Porn foresworn.
List of names of Anna Raccoon customers who also appear on the list to be released by O2.
Much swooning in the sticky socked marshes of Internet land this morning. I am bemused by the outrage.
Now tell me – would you boycott Tesco’s for the crime of handing a shop lifter over to the police? Do you refuse to have anything more to do with the Dole office because a benefit cheat has been named and shamed to Plod? Will you never eat another MacDonald’s because they handed over to Police a ‘customer’ who had frequently made off with his cholester-burger without paying week after week? In fact, if you’re really into the land of anarchism and free-for-all lifestyle, would you refuse to buy your drugs from a dealer who had, ahem, ensured that a non-paying customer got his just deserts?
If so, perhaps you could explain to me the outrage behind the news that O2 are complying with a court order – not voluntarily – to hand over the name and addresses of customers who had frequented their ‘shop’ in order to steal goods belonging to one of their suppliers? The goods were, in this case, copyrighted films, the property of someone who had paid to produce them for sale, and which were subsequently stolen via the premises of O2. O2 know who the thieves were, and the court has ordered them to had over that information to the unpaid supplier, so that he can invoice them for payment.
This has resulted in a torrent (sic) of bad publicity for O2 with blogger after blogger denouncing them as ‘spineless’, and announcing that they will never frequent their ‘shop’ again. I really don’t get the logic, do these people also support the theft of their second hand Nike shoes, sold via e-Bay to raise the money for the latest pair? Should e-Bay refuse to name and shame the thief, leaving the past owner out of pocket?
The issue is further complicated by the fact that the product in this case was not a pair of Nike shoes, but pornographic films. I can understand that it is bad enough being named as a thief, and being named as a thief of pornographic films is considerably more embarrassing, but surely the onus is on you to pay for the goods in the first place if you wish to avoid such embarrassment?
Still, 9,124 lucky O2 IP customers will get a bill through the door, addressed to whoever pays the broadband bill (let’s hope it’s their wife, eh?) for the cost of porn downloaded on that connection, and will have to scurry round to prove that it wasn’t them. Oh no, yer honour, it was a disreputable fellow standing outside their house stealing their broadband in order to watch ‘Big Girls meet the Rugby Players’ at 1am last Saturday.
Why does the Blogosphere (in general) believe that Porn film makers should supply them with their midnight entertainment free of charge? Do the actors not have a right to earn money for their labour? It is arduous work after all. Where does this belief that it should all be free come from, and why the opprobrium for those who comply with a court order when it is stolen?
March 28, 2012 at 23:19
-
I thought the law was hazy but in essence the copyright laws are not up to
speed with the technology. I was under the impression that downloading the
file was not the crime, but rather the uploading of the file. In the case of
movies and music I have heard much bleating for years about piracy, yet
apparently those who seem to download the most are the ones who also buy the
most. I hardly listen to music any more but in my youth we listened to tapes
of bands on the Peel show – then paid to go to their concerts, bought their
t-shirts and their posters, and bought the records. I do frequent the cinema
now ( and am sick to death of the FACT ad), but spend too much time on the
puter or at work now to watch DVD’s – and films like transformers or anything
with Aniston in predominate, so I am hardly likely to waste the bandwidth on
bootlegging them. To what extent does “piracy” deprive artists of revenue and
to what extent does it build an audience? Isnt much music legitimately on
YouTube or the radio? Doesnt just about every ( non porn ) film find its way
onto the TV eventually – where you can tape it legally?
Surely the problem with porn however, is that there is a stigma in watching
it/ paying for it. The fact that blackmail threats are being made is the
interesting facett of this particular story. There seems to be a huge
explosion in the industry in recent years – yet the internet is a threat to
its very existence? Does the internet build an audience or what? I am reminded
of the perhaps urban myth of the fraud where people pay to buy a vibrator. The
goods are not supplied but a refund drawn on the “Giant Dildo Company” cheque
account is sent back to customers who are then reluctant to bank that
refund.
Perhaps a copyright law needs to be enacted which keeps up with the times.
But perhaps Ben Dover also needs to find a way of extracting money for his
stuff that users and producers are happy with. The world was happy to pay a
few dollars a month to megaupload. Should he not spend his time setting up a
ligit service like that instead of blackmailing people?
