Industry lobbyists are often quick to dismiss these findings as incidents or weak research, and counter them with expensive studies they have commissioned themselves.

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) jumps into the discussion this week with a media policy brief urging the UK Government to look beyond the reports lobbyists hand to them. Their report concludes that the entertainment industry isn’t devastated by piracy, and that sharing of culture has several benefits.

“Contrary to the industry claims, the music industry is not in terminal decline, but still holding ground and showing healthy profits. Revenues from digital sales, subscription services, streaming and live performances compensate for the decline in revenues from the sale of CDs or records,” says Bart Cammaerts, LSE Senior Lecturer and one of the report’s authors.

The report shows that the entertainment industries are actually doing quite well. The digital gaming industry is thriving, the publishing sector is stable, and the U.S. film industry is breaking record after record.

“Despite the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) claim that online piracy is devastating the movie industry, Hollywood achieved record-breaking global box office revenues of $35 billion in 2012, a 6% increase over 2011,” the report reads.

Even the music industry is doing relatively well. Revenue from concerts, publishing and digital sales has increased significantly since the early 2000s and while recorded music revenues show a decline, there is little evidence that piracy is the lead cause.

“The music industry may be stagnating, but the drastic decline in revenues warned of by the lobby associations of record labels is not in evidence,” the report concludes.

The authors further argue that file-sharing can actually benefit the creative industries in various ways.

The report mentions the success of the SoundCloud service where artists can share their work for free through Creative Commons licenses, the promotional effect of YouTube where copyrighted songs are shared to promote sales, and the fact that research shows that file-sharers actually spend more money on entertainment than those who don’t share.

“Within the creative industries there is a variety of views on the best way to benefit from online sharing practices, and how to innovate to generate revenue streams in ways that do not fit within the existing copyright enforcement regime,” the authors write.

Finally, the report shows that punitive enforcement strategies such as the three strikes law in France are not as effective as the entertainment industries claim.

The researchers hope that the U.K. Government will review the Digital Economy Act in this light, and make sure that it will take into account the interests of both the public and copyright holders.

This means expanding fair use and private copying exceptions for citizens, while targeting enforcement on businesses rather than individuals.

“We recommend a review of the DEA and related legislation that strikes a healthy balance among the interests of a range of stakeholders including those in the creative industries, Internet Service Providers and internet users.”

“When both [the creative industries and citizens] can exploit the full potential of the internet, this will maximize innovative content creation for the benefit of all stakeholders,” the authors write.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In April 2011 the High Court sided with the government and said that copyright holders have the right to tackle unlawful file-sharing, but in October the ISPs were granted leave to appeal on the grounds that the DEA might breach several EU directives.

Just minutes ago judges Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Patten declared that the ISPs have lost their appeal and the Digital Economy Act will stand.

TalkTalk described the ruling as “disappointing” and along with BT say they are now considering their options. Groups representing copyright holders have welcomed the Court of Appeal ruling.

“The ISPs’ failed legal challenge has meant yet another year of harm to British musicians and creators from illegal filesharing,” said Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI.

UK Internet service providers will now be required to send warning letters to customers who the music, movie and software industries claim are infringing their copyrights on file-sharing networks.

After a year of sending letters, communications regulator Ofcom must report on the results of the campaign. In the event it has been ineffective in reducing file-sharing, so-called “technical measures” can be put in place – a euphemism for Internet disconnections and/or Internet throttling.

Open Rights Group, who have been campaigning against the legislation, said the Court of Appeal ruling has shortcomings.

“There is one thing the court cannot tell us: that this is a good law. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport had no evidence when they wrote this Act, except for the numbers they were given by a couple of industry trade bodies. This is a policy made on hearsay and assumptions, not proper facts or analysis,” ORG’s Peter Bradwell said in a statement.

“So significant problems remain. Publicly available wifi will be put at risk. Weak evidence could be used to penalize people accused of copyright infringement. And people will have to pay £20 for the privilege of defending themselves against these accusations. The Government needs to correct these errors with a proper, evidence-based review of the law.”

In comments to the BBC, Adam Rendle, a copyright lawyer at international law firm Taylor Wessing, said he expected BT and Talk Talk to take their appeal to the UK’s Supreme Court.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In April the High Court’s Justice Kenneth Parker sided with the government and “upheld the principle of taking measures to tackle the unlawful downloading of music, films, books and other copyright material.”

