[Starman]

The UK's largest residential broadband provider, Virgin Media, has announced its intention to introduce a warning system for those caught engaged in illegal downloading (piracy). It is expected to be very similar to the controversial "Three-Strikes" method proposed by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) and will go live within the next few months.

Customers found to be involved with piracy could expect a warning and possible disconnection from their ISP if the activity continued:

This would be the first time a British internet company has publicly moved to share responsibility for curbing piracy. Two years of negotiations between record labels and internet service providers (ISPs) have so far failed to produce an industry-wide agreement.

A spokesman for Virgin Media said: "We have been in discussions with rights holders organisations about how a voluntary scheme could work. We are taking this problem seriously and would favour a sensible voluntary solution."

The government has already threatened to introduce enforced legislation by April next year unless ISPs agree to some form of voluntary measures with the creative industries.

The Telegraph reports that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is due to publish its consultation paper outlining potential legal measures this April. Meanwhile, readers seeking to catch up on the issue should check out our recent "To Ban or Not to Ban (Illegal File Sharers)" special editorial summary on the subject.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkpylyVFEVprNOiCbo.html

Funny if this is true I didn't expect it to be VM first.

[tommyd1258]

What is the point of this move?

How can they find out if people use P2P software? And how will they know whether it is illegal or legal [in the case on the BBC iPlayer which is legal!]

I assume it means we get one strike if caught once, then they'll monitor the ones found and give them a second strike if they're caught again. Third time they get disconnected? Seems pretty pointless, especially for a company so badly in debt, to want to lose a large amount of their customers

[richard1960]

I suspect this is a pr excercise to keep the music,entertainment industry happy and stop the government bringing in stronger measures,after all as the above poster has stated,how are they going to tell the difference between the bbc i player downloads or channel 4 on demand on pcs, and p2p downloads?

I would think they might guess anyone with a heavy usage is downloading p2p, maybe for commercial reasons ie making copies to sell at bootsales possibly.

But anyone who maybe only downloads a couple of p2p tracks for personal use should have no problems. In my view at least.

[KeiranW]

Atleast they are being honest, although I really don't see how they are going to distinguish (sp?) legal and illegal P2P, it's great that an ISP is adopting a clear policy and making its consumers/customers aware it is doing so. Unlike some ISPs who have similar tracking/capping policies yet, disguise them in mumble/jumble terms.

[skrjones]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...nvirgin130.xml

At present only mentioning music however.

[artnada]

Originally Posted by richard1960

I would think they might guess anyone with a heavy usage is downloading p2p, maybe for commercial reasons ie making copies to sell at bootsales possibly.

But anyone who maybe only downloads a couple of p2p tracks for personal use should have no problems. In my view at least.

That's what they said about the STM. "Only 3% of our heaviest downloaders will be affected"....yet here we are months past and 1000's upon 1000's of "normal users" are affected because they watch the likes of BBCi/ITV 4OD etc. Or even being on Live cam sites like LiveVideo/Stickham can gobble up bandwidth. Using your webcam on MSN etc can eat bandwidth, yet "normal" users are being hit with STM easily.

So, how will they tell if you are illegally downloading stuff when all of the above goes on daily....!?!

Just because you have heavy traffic on your account doesn't mean you're an illegal downloader!

[hurrikane313]

If they live up to what they say they are going to do, then its pretty much bye bye VM. I know some people might think that it is defeatist to think that way, but how are they going to stay afloat considering the ammount of debt they have already, and then potential of them losing a very large per centage of their customer base by bringing in this policy.

I say they will perform the trial and then realise what a stupid idea it is for them to enforce.

As others have stated how do they plan to tell the difference between legal and illegal, how are they going to monitor what you are doing, last time I checked we are protected by Data Protection Act, and the only way to truly determine if we are downloading illegally is to gain access to the computer, if they do that, then they open up a huge can of worms and end up out of business anyway.

So yeah this wont even get past the trial stages.

Theft is theft, however you look at it.... the other ISP's will follow suit with this.

As someone who only uses legal downloading sites, I welcome this.

[goomba]

Wonder does this mean the end of the VM Newsgroups on which they themselves are hosting a lot of copyrighted material.

[artnada]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanantic

Theft is theft, however you look at it.... the other ISP's will follow suit with this.

As someone who only uses legal downloading sites, I welcome this.

And how are they going to know that you are downloading legally?

[call100]

Well if the problem is as bad as the BPI imagine it is then VM will be cutting off a lot of customers. I don't think they will want to be doing that.
The worst offenders are organised crime, I doubt this campaign will dent their production of illegal films/music.

[SkyBlueArmy]

Originally Posted by skrjones

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...nvirgin130.xml

At present only mentioning music however.

No, its not:

The trial by the UK's largest residential broadband supplier will go live within months and disconnecting customers who ignore warnings, a sanction favoured by the record BPI, remains an option. The trial will also be open to film and television studios.

[Formula1Mad]

If this is true (that VM will disconnect people) then they will lose a huge amount of customers. I cannot believe Virgin Media will implement this, but if they do, then they really will be the losers in the long run.

