Porn Industry Targets Torrent Users

[Diggler69]

Apologies for harping on -;)

"I havent read anyone even agreeing to the industries fighting back even if it were by legal means which is why i thought this was frowned upon initially"

I can only assume for your entire life you have never taken any heed of any current events or news via any medium


"Mandelson targets web pirates after dinner with mogul"

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... 797844.ece

Multi- National billion dollar industries have huge bugets for PR slur campaigns political lobbying etc

Not to mention cosy chats with legislators

Civil liberty, consumer watchdogs etc do not have thews resources Goverments tend to listen to the rich and powerful well organized industries more than they do the general public

I would guess that even in Caxton's day legislative bodies were agreed on the general principle of "copyright" and the need to protect it

[one eyed jack]

My point being is that with all the proposed deterrents I have read none that have been put into effect have been enforced.

Whether it is legal or not it just seems nothing is being done about it probably for the reasons you've outlined but stick a bit of kiddy porn up on the net and everyone is on the perpetrators arse like flies to shit so obviously something can be done about it

Especially with the file sharers who seem to weed out the real dodgy stuff like this but then scream they have no control over what people put on the web.

[one eyed jack]

I am also saying that ACS Laws actions may be the beginning of a long drawn out battle to try and scare those who file share which i know is a big difference from piracy in that piracy profits from copyright infringement and filesharing is a grey area because it isnt infringeing on copyright by profiting but is bwy the terminology of the licence of the product being stolen in that it shall not be made available by electronic means, internet etc and it is with that in mind why i can see ACS law exploiting that opening to its own ends.

To muy inderstanding this is done without cost to producers so if a law firm is willing to handle it at no cost to copyright owner i can't say I blame anyone using the service if they think it might make a difference.

People here are rightly screaming about the moral aspect and right and wrong but those who feel they are losing out commercially are feeling the same way.

Thats my point

As i see it, like the BBFC Online scheme, they feel that they wouldnt have to take many people to court. Just one or two cases wil be enough to make everyone jump in line and i think this may be the case here but you and I know this will not happen or make a blind bit of difference but yet they will still try to at least say we been there and did that.

[Diggler69]

No i'm lost if it's proposed then obviously it won't be in effect or enforced as it's merely a proposal
The last i read about this was if the ISP's couldn't come up with some self regulating policy on piracy then the regulatory authorities would make the rules and impose them but i'm not 100% on that.
Lot's of things have been done but they are largely ineffectual take DRM as part of the "Fair use" terms pertaining to copyrighted material if you buy something with DRM protection you have the fair use right to copy it so any DRM protection can have software legally made to remove the DRM it's only when you share the material that you break the law. Do you realize how many people are sharing/distributing or just using pirated material! taking 500 million+ people to court is not an option
Also the internet cannot be controlled, even repressive authoritarian regimes are failing to do that. On top of all that if i want to be 100% anonymous online all i have to do is go to a busy internet cafe and do whatever i want to do online.People used to sell material at boot fairs illegally but with the internet i can share something with people in Australia in seconds if it's a small file

[one eyed jack]

Can't disagree with what you said !happy!

[Diggler69]

This might be slightly off topic but i think it's relevant
I saw Eugene Kaspersky ( of the respected Kaspesky labs and anti-virus guru) being interviewed about how to combat spam/viruses/ and general criminality online
His solution No proof of ID... no internet access. So maybe if you could enforce that globally you could drastically cut down on privacy
Don't see that happening soon

[Hugh6821]

The risque of being publicly accused of downloading porn? I wonder why people pay instead of going to court.

This kind scam, "if you don't pay, everyone will know that we are accusing you of X", is being perfected in the US. A gay porn company is doing the same kind of thing, obviously people who still might be in the closet pays and hopes it goes away. And if they get accuses any straight men who haven't downloaded any of their work, those men are not going to do anything else but pay...

---

"but stick a bit of kiddy porn up on the net and everyone is on the perpetrators arse like flies to shit so obviously something can be done about it"

one eyed jack, I think you should think a bit about that. Kiddie porn is kids being abused and result then being traded among pedophiles. The other is legal porn with consenting adults that is being copied leading to producers losing revenue (how much would be debated considering that there's free nude women all over the internet).
I can see the difference a mile away, I really hope you do too.

But don't worry, kiddie porn is being used as a reason to allow governments all over Europe to monitor what all of us is doing online.
.

[paul markham]

Diggler, I've been in porn loger than most. It used to be a good place to earn money. In the last ten years it's become a swamp with many losing money, jobs, homes and their families. Due to piracy.

So what do you propose we do about piracy?

Nothing and just sit back while the decline continues until no one buys porn.

Or use what ever methods we have at hand to keep our industry alive?

Personally I would like to see a far tougher stance taken by Governments. The DMCA law was designed to curb online piracy and has become a safe haven for pirates. If the content is "User Uploaded" the host is exempt, even if in truth he's a publisher of pirated content.

Other laws are a nightmare to enforce because of the problems of suing people in some of the countries they operate from.

Here are some changes I would like to see. The DMCA law has to be changed so it the host publishes the content he's responsible for it. Youtube would be in big trouble over that.

If a site is constantly being served DMCA notices the URL can be blocked from countries whaere a court order proves it's a pirating site. Problem with this one is speed.

If you advertise on a site you're also open to being sued for aiding copyright theft.