In October, BT and TalkTalk were given permission to appeal, with Lord Justice Lewison stating that the ISPs should be allowed to argue that the Act “was enacted without following proper procedures and that it may breach the EU’s E-Commerce Directive, Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, Data Protection Directive, Authorization Directive.”

As long as certain conditions are met, under EU law Internet service providers are not liable for the data carried over their networks, a situation known as the “mere conduit” defense. But today it’s being claimed that staff from both BT and TalkTalk gave advice to customers that they knew had intentions of breaching copyright.

According to a ThisIsMoney report, ‘mystery shoppers’ were asked to call ISPs asking questions about using file-sharing sites.

Perhaps conveniently considering developments due in court today, the allegations focus on advice given by BT and TalkTalk staff. However, based on the information given in the article, first impressions suggest that only one call is worthy of immediate attention and the rest seem potentially overblown.

During that call, made to BT, the ‘customer’ says they want to use Pirate Bay or isoHunt to download movies such as Harry Potter or Cars 2. The BT staff member allegedly noted that the films could be downloaded from those sites “in less time than it would take to watch the film”.

In another call to TalkTalk, the investigators claim that the customer services operator admits to using BitTorrent himself and says that The Pirate Bay would perform best with an ‘unlimited’ broadband package. But there are millions of items on The Pirate Bay, plenty of them legal, and the advice is good, piracy hasn’t been condoned and certainly no laws have been broken.

The report goes on to state that “a string of similar calls elicited no warnings about the potential illegality of such activity” and in every call “the use of such sites is mentioned clearly by the caller as a reason for signing up to a faster broadband package.”

While the initial item which references specific copyright works might be problematic, it is not up to an ISP to attempt to police customer activity or predict which content someone might access on The Pirate Bay. It is certainly not up to telesales operators to try and understand the intricacies of copyright law and then give impromptu advice in response to casual comments by ‘customers’.

Both BT and TalkTalk say that they only want customers to use the Internet for legal activities but Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI who have been critical of the ISPs’ opposition to the Digital Economy Act, says what has happened is unacceptable.

“It is shocking if broadband providers have been boosting their revenues selling broadband to customers who make it clear they intend to break the law,” he said. “This is not the behavior we should expect from responsible companies.”

As highlighted earlier, the information provided in the report is not exactly detailed, so it will be interesting to read the full transcripts of the calls – we’ve asked for copies from the editor and we’ll report back should we received them.

Later today, appeal judges Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Patten will give their decision on the future of the Digital Economy Act and announce whether BT and TalkTalk have been successful.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The ruling, in favor of ISPs BT and TalkTalk, comes this morning from the Court of Appeal.

The ISPs, who believe that the legislation impinges on the rights of Internet users, lost a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act back in April, but pressed on with their legal challenge.

In June this year, BT and TalkTalk were refused permission to appeal that decision.

In a comment the Open Rights Group described today’s decision from the Court of Appeal as “excellent news.”

Read More

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Liberal Democrats – the junior coalition member of the UK Government – were opposed to the legislation from the start and were the only major UK party to voice opposition to the Labour-led bill. Their coalition partners in the Conservative party had no official position on it.

The proposal (pdf) had two possible options – a broad opposing measure and a second more focused one.

Included in both proposals was the repeal of the disconnection provisions under sections 17 and 18 of the Act, measures which the government said they will not enforce, but which will remain in law.

The first option stood for the repeal of these areas, as well as the repeal of the notification system (sections 3-8). The limiting of internet connections, appeals and cost-sharing (sections 9-16) were put on hold in the latter option.

The proposal was passed on Monday with the first option, i.e the repealing of sections 3-18 of the Digital Economy Act.

“Tackling piracy is important, but it shouldn’t be seen as an end in itself. It’s more important to create conditions that reward innovation and talent, and ensure that creators get the benefits of their work,” said Cambridge MP Julian Huppert, the proposal’s author and Head of the Information Technology Working Group.

