kc3.net isp query

[moaningoldgit]

hi all
first post
not yet on idnet but looks to be sooner rather than later
ok my query is i joined kc3.net (entanet reseller ) on 2/04/2009
a movie was downloaded from torrent site on 3/04/2009
with my ip address,
now this could have been myself or another person that uses
my home network.
the email i recieved from kc3.net stated,
initial infringement 3/04/2009
recent infringement timestamp 3/04/2009
protocol bitTorrent
could you please check your system and remove any such material
does this meen that every time i or anyone using my pc or network downloads
i will recieve a infringement notice.
i wonder is this because i am on a business connection
or is this the future of the internet for us all

i forgot to say i am on business 45 connection

sorry for the long post
hope someone can shed some light on this
does this happen on idnet or any other isp
thanks to all
by the way this looks like a great forum

[Dopamine]

It looks to me as if they are assuming your download is of copyrighted material that you shouldn't download.

Their email may be scare tactics, or it may be to cover themselves in the event of a complaint by the copyright holder, or it could be something else. Do they give any greater detail about what they allege the "infringement" is?

KC3's website says that they do not restrict any Bit torrents or news sites, so my guess would be that you've received the email because they're covering their backs or are holding hands with the music/film industry.

I'm not a downloader so don't know IDNet's policy when they see/assume illegal activity, but I've not heard of anything similar here. There are other ISPs who operate similar tactics or restrictions for supposed illegal downloads, so it does look like it will be the future for a certain section of the ISP business.

IDNet's Acceptable Use Policy contains the following:
The IDNet network may be used only for lawful purposes. Transmission, distribution or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret or other intellectual property rights used without proper authorisation, and material that is obscene, defamatory, constitutes an illegal threat, or violates export control laws.

Your best bet is to talk to KC3 and find out exactly what it is they are accusing you of, and ask them to point out where in their terms and conditions it explains any penalties and actions they reserve the right to impose. If those terms aren't clear, and if you have the stomach for a fight, ask them to provide proof that it was you.

Personally, I'd move to an ISP that was a bit more open about its policies regarding copyright infringement........

..... or stop illegally downloading. That would reduce the number of pirates to something close to 29,999,999, and would no doubt solve the problem overnight

[moaningoldgit]

hi
thanks for the reply
i am not sure what to do
but i am not going to stay with an isp that sends emails everytime i download from torrents
it could be as you say scare tactics
it says at the bottom of the email
if you have any questions regarding this let me know
so it looks like a mac for me and off elswhere
pity realy because my speeds have not been this good for about six months
oh well try again

[drummer]

I'm confused because here they suggest:

One month short term contract contract so that you won't be forced to stay with us for 12-18 months.

But on their broadband T&C page here they state:

...e. Contract length:
12 months from the effective date.

f. Cancellation period:
Contracts are for 12 months and then after that first 12 months 1 months notice in writing must be given to cancel the contract. (Example: KC3.net receive a request to cancel the contract at end of month 12 then contract would terminate 1 month later at the end of month 13.)

Clear as mud.

[Rik]

Hi and welcome to the forum Mog.

I have never heard of IDNet sending out an email of this sort, and Simon Davies, the MD, is on record as saying he has no intention of becoming the BPI's policeman unless he's legally forced to. They do make it clear that downloading illegal material is unacceptable for obvious reasons, but afaik, they don't go looking for it.

[JB]

On some torrent clients such as uTorrent there is a facility to enable protocol encryption on outgoing packets. I don't know if this would stop your ISP from seeing that you are downloading a torrent or not, but might be worth a try.

Disclaimer
---------
I offer this information so that your downloading of legal material is not impeded. I do not condone the theft of copyright material.

[Sebby]

Protocol encryption does not stop your ISP see what you are downloading; it merely encrypts the protocol so if an ISP blocks/throttles BitTorrent traffic, you can get around it.

What you need is a blocklist. I'm not condoning the downloading of illegal material, but if you do so without a blocklist in place, you are going to get in trouble on any ISP. Check out bluetack.co.uk where you can download an ipfilter.dat.

[Bill]

There's a thread about this in the Entanet forum on thinkbroadband:

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/entanet/t/3611196-copyright-infringement.html

Looks like it's Entanet rather than kc3.net.

[Rik]

Thanks, Bill. 