- March 29, 2012 at 09:39
-
“I was under the impression that downloading the file was not the crime,
but rather the uploading of the file. ”
The downloading of the file may be a civilly actionable (under s96)
breach of copyright under s17(2) CD&P88. The uploading of the file would
fall under s20(2)b of the same act, which is a criminal offence under
s107(1)(e) or (2A)
- March 28, 2012 at 13:18
-
Another problem here is intent and knowledge. When it comes to blockbuster
films it ought to be obvious that the IP owner does not want their work
distributed for nothing. When it comes to more obscure works, such a porn, how
is the downloader to know whether the work was stolen or not? Many artists
give their work away, especially initially, to get their name known. What if
the copyright markings have been digitally removed by the person from who you
receive the work? It can not be right that someone can give me something which
I accept it in good faith, and then become hounded by some third party’s
lawyers who says I have infringed their client’s copyright.
- March 28, 2012 at 10:00
-
The big problem I have with these cases is the utterly disproportionate
fees laid at the feet of offenders.
Thousands of pounds in “fines” or “compensation” for less than a hundred
pounds worth of goods.
**************Surely in this day and age there must be the technology
available to charge those who seek this kind of entertainment and put an end
to the whole furore! *************
Well yes, but most people don’t want Chinese style internet surveillance,
which technically is the only real way you could stop this.
-
March 28, 2012 at 08:33
-
Surely in this day and age there must be the technology available to charge
those who seek this kind of entertainment and put an end to the whole furore!
If someone is “stealing” then it is down to the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant really is guilty of this crime and has
taken steps to fraudulently obtain the service being downloaded. The ppl
providing the source of material illegally are surely the culprits too!
- March
28, 2012 at 07:54
-
I’m no expert on this sort of thing, but surely if the interwebs were
genuinely private/secure, it would be difficult for users to “steal” or in
some way utilize the intellectual property of others…
The only problem with that would be, that this would also be the case for
TPTB, and we wouldn’t want that… would we?
- March 28, 2012 at 00:37
-
Oh dear! many of you come across as welfare ‘I know me rights’ barrack room
lawyers.
Why not suggest ways and means to protect the vendors so that
people can’t easily steal what is actually up for sale – for cash.
Or else
it might become harder to buy.
And surely it is our democratic right to be
able to buy high grade porn as and when we want.
Try going back to the 50s
if you think otherwise.
- March
27, 2012 at 20:31
-
I always baffles me why so many internet uses are convinced that writers,
musicians, artists, film makers and such (yes, even porn film makers) don’t
need to eat. Even more annoying is the reasoning these people give for their
actions, “Well we can do it so that makes it OK to do it.”
I can kill
people, does that make it OK to do so?
Internet / real world; same rules
apply.
- March 27, 2012 at 19:54
-
With I suspect a similar background, I empathise with Engineer’s comments-
it’s a bloke thing, like quality engineering.
I often hear people saying
how they’ve got this or that software; wink, knowing touch of the nose, off
the internet free. They know they’re breaking the rules; like speeding, mostly
nobody’s caught or hurt. If there’s the opportunity for the party suffering
loss to bite back, well that was always a risk. So no excuses please.
And
if any blokes think their beloveds don’t know about their porn habits they
need to get their heads out of their…….
Those female things are a lot more
than mere sex objects.
- March 27, 2012 at 20:58
-
If the porn surveys are correct I think most men don’t know their female
partner is downloading porn…..
-
March 27, 2012 at 22:27
-
Tool catalogues – bloke porn.
Designer handbag catalogues – girl porn.
- March 28, 2012 at 08:29
-
The thought in my mind was of the exquisite sensuousness of wringing
slip gauges together.
- March 29, 2012 at 22:26
-
Oh, thank you for that comment. I thought I was the only one who
enjoyed that.
And it’s been such a long time…
- March
28, 2012 at 12:48
-
That’s true. I just love reading Screw….
.
.
.
Fix catalogues!
- March 28, 2012 at 17:51
-
You mean ScrewFix isn’t a Dating Agency? Awe shucks.
- March 27, 2012 at 18:22
-
I have no problem with them complying with a court order. Handing it over
merely because the police or someone else asked is spineless and worthy of a
boycott, but obeying the law of the land when one assumes that sufficient
evidence to support the request for said order was provided is OK. Chances are
it’s clearly in their terms and conditions that they will indeed hand over
your details on receipt of such an order.
Now the big test is what happens next – the hard part is going to be
establishing proof of a specific offence, except for those who pay up because
they’re too embarrassed to fight. I suspect that those where the wife opens
the letter will be the ones that fight, because then they can try to blame
someone else.
- March 27, 2012 at 19:07
-
That is assuming the IP address is for the correct place for a start.
If said IP address is supplied via DHCP with a short lease time then good
luck trying to pin that down to a particular place and person. As SBML said
earlier this is a fishing expedition like the previous one by ACS:Law.