“The Digital Economy Act fails to do that; worse, it sorely lacks a convincing evidence base and real democratic legitimacy. I am delighted that Conference has passed this motion calling for the damaging parts of the Act to be repealed, and suggesting new ways for the digital economy to grow,” Huppert added.

It seems the ideas are percolating through that trying to sustain a 1970′s business model in 2011 is not going to work any more. Either that, or Lib Dems are afraid of going the way of Germany’s minority coalition party, The Free Democrats, who lost all their seats in Berlin this weekend, while Pirates romped home with 9%.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

It’s Convention season in the UK, and that means proposals for party positions are starting to circulate. One of the more interesting ones (from our perspective) is that of the Liberal Democrat’s Policies for Information Technology group, and their policy paper “Preparing the Ground: Stimulating Growth in the Digital Economy” (PDF). The Group is headed by Dr Jullian Huppert MP, who has previously introduced an Early Day Motion against the disconnection aspects of the bill.

The paper marks a return to the position the party held in the debate over the Digital Economy Act (DEAct), and covers a number of areas to increase growth in industries, and stimulate the economy. What makes it almost unique amongst proposal papers for political parties in power, is that doesn’t advocate trying to keep the status-quo of the 80s and early 90s.

In fact, the paper is a strong rejection of the position of the rights holding companies and their lobby groups, groups who have dominated the discussion, and pushed relentlessly for ever more restrictive laws. Proposals include strong network neutrality, pushing to implement aspects of the Hargreaves review that have yet to be tackled by the government, and repealing many aspects of the DEAct.

The party is clear that it’s not attempting to encourage piracy, but that methods should be fair and proportional. That means fair to all sides, including customers. One of the lauded aspects of the DMCA is the takedown provision, but said provision is currently one-sided. In 13 years, only one case has dealt with an improper take-down request, and the issue of sanctions in that case is still ongoing after 3 years. It’s clearly something they wish to avoid, which is why they worded the idea as follows.

2.1.8 We believe that rights holders should be able to issue take-down notices in a simple and automated manner, so long as these actions do not cause legitimate material to be removed; there must be strong checks and balances against abuse of this, with appropriate penalties attached.

Strong criticism is also evident for the Digital Economy Act as a whole. With the option to repeal sections 3-18 of the DEAct the following comment is made

Given this emphasis on growth and balanced legislation, we recommend the repeal of sections 3-18 of the Digital Economy Act, which relate to copyright infringement. Good legislation is built upon a robust evidential framework and a clear democratic mandate, neither of which were secured in this case. The ultimate result has been a deeply flawed and unworkable Act which stands only as the main emblem of a misguided, outdated and negative approach.

Perhaps most heartening of all, there is also a proposal for a truly independent review of the impact of file sharing on the creative industries. While it’s not perfect – the issue should be the impact on creativity and culture as a whole – it’s certainly a step forward, and the admission that claims made in the past have done so based on insufficient evidence. It also commented that some studies have shown piracy increases sales, a point we’ve noted many times before

Of course, the Lib-Dems are the minority party in the UK coalition Government, and this vote will just express the position of the party as a whole. The vote itself will not have any force of law, yet the focus on the act and its implications are encouraging, and show that at east some politicians outside the Pirate Party are not blindly accepting any piracy claims they’re told. The Lib-Dem Conference will take place September 17-21 in Birmingham. Despite some negative comments that it’s too late, we look forward to seeing what happens.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Parts of the report produced by OFCOM were censored by the UK government but those restrictions, ironically, were easily bypassed. The net result is that the uncensored report provides a pretty decent guide on how Internet users are expected to bypass future website blocks and how ‘pirate’ site operators will attempt to help them. We offer a summary below.

What makes the assessment of OFCOM particularly interesting is that it shows how ineffective the anti-piracy plans of the US government are. According to the report, many of the censorship measures that are included in the PROTECT IP Act wont be as effective as advertised.

Measures Users Can Take To Bypass Website Blocking Measures

— Use a Virtual Private Network (VPN)

The key to a VPN is that they hide a user’s traffic from their own ISP. Since ISPs will be the entities required to implement blocks, it necessarily follows that they cannot block VPN’d users accessing blocked sites if they cannot see what they’re doing.