[DieDieMyDarling]

Originally Posted by Formula1Mad

If this is true (that VM will disconnect people) then they will lose a huge amount of customers. I cannot believe Virgin Media will implement this, but if they do, then they really will be the losers in the long run.

This is the problem all ISPs face, they don't want the laws changed regarding ISP responsibility for illegal downloads, but in order to keep the media companies happy they'll have to do something to make it look like they're trying to cut out piracy.

No ISP would be able to cut out piracy, nor would they want to, considering it's what sells a lot of the faster speeds, the fact that people can download TV shows and movies, quickly.

But hollywood et al are getting mightily pissed off at the moment, and they're demanding some action be taken, so the ISPs are having to meet somewhere in the middle.

What'll likely happen is a few people will be thrown to the wolves, sacrificed to make the ISPs look good, while for everyone else it's business as usual.

[icsys]

Originally Posted by ISPreview

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) argues that ISPs cannot prevent illegal downloading because they “are no more able to inspect and filter every single packet passing across their network than the Post Office is able to open every envelope.”

I wonder, wouldn't Phorm's 'webwise' be able to inspect and filter every single packet across the ISP's network?

Under the governments Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), UK telecom operators must now keep phone call logs for one year. Sadly, under EU guidelines, these rules must be extended to Internet providers by 15th March 2009 when the ISP's will be required to log basic e-mail and website access data for one year.

Originally Posted by icsys

I wonder, wouldn't Phorm's 'webwise' be able to inspect and filter every single packet across the ISP's network?

Under the governments Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), UK telecom operators must now keep phone call logs for one year. Sadly, under EU guidelines, these rules must be extended to Internet providers by 15th March 2009 when the ISP's will be required to log basic e-mail and website access data for one year.

Surely that's breaking DPA ?

[icsys]

Originally Posted by Shhh_quiet

Surely that's breaking DPA ?

You would think so wouldn't you.

The directive requires ISPs and phone companies to keep data on every electronic message sent or phone call made for between six months and two years and has been criticised as a threat to the personal privacy of European citizens.

The directive states that Telecoms providers have to keep data including: the time of each fixed and mobile phone call made in Europe, whether the call is answered or not, the duration of the call and other details that can trace the caller, as well as times users connect to the internet, their IP addresses and details pertaining to emails and VoIP calls.
The content of the communications will not be recorded.

well, if they want to monitor illegal downloading, that last sentence is bull!

Another phorm of 'legal' invasion of privacy!!!

Originally Posted by icsys

You would think so wouldn't you.

The directive requires ISPs and phone companies to keep data on every electronic message sent or phone call made for between six months and two years and has been criticised as a threat to the personal privacy of European citizens.

The directive states that Telecoms providers have to keep data including: the time of each fixed and mobile phone call made in Europe, whether the call is answered or not, the duration of the call and other details that can trace the caller, as well as times users connect to the internet, their IP addresses and details pertaining to emails and VoIP calls.
The content of the communications will not be recorded.

well, if they want to monitor illegal downloading, that last sentence is bull!

Another phorm of 'legal' invasion of privacy!!!

I mean when it comes to Pedos and Terrorist I'm all for it.. but I don't like the idea of me being monitored... Jesus .. threat either way

[DieDieMyDarling]

Originally Posted by Shhh_quiet

I mean when it comes to Pedos and Terrorist I'm all for it.. but I don't like the idea of me being monitored... Jesus .. threat either way

This is the problem with inhibiting privacy and freedom, it's so bloody easy to push new laws through, under the guise of stopping paedophiles and terrorists.

Too many people just think 'well i've nothing to hide', and don't realise until it's too late that it's a much bigger issue than that.

[bigalt]

If they can tell what website you are looking at then surely all the child porn sites and users should be identified and prosecuted.

Originally Posted by bigalt

If they can tell what website you are looking at then surely all the child porn sites and users should be identified and prosecuted.

That's a good point actually

Originally Posted by artnada

And how are they going to know that you are downloading legally?

Not sure TBH.... we'll have to wait and see how this may be done?

[starsailor123]

Originally Posted by Digital Fanantic

That's a good point actually

Agreed

However if they could do that then surely thes "pervert" sites would be closed down or at least banned at the ISP level which they don't appear to do effectively.

If thy could provide such accurate information then closure of current pirateers would be easy to find

The BPI will not accept anything less than that anyway and I expect this is a smokescreen

a) by a discredited government who preach law and order but release terrorists and lock up old age pensioners over council tax payment problems.

b) by VM This has all the hallmarks of a diversionary tactic to offset the criticism of phorm by eventually saying we have to do it anyway so phorm is not doing anythingover and above that

Stinks!

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by DieDieMyDarling

This is the problem with inhibiting privacy and freedom, it's so bloody easy to push new laws through, under the guise of stopping paedophiles and terrorists.

Too many people just think 'well i've nothing to hide', and don't realise until it's too late that it's a much bigger issue than that.

ID cards and CCTV cameras spring to mind here.

[tommyd1258]

In the future the almighty leader of the country will have an enormous office full of cameras inside everybody's home.