Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet

70% of P2P Users Would Stop if Warned by ISP 318

Posted by Zonk from the oh-hai-there dept.
Umpire writes "As the UK considers a three strikes policy to fight copyright infringement, a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP. 'Wiggin commissioned the 2008 Digital Entertainment Survey, which found that 70 percent of all people polled said they would stop illegally sharing files if their ISP notified them in some way that it had detected the practice. When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

70% of P2P Users Would Stop if Warned by ISP More

70% of P2P Users Would Stop if Warned by ISP

Comments Filter:

  • I'm in the 30% (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheDreadedGMan ( 1122791 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:54PM (#22627736)
    that would get disconnected??

  • Unlikely? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Conception ( 212279 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:54PM (#22627742)
    Teenagers don't pay the bill? So, they don't want to get in trouble?

    • Re:Unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:05PM (#22627880) Homepage Journal
      Actually, it is more like the older users (as in, used a computer more in their lifetime), are more aware of what concequences the ISP can really do. After all, they AREN'T the copyright holders. They aren't the police. "And what the hell are you doing looking at my traffic anyway? If you are going to be like that, I'll just go somewhere else!"

      • Re:Unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by shmlco ( 594907 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:12PM (#22627954) Homepage
        Nearly every ISP on the planet has terms of service, and almost all of them have provisions regarding the unauthorized distribution of copywritten material, child porn, hate speech, and so on.

        From my perspective, enforcing those policies would be entirely within their mandate.

        • Re:Unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mpathetiq ( 726625 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:16PM (#22628008) Homepage
          Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Firehed ( 942385 )
            Sure it does. Their terms say you can't do something. If you go ahead and do it anyways, they have every right to end your service.

            That's about the extent of what they can do given the terms, but given how few options there are for internet connectivity, it's a fairly serious threat.

            • Re:Unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Locklin ( 1074657 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:46PM (#22628318) Homepage
              The terms say you can't do illegal things. The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

              The terms are there to protect the ISP from lawsuit when the client gets sued by a copyright holder - it's not a mandate to become the police.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Firehed ( 942385 )

                The terms don't say that they reserve the right to snoop in on your communications.

                They probably do. I can't claim to have read the terms recently, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that kind of clause in there. In -1pt, I'm sure, but that's beside the point.

                Of course, this kind of thing is the fundamental basis for net neutrality laws or lack thereof, and the idea of being a common carrier. Do we just spit out bits and have no responsibility for what those bits form, or do we give ourselves the

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by rtb61 ( 674572 )
                  The reason of course why it should be a criminal offence for your ISP to interfere with your service is. If they set up a subsidiary company, or say your competitor has better contacts with your ISP then you do, they can simply kill your service and VOIP for a week or so with a claimed copyright violation, which can cause enormous harm to your business whilst giving your competitor and enormous boost. The RIAA/MPAA have absolutely no care for anybody else or even their own future. Random disconnects can be

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by nomadic ( 141991 )
            Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

            "If you use our service to break the law, we'll disconnect you" is likely a valid, legally binding contract clause.

            • Re:Unlikely? (Score:4, Informative)

              by SETIGuy ( 33768 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @07:53PM (#22629782) Homepage

              Just because something is stated in a ToS doesn't mean it's legally stated in a ToS.

              "If you use our service to break the law, we'll disconnect you" is likely a valid, legally binding contract clause.
              That may be what the clause says, but in the terms they actually use in practice are "If we suspect you have used our service to break the law or are told by an untrustworthy party that you have used our service to break the law, we'll disconnect you even if you have not used our service to break the law."

              It's unlikely that that is a valid, legally binding contract clause.

        • They may only enforce there policy within the law though. And any civilised nation that I know of prohibits such an invasion of privacy and requires PROOF that such things are going on before action is taken.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy.gmail@com> on Monday March 03, 2008 @06:21PM (#22628758) Journal
          Yes and no. As long as they don't police your traffic, then they're not responsible for policing your traffic. Once they take that step, they're opening up a whole can of worms, and putting their common carrier status in jeopardy.