OFCOM notes that any UK-based VPN services which facilitate access to a previously blocked site (say, Newzbin2 to give a current example) may also be required to comply with the terms of a blocking injunction. This means that subscribers to a UK-based VPN service could find that it is rendered useless. In order to avoid such a situation, users would need to subscribe to a non-UK VPN service.

— Change their DNS servers to those offered by 3rd parties

OFCOM states that in the event that a DNS block of a site is ordered, users can circumvent their own ISP’s blockade simply by changing to a DNS server operated by 3rd parties outside the UK.

Helpfully they also provide two examples – Google Public DNS and OpenDNS – both of which come with detailed instructions to get them working.

— Use an anonymous web proxy which is not reliant on UK ISP DNS servers

Foreign web proxy sites such as Kproxy and HideMyAss both offer free services which can be used to bypass DNS blocks.

OFCOM also says that the use of TOR (The Onion Router) would also prove effective.

— Don’t use a remote DNS at all

Windows users can add IP address entries to their ‘hosts file’ which means that external DNS systems won’t even be consulted. Further information on the technicalities, provided by critics of US blocking, can be found here.

Another often-effective option is for a user to enter the IP address of a site directly into the URL bar of their browser.

Measures Site Operators Can Take To Bypass Bans

— Change the site’s IP address by moving host and manipulating TTL

In respect of IP address cycling, OFCOM also explain how TTL can be manipulated to assist with domain unblocking.

“When moving to a new IP address a site operator may register multiple IP addresses for a given site in order to maintain service in the event that some of those individual IP addresses are blocked,” OFCOM writes.

“Furthermore, Domain Name System (DNS) record value, determining the length of time that the IP address for a particular domain (expressed in seconds) remains in remote name server caches, it is easier for a site operator to move IP addresses without end users losing access. Where a low TTL is expressed the ISP DNS name server resolution cache is purged quickly thereby ensuring that newly assigned site IP addresses are retrieved from the authoritative name server and site accessibility is maintained.”

— Change domains and IP addresses

“Similarly, site operators may quickly mirror or make copies of a blocked site on new top level or country code domains pointing towards new IP addresses e.g. www.blockedsite.cc; www.blockedsite.ru; www.blockedsite.vn; www.blockedsite.net,” OFCOM explains.

— Facilitate user access to blocked site via Virtual Private Network (VPN)

Sites could offer an in-house VPN service to offer access to blocked users. However, in keeping with the VPN item in the section above, if they are deemed to be too closely associated with the blocked site in question, they too could be blocked via UK injunction. See the Pirate Bay and BTjunkie proxy-blocking cases in Italy for a practical example of how that can happen.

— Operate a so-called Fast Flux network

Fast Flux systems are often associated with malware, but can also be used to facilitate access to blocked sites. In very shallow detail, users of a blocked site could choose to operate a piece of software which would associate hundreds or thousands of IP addresses with a blocked site which could change as often as every few minutes. More technical detail here.

— Possible site operator counter-measures specific to URL blocking

OFCOM list a number of techniques operators can use to circumvent blocks which target a site’s URL (i.e Newzbin.com, ThePirateBay.org)

- Provide encrypted access via SSL/TLS, i.e via HTTPS rather than simple HTTP.

- Running a website on a port other than the standard port 80

- Reorganizing site structure if blocking is directed only at specific URLs

- Encoding URLs to evade blocking

Blocking techniques and OFCOM’s assessment of how difficult they are to circumvent

IP address blocking – Easy by site operator & various ways by end-user

DNS blocking – Easy. Use of 3rd party UK or overseas DNS, new domain registration, end-user bypass, mirroring to new domains.

Shallow Packet Inspection (SPI) – Easy by site operator and various ways by end-user e.g encryption, anonymity-networks.

Deep Packet Inspection – Evade by use of encryption, anonymity networks.

URL Blocking – Site operator can reorganize site with ease thereby creating new URLS. Evade by use of encryption, anonymity networks.

Hybrid DNS and DPI – Evasion by use of encryption, anonymity networks.

Hybrid DNS and URL – Evasion by use of encryption, anonymity networks – new domain registration, mirroring.

Hybrid DNS and SPI – Evasion by use of encryption, anonymity networks – new domain registration, mirroring on new site/domain.