[Simon]

It might also be worth mentioning that µTorrent keeps a record of all of your downloaded torrents in (in XP) C:\Documents and Settings\[user]\Application Data\uTorrent.  These files can be safely deleted, but take care not to also delete the .dat files, as these are your set up and preferences.  It's not the end of the world if you wipe them, but you would have to set up µTorrent again from scratch if you did.  I don't know if the same applies to other torrent clients, as I only use the one.

[Sebby]

Another way to do it is when the torrent finishes downloading it, right-click on it and select Remove > And delete .torrent.

[Simon]

I usually do that, Seb, but I still found a load of torrent files in that folder the other day.

[Sebby]

Ah, I'm surprised, I'll have to check mine (although I'm not sure if it works on the same way on a Mac).

[moaningoldgit]

hi all
update on original post
i was told today by my isp that all isp are monitoring p2p trafic
it would appear this is from entanet.
its strange i never had this on sky or aol
probably because the connection was s**te
and it took forever to download anything
it seams if you pay for a fast connection
you still cant download i know copyright material downloads are ilegal
but i would like the freedom of choice

[Rik]

IDNet do not monitor, block or throttle P2P traffic.

[quandam]

hi all
first post
not yet on idnet but looks to be sooner rather than later
ok my query is i joined kc3.net (entanet reseller ) on 2/04/2009
a movie was downloaded from torrent site on 3/04/2009
with my ip address,
now this could have been myself or another person that uses
my home network.
the email i recieved from kc3.net stated,
initial infringement 3/04/2009
recent infringement timestamp 3/04/2009
protocol bitTorrent
could you please check your system and remove any such material
does this meen that every time i or anyone using my pc or network downloads
i will recieve a infringement notice.
i wonder is this because i am on a business connection
or is this the future of the internet for us all

i forgot to say i am on business 45 connection

sorry for the long post
hope someone can shed some light on this
does this happen on idnet or any other isp
thanks to all
by the way this looks like a great forum

Hi! I am also confused. You state that it might be you or someone else that downloaded the 'offending' material. Was it you or was it someone else? Surely you must know if it was yourself.

I would say that if (if) you are downloading illegal material then IDNet would probably adopt the same stance as your current ISP.

[Sebby]

I agree. If IDNet receive a complaint, they have to pass it on, and that's all Entanet are doing. Anyway, get a blocklist in place and you won't have a problem (again, not condoning piracy).

[drummer]

It might also be worth mentioning that µTorrent keeps a record of all of your downloaded torrents in (in XP) C:\Documents and Settings\[user]\Application Data\uTorrent.  These files can be safely deleted, but take care not to also delete the .dat files, as these are your set up and preferences.  It's not the end of the world if you wipe them, but you would have to set up µTorrent again from scratch if you did.  I don't know if the same applies to other torrent clients, as I only use the one.

Been happily using µTorrent for some years now but I've never understood the settings.dat.old files.  No matter though, it's a great little app which works for me.

For everyone else though, there's a massive difference between illegal content and that which infringes copyright.  The former is subject to the full weight of the law, whereas the latter is dealt with under civil law.

I applaud IDNet's stance because they've never, ever indicated they would refuse to co-operate where criminality is the issue.  What they've said though, is that it's not within their remit to assist copyright holders taking civil action against individuals, based on scant or negligible evidence.

[Sebby]

The .old files are simply backups of .dat files.

Thanks for clarifying the difference between illegal content and that which infringes copyright - I wasn't aware of the difference.

[drummer]

The .old files are simply backups of .dat files.

Thanks for that which confirms what I suspected.  It just always made me laugh that an "old" dat file is created at the same time as a new one is created.

Thanks for clarifying the difference between illegal content and that which infringes copyright - I wasn't aware of the difference.

It's still a legal minefield though but the guardians of copyrights are very happy to muddy the waters by suggesting that copyright infringement is illegal.

It flipping well isn't illegal but it may deprive your favourite band/songwriter/movie director/actor etc of royalties.

Think I've covered both schools of thought...

[Dopamine]

It flipping well isn't illegal........

I understand the difference between criminal law and civil law, but I don't understand your post.

There are various definitions of "illegal" or "illegally"; here are a few:

• Prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules

• In a manner contrary to law

• Against the law

Copyright law originated in the United Kingdom from a concept of common law; the Statute of Anne 1709. It became statutory with the passing of the Copyright Act 1911. The current act is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:

• Copy the work.

• Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.

• Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.

• Adapt the work.