          Once they start down that road, its only a matter of time before someone sues them for something that came through their network. I mean, it's not so far-fetched to have a class action suit against a provider for allowing crackers to run mass automated remote exploits on their network...If I can recognize them on my end, then they should be able to recognize them on the network. Hell, that's trivial beside trying to determine whether someone is downloading kiddy porn or lol cats.
        • You're right of course and I don't want to imply that I don't agree with you when I say that the consequences of such enforcement, a wide scale would be devastating for the ISP that "went first". Now if all of them did so at once they would be within their rights to do so and they could probably head off the kind of subscriber exodus that a single ISP would face.

          The only problem with that is of course that they rarely work together well. Somebody is always waiting to pick up the monthly subscribers

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ushering05401 ( 1086795 )
          Hate speech? I am surprised to see that in a list of things that violate ISP TOS.

          Out of curiosity, are you based in Europe? Even given the seemingly downward spiral of American rights or expression, I believe that hate speech is still legal here, and not at all deserving of being lumped with child-porn in a list of no-nos.

          I know of several future lawyers who spend a lot of time on the net researching fringe movements and their psychology. A ban on the transmission of the hateful speech of these fringe gr

        • Re:Unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @06:47PM (#22629074) Homepage
          You're making the flawed assumption that for anything agreed to in a contract, any circumstancial evidence or means of verifying it is implicitly ok. Just because the contract with my landlord says I can't do certain things doesn't mean he can set up video surveilance in the apartment or lock himself in and search it any time he wants to. Some random guy on the street can't get me evicted just by making an accusation. The ISPs don't know, don't want to know, shouldn't know and what you're seeing is nothing other than trying to force the landlord into being the moral police. If you can't see the difference between "If you get caught smoking pot in the apartment I'll evict you" and "I get to rummage through your belongings looking for any hidden pot stash at any time" or think one implies the other, I hope you never get to enforce any such mandate. Or at least I want to slap you with a fat lawsuit if you do.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by penguin_dance ( 536599 )

            You're making the flawed assumption that for anything agreed to in a contract, any circumstancial evidence or means of verifying it is implicitly ok. Just because the contract with my landlord says I can't do certain things doesn't mean he can set up video surveilance in the apartment or lock himself in and search it any time he wants to. Some random guy on the street can't get me evicted just by making an accusation. The ISPs don't know, don't want to know, shouldn't know and what you're seeing is nothing

      • The general public have no idea how the Internet works, and the mistaken notion that they are anonymous on it. A warning letter from their ISP would scare the hell out of most people, and make them stop using the computer all together at least for a while for fear that they are being watched.
        • Point of fact here: we get about an 85% response rate from users when we tell people that the phishing email they just asked about is dangerous

          So thats 15% who go ahead and give their CC number after we have told them to stop.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rizole ( 666389 )
        Older users are less likely to fall for fud (and that's all this is until it's enacted in law) and I've found age has added a clear understanding in me that everything has a workaround, shortcut or backdoor; encryption is one example and I wont even mention usenet.

        Doh!

    • --snip--
      From: ISP
      To: Teen
      CC: Parents
      Subject: We know what you did last Summer
      Dear Teen, we know you've been pirating music. The people who make the music you love so much want you to know PIRACY IS THEFT!!!! If this doesn't stop we will have no choice but to SICK THEIR LAWYERS ON YOU!!!
      --snip--

      Later that day:

      Mom: Susy, we have to talk. We don't care if you spend all night online with your 35 year old boyfriend who sends you dirty pictures, but this piracy thing stops NOW or no more Internet for you!

      Susy

  • Reading the data another way... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:55PM (#22627752)
    > When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.'"

    When broken down by who's paying the bills, an obvious trend emerges: People who have to answer to Mom and Dad as to why nobody in the family can get their email anymore are generally more likely to change their behavior than people can just buy another throwaway account.

  • But (Score:5, Informative)

    by slapout ( 93640 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:56PM (#22627768)
    P2P != illegal file sharing

    • Re:But (Score:5, Informative)

      by nevali ( 942731 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:01PM (#22627830) Homepage
      Notably posted the day that Trent Reznor releases a good chunk of an album on ThePirateBay (amusing in itself simply because of TPB's notoriety).

  • Suggestive question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:58PM (#22627790)
    "Would you stop doing illegal things, when reprimanded by someone?"

