best possible speed.
Can’t remember the exact figures but it was something like 800 users account for a huge chunk of bandwidth usage. If you consider there are 3.8 million Virgin customers can you imagine how much they must be downloading.

[moyhim]

Originally Posted by Proto Omega

I never share my stuff through torrents and such as I never use them but will the news today about movies and music downloaded illegaly affect usenet downloading?

no, you are not sharing anything, simply downloading, so this shouldnt affect you.

[suffolktoon]

I don't think the courts should acquiesce so readily to the music industry's demands.

For years that same industry ripped the British public off by charging more in the UK for an album than they did in the US.

[Ian Dudley]

Originally Posted by suffolktoon

I don't think the courts should acquiesce so readily to the music industry's demands.

For years that same industry ripped the British public off by charging more in the UK for an album than they did in the US.

Lots of things cost more here that in the US, that's because taxes are higher here, so staff costs are higher. Sales tax (VAT) is also higher, plus land is far more expensive here than in the states, as we have so much less of it. So office costs are higher, so are warehouses, etc. In general its much more expensive to do business here than it is in the states.

Besides which, there is no law or right which says your CD should cost the same as anyone elses. Prices are set by the market, companies charge what people are prepared to pay. If people are willing to pay more here then thats what they will be charged. It's a calculation between selling more at a lower price versus less at a higher price, with the general price of the market factored in. You have no right to something being priced at any particular level, provided prices have been set in a fair open market (i.e. no price fixing).

The courts haven't acquiesced to anything, they are simply doing thier correct job which is to uphold the law. The law is verry clearly and unambiguously on the side of the record industry. The idea that you have a right to steal because you beleive you were over-charged in the past is ridiculous.

Cars used to cost more here in the UK than they did in Europe, does that mean I can walk into a dealership and drive off whatever I lilke as compensation?

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by Proto Omega

I never share my stuff through torrents and such as I never use them but will the news today about movies and music downloaded illegaly affect usenet downloading?

I very much doubt it.
As others have said, the whole illegal download issue seems to be targeting the torrents and sharing systems. The way i understand it its the uploading part that you can get done for. As the Torrents etc are a two way thing then you can get caught.
People using Usenet shouldn't be affected if you are only downloading. Im not sure what the legal situation is there but as i have understood it in the past its not against the law to download like this, as long as you dont upload.

I use giganews with a secure connection so no one can snoop on what im doing.

I also find it very odd that people want others to stop downloading so they can download and think that if the illigal downloaders are stoped the network will speed up.
So, mr X stops downloading from usenet at 20mb/s, freeing up mr y to download legal stuff 9say, on demand films, Apple TV or whatever) at 20mb/s. how does that help, speed wise?
And if the ISP's are targeting people who do a lot of downloading anyway (like we have paid to do. dont get me started) then its both the Usenet and Apple Tv, Xbox Live etc people that will be targeted, not just the ones breaking the law.
It seems like VM are targeting anyone who tried to use what we are paying for to its full and they wont care what you are doing, they just think its illegal so will cap you (ive been told this on the phone to them)

[landwomble]

the first rule of usenet is, you don't talk about usenet

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by landwomble

the first rule of usenet is, you don't talk about usenet

Whats usenet?

[bjjgann]

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

I very much doubt it.
So, mr X stops downloading from usenet at 20mb/s, freeing up mr y to download legal stuff say, on demand films, Apple TV or whatever) at 20mb/s. how does that help, speed wise?

For me I think the problem is Mr X is downloading at 20mb/s, every minute of the day, were as Mr Y will likely be downloading at 20mb/s for a short period to download a paid for film for example, and will not be uploading all day as Mr X is using P2P. And if you extrapolate there are many more Mr Xs than Mr Ys.

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by bjjgann

For me I think the problem is Mr X is downloading at 20mb/s, every minute of the day, were as Mr Y will likely be downloading at 20mb/s for a short period to download a paid for film for example, and will not be uploading all day as Mr X is using P2P. And if you extrapolate there are many more Mr Xs than Mr Ys.

First off im not talking about P2P. Never use it and dont need it.

Mr X can get a film (just as an example) in less than an hour.
Now, this film can be anywhere from 4.5BG (about 35mins) to 12GB (ok, that takes a bit longer than an hour). No uploading what so ever.
But Mr X is being punished for doing that. Yes, apparently 6Gb during 10am to 3pm during the day is a no no according to Virgin.

Mr Y might also want a film or two, maybe a PS3 game and happy to pay for it but if he goes over the 6GB limit he will also be punished, just like Mr X.

Then we have Mrs Z. She is also keeping above the law and paying for everything. She also lives in the same block as My Y and has Apple TV plus she like to watch some of the Iplayer stuff on her MAC. So , we now have two people on 20mb/s, downloading totality legit stuff but both being punished for doing it.
Why? to give others a chance to get full speed.
So Mr A, B etc can now download at full speed (yeah right) but only for about an hour each and then its down to 1/4 speed for 5 hours.