Care to elaborate on what makes copyright breaches not illegal?

Surely the only difference is in which court a case would be tried: civil or criminal.

[Tacitus]

At what point does the idea of 'fair use' come into it?  Or is it one of those things that became generally accepted but has no legal standing except in certain closely defined circumstances?

For example, with my academic hat on I am allowed to make copies of material (within limits) for review or other educational purposes.  Some of this stems from a general licence that all educational establishments have, but I believe the licence itself stems from the idea of 'fair use' which was at one time I believe, defined in law. 

If in my daily life, I buy a CD and rip it onto my iPod, I regard that as fair use despite the record companies (possibly correctly) regarding it as a breach of the law.  I paid for the CD, have it on my shelf and rip it for convenience.  However if I put a copy on the internet I would regard that as 'unfair' use despite the fact that both acts may technically be illegal.

If the record companies feel I should buy a fresh copy for every device in my home they're smoking some serious stuff. 

[Rik]

AFAIK, it's widely accepted by the record industry that making a copy for personal use, eg to put on an iPod is acceptable and they don't pursue this 'technical' breach of copyright. OTOH, if you give that copy to someone else, they'd look on it differently.

[Simon]

AFAIK, when you buy a CD, you're buying the rights to listen to the content of that CD, so I can't see how it can be 'wrong' to transfer the content to different, more convenient formats.  I always copy CDs for car use, to save the originals getting bashed about in the glove box, or stolen.

[Rik]

I do too. The next car has to have an MP3 function!!

[Simon]

Yeah, but you do lose some quality.

[Dopamine]

AFAIK, when you buy a CD, you're buying the rights to listen to the content of that CD, so I can't see how it can be 'wrong' to transfer the content to different, more convenient formats.  I always copy CDs for car use, to save the originals getting bashed about in the glove box, or stolen.

Although that sounds reasonable, I'm not sure you're right. What if, for example, you owned two homes and wanted your CD collection physically in both houses? I doubt it would be acceptable to the music industry if they discovered you had 200 purchased CDs in one house, and 200 copied ones in the other. Isn't the analogy similar to computer OSs? If you want an operating system on two PCs in your home, you have to buy two licences.

[Simon]

I'm not sure either, Dopamine, but this is interesting:

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 states that copyright holders can't sue the average user for making home copies of their music. But the studios' lawyers say that the recording companies are not required to make available the technology to do so - that means the recording industry will try to make their disks as challenging as possible to copy.

And:

If you have purchased a CD, you have every right to copy that CD onto any medium you want, if it is for your personal use. This has not changed from the time of vinyl records being transferred to reel-to-reel tape.

Technically, you are allowed by law to make copies of CDs that you already own, and are not allowed to rip CDs from libraries. It's the same premise behind not copying DVDs or VHS movies from Blockbuster.

The problem these days is with the different DRM (digital rights management) codes that online distributors wrap these files in. Different players are not compatible with different DRM. Microsoft uses Windows Media DRM, Apple uses Fair Play, Real Networks uses Helix, etc. As a result, music purchased on iTunes does not work in a Windows Media environment, and vice versa. So basically, if you buy an iPod it will not play music that is not purchased on iTunes. This is a major problem that I feel is alienating the casual consumer.

Further, according to the BBC:

Copying music from a CD to a home computer could be made legal under new proposals from the UK government.

Millions of people already "rip" discs to their computers and move the files to MP3 players, although the process is technically against copyright law.

Intellectual property minister Lord Triesman said the law should be changed so it "keeps up with the times".

Music industry bodies gave a cautious welcome to the proposals, which are up for public consultation until 8 April.

The changes would apply only to people copying music for personal use - meaning multiple copying and internet file-sharing would still be banned.

Owners would not be allowed to sell or give away their original discs once they had made a copy.

Sales concerns

"To allow consumers to copy works and then pass on the original could result in a loss of sales," the proposals warn.

UK music industry body the BPI said it supported the move to clarify the law for consumers, but warned that any changes should not damage the rights of record companies.

The Association of Independent Music (Aim) said the proposals did not go far enough - pointing out that CDs could become obsolete in the next decade.

It said that, once CDs are replaced, the law could be misused to "open the floodgates to unstoppable copying", adding that it would like to see copyright holders compensated when music was copied.

Lord Triesman said the proposed changes would explore "where the boundaries lie between strong protection for right holders and appropriate levels of access for users".