    Did they also asked: "Would you stop your perfectly legal activity, when reprimanded by your ISP?"?
    Or: "Do you think it is right, that your ISP should monitor your activity on the internet?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by IANAAC ( 692242 )
      I use bit torrent all the time. On one occasion I received an email from my ISP (Speakeasy) stating that they had received a letter from HBO stating that I was found to have been downloading a show (I was. This was prior to On Demand). That was the only time I ever received anything from them, and I regularly download ISOs via bit torrent.

      On top of that, the email I received didn't even directly implicate me. Basically they suggested I "secure my wireless connection".

      I believe, at least with Speakea

      • Re:Suggestive question (Score:4, Informative)

        by dbolger ( 161340 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:45PM (#22628310) Homepage
        I used to work for the abuse department of a major Irish ISP. We received hundreds of emails a day about our users allegedly breaching copyrights. Some were from studios, most were from outfits like Web Sherriff [websheriff.com]. Under the law at the time (now sure how it goes these days), we were under no obligation to follow up on these and had no inclination to either. The vast majority of the mail was from automated systems and we bulk deleted them without even reading them. The very occasional would be written by a human (or at least, would be a boilerplate mail with a human contact's name attached). These got a boilerplate reply in turn, telling them that we were not required by law to enforce their copyrights, and referring them to the police if they wanted to make a complaint. We would of course have handed over our logs had we been requested to by the police, but in the two years I worked there, we never were.
    • What about: "Would you stop doing something that you weren't doing if somebody accused you of it with no real proof?

  • Teenagers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:59PM (#22627802) Homepage Journal
    When broken down by age group, an unexpected trend emerges: teenagers are generally more likely to change their behavior than older Internet users.

    Because teenagers are more likely to feel they can't live without the internet. Older internet users may have been on it longer, but can remember a time when they easily lived without it.

  • is this the internets version of speeding (Score:4, Interesting)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @04:59PM (#22627808)
    people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong, but they reckon that so long as no-one gets hurt ...

    Just like with speeding. You get pulled over, maybe you get off with a warning, maybe you get a fine and points (In the UK 12 points on your license and you lose it for a time), or maybe you get off with a warning. Either way you are more aware for a while - then you're back to your old habits.

    Will downloading P2P copyrighted material be the same?

    You get a warning, stop for a while (maybe change ISPs, so the new one doesn't have a record of your "offence") and then drift back to your old behaviour.

    If this is a good analogy (comments?) is there really any way to stop it completely - or do people just expect to punish the most blatant offenders and keep everyone else, more or less, under control?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sciros ( 986030 )
      Terrible analogy, although it does involve automobiles so you get bonus points making it an "alright" analogy.

      The thing is, you can download all the copyrighted material your HDs can possibly hold and no-one will really get hurt.

      If all that happened from my driving 125mph on the interstate was that some execs at Sony BMG lost a couple of bucks... man I'd go buy a Z06 and drive 175mph across the country fifty times!
      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Roy [wikipedia.org]

        Alexander Roy beat the record for the Cannonball Run while hitting up to 160 mph and averaging 90 mph and yet did it all completely safely.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shagg ( 99693 )
          If by "completely safely" you mean "a complete idiot who treated public roads as his personal race course and put innocent lives in danger, but luckily no one was killed", then yes.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by garett_spencley ( 193892 )
            Hypothetical scenario:

            Let's say everyone on a free way is driving 100mph when the speed limit is 70mph. What is the safer speed to drive: 70mph ? Or 100mph ?

            Of course that might not be a fair example since if EVERYONE was speeding you don't really risk getting pulled over.

            But the point is that driving fast does not necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're alert, matching traffic, keeping your eye on the road and leaving adequate space between you and other vehicles you can drive quite fast and still

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Shagg ( 99693 )
              There's a big difference between driving the average speed of everyone else on the road versus what this guy did. But I think you knew that.

            • However, throwing the book at anyone who physically injures another while driving could have the same effect.
              "I don't need to obey the speed limit, I can control my car." I'd prefer the dangerous drivers pay the government for the roads I drive on (or would, if I owned a car) so that I don't have to pay as much road tax.

    • Re:is this the internets version of speeding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:15PM (#22628000) Homepage

      people know (downloading copyrighted stuff) it's wrong
      Some people "know" a different reality...that it's about as wrong as me going over to my friend's place to listen to a CD or watch a DVD movie he's purchased or rented.

      In any case it's not the place of the ISPs to impose a (flawed) version of morality on anyone, just like it's not the place of the phone company to monitor my phone conversations for possible illegal or immoral content.
    • "... maybe you get a fine and points..."