At least, thats the way i see it. When i was told by VM CS that i must be doing something illigal because i wanted to download large files at full speed i just gave up.
I do design work for the small firm i work for sometimes, at home in the evenings and weekend and people send me files. These can be quite large sometimes. Guess that counts as doing something illigal to VM CS.


Mr X.

[bjjgann]

I agree, Mr Y and Mrs Z should be able to download as much as they want because they are legally downloading. Mr X who is downloading illegally and all his friends should be booted off the network, which would give Virgin no excuse to cap Mr Y & Mrs Z. The problem is Mr X and his friends are spoiling it for Mr Y and Mrs Z.

Mr X/Y

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by bjjgann

I agree, Mr Y and Mrs Z should be able to download as much as they want because they are legally downloading. Mr X who is downloading illegally and all his friends should be booted off the network, which would give Virgin no excuse to cap Mr Y & Mrs Z. The problem is Mr X and his friends are spoiling it for Mr Y and Mrs Z.

Mr X/Y

But my point is that VM are targeting ANYONE and EVERYONE who is downloading big files, not just Mr X and this is across the board, not just the 20mb/s users.
Like i said, i was accused of doing something wrong because the guy at CS said "I cant see why you need to download at full speed for more than a few mins at a time" Its That attitude that will affect us all.

By the way, downloading, even from UN isnt illegal so Mr X is doing nothing wrong.

[bjjgann]

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

But my point is that VM are targeting ANYONE and EVERYONE who is downloading big files, not just Mr X and this is across the board, not just the 20mb/s users.
Like i said, i was accused of doing something wrong because the guy at CS said "I cant see why you need to download at full speed for more than a few mins at a time" Its That attitude that will affect us all.

By the way, downloading, even from UN isnt illegal so Mr X is doing nothing wrong.

Not sure I agree they are targeting everyone, they are targeting people identified by the BPI as sharing copyright material, and they have introduced protective measures which have the consequence of hampering legitimate users like you and me. Whilst your right downloading copyright material is not illegal it is certainly against the terms and conditions we all agree to when we sign up to Virgin Media.

Your case is wrong and I imagine Virgin would not support the comments of the CS rep you dealt with. I would like to think that if there were no "illegal" downloaders on the Virgin network then us heavy "legal" downloaders would not be penalised. This might be naive but we won’t know until that situation exists and at that point we can accuse Virgin of breach of contract.

[dave_bass5]

I think i might have gone a bit off topic.
Your right about the BPI etc, I was talking more (and more) about the capping and forgot what the topic was about to start with.

[markymark34]

am i missing the point here?
surely its just looking at people who are downloading or uploading vast amounts of data? does it really matter where it came from?

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by markymark34

am i missing the point here?
surely its just looking at people who are downloading or uploading vast amounts of data? does it really matter where it came from?

I'm not sure i understand your statement. Can you re phrase it?

Uploading and downloading large amounts of legal data is not doing anything Illegal. Uploading one mp3 is.

[markymark34]

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

I'm not sure i understand your statement. Can you re phrase it?

Uploading and downloading large amounts of legal data is not doing anything Illegal. Uploading one mp3 is.

sorry what i meant was the difference between using a P2P site and some sort of 'news' site (eg usenet or giganews etc) to download your illegal music and movies.
It was mentioned in the first page that usenet is secure so they cant see what your up to but i fail to see how this is relevant.
Ps im not making a moral stand point i think most of us have downloaded or used something we shouldnt have.

Mark

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by markymark34

sorry what i meant was the difference between using a P2P site and some sort of 'news' site (eg usenet or giganews etc) to download your illegal music and movies.
It was mentioned in the first page that usenet is secure so they cant see what your up to but i fail to see how this is relevant.
Ps im not making a moral stand point i think most of us have downloaded or used something we shouldnt have.

Mark

Ah ok.
First off yes, if you use a secure connection to a news server then no one can see what you are doing. Usenet can be one way so if you aren't uploading you aren't breaking the law (at least not in the file sharing sense, i believe).
I and a few mates actually use Usenet (used to be P2P) to send big files to each other. We are musicians and discovered a great way to write and record songs was to each have Cubase at home and then just pass the audio files around one we have recorded something. As these are .wav files they can be very big and emailing them is of course out of the question.
While I'm not saying i dint do the other stuff a lot of my bandwidth is actually used for legit stuff but I'm now getting classed as a pirate because I'm using my bandwidth for extended periods (and I'm talking no more than maybe an hour at a time). Also uploading is a lot slower than downloading so it takes a while to post 2-3GB for .wav files to Usenet.

But as i said i a post or two above, there are two different issues here.
One the one hand there is the ISP's stopping illegal sharing. I'm actually all for that as P2P users are hogging a lot of bandwidth for long periods.
The second issue and the one i went off on a tangent about is the fact that VM are capping (and accusing) anyone who does download more than some people would.
Oh, and now they are rolling out 50mb/s. So now we can pay to only have 12mins of full bandwidth a day before capping. And these people must be pirates, why else wold the want that sort of bandwidth.
It makes no sense to me at all. They are giving everyone fast speeds but not letting us us it.