BT handed 100,000 file-sharer's IP addresses from BPI

The BPI have accused BT of not doing enough to prevent music piracy, after handing them 100,000 IP addresses of users allegedly caught sharing copyrighted files, according to an article by TorrentFreak posted yesterday.

BT said it could cost ISPs £365m a year to take action against piracy, although the chief executive of the BPI, Geoff Taylor, claims that BT's figures are exaggerated. The BPI said it was "shameful" that BT had nothing about the 100,000 IP addresses it gave them, however chief of BT's consumer division, John Petter, said that taking such action could cost £365m a year, a whole £165m more than what the BPI claims the music industry will lose this year, due to piracy.

However, just as BT labelled the BPI's figures for losses as "melodramatic", the BPI has claimed that BT's figures are also exaggerated, implying that it would not cost as much to take the suggested action from the BPI. According to TorrentFreak, Geoff Taylor said to The Mirror, "It's shameful for a company like BT to know that a high percentage of the traffic it carries is illegal material but do nothing."

BT claim that the responsibility lies on the BPI, and that they should prosecute the alleged file-sharers. The BPI, however, state the opposite.

Although harvesting IP addresses is becoming a more common practise, until a decision is made on who holds the responsibility of prosecuting the pirates, not much progress can be made, in the UK, at least.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New Apple Tablet info surfaces

Next Story

GPU-Accelerated flash player in the works

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This "traffic" also passes through various routers/modems, so maybe the manufacturers of this equipment should be held responsible... The users responsible for downloading, can only do so because they have keyboards/mice/monitors etc, maybe those manufacturers should be held responsible, but then again, it's only possible because all these bits of technology are provided with electricity, so maybe the energy suppliers should be accountable?? or maybe these people can only steal from the starving mouths of homeless studio executives because they were born? Maybe they should outlaw having children, or maybe tax it???
Man, I really feel for people like Madonna or Will Smith, and their absolutely horrendous living conditions...
It's all down to our blame culture...

Don't think it is, the government have been talking about making it the ISP's responsibility, but being the useless shower they are nothing has been decided. So I think as it stands it would be up to the BPI to prosecute but they obviously wouldn't go after all 100,000 just choose a few to try and make an example of them.

Is BT supposed to just take the BPI's word for it that those IP addresses are accurate and actually belonged to file-sharers?

GreyWolfSC said,
Is BT supposed to just take the BPI's word for it that those IP addresses are accurate and actually belonged to file-sharers?

Exactly. Good point.

Easiest and best way to deal with those uploading and downloading illegal content is a ban.

Then they will have to piggy back an unsecured network like talktalk520 for example.

John Petter, said that taking such action could cost �365m a year, a whole �165m more than what the BPI claims

Its like two fisherman telling stories about who caught bigger fish with clear winner - one with wider hands.

Piracy Does not cost Companies, it can effect people trying to get into the music world but there are factors which way overwhelm that such as Companies taking looks over talent.

It is also a very good tool for advertising, you download a song you put it on your ipod your mum hears it she buys the cd etc

It's not stealing it's Copying and has huge huge advertising, the dark knight most Pirated film ever, also the most profitable.

When will they companies learn that these stunts do nothing except **** off tones of people who get charged who are a tiny, tiny proportion of the warez community. Why should Governments care as well al money has to go somewhere so if there is a poor family of 5 and their son downloads music they still spend on food etc which has tax on it and will be able to enjoy a higher quality of life opposed to the family having no/little music and less food etc meaning they get possibly depressed and get kicked out of work, meaning that the Governments are not looking to give people a better quality of life but to pathetically work in favour of the companies who have no clue what they are doing.

If it's costing the film industry so much they stop paying they super actors millions every year and stop making a ****ty movie and pumping in will millions of cgi a very very good film can be made for £15m it doesn't take £200m to make a good film most often the time.

Island Dog said,
It is stealing regardless of what lame excuse you make. ;)


Im just going to say lawl to this. Its not stealing, how can you steal something that isn't physical. Its not theft its infringement.....

Shirosaki said,
Im just going to say lawl to this. Its not stealing, how can you steal something that isn't physical. Its not theft its infringement.....