OFCOM final conclusion on DNS blocking effectiveness from a technical stance

“For site operators and end users with a sufficient incentive to engage in circumvention DNS blocking is technically relatively straightforward to bypass,” OFCOM notes.

Another paragraph sums up their technical assessment clearly.

“Circumvention of a block is technically a relatively trivial matter irrespective of which of the techniques used. Knowledge of how site operators and end users can work around blocks is widely distributed and easily accessible on the internet.”

“It is not technically challenging and does not require a particularly high level of skill or expertise.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

OFCOM also released a second report titled Digital Economy Act, Online Copyright Infringement Appeals Process: Options for reducing costs.

On the front page of the report there is a note that redactions have taken place to censor sections relating to “on-going policy development” of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

The DCMS did a better job of hiding the blacked-out text than earlier in the week but not so good as to keep out TorrentFreak and our X-ray specs.

The first redaction on Page 3 says simply “Revisit the grounds for appeal set out in Ofcom’s draft Initial Obligations Code” but two pages later things start to get much more interesting. It seems the government (or more likely their friends in the copyright lobby) doesn’t want talk of an error-prone system becoming public.

Page 5 – OFCOM wants rights holders’ accusations to be ‘quality assured’

Ofcom has also sought to ensure efficiency by introducing into the Code a requirement that Copyright Owners take part in a quality assurance process with the aim of minimising errors. This should help to reduce the number of wrongly identified infringements and subscribers. (ISPs can also have some impact here by ensuring that the letters they send to subscribers make clear the implications of receiving a notification).

A “quality assurance process” sounds like a great idea, but who could be trusted to implement such a regime and ensure independent scrutiny? Anti-piracy tracking companies are notoriously secretive and unlikely to be open about the short-comings of their “proprietary systems”.

Page 11 – Government rejects OFCOM suggestion of subscriber appeal “on any reasonable grounds”

The grounds set out in the Act are non-exhaustive and we reflected this in our drafted Code by including an option to appeal on “any other reasonable ground”. This was intended to provide an efficient mechanism through which to avoid a lengthy revision of the Code should subscribers find additional, but reasonable, grounds for appeal as technologies and consumer behaviours evolve.

We understand that Government believes we should not include this mechanism in the final Code

It is far from clear why the government wishes to remove the right for a citizen to appeal a wrongful accusation on “any reasonable ground”. What is clear, however, is why the government might wish to redact this statement from the report – it looks very bad indeed.

Page 11 – ISP IP address matching to be “quality assured”

We have also introduced into the Code a requirement that Copyright Owners take part in a quality assurance process with the aim of minimising errors. We are proposing to sponsor a similar standard for the IP address matching processes of the ISPs, although participation will be voluntary. This should help to reduce the number of wrongly identified infringements and subscribers (appeal grounds (a) and (b)). We anticipate that the majority of appeals will rely on ground (c) in the absence of systematic failures by a Copyright Owner or ISP under the Code.

When it comes to copyright infringement cases ISPs make errors so it is good they will be required to adopt similar “quality assurance” processes as rights holders. However, how many will choose to do so when participation is voluntary remains to be seen.

Redactions on page 17 merely repeat details covered in earlier redactions. Redactions on page 19 likewise, save a comment that a rightsholder “quality assurance” process

….does not create a rebuttable presumption in favour of the rights holder but should help bring down the proportion of incorrect CIRs [Copyright Infringement Reports] and therefore appeals costs since there are likely to be fewer meritorious appeals in this respect. This quality assurance is also intended to make sure that the number of CIRs rejected by ISPs for process reasons is minimised

The full but redacted document can be downloaded here.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As widely predicted, a review by communications regulator OFCOM found that the plans were unworkable.

“Ofcom was also asked to consider whether the site-blocking provisions in the Digital Economy Act would work in practice,” began today’s statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

“The Act contains reserve powers to allow courts to order that websites dedicated to copyright infringement are blocked. The regulator concluded the provisions as they stand would not be effective and so the Government will not bring forward the Act’s site-blocking provisions at this time.”

While some will see the decision as a victory for common sense, it does not necessarily follow that there will be no site blocking in the UK.

