digital economy bill

So you want to encrypt filesharing/torrent traffic?

In light of the recent furore over the critically-flawed, Draconian, lobbyist-written Digital Economy Bill, the Internet is already rife with excited rumours that a mere 86 lines of C# code can indeed encrypt your torrent traffic. An article carried on The Register explains all, but a key excerpt is:

The code, sweetly named SeedFucker, is actually an exploit discovered last November that would allow a BitTorent user to fake the IP address of a server from where a file could be downloaded. It could also be used to flood a BitTorrent with dozens of fake peers. The sudden interest in the exploit follows measures in a new UK law, passed last week, where ISPs may be obliged to provide IP addresses to the authorities of files that are said to be infringing copyright.

The worst nightmare of the music industry is likely now to become true (or at least it would be their worst nightmare if they’d given this an ounce of thought): not only have they pushed filesharing underground, it’s going to become much harder to find.

*hands the music industry and the government a crutch to hobble on*

There you go: that should help seeing as you’ve just shot yourself in the foot.

0

Digital Economy Bill = complete farce

How are we meant to have ANY confidence in this new piece of garbage legislation when:

Plus this sets a worrying precedent for other countries to follow suit.

The takehome? CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL; DON’T PUNISH YOUR CUSTOMERS.

0

Digital Economy Bill looks likely to survive

You may or may not know that a bill of legislation has been rushed through parliament and looks set to become law – known as the Digital Economy Bill.

One of the key points in the bill is that filesharers will face being cut off from the Internet:

  • A person need only be suspected of filesharing to receive a warning letter
  • 3x warning letters and you’re disconnected from the Internet
  • No evidence or proof is required – merely suspicion from a copyright holder
  • Requires ISPs to effectively police their user’s web connections

Where is the sense in ANY of the above? It reads thusly:

  • If you’re not tech-savvy and someone uses your wifi connection to download illegally, you could be cut off
  • Entire businesses could face being offline because of the actions of one person (or the actions of a rogue third-party – see above)
  • Since when has NO evidence been required to take drastic steps that could easily result in a person’s loss of livelihood?
  • What if government computers/connections are suspected of illegal downloads? Will they be cut off like everyone else?

This also opens up a nice new niche of corporate/industrial sabotage: simply ensure someone is caught filesharing using a business’s Internet connection, and get them cut off: no evidence required!

This isn’t open to abuse AT ALL.

0