bit-gamer.net

Parliament passes Digital Economy Bill

Parliament passes Digital Economy Bill

The Digital Economy Bill has been passed through into UK law after a last-minute reading saw it receive 142 votes.

The controversial Digital Economy Bill has passed its third reading in the House of Commons, meaning that subject to a few finalities, it is set to become UK law. The bill was passed with 189 votes in favour, and 47 votes against, attracting support from both Labour and Conservative MPs (you can see the full list of how the MPs voted here).

The bill covers a wide range of aspects of the law to do with technology, including the switchover to digital radio and the role of TV's Channel 4, but it has become most well known for its attempts to deal with online copyright infringement as well as making changes to how games will be classified. The Digital Economy Bill will force the UK to adopt the European PEGI rating system for games, despite recommendations from the Byron Report that the BBFC, the body which oversees film classification, is more suitable.

The Digital Economy Bill includes a number of different measures to fight against piracy, imposing obligations on ISPs to reduce its prevalence. The bill imposes two obligations on ISPs - if a rights holder tells the ISP its users are infringing copyright, it has to notify those users, and it must record the number of times its users have been notified, and in turn make this data available to rights holders.

Initially, this list will be anonymous, but, as the Government's summary of the bill puts it: "this would allow the rights holder to apply for a court order to get access to the name and address of serious repeat infringers in order to prioritise legal action against them. This will be the first time that rights holders have been able to target action in this way, and will enable them to protect their copyright with the assurance that it is the infringers that they have identified as causing most damage who will face the consequences."

That's not all. The Secretary of State will be able to direct Ofcom to tell the ISPs to use technical measures - such as bandwidth capping or
temporary suspension - to achieve the government's overall objective of a substantial reduction in online piracy. The bill makes it clear ISPs will be legally obliged to comply.

The summary says that "suspension will be a last resort and the Government has no expectation of mass suspensions resulting... [and] underpinning all of this will be a clear and effective appeals mechanism." You'll be able to appeal to an independent body set up by Ofcom, and the Government would like to remind you that "of course all of this will only happen after the subscriber has had clear and ample warning that their account appears to have been used to infringe copyright, and been given advice on where they can obtain content lawfully and how they can protect their Internet connection against misuse."

Many commentators have been critical of the bill's broad scope, its hazy definitions and the fact it is being pushed through in a period known as the "wash-up" - the end of the current parliamentary session (as Parliament will soon be on recess for the General Election) when bills typically don't receive much debate time. The readings of the bill in the House of Commons were poorly attended and the standard of debate infuriated many. Some MPs displayed a woeful grasp of the technical issues, while others repeated questionable statistics from industry bodies (such as that old lie which assumes every pirated copy of a work is equivalent to a lost sale, or conflating copyright infringement with property theft).

You can read more about the Digital Economy Bill over at the official Parliament site. Let us know your thoughts in the forums. Better yet, get involved with the process - if you live in the UK, make sure you're registered to vote, find out about your local MP and ask the questions relevant to you when your MP wants your vote.

110 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Krikkit 8th April 2010, 11:50 Quote
Unbelievable. If ever there was a time to lose faith in this government this was it.
Hugo 8th April 2010, 11:50 Quote
It's nice to see our 'digital economy' law matching out libel law in its insanity.

Now, can someone help me find where I can download a car?
Bhuvsta 8th April 2010, 11:58 Quote
Madness!
Also if an ISP has to suspend someone does that mean that they lose a customer? In a few years time these companies will still be down on sales, and what will they blame it on then? On the bright side this may increase jobs in the law profession.
Tyrmot 8th April 2010, 12:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhuvsta
On the bright side this may increase jobs in the law profession.

That's a bright side??
delriogw 8th April 2010, 12:14 Quote
I forsee adverts for people who've been unfairly cut off from their internet and want to claim.

Between that, injury claims, mis-sold PPI and cash for gold crap it'll be all we get any more. Might improve the beeb's viewing figures i suppose. Or more likely it'll increase torrenting of shows online.

HA it'll cause piracy (loose).
lacuna 8th April 2010, 12:20 Quote
Meh, total non issue for people who don't pirate copyright material.
cjoyce1980 8th April 2010, 12:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Meh, total non issue for people who don't pirate copyright material.

like you've never
Boogle 8th April 2010, 12:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Meh, total non issue for people who don't pirate copyright material.

Hardly. How many people use your Internet connection at home?

Or far worse: This law does not require you to have committed a crime. It requires you to be accused only. So if you were my neighbour and you annoyed me, I can phone up 3 times reporting you for pirating stuff on your Internet connection and then you'll have none.