The proposals also suggest schools and libraries should be given greater flexibility in how they use copyrighted material like CDs and DVDs, and suggests parodies of songs and films could be made exempt from copyright law.

The consultation follows the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, which recommended that aspects of the intellectual property system should be reformed.

[zappaDPJ]

Copyright law is fairly clear, it's an infringement and therefore illegal to reproduce any material that is subject to copyright (without permission).

In most cases having possession of a piece of work that is subject to copyright means that you have a licence to do certain things with it. It does not mean you own it. You may own the media that it is contained on but you do not own the content.

Copying music from a CD to and MP3 player is illegal. There was a government proposal last year to legalise "for private use" the copying of compact discs on to computers or MP3 players. As far as I am aware that change to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has not yet come into effect.

[Sebby]

How is it that iTunes is allowed to have a feature whereby you insert a CD and it rips it for your iPod in aac/mp3 format?

[zappaDPJ]

I'm not that familiar with iTunes but there are many other legitimate pieces of software that offer CD ripping including Microsoft's Media Player. I think what you are suggesting Sebby is that there is an obvious conflit of interests and I couldn't agree more. The bottom line though is that CD ripping is legal and CD ripping software embedded in iTunes is perfectly acceptable unless you choose to use it to rip copyright material without permission.

[JB]

One issue is that if you copy an operating system and use it on two computers, it is possible (probable) that both machines would be in use at once. With music copied for the car or another residence it is more likely to be used in just one location at any one time.

Unless someone else drives your car or lives in your other house that is. In which case, IMHO, it then falls into the category of passing on copyright material to a 3rd party.

I better tread carefully, think I just spotted another mine.

[Rik]

It's a very difficult field to manoeuvre, JB.

[drummer]

Care to elaborate on what makes copyright breaches not illegal?

I certainly can't and neither can UK legislators, hence my caveat that it's a legal minefield.

Breach of copyright cases are normally dealt with when it's about the of distribution of copyrighted works, but not in the downloading or ripping copyrighted material.  There's no such crime as "copyright theft" under the Theft Act or its many amendments because you can't physically steal intellectually property from anyone.

Not sure if anyone remembers the TV-Links website that was shut down because it aggregated links to TV shows, but the website owner was originally arrested for breaching trademark legislation because no one couldn't figure out what he was actually guilty of.

That's just mental.

Surely the only difference is in which court a case would be tried: civil or criminal.

That was my point - individuals are threatened by the BPI with unspecified legal action which will be cancelled if "compensation" to the tune of £5,000 is paid into BPI coffers.

That's immoral and appears to be nothing more than blackmailing the gullible using dubious methods.  The BPI has thus far failed to instigate a single case which could be contested in a court of law.  One has to wonder why this is so.

Copyright is precious and needs to be protected, nourished  and cherished, but the clowns looking after it have too much influence over our government and seem to think that their pensions are more important than our right to privacy.

[Dopamine]

That was my point - individuals are threatened by the BPI with unspecified legal action which will be cancelled if "compensation" to the tune of £5,000 is paid into BPI coffers.

That's immoral and appears to be nothing more than blackmailing the gullible using dubious methods.  The BPI has thus far failed to instigate a single case which could be contested in a court of law.  One has to wonder why this is so.

Copyright is precious and needs to be protected, nourished  and cherished, but the clowns looking after it have too much influence over our government and seem to think that their pensions are more important than our right to privacy.

Isn't the real issue here nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, legality/illegality, morality or privacy, but consumers who've got used to free goods trying to protect their position?

Any adult with an ounce of common sense must know, deep down, that obtaining free copies of goods that could not otherwise be legitimately owned without payment is wrong. (I'm not taking the moral high-ground here either, just arguing for common sense - I dare say, with three children at home, my PC contains mp3s of dubious origin).

Years ago, if you wanted music, you bought it. Home-taping came along and changed that premise slightly, then the internet arrived and the problem grew enormously.

Let's use a light-hearted example:
Sometime in the near future, a clever scientist develops a "reproducer", a machine into which you place an original item and, at the press of a button, unlimited exact replicas are produced. All you need is one example of anything to make unlimited quantities in the future. Do you like Mars bars? Simple. Nip down to the newsagent, buy one, job done. Use your reproducer to produce all future supplies, and allow all your friends to borrow the single Mars bar that you bought.