Well the 'copying' devil seems to have stolen your soul!
By the way I'd like to thank all 'copyists' for making me jobless. I've never been happier or more grateful, perhaps if Mr Polanski is also deemed 'innocent' I will be able to look forward to some legal paedophilia in my old age......

BavonWW said,
Well the 'copying' devil seems to have stolen your soul!
By the way I'd like to thank all 'copyists' for making me jobless. I've never been happier or more grateful, perhaps if Mr Polanski is also deemed 'innocent' I will be able to look forward to some legal paedophilia in my old age......

Im sorry but no devil has touched my soul.

Im the person that if I download it and like it, I buy it. But what's the point? All the money just goes to the fat cat RIAA/etc Overlords, giving them more money to sue and abuse. And then it just gives pennies to the artist. I suppose thats why I like independent music better, goes straight to the artist.

Its coined as theft, but it is technically copyright infringement,... even if you own the material if you are torrenting its still aiding or abetting the criminal activity which is itself is a crime.

mmck said,
Its coined as theft, but it is technically copyright infringement,... even if you own the material if you are torrenting its still aiding or abetting the criminal activity which is itself is a crime.

Its not a criminal offense, its a civil offense

"It is not BT that is responsible as the service provider, it is the owner of the content that is responsible"

actually its Your responsibility, if you read the Terms and conditions of the contract you have with your ips it will state
you are not allowed to access illegal content or some thing along those lines.

if you download illegal files from the internet and get caught dont blame the isp.

You misread his comment, he said that it's not the responsibility of the service provider to initiate investigations into the theft, it's the responsibility of the content owner. He said nothing to do with responsibility for the actual theft.

So -1, to both of you, for lack of reading comprehension...

In fact, now that I think about taking "responsibility" for crimes being commited, something springs to mind. With the UKs Data Protection Act, I would be very surprised if BT could legally hand over identifiable personal data without warrant even if they wanted to, I'm pretty sure that would be very illegal. I think that the BPI are actually showing some pretty shady behavior here.

If I have a ford card, and someone steels it, is it the supplier of the car that is responsible for instigating the police to investigate the theft or is the the car owner? It is not BT that is responsible as the service provider, it is the owner of the content that is responsible.

As I said and as will always say, the movie industry, actors, record companies and the artists have no one to blame but themseleves, they charge absurd's amount of money, think they are better than everyone else. Well I have news for them, they are human being's, that provide nothing to society. THink about or emergency services, who risk their lives day in and day out, to help other human's and get paid peanuts for doing such.

The equivalent group in Australia thinks the same thing, that ISPs should be acting as police. They are suing an ISP over it right now. It's all crap. The ISP should only take action once ordered to do so by a court or police.

BPI should be disbanded along with IFPA, RIAA and every other 3rd party bs "industry group" feeding on rubbish IP and accept times and media is changing not in their favour so no point trying to mow a 1000 acre wheat field with a push lawn mower.

Its not the ISP's job to police the internet to the same extent that its not the car companies job to track people speeding in their cars. If the BPI want to prosecute file-sharers, then its their job to do so, not a job to pawn off on the ISPs.

The ISPs could do it if there was a financial incentive to do so, but for the BPI to say "Help us, it will save your souls but cost you £300 million" doesn't really give them much incentive now does it?

Why must these cartels organisations be so foolish? If they actually had a clue what they were talking about (i.e. hiring advisors and experts) then they might be able to do something about pirates, or at least develop a way (e.g. Spotify) to combat piracy.

On a separate note, what use are these IP addresses, I thought it was already well established that IP addresses aren't personally identifiable?

Depends on if the ISP keep records matching the IP's to the MAC address of your registered device on their network (if using cable). If using DSL then the PPPoE login will log your logon to an IP address which is easily tracked back. Any ISP has this ability although some of them, as we see here, don't do it or don't do it well.

Tim Dawg said,
Depends on if the ISP keep records matching the IP's to the MAC address of your registered device on their network (if using cable). If using DSL then the PPPoE login will log your logon to an IP address which is easily tracked back. Any ISP has this ability although some of them, as we see here, don't do it or don't do it well.


how does that work with BT?, the logon for every user is "home@btbroadband.com" (or something like that) you dont actually need to authenticate anything @btbroadband.com will connect you on bts adsl

Midgetman said,
how does that work with BT?, the logon for every user is "home@btbroadband.com" (or something like that) you dont actually need to authenticate anything @btbroadband.com will connect you on bts adsl

You log in, and you are given an IP address. Your modem has a MAC code. As Tim Dawg says, the two are logged, and if required by a court order all traffic going to your IP+MAC can be monitored.

