UK ISPs could notify users who infringe copyright by 2014

Piracy is something the government is keen on stopping, and under a draft code published today by UK communications regulator Ofcom, ISPs could be eligible to send warning letters to copyright infringers by 2014.

These letters would then tell the user that their activities are being monitored online and will also provide the user with a means of finding legal content.

Should users be caught infringing copyright three times within a 12 month period, copyright owners would then be able to request for anonymous information that could lead to one or many court orders forcing the ISP to reveal the identity of the user.

The Ofcom code also suggests that copyright holders would have to develop “attractive” licensed services, as well as informing potential customers the impact piracy can have in the software and entertainment industry.

If approved, the Ofcom code would affect 93% of the current UK broadband market. The code is going to be presented to Parliament by the end of the year.

Source: Ofcom

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

37 arrested in massive FBI cyber sting operation

Next Story

Giveaway: What would you do for a Microsoft Surface?

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

A good way to stop all this piracy stuff is to have tv shows (and some films) available within a 2 - 3 day of airing, not weeks or months afterwards. Minimal advert interruption and for that i'd sacrifice a bit of my browsing habbits (within reason) I.e More targetted advertising or something along those lines.

What's grabbing me here is all about stopping this and stopping that but not introducing viable alternatives or a push to something new or different.

Howcome there's no push to stop newsgroups which offering blisteringly fast speeds but you can argue its a little harder to find more reliable and complete rar's at times etc.

Sadly this was all invetiable when SOPA and CIPA were being pushed through in the USA and it was only going take time to trickle down. First bring in a law that allows in effect monitoring and snooping, follow that up with new laws for punishment and bingo.

Thankfully they can't monitor stuff within a VPN so that's where I'd be heading.

Personally I'd use Spotify if I got adverts and unlimited times to listen to a track, I wouldn't pay for the upgrade then but Im sure Id press ads from time to time


as well as informing potential customers the impact piracy can have in the software and entertainment industry

Well, I do hope Ofcom make damn sure that this information is actually true and factual, rather than the usual complete load of horse **** the big companies usually shovel.

I can tell you all that this so called "DRAFT CODE" published is bull crap, by which it simply means it that by 2014 (maybe even sooner) - it will be LAW, but get this SOME ISPs are already doing this and have been doing this for quite some time.

I really don't get this. This draft code, if anything, seems to actually make it HARDER, not easier for copyright holders to deal with infringers, which last time I checked was pretty much the opposite of what the DEA was about. Why would copyright holders approve of this?

What I mean is, under the current system, the copyright holder (CH) detects the infringement, provides evidence of this to a court, gets a court order requiring the ISP to divulge the details of the infringer, send nasty letters/sues said individual.

The 3 strikes in 12 months aspect of this code means that only if the user has been reported for infringement 3 times in 12 months will the court grant access to their details on "the list", otherwise they're safe.

The whole things seems rather pointless and like I said, I can't see why CH's would approve of infringers receiving extra protection, with seemingly nothing being given to them.

Unless of course the CH's are free to just bypass the whole thing if they so wish and approach the courts as they do now, getting a court order requiring the ISP to divulge the users information, rather than asking for details from "the list", in which case the whole thing is farce.

The fact that they're making people pay to get a hearing to prove their innocence is an absolute joke, and underpins one of the most fundamental parts of our democracy, that any person accused of a crime has a right to a fair trial and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If this comes close to making it to law you can bet i'll be firing an angry email off to my MP

Editor, your short description used on the main page uses legible instead of eligible. LOL.

It read fairly funny. Legible warning letters? No legalese? Awesome! Oh...

ScottDaMan said,
Editor, your short description used on the main page uses legible instead of eligible. LOL.

It read fairly funny. Legible warning letters? No legalese? Awesome! Oh...

I meant eligible - sorry about that, but it's fixed now. I've had such a long and slow day.