On the plus side that latter scenario means this law will probably be removed when someone challenges it. I'm not a solicitor, but a law like this can't be on strong legal ground. It's got to be pretty close to an illegal law.

Before people say 'oh no, they have to have evidence', they say themselves they dont: that their account appears to have been used to infringe copyright.

One step closer to thought police. We've already got parents being reported by their own children for 'green infractions' - how long before they start being reported for 'not agreeing with everything the state says'?
sligub 8th April 2010, 12:34 Quote
Also if you provide a wifi service with your business you're legally responsible for anything that is downloaded with it. Oops end to free wifi everywhere. And its not just pirates that are against it BT and The British Library also spoke out.
Spraduke 8th April 2010, 12:37 Quote
I used to torrent tv shows frequently and the occasional movie or game. I can honestly say I haven't pirated anything since about half way through Uni (so nearly 5 years ago now).

1. It s more hassle than its really worth, dodgy torrents that don't complete, are slow or just are garbage (Spanish dubs anyone!).
2. I enjoy movies and games so why not encourage them to make more of what I like by giving them the money to do so (shock horror). After all everyone moans about console ports but if you don't support the companies that makes the games you did enjoy what do you expect to happen.

As a result I dont have to have TB's of storage, hundreds of iffy codecs which are notoriously buggy, no torrent client, my bandwidth isn't throttled so when I do want something of steam its damn quick, oh and no one is going to sue me to boot.(this is a benefit of not pirating rather than a reason not to)
capnPedro 8th April 2010, 12:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Meh, total non issue for people who don't pirate copyright material.

Three words, my friend. Slippery. ****ing. Slope.

Next comes the deep packet inspection (government mandated of course) to monitor piracy and then, oh, well we might as well check for terrorism while we're at it and before you know it, all electronic communication is being warrentlessly wiretapped.
sligub 8th April 2010, 12:40 Quote
The bill also grants the the secretary of state for business the power to block "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright". Wikileaks for example.
javaman 8th April 2010, 12:41 Quote
How does this affect heavy users? Seems that if your a heavy user your gonna be accused of illigal downloading
devilxc 8th April 2010, 12:47 Quote
It's nice to know that our government is controlled by the corporations and not be the people.
Meaty Pete 8th April 2010, 12:47 Quote
I live in a shared house. ALL male ALL downloading ALL the time. Wouldn't be surprised if MI5 breach the front door, after practising on CODmw2 =)

Not too worried to be honest. Like with all piracy, it evolves while officials are still scratching their balding heads over the last crack/mod/homebrew etc.

Even less worried considering we can already encrypt downloading to disguise it from ISPs.

In fact there are already programs that do it without you even knowing. Fabulous.

Maybe I should shut up and try to keep this quiet hahaha. Stupid MPs they are rubbish :)
smc8788 8th April 2010, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogle
So if you were my neighbour and you annoyed me, I can phone up 3 times reporting you for pirating stuff on your Internet connection and then you'll have none.

Erm, I don't think that's quite how it works. Do you have any proof of that (which I would find hard to believe, since the Bill was only passed last night), or are you just making it up? Because I'm pretty sure they can't take any action against you until you've been proven guilty (and we all know how well that worked out when law firms started trying to sue people).
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
How does this affect heavy users? Seems that if your a heavy user your gonna be accused of illigal downloading

Heavy user of what? If you're a heavy user of P2P filesharing programs, then yes, you'll probably get accused of illegal downloading. Unless you take measures to prevent detection and protect your identity. Which most heavy P2P users do.
scawp 8th April 2010, 12:55 Quote
At least there will always be that guy down the pub flogging dvds and software for 10bob each, I'll get some duty free fags off him as well whilst I'm at it
gavomatic57 8th April 2010, 13:02 Quote
At the moment I just see games developers shying away from the PC and using piracy as excuse. At the same time I see forumites bragging that they are going to torrent something or have torrented whatever game the thread is talking about. If you are a pirate you deserve what is coming to you. If you are not a pirate, the first warning from your ISP should inspire you to clear your name before things progress. Carpet-bombing from parasitic law firms should be the last thing you see, not the first.