Unfortunately judges, like politicians, have little or no understanding
of how the internet works – hence the many cockups.
- March 27, 2012 at 17:41
-
If a house with a single wi-fi is shared by a bunch of students, how can
anyone prove which individual was the ‘naughty’ one?
- March 27, 2012 at 18:09
-
If this becomes a common excuses to bypass infringement then whoever pays
the bill will be made responsible.
- March 27, 2012 at 14:41
-
I was disgusted to read the following information on Illegal downloading on
a website I cannot recall. Here is their advice so you to can be disgusted.
Maybe we should copyright our disgust as intellectual property?
Do not download Torrents unless you are paying for a VPN, hiding your IP
address is very difficult due to how the tracker torrent operates even in Tor
it is difficult to stop leaks.
If getting films is your objective there are many legal & cheap US
based streaming services & UK based services that can be accessed for a
single fee per month.
If getting porn is your objective there are a thousand Youtube like
streaming sites: xhamster or spankwire seem to be popular with the disgusting
types who view such material. I for one raise the flag for Mary Whitehouse by
viewing such material then leaving a comment detailing how outraged I was.
If you are selected for an IP letter do not pay as their are many
defences:
Botnet Infection – Executing Code without your knowledge
Tor Gateway –
You are part of Tor network allowing oppressed people in China / Iran get
access to internet. (You are in breach of your ISP rules but it is not your
ISP that has you in court.)
Insecure WiFi – Your router was reset by
accident and allowed all neighbours to use your connection for free.
It was
your Child – Below the age of legal responsibility
IP Spoofing – The IP
address was spoofed
Hacked – If the CIA can be hacked Mr Jones can be
also
In all cases ask them to provide proof, facts, evidence, data on what was
downloaded, amounts, evidence of knowledge of copyright also many torrent
tracker files are incorrectly labeled so you could click on one think but be
delivered another file altogether.
Buying a new Laptop at this point is also wise in order that your hardware
cannot provide evidence against you, MAC addresses are unique and it would be
better to not have the same one anymore.
If I recall correctly the last set of law firms that pestered the general
public with fines for copyright violation had their company computer systems
disrupted by the upset teenagers of Anon.
Whatever you do. Do not pay. bullies require victims.
- March 27,
2012 at 15:22
-
@2MAC: “Buying a new Laptop at this point is also wise in order that
your hardware cannot provide evidence against you, MAC addresses are
unique and it would be better to not have the same one anymore.”
1) No. They’re not. They’re ‘supposed to be,’ but they can be changed. Linux. Windows.
2) It’s irrelevant anyway. The MAC address of your laptop never leaves
your local network, (and certainly wouldn’t get as far as your ISP.) The
furthest it’ll get is your WiFi router/modem[1], whichever device you’re
connecting with.
[1] One *possible* exception to this is if your modem ‘clones’ the MAC
address of the *single* computer connected with a wire to it without a
router between them, but since I suspect most homes have a WiFi router
between the modem and the (more than one) computers in the household, then
this isn’t an issue.
-
March 27, 2012 at 15:25
-
The last law firm to try and get money out of suspected freeloaders went
backrupt. Look up ACS:Law.
Golden Eye are doing something similar to what ACS:Law did – write scary
letters to get people to pay without actually taking anyone to court. Though
from what patently says above, the scary letter has been toned down quite a
bit.
- March 27, 2012 at 20:41
-
It gets complicated.
Previous law suits have used evidence collected by private
investigators and without breaking major laws they “guess” the IP numbers.
Torrents are a major problem with this and creates a huge number of false
positives.
A film company can never know who infringes copyright unless
a) they hosted the pirated material (aka honeypot). Not sure how a UK
judge would view this.
b) ask for logs from an infringing site (which
is very unlikely that a site would willingly do this) and could well
violate privacy laws.
c) illegally hack an infringing site
d) obtain
logs from the infringing site legally collected through the courts.
Difficult as most infringing sites are outside the UK.
I haven’t followed the case, but a major avenue O2 should have taken
was to invalidate the method the film company used to get the IP numbers.
If false positives are high then they have reasonable grounds to want to
protect innocent subscribers.
If the number of false positive is low then its likely they did not use
bittorent to get the information. My guess they are either foolish and
repeating ACS:Law or have collected high quality data using other
means.
- March 27, 2012 at 19:33
-
Even with VPN/SSL there are data leaks. Whilst the content cannot be
viewed, encrypted video/music does have a specific signature.
Botnet infection. The ISP will have records to substantiate your claim.