You know I'm actually really interested in the system that's apparently going to keep track and record all emails sent for 2 years, does this mean that FINALLY corrupt MPs that have private emails will get jail time and be caught? Oh, of course not. Oh well, not a bad time to start an encrypted mail service where only the users that sign up have their keys.

n_K said,
You know I'm actually really interested in the system that's apparently going to keep track and record all emails sent for 2 years, does this mean that FINALLY corrupt MPs that have private emails will get jail time and be caught? Oh, of course not. Oh well, not a bad time to start an encrypted mail service where only the users that sign up have their keys.

Here is your answer
https://www.hushmail.com/

I personally believe services like NetFlix, LoveFilm and Spotify are the answer for a lot of piracy. Certainly for me piracy has never been about money, its about the convenience. Why buy a film and wait 3-4 days for it to arrive or have to go out and buy it from a shop when you can download it and have it in less than an hour.

Streaming services like above are better quality than your average downloaded pirated movie and its instant.

Couldn't agree with you more. The thing that really annoys me is that users such as myself who don't infringe copyrights and stream films are penalised by "bandwidth shaping" which effectively renders streaming services useless at peak times - peak times being the evening!! I'm with Virgin Media who are applying bandwidth shaping and at the same time blocking The Pirate Bay. Maybe its time to use a local ISP again?

Bandwidth shaping isn't a policy put in place to combat piracy, it's to ensure an even quality of service.
Just because it's legal content doesn't mean it's OK to hog all the bandwidth :>

hotdog963al said,
Bandwidth shaping isn't a policy put in place to combat piracy, it's to ensure an even quality of service.
Just because it's legal content doesn't mean it's OK to hog all the bandwidth :>

What about having ISP INVESTING some of their profits to improve the infrastructures and be able to stand by what they advertise to customers? This is the same as US: they want the profits but not to invest in what generates the profits....... much easier to pour money to lobbyists. So shortsighted and dumb.

"The Ofcom code also suggests that copyright holders would have to develop “attractive” licensed services."

...Please, go on

When will copyright holders realize there is a worldwide market and not a regional market anymore?

srbeen said,
"The Ofcom code also suggests that copyright holders would have to develop “attractive” licensed services."

...Please, go on

When will copyright holders realize there is a worldwide market and not a regional market anymore?

The same day people start realizing that heavy handed copyright laws makes things as bad as they aim to fix

Copyright laws today seem to be much too one sided, while I agree that creator's rights must be respected, I also think that my consumer and fair use/dealings rights must also be respected, and effective copyright law must take into account both

srbeen said,
"The Ofcom code also suggests that copyright holders would have to develop “attractive” licensed services."

...Please, go on

I watched the debate in the house of lords when the DEA was being considered, and government was using Spotify as an example of a legal alternative to file-sharing. And now that the bill has passed, the MAFIAA are trying to kill Spotify and any service which resembles it. They don't want those kinds of services, they want to continue to operate a cartel where they decide the price and supply of all music. Basically anti-freemarket, and the UK government gladly aided them in that quest.

And even if Spotifylike free services did flourish unhindered by the copyright lobby, why should we be forced into using only services that a cartel or government approves of?

McKay said,
Would they actually know what you're downloading? Or just that you're downloading a torrent?

Yes of course they know exactly what you're downloading. They know what you clicked on how you got there and everything else you do online.

stevember said,

Yes of course they know exactly what you're downloading. They know what you clicked on how you got there and everything else you do online.

Not if you use DNS encryption and HTTPS (HTTPS-Everywhere Firefox plugin) on every site you visit. Even DPI can't break into that.

I also use full stream encryption and blocklists on my torrent client. That won't stop anti-file sharing companies from recording your IP for the MAFIAA completely though. But I'm not going to make it easy for them

We really need some way to obfuscate our IP addresses on bittorrent. A system like TOR is too slow though. A VPN will work, but even that can be traced back.

McKay said,
Would they actually know what you're downloading? Or just that you're downloading a torrent?

ISP's wouldn't keep track of that specifically. Plus you can use full stream encryption. However the MAFIAA use companies that employ bots to harvest IP addresses from bittorrent swarms, and in some cases even interdiction.

simplezz said,

ISP's wouldn't keep track of that specifically. Plus you can use full stream encryption. However the MAFIAA use companies that employ bots to harvest IP addresses from bittorrent swarms, and in some cases even interdiction.