Friendly with your neighbour who has a Ferrari? Borrow it, place it in the reproducer and grow your own. Wow, isn't life great? I can get whatever I want for free, and then make it available to all and sundry for free too. What could be wrong with that?

We all know the answer: if nobody is buying anything, who finances the original development, creation and production?

I don't like spying, nor the heavy handed approach of some ISPs and the music industry, but I have less and less patience with those that complain about it. If you want to steal copyrighted work, go ahead by all means. Just keep quiet about it when you get warned, caught or frightened that you might be.

[Ann]

The voice of reason at last!

[drummer]

Oh deary me, it seems that the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has now permeated this forum.

I give up, I really do.

[Dopamine]

Oh deary me, it seems that the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has now permeated this forum.

I give up, I really do.

lol

I'm against ID cards, CCTV, private or state monitoring of any form, retention of email and mobile phone records, etc., etc., etc., and very vociferous in my support for the protection of civil liberties and everyone's right to anonymity, but where people choose to indulge in an activity that by any measure of common sense is wrong - whether or not the legislators have yet successfully managed to draft a framework that makes that activity illegal or deals with it adequately - it can't be right that they expect to be left alone to exploit the law's inadequacies and loopholes.

[drummer]

lol

I'm against ID cards, CCTV, private or state monitoring of any form, retention of email and mobile phone records, etc., etc., etc., and very vociferous in my support for the protection of civil liberties and everyone's right to anonymity...

Jolly good and may the Force be with you young Padawan.

...but where people choose to indulge in an activity that by any measure of common sense is wrong - whether or not the legislators have yet successfully managed to draft a framework that makes that activity illegal or deals with it adequately - it can't be right that they expect to be left alone to exploit the law's inadequacies and loopholes.

You seem to have erroneously come to the conclusion which automatically assumes that pointing out the stupidity and possible illegality of the BPI's stance is tantamount to advocating piracy.

Gimme a frikken break - on a good year, a quarter of my income comes from royalties and there's no way I want to jeopardise that and nobody I know indulges in the "wrong" activity you describe.

Maybe adding extra VAT to audio and video tapes is the answer?

[Dopamine]

Gimme a frikken break - on a good year, a quarter of my income comes from royalties and there's no way I want to jeopardise that and nobody I know indulges in the "wrong" activity you describe.

Maybe adding extra VAT to audio and video tapes is the answer?

I have you beat then. Almost my entire income is generated by the repeat sale of my copyrighted work. And...

All of my work is regularly and repeatedly copied and made available, in direct breach of its copyright and any licences granted upon it, on numerous websites. In fact, this very evening I've served removal notices on two sites, using US law (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), so like you I have no wish to jeopardise copyright protection.

However, you must live in a bubble if you don't know anyone who indulges in some illegal copying. It's rife, as I'm sure you know, and I've never met anyone who, when engaged in non-recriminatory discussion about it, doesn't admit that they know it's wrong.

My comments weren't directed at you in particular, just those who make a big fuss about industry's efforts to combat piracy. Nor do I think you're advocating it, but it does seem that many deliberately muddy the waters in an effort to divert attention from their real concern, which is, as I've already suggested, the possible loss of free access to goods that they once had to pay for.

I don't support additional taxes or levies of any sort. Piracy is wrong. The culprits need to be caught and punished, not the innocent penalised by higher taxes to recoup the losses caused by the immorality of the hardcore pirate. Sadly, I have no ideas as to how to achieve a solution.

I can say though that piracy isn't always a victimless crime or a crime only affecting the big, rich producers. I personally lose money daily to it. I also know several people who make a modest living from the sale of their copyrighted work and who have seen, in the past year or two (in almost direct correlation to the widespread uptake of fast internet connections) a very substantial drop in sales, yet an increase in the availability of their work on unauthorised sites. Demand hasn't diminished at all, just the copyright holder's income. For a few, it's caused them to stop producing new work. That is the major problem we all face if piracy remains unchecked: nothing new for the consumer to buy (or steal). Everyone loses.

All the time the industry is attempting to find methods to deal with piracy, and so long as those methods don't involve the univited monitoring of individual's lives, I'll suport the industry, even if they appear to be doing "nothing more than blackmailing the gullible using dubious methods".

After all, it would seem that current practice is to target uploaders who, by necessity and the design of their p2p software, have to advertise what they're making available for download. Don't advertise it, don't get monitored. No breach of privacy there, is there?