Glad to see the orphan works clause 43 has been ditched though.
Instagib 8th April 2010, 13:12 Quote
When do we get a law forcing ISP's to provide the service we pay for? I get 4MB (6 on a good day) broadband dispite paying for 10MB. (and don't give me all that crap about it being to do with where i live. don't sell me 10MB if you know i can't use it!) So instead of passing laws that actually benifit the masses, parlament would rather pass bills that criminalise us?! This is madness....
Blademrk 8th April 2010, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogle
So if you were my neighbour and you annoyed me, I can phone up 3 times reporting you for pirating stuff on your Internet connection and then you'll have none.

Erm, I don't think that's quite how it works. Do you have any proof of that (which I would find hard to believe, since the Bill was only passed last night), or are you just making it up? Because I'm pretty sure they can't take any action against you until you've been proven guilty (and we all know how well that worked out when law firms started trying to sue people).

This is what most people are up in arms over - the key term is "Suspected" file sharer. It should be up to them to prove you're guilty, not for you to prove you're innocent.
lacuna 8th April 2010, 13:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Meh, total non issue for people who don't pirate copyright material.

Three words, my friend. Slippery. ****ing. Slope.

Next comes the deep packet inspection (government mandated of course) to monitor piracy and then, oh, well we might as well check for terrorism while we're at it and before you know it, all electronic communication is being warrentlessly wiretapped.

So what? Apart from the fact that monitoring the 18.3 million households in the UK is completely unfeasible, what benefit would it be to the authorities?
WildThing 8th April 2010, 13:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
Unbelievable. If ever there was a time to lose faith in this government this was it.

+1 All hope is lost :(:(
Woodspoon 8th April 2010, 13:29 Quote
I forsee hundreds / thousands of free wifi areas shutting down.
And what about these free wifi town centers that the government has been spending millions on? who's going to get the warning for people pirating on them?
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/11/18/swindon-scores-wifi-mesh/1
Psy-UK 8th April 2010, 13:32 Quote
Surely you can just run your connection through a VPN so you have a completely different IP that points in a different country all together? How are ISPs possibly going to monitor EVERY USERS traffic? So many questions, so many vague or non-existent answers.
Xir 8th April 2010, 13:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by scawp
At least there will always be that guy down the pub flogging dvds and software for 10bob each, I'll get some duty free fags off him as well whilst I'm at it


And Homedownloading is killing that...so thats what it's about, he gets ten pounds, your doctors happy (as you'll die early) the pub earns some.
Initiatives like this keep the british economy alive! :D
smc8788 8th April 2010, 13:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
This is what most people are up in arms over - the key term is "Suspected" file sharer. It should be up to them to prove you're guilty, not for you to prove you're innocent.

Well I have a letter from my MP here which says that no action can be taken to suspend or throttle accounts unless there is an "explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty."
BlackMage23 8th April 2010, 13:49 Quote
Wow, the Lib Dems just won my vote without trying.
Bloodburgers 8th April 2010, 13:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instagib
When do we get a law forcing ISP's to provide the service we pay for? I get 4MB (6 on a good day) broadband dispite paying for 10MB. (and don't give me all that crap about it being to do with where i live. don't sell me 10MB if you know i can't use it!) So instead of passing laws that actually benifit the masses, parlament would rather pass bills that criminalise us?! This is madness....

Are you sure that the package wasn't quoted as "up to" xMB. It makes all the difference.

And i would love to see some PC enthusiast, Law savvy person turn this piece of legislation on its heads and shove it on the British government and the corporations leaning on them!
Dave Lister 8th April 2010, 14:06 Quote
You can't really call this a democracy if, the majority of people (p2p users) are criminalised while the law protects those that are already richer than most of us can imagine (artists and there management).

The government is doing this to 'protect' the music and film industries but, who's to say music stars and movie stars are supposed to make so much ? They don't do a dangerous or heroic job so why is it accepted that they should naturally be rolling in cash ?
DXR_13KE 8th April 2010, 14:15 Quote
You know what? I am glad that this has passed... this will shuffle things around so hard that politicians and media companies will get whiplashed...
Boogle 8th April 2010, 14:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blademrk
This is what most people are up in arms over - the key term is "Suspected" file sharer. It should be up to them to prove you're guilty, not for you to prove you're innocent.

Well I have a letter from my MP here which says that no action can be taken to suspend or throttle accounts unless there is an "explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty."

Wait, what? I would read the bill rather than a letter which doesn't have to contain a grain of truth. Trusting that is like trusting any MP's promises - foolish to say the least. You mentioned that I'm making stuff up - I quoted a legal interpretation by the people pushing the bill through. Or alternatively you can read the actual bill yourself - it only ever mentions 'suspected'. This is the illegal part of the law - since it purposely leaves the law open to interpretation and therefore abuse. For example you can suspect anyone of anything, so if the gov wants to they can cut anyone they like off. If you're posting a blog that's anti-gov, they can just use this law to cut you off of the Internet.