      Interesting idea there, as it turns enforcement from an expense into a profit center, just like banks and credit card companies who make big bucks from overdraft charges and late fees.

      And if the points add up and you lose your account, then what? Most people only have a few choices as to DSL or cable providers. Having a 6-month hold on any data lines to your house could be a major disruption.

      But I think they'd like the idea of just slapping a $100 per-occurrence fine
    • Downloading copyrighted stuff is not wrong. In fact the internet relies on our ability to download copyrighted stuff.

      The page you are viewing has a copyright. It was downloaded so your browser can display it. Some vendor's pamphlets could carry copyright yet the vendor wants as many downloaded as possible. The problem exists with copyrighted material that was never authorized for free distribution.

      Downloading isn't even the real issue. The copyright violation on some piece of music occurred when it was copi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Or you can learn about what you are doing and install software that helps to protect you.

      PeerGuardian is a great start. It blocks a CRAPLOAD if the Riaa,mpaa and BSA rats and is updated daily.

  • Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrbill1234 ( 715607 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:00PM (#22627814)
    They can't stop legal P2P - there is nothing illegal about that. All that will happen on the illegal side is it will go encrypted - then the ISP will have no idea of what is being transferred which kind of absolves them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shmlco ( 594907 )
      No, it just means that sooner or later they'll start shaping encrypted traffic, whereupon we can thank all of the parasites for having screwed up yet another legitimate internet protocol.
      • Technical Question: How do you differentiate encrypted traffic from, say, any other kind of binary data ?

        Technical Question #2: (assuming that #1 has a solution) What do you when <big corporate customer> calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home and must, instead, spend 30 minutes driving to the office on a Sunday morning at 2am to figure out why it's not responding ?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by shmlco ( 594907 )
          Other than https/port 443? Torrent traffic, with large amounts of data coming in (and going out) to a widely distributed network of IP addresses is a relatively distinct pattern. Personally, I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches.

          "What do you when calls and complains that their IT staff can't use SSH to connect to the web server from home...."

          Like I said, torrent traffic is a different pattern. An SSH connection is a steady link to a
          • Ah, but how do you differentiate between legal and illegal torrent traffic?
            There are plenty of legitimate uses for torrent type P2P traffic - and if anything, this will only increase.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shmlco ( 594907 )
              Like I said, if I were them I'd just charge on a per megabyte basis for upstream traffic, turning the majority of torrent users into leaches. There are certainly legitimate uses, but as 80% or so of all traffic is estimated to be illegally distributed content, those legitimate uses are overshadowed by illegitimate ones.

              Most of the parasites are there because they can get content for "free". If, however, they're now paying out of their own pocket for everyone else to get free content, I'd be willing to bet t

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by malkavian ( 9512 )
                Except, as you already noted, that if you stick that kind of price tag on it, you'll find that the majority of the net is leeches. And you can't have that high a leech to provider ratio and actually distribute anything.
                By the time you'd managed to download from the hundred seeds, you'll have probably provided 30 or 40 distros worth of material. Maybe more. That would soon add up to a not-so-trivial amount, meaning that people would soon be stopping acting as seeds. This would mean the availability may ju

  • Commandment 11, Don't Get Caught (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sorthum ( 123064 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:01PM (#22627824) Homepage
    I'd take a warning as "You need to find a better method of obscuring what you're doing, like tor..."
  • that 100% thought that traffic encryption and ip obfuscation would be desirable features of the next generation of file sharing apps

    get clue, riaatards. the game is over. you lose. your business model is dead, and cannot be extended with legions of lawyers

  • More like... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:05PM (#22627866)
    70% of P2P users would lie about stopping if polled about "illegal file sharing". The other 30% just don't care.

  • 70%? and for how long? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sckeener ( 137243 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:07PM (#22627890)
    Change their behavior? come on...these are teenagers...they'll just look for another way...say a friends computer or a shared computer. I'm willing to bet that it is = to a gambling urge and the moment something that the want comes out that they can't get any other way but by downloading...they will download. And they should.

    If you want to get paid for your stuff, you better make sure all those that would pay for it legally have the option to...

    case in point...regions on dvds. If say a blockbuster movie was released in DVD in the US but not in, say, ASIA...do you really think everyone of that 70% (that wanted it) will wait for it to be released?