If your a geek the courts will assume you have technical knowledge to
prevent. Only a viable “granny” defence – who ironically dont know what a
botnet is. ISP’s are slowly implementing botnet detection to their
networks.
Tor Gateway/”freedom proxies”. Most TOR exit nodes are at the
NSA/GCHQ/FSB etc. By far the biggest danger doing this is a pedo downloading
porn using your connection. VERY VERY bad idea to do this. Government has
already got it covered (freedom proxies).
Insecure WiFi – Windows explicitly tells you if your wifi connection is
secure. (I dont use apple). Yes its possible to hack a secure connection. To
prove this you need the help of a geek. As most criminals are stupid its
very easy to catch them in the act once you know your WiFi has been
hacked.
It was your Child – Pixar movie perhaps. Hardcore porn? Might attract
child services.
IP Spoofing – To send a message an IP number can be spoofed. To download
material the internet needs to know where to send the information. If a fake
IP is used, erm the traffic gets sent elsewhere. The spoofed IP address wont
have an open socket and the packets get dropped.
Hacked – Home PC’s aren’t technically hacked. See botnets.
Buying a new laptop…. There are laws about destroying evidence.
The major problem is that skilled technical knowledge is required to
uncover hacked wifi/botnets/etc. As a law was broken (hacking wifi is
illegal) the police would be the normal course of action, except the police
are not set-up to do this.
I’d be very careful being “helpful”. Conspiracy to commit a crime…..
IANAL – Any lawyers round here care to comment? Specifically recommending
destroying evidence.
- March 27,
2012 at 14:33
-
Thanks for spotting that, Anna, a judgement with relevance to my day job.
By which I refer to intellectual property, obviously, my acting skills being
somewhat lacking.
It is, I think, a very carefully considered and well balanced judgement –
quite typical of Mr justice Arnold. Indeed, his judgements are so renowned for
being lengthy that when he mentioned that the spreadsheet of IP addresses
would, if printed, stretch to 1,000 pages then I began to fear that he may
have appended it to the judgement.
Note that he refused the order for all but two of the claimants simply
because he was concerned that this was not the proper administration of
justice, and that he re-wrote much of the proposed letter to the potential
defendants in order to tone it down. He has ensured the letter does not
suggest that there has already been a finding of infringement, and also, very
kindly, set out in his judgement all of the defences which the potential
defendants might want to take advantage of. Indeed, he has done so with such
clarity that I do doubt any defended cases will succeed.
A good judgement therefore, in my judgement.
Oh – and for dvide, copyright infringement is indeed not theft. Theft is an
offence under the Theft Act 1968 whereas copyright infringement is an act
restricted under section 16 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Totally different, I agree. Intellectual property is property, though, see
section 90 of the CDPA 1988, section 22 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, section
30 of the Patents Act 1977, and so on & so on. Do keep up.
- March 27, 2012 at 15:52
-
I’m a racist. See section 2 of the Nuremberg laws. Oh, wait, that’s a
bullshit argument you say? I have to make a normative case, not simply list
off positive laws? You don’t say. I’m not sure why I should particularly
care about a bunch of positive laws in a world where the state is a
law-maker and not a law-taker. They mean as little to me as passages from
the bible do. I’m a natural and polycentric law kinda guy.
I concede that there is a subtlety here though, because what most people
think IP is (i.e. the pattern of information in question), it isn’t actually
that. But in that common semantic misunderstanding, I’m right that IP isn’t
property. In the real sense though, IP — and I’m lumping all kinds of IP
frameworks together here, which shouldn’t really be done — is an artificial
state-granted monopoly privilege to express said pattern, and the monopoly
privilege can be considered a form of property because it IS rivalrous
(unlike the pattern of information which can be shared infinitely) and is
assigned to somebody, and can be traded away, etc. So it’s the artificial
monopoly privilege that’s the ‘property’, in one sense, if you just define
property as anything rivalrous that somebody has an exclusive right over.
Although again, that would only be a ‘right’ in a positive, declarative
sense, not necessarily in a normative sense, being derived from any
legitimate principles.
Just to clarify further, I’m generally reluctant to call anything a
‘crime’ just because the positive law of the land and time says so. You
could certainly define ‘crime’ with reference to that positive law, and
hence make it relative to time and space, but that seems watered down to me.