Until laws like this or beeter ones are passed the only thing we have is sending out letters to downloaders identified by their IP address.

Are you telling those in legal content selling they should take the food off their table so pirates can continue unhindered? Because for some that's what rampant piracy means.

[Diggler69]

If you are considering using ACS to pursue pirates i would read this first

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/bl ... ng-accused

It seems not only are ISP's saying they will not give customer information to ACS over worries about the security of that data which is quite justified after recent security breach. BT was granted an adjournment over a court order to reveal names

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.p ... f1bfbed16e

And to top all that it looks like some people are fighting these blackmail tactics

"Hundreds of UK broadband users accused of sharing copyrighted content are preparing for the prospect of coordinated legal action against ACS:Law"

So no win no fee appears to correspond to.. you get what you pay for

This is probably a fair indication of how some "customers" will react if you try and use these sort of tactics


"In related news, Ministry of Sound appears to have moved their web provider to UKFast in response to the intense DDoS attack by anonymous. Anonymous responded to the move by shifting their attack to the MoS' new IP address.

I may have said this in another thread on here but if your business model is to threaten 1000's of people with what for some will be an entirely baseless and malicious legal threat then someone is going to throw some shit right back at you

[Diggler69]

Reply to Paul

"So what do you propose we do about piracy?"

I think i did say this before i,m sorry i really don't have an answer to that question

Your main problem is the INTERNET do you want the internet not to exist?

I also have to state i believe in the copyright system and i am aware of the problems of the current "wow i can get that for free on the internet why would i buy it"

I am trying to look at this problem from the viewpoint of someone who has a good comprehension of how computer networking and the internet works (sadly i think many porn producers don't understand the internet beyond promoting and selling their own product)

I am also coming from the standpoint of someone who has and still does use p2p networks in an illegal copyright infringing manner.On top of all this i do read a lot of tech/geeky/legal news stories from reliable sources about what is happening in this field

I hate to say this but this statement

"Personally I would like to see a far tougher stance taken by Governments.
The DMCA law was designed to curb online piracy and has become a safe
haven for pirates. If the content is "User Uploaded" the host is exempt,
even if in truth he's a publisher of pirated content."

reveals a lack of understanding of why these laws exist

Take wikipedia under US law wikipedia is the host ( they are categorised as a service provider and cannot be sued for content someone else publishes)

The person who posts something on wikipedia is the publisher and is the person that would be sued for defamation/copyright etc

So very simple system ISP's, companies that provide hosting, and owners of websites not liable for material published/stored/transmitted across their networks by 3rd parties

If your idea of the host is responsible for all traffic were implemented what would happen

The internet would not exist period

Why?
Imagine i am a small provider of server space/bandwidth for just a few 1000 email accnts, i would have to employ a legal team to scrutinize every single email for any possible legal claim against my self
So for vitually every online business costs would far exceed profits

Now imagine an ISP with millions of customers having to check EVERYTHING they transmitted

Completly unworkable

"Other laws are a nightmare to enforce because of the problems of suing
people in some of the countries they operate from."

Agree 100%, website located in one country, company that owns site registered in a different country, registerd owner domiciled in yet another location etc etc a total nightmare you have my sympathies on that

But until some sort of universal globally accepted laws are put into place people will always dodge the law by country hopping

"Here are some changes I would like to see. The DMCA law has to be changed
so it the host publishes the content he's responsible for it. Youtube
would be in big trouble over that."

I said this to one eyed jack earlier you people do not read news stories relevant to your industry and your livelihoods

Youtube has recently won 2 big cases one in the US and one in the EU in both cases the judges said Youtube had an adequate system for reporting and removing content which the defendants had failed to use
On top of this the idiots in the US had actually uploaded content themselves to Youtube for PR purposes something they forgot to tell the judge.

Personally i find Youtube to be 99% crap but millions use it, love it and if all content had to be screened it would not exist

"If a site is constantly being served DMCA notices the URL can be blocked
from countries whaere a court order proves it's a pirating site. Problem
with this one is speed."

Oh dear once again a porn producer(and please forgive me i'm not being smug or trying to score points)

Does not understand how the internet works

No1 not too sure how happy all the people who own and
maintain all the "cables" that connect the Uk to the outside world are going to be about being your unpaid policeman
Just as you can spoof an IP address or mac address i can connect to a website from my PC in london and the site will see me as being in the US or wherever i choose

"If you advertise on a site you're also open to being sued for aiding
copyright theft."

Not sure about the principles of that

If i had an advert on the side of a bus or a building that collapsed or crashed due to the third parties fault i am to blame for their actions

So i put an ad on a 100% legitimate site then have to monitor all content daily for copyright abuse

Seems untenable to me

"Until laws like this or beeter ones are passed the only thing we have is
sending out letters to downloaders identified by their IP address."

Sorry IP addresses do not identify who the downloader is

I am not being condescending but do you know what an IP address is?

An IP address identifies a device connected to a network

So the prosecution have identified an IP address which i own the account for as D/L your copyrighted material

Plausable denials

I own an internet cafe 500 anonymous people use my machines everyday

On the night in question there was a party at my house maybe one of the 100 guests used my PC

Oh gosh does an open network mean anyone can use my connection

and on and on and on

AFAIK no one has gone to court and been convicted solely on the evidence of an IP addr and most commentators think it would never happen

Virtually all businesses work on the principle that someone can and will steal from them

Thank god i'm not in the position of trying to fight the internet