    The media groups need to embrace 'online'. They need to release product 'online'. They need to market it 'online'. They need to get everyone so hooked on getting their information 'online' that people 'offline' are looked at as pathetic. Then the media groups can release to the world...launch Ad campaigns to the world...and never have to worry about this region stuff again!
    • Wont happen. If they do that, they can't price fix their content over different regions (for example, $5 in Thailand, $30 in UK, $20 in USA, $40 in NZ)

  • Mass warning-spam in 3, 2, 1... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 6Yankee ( 597075 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:07PM (#22627892)
    Although I use P2P so rarely that they'd have to be pretty lucky with their timing to scare me, I'm sure that plenty of users could be frightened off the practice by a suitably vague mass mail. Rather than, "We have detected P2P usage", a strongly-hinting "Customers are reminded that..." might be non-accusatory and hand-wavy enough to get away with, while still having the desired effect. Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      Now how much do you think the *AA would pay ISPs to do that?

      Oh goodie!
      That means my ISP would be giving me a rebate check on part of my bill, right?

      -
    • Yes, this idea might work ..... once.

      The first time you receive this email you might think a bit, but after that if you get it againa and again, I doubt you'd pay any attention. I dout this would have much effect after the first or second generations - no matter how much more threatening they made subsequent emails.

  • Response to the EU Commission (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CrystalFalcon ( 233559 ) * on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:10PM (#22627932) Homepage
    The European Commission recently had a public consultation about this. I'm surprised not more understand the issues involved - my response deals with just a few of them:

    Response to Commission from Pirate Party leader [falkvinge.com]

    (the first few lines is a preamble in Swedish, followed by the actual letter in English.)

    In short, this does not deal with copyrights and culture anymore. It deals with the cost to society of enforcing today's copyright. That cost involves the abolition of the messenger immunity, freedom of the press, and private communications as a concept.

    No right exists in a vacuum - there is always a cost to society of enforcing that right. Without a proper cost-to-benefit analysis, no informed decision can be made.

  • When the warning comes, I would have questions... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MarkKnopfler ( 472229 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:12PM (#22627952)
    And they would be

    1. Yes I have been using P2P, but I have been torrenting legal stuff like unlicensed media and free software. So why the warning ?
    2. Could you please give me the reasons as to why you think I am downloading illegal content ?
    3. Could you please show me the logs which show I have downloaded illegal content ?
    4. What are the methods you have followed to come to the conclusion that the stuff I am downloading is illegal ?

    If the ISP has valid answers for my questions, I will have no choice but to comply. It after all, is the law. The answers however, I would need.

  • Source? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:14PM (#22627982)
    Just who is "UK media lawyers Wiggin" ?

    I'm a self proclaimed British Media Expert, and I can hereby announce that a credible source has revealed to me that 85% of artists think privacy and free speech is more important than profit.

    Sorry, but based on previous events "media lawyer" is not something which smells particularly credible.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by moderatorrater ( 1095745 )
      Just so everyone in the world understands this once and for all, any name that is or sounds like "wiggum" will forever lend an air of ineptitude. The only way this is offset is if the person has read "ender's game" more recently than they're watched the simpsons; that number will always be low enough that you just shouldn't risk it. They should have gone with the other partner, hopefully something with a lawyerish name, like "Bruckheimer" or "McBeal".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Spad ( 470073 )
      I would presume that they are http://www.wiggin.co.uk/ [wiggin.co.uk]

  • Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GlL ( 618007 ) <gil AT net-venture DOT com> on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:15PM (#22627992)
    I work for an ISP in the US, and I find this to be hilarious! 70%! Bull--oney! I have told customers about cease and desist letters our ISP received, and the response that I have gotten universally has been: So what?

    Maybe in a less independantly minded country 70% is the case, but on this side of the pond the best response you will get is laughter.

    Whoever posted this article, thanks for a much needed laugh.
    • Maybe that was a typo, and they actually meant, 'a' instead of 'so'? It would make more sense, and I mean, the keys are practically next to each other.
  • 70% are pussies and are only doing it because they're cheap
    Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker

    • Re:well then (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Z34107 ( 925136 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:43PM (#22628292)

      Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker

      Too bad pirating something you never would have bought does about $0 in economic damages.