In transmission you can add a blacklist like I have which stops companies from grabbing IP's because it will block them from becoming peers etc, also u can select options to download from trusted peers

Hackersoft MS MVP said,
Sounds like Britain is turning into the United Kingdom of China.

So we should stop tracking people to stop people who watch child porn or promote terrorism online?

DrakeN2k said,

So we should stop tracking people to stop people who watch child porn or promote terrorism online?


Do they currently track every person in the UK just incase they might watch child porn or go to a terrorist website?

Hackersoft MS MVP said,

Do they currently track every person in the UK just incase they might watch child porn or go to a terrorist website?

In the UK there is a voluntary block list that ISPs sign up to, done by the Internet watch foundation, who are a self regulatory body that block sites that are considered to distribute child pornography. This is very controversial considering that on one occasion they blocked some of 4chan's image servers, as well as blocking some of Wikipedia's servers effectively breaking them for the day.

There are also laws coming into place such as a policy where you have to opt in to seeing adult content on the Internet. This unfortunately was caused by a bunch of soccer moms pushing for politicians to do their parenting for them.

Censorship of obscene content is rich in British culture, which all comes round to the offcom regulatory body that regulates television and radio and other broadcasting technologies. They have been doing their job for years ever since public broadcasting came about. The excuse that is usually used with any of these censorship regulations usually always boil down to "we are doing it for the children".

welcome to Britain. The true nanny nation.

As afun fact. Britain is still technically a monarchy, and the Queen still has a say in what does and does not pass.

The More You Know! *+.*.+.*==-_-=

DrakeN2k said,

So we should stop tracking people to stop people who watch child porn or promote terrorism online?

WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

Yeah that's the same argument every government uses just before a power grab. Terrorism is likewise a pawn to be used to rescind the liberties and rights of the people.

Perhaps instead energy should be directed at why people view child pornography in such large numbers, why people commit acts of terrorism, or why people file share. But I suppose those questions are too uncomfortable to ask. Let's just whack a mole instead - I'm sure that will solve those issues eventually...

DrakeN2k said,

So we should stop tracking people to stop people who watch child porn or promote terrorism online?

Sounds like my weekend.

Ad Man Gamer said,

As afun fact. Britain is still technically a monarchy, and the Queen still has a say in what does and does not pass.

Both right and wrong. We ARE a monarchy, but the only political power the queen really has is the open/closing/dissolving of parliament. The monarchy has ZERO say in what laws are implemented.

They're figureheads, nothing more. A means to pull in tourism.

FloatingFatMan said,

Both right and wrong. We ARE a monarchy, but the only political power the queen really has is the open/closing/dissolving of parliament. The monarchy has ZERO say in what laws are implemented.

They're figureheads, nothing more. A means to pull in tourism.

Oh god you're confused. The Queen usually does not intervene but she can so it's wrong to say she has zero say.

FloatingFatMan said,
Nope, wrong. She has no political power other than the ability to dissolve parliament and force a general election.
I'm American so forgive my ignorance with your political system however, if she can dissolve parliament and force a general election - isn't that political power?

That would be the equivalent to our president having the ability to dissolve congress to force an election. Here that would be bad. Every time a president wanted something passed he could just wipe out the entire legislative branch to get other people in. It would be a constant game (already is actually). Do what I, the president, says or I will force all of you out.

To me, that's political power.

Well, yes and no. It's the ONLY political power she really has; and if it were ever used, the monarch that did it would likely have to abdicate.

It's mainly something that's on the books but will never happen.

Mystiia said,
In a democracy you'd get to vote on bills such as these, pity we're not...

You did, you voted for the Tory party or at least many people did. They promised they would get rid of bills like this because they were infringing on our rights and people believed them. Hopefully people learn their lesson about the Tory party.

Mystiia said,
In a democracy you'd get to vote on bills such as these, pity we're not...

You did, you voted for the Tory party or at least many people did. They promised they would get rid of bills like this because they were infringing on our rights and people believed them. Hopefully people learn their lesson about the Tory party.

stevember said,

You did, you voted for the Tory party or at least many people did. They promised they would get rid of bills like this because they were infringing on our rights and people believed them. Hopefully people learn their lesson about the Tory party.

