It really is quite offensive that people who wouldn't even know what a TRANSISTOR looks like, yet understands the concept of the internet protocol, are telling the technical community how to run technology.
Time to tell the f***ing lawyers and business men how to do their f***ing jobs. I'm sick to f***ing death of being told how to do mine by intellectually inferior scum.
take that as a vote of little, or no, confidence ?
The lawyers have told no one how to do their jobs. It's the politicians that brought the law in, not the lawyers.
As for the DEA conflicting with EU law, the whole point of the decision was that it doesn't. Not yet at least.
can take it that such commentary is part of the reason why the DEA was passed in the first place.
Is a problem
Ditto this for a lot of ethics issues in biology - notably stem cells.
Hmm, EU vs UK
Bigger trumps smaller in this case :-)
Directives don't apply
Companies don't have to follow EU directives so the ISPs are not in a legal bind.
EU governments are required to enact local laws to implement EU directives, and companies are required to follow the law as enacted.
If a government fails to implement a directive then the EU can take action against that government.
I'm wondering, as a sub-codemonkey dabbler
How long would it take to rejig the protocols (the UDP based uTorrent Protocol, for example) to get around this? With encryption the payload would be incomprehensible, so must surely be treated as innocent?
As for monitoring swarms and whatnot, that's a different kettle of fish that I'll chew over when I haven't been awake 36 hours.
Paris just beacause I felt like it.
@ Suburban Inmate
It ought to be fairly easy to jiggle the protocol to use encryption. Just as it would be easy to extend this pathetic farce to "Largish download from a Chinese server? YOU'RE NICKED!". After all, what the hell could you want to download from China? Prove it wasn't movies, with you *alone* responsible for a $3bn deficit in media sales budget over the last six months, blah blah...
Encryption != Anonymity
That's the problem. uTorrent will already encrypt traffic between peers. You get caught because you're on the tracker.
I guess something that might work is allowing peers to proxify their connection to the tracker, and then negotiate a peer-to-peer connection afterwards. This of course would rely on the assumption that rights holders are too idle to connect to the peers themselves (which they are at the moment, that's why pensioners who don't know what bittorrent is got fingered by ACS:LAW).
In terms of blocking downloading copyrighted files with dpi, you're right, encryption won't work; that stands for something as simple as password protecting a .rar file.
BT and TalkTalk arguing for customer privacy?
With hypocrisy like that, its no wonder they lost.
Which is a pity, because the DEA is an appalling piece of fascism.
Yes but what is the real reason...
Just because they arguing about 'certain copyright infringement portions' doesn't mean that is the part they don't like.
Could there another portion of the act which makes it illegal to sell customer browsing habits perhaps.
Say for example 'should a customer be accused of piracy then their data falls into a special category which cannot be sold for profit'.
Not that something being illegal ever stopped them before.
An appalling piece of facism
Yes, it is indeed, perhaps the fact that even BT and Guff Guff don't want Mandelson's parting act of evil should tell the worthless vermin infesting Westminster that they should rip up the DEA. The voters who put them there don't want it and the corporates who bought them don't want it.
Well were safe now !!!
i mean common seriously
Your not worried about BT or talk Talk actually having the ability to catch any of us are you ??
On the one hand you have the public. You know, the whining sods who cause problems.
On the other hand you have the BPI, MPAA, RIAA etc. You know, the very nice people who bought that sumptuous dinner, tickets for football games and promised you that nice job if the public boot you out on your ear.
Who do you think they are voting in favour of?
Music corporations will die no matter what they do, and they seem to want to *uck up much of the new technology along the way.
What they don't seem to understand is, times change, and they will go the way of the candle or match makers.
They've had a good run, but the cow is dying of old age, stop milking it and just let it go.
in the 50's 60's 70's and even the 80's there wasn't much to do in the home, so music was a big part of the entertainment, but now look at what we have.
and after reading about a 70 odd year old man and woman jailed for 2 years for writing to their grandson, I've lost all respected for the law
not sure about this
There's this: http://current.com/news-and-politics/88858559_help-them-pensioner-jailed-2-years-writing-to-grandson.htm
But there's not a lot to back it up. I can't view the youtube clip from here, but I'd expect there to be rather more coverage :S
Hard to say
Audio on youtube clip is b0rked for me, but what it looks like is the grandson was 'taken' by the Children and Families Court Advisory service (CAFCASS) and presumably some sort of injunction granted against contacting the child
In which case, whilst harsh, I could see how they'd end up locked up if they were viewed as repeat offenders. Strange though, especially as 99% of the links on that page don't load
You know what the solution is, right?
Just keep on piratin' until the "artists" lobby (read: guy who screws the artists lobby) can't afford lobbyists and then watch the laws change.
Don't ever let anyone tell you they work in the music industry. The Music industry said free music on the radio would kill the industry decades ago - there still is free music on the radio - therefore the music industry must be dead.