I have no problem saying that slavery was always a crime, even though it was
‘legal’ at the time. I have no problem saying that locking Jews in
concentration camps for no reason was always a crime, even though it was
‘legal’ at the time. I have no problem saying that homosexual acts between
consenting adults were never crimes, even though there were once ‘illegal’,
because in a natural sense they weren’t crimes: there are no victims; it’s
only a crime by an artificial declaration. And once drug laws are repealed
and we look back on our era in the same way that we look back on alcohol
prohibition, we wouldn’t call cannabis smokers criminals. People who drink
alcohol now and don’t harm anybody aren’t criminals, and they weren’t
arbitrarily criminals back then, in America only. Nothing is different about
the act itself, no matter where in time and space you are. You see how it
works?
- March 27, 2012 at 18:32
-
I agree the IP/copyright laws currently are a complete joke and need
reform.
However any R&D which requires significant investment can only be
done knowing your invention can be protected for a limited period so costs
can be recovered and a profit made.
The genuine problem with copyright infringement is that it kills
independent film making. Independents can only make money by signing up
with a film company. Studio’s use very creative accounting so the
independent film makers still do not get any money.
If we want creative people to make stuff, either artistic or of a more
practical nature, then protections are absolutely needed.
- March 27,
2012 at 13:55
-
‘Copyright infringement’ is not theft and ‘intellectual property’ is not
property.
-
March 27, 2012 at 14:18
-
Intellectual Property is property in trust law.
- March
27, 2012 at 14:34
-
It’s property in all IP laws, and explicitly so. See my comment 13
below.
- March 28, 2012 at 10:16
-
This will be hotly debated at the Rose and Crown, Southwark next Thursday
5th April.
http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/03/intellectual-property-a-dilemma-for-libertarians/
-
March 27, 2012 at 13:09
-
Got any real news worthy topics Anna or is scraping the barrel now the
order of the day for your blog?
How about a Lady Diana article about her being Goldsmith’s daughter,
that’ll pull ‘em in?
-
March 27, 2012 at 13:16
-
I have one about a cat called Charles which goes ‘Miaow’!
- March 27, 2012 at 14:07
-
Anagram Corner: Charles Crosby = Archly be cross
What a dick!
- March 27, 2012 at 14:17
-
And two more weirdos (porn addicts) crawl out from beneath their
stones, unless they’re the same zombies hiding behind new handles or is
dirty raincoats. LOL
- March 27, 2012 at 21:12
-
If I took it seriously that could be libellous.
Or something.
Trebles all round !
- March 27, 2012
at 12:57
-
Well it’s not as if previous companies have ever sent these to innocent parties in the past is it?
- March 27,
2012 at 12:45
-
O2 sell porn?
Ah, that explains why there is often a queue of shifty
looking blokes outside their shops.
- March 27, 2012 at 12:41
-
Why on earth does anybody bother to pay for porn? There’s enough of it
about for free.
My favourite is Tool Porn. Dean Smith and Grace lathes….Ashley Isles wood
chisels….Holtey planes….all those gorgeous curvacious antique saw
handles….chests of drawers with no finish on…..excuse me a while; I’ll just
have to nip out to the workshop….
- March 28, 2012 at 07:52
-
You too? I thought my furtive daily visits to the hand tools (ahem) pages
of the Axminster Tools online catalogue were a solitary vice (or Veritas 17″
tail vice screw ..)
Beautiful tools tastefully photographed; I call it Art, not Porn
-
March 28, 2012 at 14:20
-
Veritas, eh? Now we’re getting hardcore. Next thing you know, you’ll be
lurking on Ebay trying to make contact with brass-backed tenon saws,
hollows and rounds, and Norris infill smoothers.
It’s just and expression of a natural urge, that’s all. Nothing weird
about it at all.
-
March 27, 2012 at 12:23
-
Dear God.
The damned judgement even quotes an EU Directive translated using Google
Translate.
Distopia, indeed !
-
March 27, 2012 at 12:18
-
If I read this correctly, there is no proof that any of the people watched
the film, or wilfully distributed it.
They are simply after addresses to which they can send threatening letters
demanding money with menaces.
It seems to be no different to Debt Farming Agencies who send out letters
demanding payment of bailiffs to people who they judge likely to be
intimidated into falling for it.
They may as well sue the people who built the pavement for the theft of
stolen goods by the thief who ran down the road.
I wonder how they would react to a “Prove It” letter.
- March 27,
2012 at 11:52
-
“Do the actors not have a right to earn money for their labour?”
I’d have thought, in these sort of films, avoiding labour would be a
key skill! At least, for the wimminz…
- March 27, 2012 at 11:47
-
(let’s hope it’s their wife, eh?) <= indeed, wouldn’t want the husband
knowing the wife dabbles in a bit of late night porn watching would we?
Comments are closed.
{ 45 comments }