Lest ye forget that the terrorism act - another rather shady law. This law is explicitly for countering terrorism, and since there aren't many you can assume it's seldom used? Afterall the government and police were very clear that it's only used in extremely rare circumstances and only when they suspect the person is a terrorist (the law itself does NOT require reasonable suspicion):

"The number of people stopped and searched under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act fell to 200,444 in 2009, a 12% drop from 2008."

So, are there 200,444 terrorists roaming around the UK right now, every year?

"The figures show that since the US terror attacks on 11 September 2001, in the UK 383 suspects have been charged with terrorism-related offences, with 310 prosecutions completed. Of those, 74% were convicted. "

So well over 200,000 people charged every year, they get 229 convictions. That's a success rate of 0.014%, assuming 200,000 stops every year for 9 years (it's actually siginficantly higher than that).

"In January the European Court of Human Rights ruled police who use anti-terrorism powers to stop and search members of the public without suspicion are acting illegally."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8536412.stm

So tell me, do you really think that this Digital Economy Bill has anything to do with what's best for the people, or even for stopping pirates? Or since Mandelson pushed it, and he's very much in bed with large media corporations... is it more to do with money? The whole law stinks, just like the terrorism act. Fortunately I'm hoping that just like the terrorism act, they very fact the law is indiscriminate and does not require evidence will cause it to be dropped sooner rather than later.
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 15:09 Quote
people suspected of a crime are already penalised, people on remand, are not guilty of anything until it is proved in court that they have done the supsected crime, so why are they in prison, is this not illegal?

this bill is about making it easier to deal with suspected illegal copyright infringement, among other things, like forcing channel 3(itv) and channel 4, to deliver media content in other digital formats, which they already do anyway, its also about switching radio to a purely digital format, the bill covers quite a few areas not just piracy.

you need to read the bill as a whole not just the part about, stopping pirates.
HandMadeAndroid 8th April 2010, 15:13 Quote
This is BS
Boogle 8th April 2010, 15:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
people suspected of a crime are already penalised, people on remand, are not guilty of anything until it is proved in court that they have done the supsected crime, so why are they in prison, is this not illegal?

Difference is they have reasonable suspicion with at least some evidence to back it up. For example a police officer may have seen them throw something that looks like marijuana into the bushes, or they may have been driving recklessly, etc. etc.

Any law that doesn't require reasonable suspicion isn't exactly a law is it? It reads like an excuse for the police / gov / power wielder to do whatever they want. If it doesn't have to be reasonable, then they can say whatever they want and get away with it. 'That person is a terrorist / file sharing!'. Why? 'I don't need a reason, they just are'.

A lot of dodgy laws are covered up in legitimate laws so they can be pushed through. Afterall the terrorism act also has some very important and useful parts in it. It also happens to conceal a part that lets the police arrest anyone at any time for any reason. Interestingly all fascist states have exactly the same law, just not hidden within others. Now we've got a law embedded within another that lets the gov disconnect anyone from the Internet at any time for any reason.
CardJoe 8th April 2010, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Wow, the Lib Dems just won my vote without trying.
Flibblebot 8th April 2010, 15:29 Quote
I'm glad to say that my local MP actually voted no. I'm not sure whether it was down to my eloquence, but I like to think so ;)

It's just a shame he's standing down next month :(
smc8788 8th April 2010, 15:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogle
*Irrelevant Terrorism Act waffle snip*

So tell me, do you really think that this Digital Economy Bill has anything to do with what's best for the people, or even for stopping pirates?

No, and I never said that; I've always been against parts of it (though it's worth noting it's about more than just copyright infringement/file sharing). Personally, I think the Bill is useless and the MPs will probably realise this if, as you say, they start disconnecting thousands of people's Internet connections just because someone is found to be using a P2P file sharing program, effectively sending us back to the dark ages.
gnutonian 8th April 2010, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
So what? Apart from the fact that monitoring the 18.3 million households in the UK is completely unfeasible, what benefit would it be to the authorities?
When they own the information, they can sell it. I think the DVLA already does it. That's only the financial benefit, though.

Every government's wet dream is to have every little bit of information on every citizen. That way they can control every citizen, and stay in power. That isn't a conspiracy theory, but simple human mechanics: people with power want to stay in power. Greed begets greed.

