Virgin-Universal deal may hit 'persistent' file sharers
The U.K.'s Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis, using information provided to it by Universal Music.
The ISP announced on Monday that it would, before Christmas, launch an all-you-can-eat music download service for its users, based on a monthly subscription fee. The tracks will all be DRM-free.
"In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network," a statement read. "This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives. They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access."
Virgin pointed out that "no customers will be permanently disconnected and the process will not depend on network monitoring or interception of customer traffic by Virgin Media."
A spokeswoman for Virgin told ZDNet UK on Monday that the suspensions "could be as little as five minutes, an hour or a day." She said the idea of suspensions was very much in the process of being worked out -- they may not even happen -- and would only be launched on a "trial" basis.
As for how Virgin will know which persistent file sharers it should be suspending, the spokeswoman said this knowledge would be derived from information coming from the record company.
Universal will use technology from the Danish antipiracy firm DTecNet to scour file-sharing networks -- not Virgin's own network -- and log the IP addresses of "persistent" file sharers, along with the time of the transfers in question. That information will go back to Virgin, who will use it to identify the file sharer and begin warning them of possible action that could be taken against them.
DTecNet has already been working with U.K. content companies for some time to do much the same thing, and is also working with RIAA in the United States.
Virgin's spokeswoman did not give any further details of the number of warnings a persistent file sharer would get, the exact pricing of the music service (although ZDNet UK understands it will be somewhere around the cost of two CDs a month) or which other record companies Virgin is in talks with regarding a similar service.
For the latest on the the furious debate going on about file sharing and Net neutrality in Europe right now, check out this story we posted last week.
David Meyer of ZDNet UK reported from London.
And i think the all-you-can-eat music store is a great idea, move in the right direction.
But the suspension thing might be a little harsh for first times. (and worse if it is out of their control, hacking / leeching wi-fi)
I think a better method would be to redirect all pages to a page notifying them that their connection will be slowed down for X minutes because there is suspected illegal file sharing. (say, 256k speeds)
If this continues, the block times double each time. Slow-down times reset each month.
If it gets to the point where people are being slowed for days on end, then that is their problem.(they were warned on the page)
Obviously help guides would be on the notification page with help for those that might have their connection hijacked, etc.
This isn't as harsh, but it would certainly annoy people because they still have a connection, but it is slow.
Suspensions are more than likely to just force people away from them.
Still, it won't change anything anyway. Piracy will still happen because the industry forced people into it by refusing to adapt to the Internet.
People are just accustomed to getting online, downloading some song and that is it, they don't know any better because there hasn't really been anything better until all these online stores started popping up recently.
This is for music only, it does not appear to cover video content.
Its only the universal catalog, what about the other publishers, will they get their slice from this or will each publisher want their own fee for unlimited downloads.
I would expect that the response to this will be that the new "all you can eat" service will be taken down by hackers in DDOS attacks, and perhaps the ISP itself will be attacked in a similar manner. We've all already heard rumblings of this on forums.
The problem with these types of proposals to cut off internet access is that history has shown that it will be very difficult for a customer to get their reputations, accounts and access cleared. I can see a likely outcome where a person is engaged in lawful filesharing, but because a third party reporting company mistook that activity as illegal, the RIAA or other interested parties report this to the ISP who then disconnect the user. At that point, how does that user get their connection back? Do they have to file a counter claim? Do they have to rely on the ISP to investigate or will they be required to exonerate themselves? And what recourse will they have against those who made the false claim in the first place?
And while we're on the subject of false claims, you know that under man these proposed systems of punishing filesharers, any given person is at risk of having the internet connection severed due to someone filing a false claim against you... yes, even you will be at risk! Unless the requirements for evidence of illegal filesharing are deemed to need be more than merely compelling, more than just circumstantial, more than just hearsay, than the system will be abused and abused with great fervor.
I am greatly dismayed that people are so willing to merely allow these things to take place without first considering the impact.
*On Youtube.com, for instance, you yourself could pretend to be a copyright holder, file a DMCA claim against another user's content, and youtube must pull that content down. The only recourse the copyright holder has at that point is to file a counter claim, which can take weeks to be settled AND requires the use to reveal personal information such as name, address and telephone number. Furthermore, you could file 3 DMCA claims against the same user and youtube will suspend that user first and ask questions later. After that point it's very difficult to get a user account reinstated. Do you also want this to be the system by which you as an internet user must do in order to get your connection reinstated?
The labels just want to avoid due process by cutting off any defense or appeal from the people they accuse. The E.U has already said cutting people's internet off based on little more than an accusation is a violation of people's rights.
I myself until recently mostly Illegally obtained my music as I was not satisfied with Itunes. Since Amazon has opened up it's MP3 service which seems to show good promise for representing the diversity of artists well, I am now commited to offering my support to artists financially.
I have Always tried to contribute well in buying DVD ect Movies but do at times P2P up the odd movie. The reason being that I am more interested in making sure there is enough capital around for great movies to be made but as time goes on and the ability to make great movies shifts over to lower budgets I will be looking to spread my contributions and may use P2P services as a means of protest if I feel problems with under representation.
I see my actions as well measured and fair but I do use P2P for a growing number of more legitimate activities and for people who earn less the cost of content is unfair and therefore one can see at times over-regulation as potentially both counter productive and very discriminatory towards lesser paid individuals.
People With the right encouragement will contribute to good work from artists and the statistical facts speak for themselves, forcing the hand of consumers has always to date lead to the unnecessary and usually counter productive criminalisation of consumers.
For example It's more important that the Universal group works on it's quality and diversity of content production and ability to work well with different revenue streams and places itself well in the market than simply holding consumers to account with more extreme measures.
If your talking about the system of justice then the best form of justice is one that targets very persistent offenders who pose a high degree of danger to other people not simply people who are bit mischievous.
The fact remains that most people when offered a good well placed market options tend to support that market well and monopolization of a market is actually considered illegal if you ask me so should polarisation in Government and Business also be Illegal as it's potentially just as damaging to the Desired Anarchic dynamics of true market wishes but it's not so well there we go.
I would expect that the response to this will be that the new "all you can eat" service will be taken down by hackers in DDOS attacks, and perhaps the ISP itself will be attacked in a similar manner. We've all already heard rumblings of this on forums.
Worth a shot, and seems less threatening.
- by cseppo June 17, 2009 2:51 AM PDT
- Technically possible does not translate into ok, free, cool or morally acceptable. I support cutting the connection (and electricity, telephone and heat if possible) for the illegal file sharing wussies.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)