      What was your media budget pre-internet? That's about as much damage as you can inflict regardless of how much you piss off your ISP.

    • Re:well then (Score:5, Funny)

      by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:43PM (#22628296)

      Some of us pirate to help the current Music and Movie industries implode quicker
      I downloaded the complete discography of Metallica 13 times, just to show them what's what!

  • Stupid Statistics (Score:5, Funny)

    by kellyb9 ( 954229 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:25PM (#22628100)
    70% of P2P users would stop because its kind of difficult to download music and movies without an internet connection.
  • Just send out a warning "We have detected that you're using illegal file sharing." to 100% of the users. Of the x% that use P2P, 70% will stop and 30% will ignore it. The (100-x)% who aren't using illegal file sharing will simply ignore it.
  • So, back in the day, I was using DC++ & sharing lots of stuff. Then my ISP passed on a Cease & Desist from one of the movie studios about a movie in my share. This was when the RIAA was starting to take people to court etc. I stopped sharing anything except Linux ISOs and the like after that, and I only use torrents for the same. The risks don't outweigh the benefits, so while I would prefer not to be a leech, until (if?) there's a truly anonymous form of p2p, that's what I am. I'll still download f
  • But I would also stop 70% of my CD/DVD purchases.

    Ed

  • "They're kids. Scare 'em."

  • I wouldn't (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AlgorithMan ( 937244 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:37PM (#22628228) Homepage
    since i only use bittorrent to download CC material, linux distros and DRM protected videos, I wouldn't stop using P2P if i got a warning... I think I'd sue them for trying to stop me from using legal software for legal purposes...
  • Teenagers are vastly more likely to be peer-influenced. If their friends are downloading, they will too, just like if their friends are listening to dippy singers or getting their eyebrows pierced. Similarly, their behavior is very easy to change -- many of them will stop doing things on request because they're not committed to the behavior, they're just doing whatever comes to mind. As people get older, they get increasingly set in their ways and increasingly persistent about their habits, whether it's
  • I download legal things using p2p software, so if warned I would tell them to bite me.

  • Poor Association (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jekler ( 626699 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @05:57PM (#22628442)
    I absolutely despise that "illegal" is almost always used in reference to file sharing. No one words other activities that way, such as illegal retailing. People need to start applying the descriptor to the appropriate specific activity, not to the activity as a whole. Stop calling it "illegal file sharing", refer to it as "illegally distributing copyrighted works" if you must, but don't word it in such a way as to marginalize file sharing as a concept. Some people might this this is nitpicking, but I do think that the way we phrase the activity shapes the public perception. Lobbyists just want to beat it into everyone's head that file sharing itself is illegal, but it's not, and shouldn't be thought of as such.
  • Also, people lie and give political correct answers.
  • And I have no idea what all that encrypted traffic to the Tor routers is.

    • And I have no idea what all that encrypted traffic to the Tor routers is.
      I sincerely hope you're not clogging up the tor tubes with your p2p traffic. It's not nice.
  • And 70% of those would find that, without P2P, they don't really need broadband after all.

    ISPs are rather aware of the fact that P2P is the main reason for many people to have broadband. They will fight like tigers against complying.

  • Say Versus Do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @06:33PM (#22628892)

    a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP.
    Good example the wrong conclusion from interesting data. It should read "a new survey reports that 70% of UK broadband users say they would stop using P2P if they received a warning from their ISP." They might not stop. What people say and what they actually do are often vastly different things. Polls can be accurate but you have to be very careful about what questions are asked and what the results actually mean.
  • .... isp's are in the music business?

  • For how long? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eskarel ( 565631 ) on Monday March 03, 2008 @08:02PM (#22629886)
    The problem with this survey is that it does't take into account how long they'd stop for.

    A lot of folks stop speeding for a while after they get a warning from a cop. Virtually none of them stop speeding forever.

    Most people stopped using the networks which got downed, and if there's a high chance of getting caught using a particular service then yeah they're going to stop, but with encrypted connections, and the general fact that ISP's will only do what they're forced to by law or which benefits their bottom line, and you're probably looking at a pretty low number of people actually getting caught, so you're looking at pretty low risk.

    I know the brits tend to have a please sir give me some more attitude when it comes to government shafting(or so it seems lately, though the US isn't much better), but this seems rather silly.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close