Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I think these guys make the point really well. "I like street performers but sometimes they use copyright content to entertain".0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Response from Pat Gallagher is as follows:
So he responded regarding a separate piece of legislation to the one you addressed, or maybe your email addressed ACTA too. Either way he completely fails to address the concerns about this particular proposed amendment.
Also, it's funny that he mentions Mr Kader Arif as the rapporteur for the report, but fails to mention that Mr Arif has denounced the ACTA process and resigned his position
Edit: Ah jeez! And I just realised Pat the Cope is an MEP :mad:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
And I welcome debate. I'm no hypocrite I genuinely think its the only way we move things forward. Its the whole drive behind Boards in many ways.
I'll happily pay you a euro btw.
i'd prefer a binding vote, and to be able to trust judges not to accept fake stats from EMI. but, that ain't going to happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I guess I should have been clearer in my question. I understand what he is advocating by way of "monitoring"; but how can this be done without the addition of “contested filtering systems” (3rd party or not) and how can they differentiate between "illegal" downloading and "legal" downloading?
My understanding of both of those questions is that it cannot and they cannot.
Well from the same document and judgeCriminals leave the private sphere when they infringe the rights of other, or conspire in that respect
...
In the case of internet file sharing to infringe copyright, I am of the view that there are no privacy or data protection implications to detecting unauthorised downloads of copyright material using peer-to-peer technology; (see, EMI Records (Ireland) Limited v. Eircom Limited [2010] IEHC 108, (Unreported, High Court, Charleton J., 16th April, 2010). In this regard, I am taking into account the fact that the process of detection through DtecNet is essentially anonymous. As previously emphasised, a communication between the recording companies and an internet service provider, having used the facilities offered by the DtecNet, that in a particular month a certain one hundred subscribers downloaded an average of twenty copyright protected tracks each, illegally, giving a date and time and the IP address, discloses no information publicly. The recording companies do not thereby harvest the names and addresses of infringers of copyright for data purposes, or for future communication or for evidence in a potential criminal case. They get nothing apart from a set of numbers
...
The existence of a genuine anti-piracy policy would enhance the public standing of any corporation and is a matter in respect of which they have an interest. Enforcing a private contract, in this context, does not have privacy implications. Any form of blocking on that customer and internet service provider basis does not carry a privacy implication. If the response is a graduated one, as opposed to a blocking of communications merely on a basis of identifying its nature and the relevant IP number, no privacy implication arises.
He also advocates the use of deep packet inspection technologies which are expensive (for the ISP of course) and have to examine ALL traffic flowing thru an ISPs pipes in order to determine if someone is a Pirate or not, which is not too different from what the Chinese do to censor their population.
this is what really gets me EVERYONE is presumed to be guilty and EVERYONES privacy would be violated using this technology in order to catch a few pirates, who most likely would use/switch to using encrypted connections anyways.
Regarding his "set of numbers" argument, see thisA possible landmark ruling in one of the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. may spell the end of the “pay-up-or-else-schemes” that have targeted over 100,000 Internet users in the last year. District Court Judge Harold Baker has denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena the ISPs of alleged copyright infringers, because an IP-address does not equal a person.
I asked the representative today, how would he feel if his emails are being read or if his office gets disconnected because a kid next door hacked the connection and used it to download music or something. 0 -
Advertisement
-
File hashes?
