UK ISP Spots a File-Sharing Loophole, Implements It 179
Posted
by
kdawson
from the this-way-round dept.
from the this-way-round dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As well as taking an active part in OFCOM's code of obligations in regards to the ill-conceived Digital Economy Act (the UK three-strikes law for filesharers), niche ISP Andrews & Arnold have identified various loopholes in the law, the main one being that a customer can be classified as a communications provider. They have now implemented measures so in your control panel you may register your legal status and be classed as such." Another of the loopholes this inventive ISP sussed out: "Operating more than one retail arm selling to customers and allowing customers to migrate freely with no change to service between those retail arms, thus bypassing copyright notice counting and any blocking orders."
Re:That'll work (Score:3, Interesting)
2*[branches of the ISP]*[Family members/friends/dog]
Also the act says nothing about keeping a count for *ex* subscribers.. so pingponging between two may be enough.
Don't see this working (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well done (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I can't believe..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was voted in by about 200 pissed up MPs who had been dragged out of the pub to make sure it passed. Only about 40 actually attended the debate.
Watching it happen was an eye opener to say the least. Any illusions that we have actual representation died that day.
Re:Don't see this working (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lib Dems (Score:3, Interesting)
The LibDems are the only one of the three major parties that stood up to this law (voting against it and calling for its repeal).
They also seem the strongest generally when it comes to following common-sense approach to science; evidence-based policy is one phrase I've heard being banded around as well, which after the various allegations of ministers ignoring their own scientific advisors in the past few months is a welcome relief.
However, I'm more than just a geek. When it comes to my vote in a week's time, I also have to consider the pros and cons of each party to all the other aspects of my life: my wife, baby son, job, house, local environment, health, personal and moral beliefs, just to name a few. Being geek-friendly is a positive trait, but there are also areas important to me in which the LibDems are weaker.
Impractical and/or illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.
So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.
The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved
Re:Lib Dems (Score:3, Interesting)
I think suggesting that the LibDems "stood up" to this is giving them a little more credit than they deserve. They ended up supporting it in the Lords and even adding the controversial web-censoring clause (I know they tried to get it removed, but it was too late then). As it was, only a handful (14?) of LibDem MPs turned up to vote, and even fewer made any sort of speech.
The LibDems seem to want to repeal this mainly due to the method by which it was passed, not for the content; they claim they would "take it off the statue book and replace it with something better" - better for whom? From what I remember of their speeches in the debate, better here may be for copyright owners. This could just mean they want to remove all the loop-holes. I will not be voting LibDem next week - for other reasons as well - because I am certainly not convinced by their "promises" over the Digital Economy Act.
Incidentally, I'm currently taking an OU law course and brought this up at one of my tutorials (a few days after it passed through the Commons) and none of the other 6 people present had even heard of the Act. The general public doesn't know - while there has been plenty of news in our section of reality, it hasn't been getting out into the rest of the country. Of course, once people start getting threatening letters, this could change, but by then it will be too late. Welcome to the British legal system.
Re:Don't see this working (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if that's the case then all those peering network providers are also attempting to skirt the law.
I could set myself up as a communicatins provider - I've thought of it actually - put a colo server in a datacentre, then offer bandwidth (and web space) to paying customers. But then, why not simply offer payign customers to use my existing bandwidth that I have at home. Its not much, so I can't see many taking my up on my offer, but as I'm offering a niche product that shouldn't be an issue.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I'd say that the biggest flaw is not the loopholes, it's the fact that in the end the copyright holder still has to sue the individual they suspect of copyright infringement. As yet the idea that a screenshot and IP address are enough evidence is an entirely untested one.
There are also the human rights issues. If someone in a household does download something and gets the internet connection cut off, what about the other people who live there? Imaging being a student and not having the internet at home, preventing you from doing your work. Presumably you can't just switch ISP to get the connection back, unless they less that massive hole open too.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
What is funny is that with most decent wireless routers, having a public AP is easy to do too. This way, one can have their own private network that is WPA2-PSK or WPA2-Enterprise secured, but have the bandwidth they are not using open to the public.
Apparently, this provides both plausible deniability, not to mention the carrier status. IANAL, of course.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably you can't just switch ISP to get the connection back, unless they less that massive hole open too.
Indeed, this is one of the holes they are exploiting: "Operating more than one retail arm selling to customers and allowing customers to migrate freely with no change to service between those retail arms, thus bypassing copyright notice counting and any blocking orders."
Re:Lets get rid of it (Score:2, Interesting)
Your best bet is to vote Lib-Dem this election, and suck it up until the following election. Then vote Pirate. Assumes though that the Lib-Dems will actually implement a decent form of proportional representation.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's very interesting indeed; I live alone, but my daughter and her mother live literally across the street, and they share my (secured) wifi connection. I most certainly am providing a service to them, and they don't even live under my roof.
Re:Well done (Score:3, Interesting)
There must be some redress that the labels can take against an ISP that is ignoring the rules. Now you can say "they aren't ignoring the rules", but the only person that can decide whether they are flouting the law or not is a judge.
Re:Who say geeks don't make good lawyers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the idea here is "no one, get a warrant/subpoena". Since that information is, you know, private.
Good on this ISP. Refreshing to see a company actually care about its customers.