I didn't vote.

Any other party would do the same...

A democracy should be a vote on bills/laws rather than a vote for rich ********ers.

stevember said,

You did, you voted for the Tory party or at least many people did. They promised they would get rid of bills like this because they were infringing on our rights and people believed them. Hopefully people learn their lesson about the Tory party.

Better than voting for Labour who run the country into money problems every time they get in. Its a sick circle of Conservatives being tight with public funding, people get annoyed and vote in Labour who then go sponge it all Robin Hood style at which point we start over.

Mystiia said,

I didn't vote.

Any other party would do the same...

A democracy should be a vote on bills/laws rather than a vote for rich ********ers.

You did not vote so you have no say. If nobody voted in an election what will happen ?

DrakeN2k said,

You did not vote so you have no say. If nobody voted in an election what will happen ?

So because I didn't vote for them, I'm not allowed to have and express my opinion. I thought it'd be the other way around, how can you talk if you voted them in and now they're peddling this ****.

If nobody voted?.. No rich ********er?.. I honestly don't know what would happen because the likely-hood of that happening is at the maximum 0%.

Mystiia said,

So because I didn't vote for them, I'm not allowed to have and express my opinion. I thought it'd be the other way around, how can you talk if you voted them in and now they're peddling this ****.

If nobody voted?.. No rich ********er?.. I honestly don't know what would happen because the likely-hood of that happening is at the maximum 0%.

I also didn't vote, as I believe irs absolutely worthless. The same policies push through and the same actions are taken. The whole thing is pantomime. A complex society should be determined by a system of smaller individual votes, we didn't even get to vote on EU membership. It should not come down to all the options falling into 3 baskets, with us having to choose one.

duddit2 said,

I also didn't vote, as I believe irs absolutely worthless. The same policies push through and the same actions are taken. The whole thing is pantomime. A complex society should be determined by a system of smaller individual votes, we didn't even get to vote on EU membership. It should not come down to all the options falling into 3 baskets, with us having to choose one.


This.

GS:mac

duddit2 said,

I also didn't vote, as I believe irs absolutely worthless. The same policies push through and the same actions are taken. The whole thing is pantomime. A complex society should be determined by a system of smaller individual votes, we didn't even get to vote on EU membership. It should not come down to all the options falling into 3 baskets, with us having to choose one.

+1

stevember said,

You did, you voted for the Tory party or at least many people did. They promised they would get rid of bills like this because they were infringing on our rights and people believed them. Hopefully people learn their lesson about the Tory party.

This legislation would put in place by labour's extremely corrupt Lord Mandelson before the last election so the labour is as guilty as the coalition parties on this one.

Mystiia said,
In a democracy you'd get to vote on bills such as these, pity we're not...

In a representative democracy, the only people who are listened to are lobbyists with big chequebooks. It's a sad but true reality.

There's hope though. Once things get bad enough, the people will rise up and topple the current system. Let's just hope we don't trade one tyrant for another as has happened with the Arab Spring.

duddit2 said,

I also didn't vote, as I believe irs absolutely worthless. The same policies push through and the same actions are taken. The whole thing is pantomime. A complex society should be determined by a system of smaller individual votes, we didn't even get to vote on EU membership. It should not come down to all the options falling into 3 baskets, with us having to choose one.

All you people who didn't vote do realise you are basically ignored, you would actually do better to submit a spoiled ballot as these are counted seperately and taken note of.

DrakeN2k said,

You did not vote so you have no say. If nobody voted in an election what will happen ?

We'd rid ourselves of the power hungry lunatics and live in peace as anarchists #BeingSerious fyi anarchy != riots

Teebor said,

All you people who didn't vote do realise you are basically ignored, you would actually do better to submit a spoiled ballot as these are counted seperately and taken note of.

All of you people that did vote are being ignored also. So who are the dumb ones here?

Teebor said,

All you people who didn't vote do realise you are basically ignored, you would actually do better to submit a spoiled ballot as these are counted seperately and taken note of.


I vote, but I agree with the rest of what he said.

GS:mac