Midgetman said,
how does that work with BT?, the logon for every user is "home@btbroadband.com" (or something like that) you dont actually need to authenticate anything @btbroadband.com will connect you on bts adsl


As Fish said, your login has nothing at all to do with it. Your modem's MAC address is registered with your ISP, and tied to your actual account information. When you connect, that MAC address is assigned an IP address.

If it were up to the idiots in charge, like Mandelson then it would be the ISP's responsibility. Fortunately they'll be kicked out before they can implement it.

UHYVE said,
You guys sure that it's to do with your MAC address? Because that's crazy easy to spoof.


besides the mac address, they know the physical phone line which goes into your home... im sure that they look at which DSL circuit you are on rather than looking at the mac address in the packets...

So removing these people from the Internet will do what exactly? They'll only try something else to get what they want.

Tony. said,
So removing these people from the Internet will do what exactly? They'll only try something else to get what they want.

they wont do anything, people will just got to other providers.

Soldiers33 said,
they wont do anything, people will just got to other providers.


or use wireless dongles. you don't supply any information to activate them.

I'm sure you can top up anon also. Can't remember.

babyHacker said,
So we should get rid of police officers because they will not stop all murders? I love this argument which people keep coming up with.

What percentage of people in the WHOLE WORLD are murderers? Now, what percentage of people in the whole world are FILE SHARERS? Find a better analogy, at least! Your comparing a minority to a majority.

babyHacker said,
So we should get rid of police officers because they will not stop all murders? I love this argument which people keep coming up with.

Yes, because downloading a few MP3's or movies = murder.

Ji@nBing said,
Yes, because downloading a few MP3's or movies = murder.

to the music industry it is
i wonder how much money is wasted on fighting piracy, that could be used for important things

What? It is not murder, it may damage them but it is not 'murder to the music industry'. As you used the word 'wasted', I assume you think the money spending is pointless eh?

m not really sure where you stand.

Our prison systems can't cope with all of them. May as well turn a blind eye to it.

Has it got to the point where so many people do something illegal, that nothing can be done?

Protection in numbers.

barteh said,
they aint going to send you to prison for downloading music/movies, we're talking steep fines.


and if you don't / can't pay the fine?

Yup, when so many people are breaking the law it magically becomes legal. That's how it works. Also, we wear hats on our feet and hamburgers eat people.

C_Guy said,
Yup, when so many people are breaking the law it magically becomes legal. That's how it works. Also, we wear hats on our feet and hamburgers eat people.


I didn't say legal. I said "nothing can be done".

C_Guy said,
Yup, when so many people are breaking the law it magically becomes legal. That's how it works.


Actually, that's not too far off from how things do work. Laws are, by and large, based on public opinion. If enough people feel that a law is unjust, then they can certainly convince lawmakers to change the law. So stop brown-nosing the RIAA and MPAA.

roadwarrior is correct... in the UK even if something is "illegal" you won't be prosecuted if "the people" believe it is okay. Even with hard evidence of commiting a "crime" a jury is not bound to find the persons guilty.

Proof of committing an illegal act does not equal being guilty of committing a crime in the UK.

mmck said,
roadwarrior is correct... in the UK even if something is "illegal" you won't be prosecuted if "the people" believe it is okay. Even with hard evidence of commiting a "crime" a jury is not bound to find the persons guilty.

Bringing decisions based on morality into the courtroom? That outrageous!

It is indeed. I'm glad that, for once, BT aren't assuming that they're all guilty until proven innocent like the BPI want them to.

If the BPI were serious, they'd file with the court before getting the user's details. The BPI is utterly, utterly shameful in selectively choosing the cases it goes chooses. They choose the people least likely to be able to pay court fees, and those who are unlikely to have a grasp of the law so they pay up a huge settlement.


This is not on, and needs to change. http://pirateparty.org.uk