yeh one of the "solutions"
"offered"Solution II: Global File Registry
38. The solution of detection and diversion that was described in evidence by Jorg Michael Speck involves several steps: this is called Global File Registry. A programme which is capable of being integrated into the Cisco 8000 of the Firmwear upgrade requires, firstly, the identification of files which are not either out of copyright, by reason of a lapse of time, or in respect of which copyright has been waived. In this regard, the relevant programme has a database of around four million tracks which are subject to copyright. Secondly, an alternative offering of around one million tracks is made available for legal download through this system. Global File Registry can operate on a mirrored form of network, whereby there is no encumbrance of the speed or efficiency of the internet service provider’s offering to its customers. The database of music tracks which are likely to be infringed is taken from the owners. In microseconds, any peer-to-peer transmission involving the illicit sharing of copyright material is identified through the file hash. This indicates the contents and mandates the programme to take action. Once the file hash is cross-referenced to copyright material, the sought for file-link by the customer of the internet service provider is immediately terminated. Then, the second aspect of the system occurs. The customer seeking a particular track unlawfully is immediately diverted to a site, made available through Global File Registry, where that track may be accessed legally. The system uses deep packet inspection. Legal traffic is never interrupted. Privacy is not infringed as the system simply reads numbers which identify the illicit nature of the transmission. Integral to that, I infer from the other evidence presented to the Court, is that a relevant computer address can also be recovered, as it is part of the transmission. There are, therefore, no privacy issues involved as no aspect of the system described involves the identification of a customer. Therefore, the firewall which exists between the allocation of a bank of IP numbers through RIPE, which is publicly available, and the day-to-day, or hour-to-hour, ascription of that number by an internet service provider to a particular customer, is never breached. The recording companies can never, through Global File Registry, or any other system, discover who it is that is infringing their copyright materials. Only the internet service provider on being notified of an infringement through DtecNet can find that out.
39. Global File Registry by-passes any response by way of detection, notification, education and termination in favour of immediate interruptions. The advantage of the system is that it offers a legitimate alternative which Mr. Speck described as offering “solid value”. This changes the passive transmission of internet service provider customer’s data into intervention. It can operate as a source of revenue to the internet service provider since arrangements are predicated to be made between the companies offering internet service and the recording companies. Thus, the attempt to illicitly download a music track by peer-to-peer file sharing is immediately interrupted and a diversion is effected to a site, shared by the internet service provider and the music industry, whereby a legal download may be made by payment through a credit card or by an addition to a customer’s bill from its internet service provider.
40. A similar system is operated by police in Australia in relation to about 70,000 child pornography images. These are identified by reference to the file hash, but in that instance the transmission is simply interrupted. I would imagine that this system, which is fully tested and in operation, also involves the gathering of data as to the user for criminal detection purposes, but this was not developed in evidence. That police agenda does not form part of the operation for the disablement of copyright theft.
41. While the system is now partnered with the Cisco Corporation as a joint venture, and while it presents as a viable future alternative, it is yet to be fully tested. It would not be right for the Court to order such a system by way of injunctive relief because its integration and testing will take time. A trial exists with an Australian internet service provider but this trial, the Court notes, is only in respect of 200 musical tracks. To ramp up the trial towards a significant number of tracks, which in an Irish context would certainly run into several thousand, involves moving into an area which is not sufficiently predictable. It is possible, as was established in cross-examination, for persistence to lead a determined customer to an illegal download. It is also possible that the file hash in a very popular music track, that was constantly blocked, could be changed. I am satisfied that this would be an elaborate process. There would be a likely response from the music industry whereby, that would be detected and added, under that new format, to the files to be searched for and detected in the course of illegal transmission.
42. There are obvious advantages to the Global File Registry system. The routes around it are difficult and time consuming. It represents a viable future way of responding to internet copyright piracy. It has no privacy implications. Any aspect of encoding is not demonstrated in the evidence to be different to the obvious solution of uploading the encryption programmes that are widely shared in this mass market. However, this system requires further work in order to operate at the level required. Finally, on this issue, I am not satisfied that in order to markedly decrease the internet piracy of copyright material that it is necessary to upload the entire discography of modern civilisation. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that deterring, through interruption and diversion, the most widely shared musical tracks at a particular time is highly effective. These need only be in the hundreds or thousands of tracks level. In the future, with development, the evidence establishes that this solution to internet piracy is likely to be effective.
Does anyone else think the above was written by a media industry lobbyist and not a judge?
And in case anyone has any doubts about the sanity of the content industries see http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-industry-calls-for-broad-search-engine-censorship-120127/0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j52a608OMVw
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
Advertisement