As the recent MPA v BT case showed all too clearly, existing legislation (the Copyrights, Design and Patents Act) is now deemed powerful enough to carry out the same function. The ruling in that case ordered ISP BT to block all subscriber access to Usenet indexing site Newzbin2.

However, without the assistance of the now-nuked provisions of the Digital Economy Act, copyright holders may be forced to go “the long way round” to get sites blocked, i.e through the legal system and existing legislation.

But as complicated as it was, the Newzbin2 case had a number of special features (such as a previous UK court ruling against Newzbin1) which helped the case along and through to ultimate success for the MPA. Relatively speaking, future legal attempts will not be as easy.

“The MPA focus until now has been on this Newzbin case and not beyond it,” the MPA told TorrentFreak when asked about future site-blocking plans. “Although there will be other targets, no decisions have yet been made.”

“However, other rights-holders have been watching the case with interest and may well have their own target rogue sites,” the MPA concludes.

But of course, there are still ongoing discussions between the government, rights-holders and ISPs concerning the voluntary blocking of websites, something which the MPA and international music industry will be keen to pursue.

Other elements of Cable’s announcement, such as the creation of a Digital Copyright Exchange, the relaxation of laws which currently forbid UK citizens from format-shifting their own legally purchased media, and the permitting of parody works without copyright-holder permission, can be read here.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The documents detail meetings held in 2009 with Lord Mandelson, then Secretary of State (SoS) for Business, on the UK’s then-upcoming Digital Economy Act.

One report is titled ‘Note of Secretary of State’s meeting with Lucian Grainge (CEO, Universal Music Group International). In common with many documents released under FOI requests, this one (marked ‘RESTRICTED’) has blacked-out sections, hiding information deemed too sensitive for the public eye.

However, due to the government’s failure to black-out the text in all versions of the document (and leaving the PDF version open to exploitation) we can now reveal the contents of a censored paragraph.

In it, Universal CEO Lucian Grainge begins by talking about a deal his company struck with Virgin Media.

“Universal have entered into an arrangement with the Internet Service Provider (ISP) Virgin to target legitimate broadband users with a £10 ‘all you can eat’ offer,” Grainge explained.

Indeed, in mid-2009 that particular deal was hailed as “ground-breaking” but the other major labels didn’t sign on to provide the necessary momentum. Quietly, even Universal had reservations.

“There is a commercial risk with this strategy, which could be like putting a Coca Cola pipe in your house which would then supply the whole street,” Grainge told the meeting.

But the deal with Virgin was two-way. To combat piracy concerns like these the ISP agreed to do something for Universal.

“In return for a fixed fee revenue share Virgin have agreed to anti-piracy measures, including pop-up warnings on screens,” Grainge confirmed.

Eventually the Universal/Virgin deal fizzled out and now more than two years later the Spotify service is on the horizon instead.

However, it is Grainge’s final comments during the meeting on anti-piracy enforcement that will raise eyebrows, particularly since the government has tried and failed to censor this statement from the Freedom of Information request.

“As ISPs can monitor the amount of power used by specific users and the sites connected to, it is possible for ISPs to pass on any details to owners of particular rights, who could then take legal action,” Grainge concludes.

The mere suggestion from the head of a major label that ISPs could spy on their customers is outrageous enough, but mentioned in the same breath as a deal with Virgin Media will cause even greater concern.

In late 2009 it was revealed that Virgin Media had partnered with technology company Detica to install a Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) system. Called CView, the product was to be installed to monitor the instances of illicit file-sharing on Virgin’s network.

“Understanding how consumer behaviour is changing will be an important requirement of Virgin Media’s upcoming music offering [with Universal Music] and, should they become law, the Government’s legislative proposals will also require measurement of the level of copyright infringement on ISPs’ networks,” Virgin Media’s executive director Jon James explained at the time.

The assurances were, however, that all of the data collected by CView on Virgin’s network (and on other ISPs – Detica were in talks with them too) would be anonymized, but groups such as Privacy International still had concerns.

The notion of ISPs becoming “copyright cops” is an increasingly worrying topic. With the voluntary warning system just agreed in the US, ISPs are slowly revealing that they are prepared to work with the music and movie industries. Where they will draw that final cooperative line remains to be seen but if we take Lucian Grainge’s comments at face value, we can see where the labels might be aiming.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.