The government don't see us as the nice, generally law-abiding citizens most of us are: we're an anonymous grey mass. They only interact with their friends (who aren't factory workers, but rather owners of large businesses, say... EMI, Universal, BAE, etc) and thus have an askew view.

Therefore, in their wrong view, if it benefits their friends it must be good. And for those that don't think like that: if it benefits their friends, it benefits themselves. Either way, it's us that are screwed.


Apart from that...

Torrent swarms are filled with false IPs as well as real ones. If the IP address you've been assigned is in there, strike 1. Adding to that, accusations based on an IP address are laughable at best. So even if you don't fileshare, you still may be accused. And an accusation is all this bill wants to consider you guilty.

There is already a law in place to fight copyright infringement, which can easily be applied to the internet: the rights owner provides evidence to a court whilst accusing the alleged infringer, the court decides based on the evidence presented and both parties' statements.
However, that's a lengthy process and doesn't benefit the rights owner in the end. That's why they cosied up to their pals in politics to get laws like this one (and HADOPI in France) passed.
Even if they get a lot of innocent "guilty" people, they don't care.

Surveilling everyone because of copyright infringement is ridiculous. I can understand random stop-and-search and a cop on every corner in a city which has seen multiple daily murders, but surveilling millions of people because of a minority who commits a small infringement is... horrendeous. We're supposed to live in free and democratic countries (remember the on-going wars to bring freedom to far-away countries?): if you're watched 24/7, that's not freedom.
AcidJiles 8th April 2010, 15:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Wow, the Lib Dems just won my vote without trying.
steveo_mcg 8th April 2010, 16:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Wow, the Lib Dems just won my vote without trying.

With opposition the lib dems have i don't see how they can fail to loose the next election.
Boogle 8th April 2010, 16:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
No, and I never said that; I've always been against parts of it *Irrelevent waffle snip* (sucks when people add comments utterly disregarding what you said doesn't it? Just remove it, no need for harsh comments)

Ah fair enough, I missunderstood you. Still I like it as as a generic statement to the reader, albeit it's fairly redundent.
DXR_13KE 8th April 2010, 16:44 Quote
Quote:

Either that room is HUGE or there were very few people there... being the last one a ridiculous statement...
lp1988 8th April 2010, 17:05 Quote
Quote:

And that is the people who woted against.
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 17:32 Quote
this is from the commonsleader.gov.uk website

•creating a robust legal and regulatory framework to combat illegal file sharing and other forms of online copyright infringement and give Ofcom a specific new responsibility to significantly reduce this practice, including two specific obligations on Internet Service Providers: the notification of unlawful activity and, for alleged serial-infringers, collation of data to allow rights holders to obtain court orders to force the release of personal details, enabling legal action to be taken against them;
eddtox 8th April 2010, 17:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidJiles
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Wow, the Lib Dems just won my vote without trying.

+1 Although they won mine a long time ago. You should check out some of their other policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnutonian
/snip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogle
/snip

+1. The vast majority of british people are decent, law-abiding and hard-working, regardless what the media (or politicians) will have you think. This law is about giving powerful people the power to cut people of the internet. And the question is, how would you know if they were abusing it? The internet is one of the last bastions of free speech - without being able to access it, how are people who have been wrongfully cut off supposed to get the word out? This is essentially gagging-order legislation without any requirement for proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
So what? Apart from the fact that monitoring the 18.3 million households in the UK is completely unfeasible, what benefit would it be to the authorities?

It may not be as unfeasible as you think. China is nearly there. Are you suggesting that if this was feasible it would be ok? Feasibility does not come into it.
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 17:58 Quote
anyone read the Digital Britain white paper it makes interesting reading, and does have relevance to this discussion

read chapter 4, protecting, and rewarding creativity
pendragon 8th April 2010, 18:24 Quote
wow.. sorry to hear you folks across the pond got screwed :-/ ... I hope you all remember this and vote the assenting politicians out of office next time they're up for reelection ... (sadly most people's memory is short)
smc8788 8th April 2010, 18:26 Quote
I found this quite funny. In a depressing way.

http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 18:36 Quote
intellectual property address, lol
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 18:57 Quote
in laymans terms this is how it is supposed to work.

copyright holder finds out someone at 87.67.98.234 is downloading copyright material, copyright holder informs isp (say virgin), virgin sends cease and desist letter to person who had that ip address on date given by copyright holder.

the person at that ip address continues, isp is informed again, the person gets another letter, with threats to limit speeds, etc

they continue, again they are reported to isp, third letter, informing that speed is being limited

the copyright holder notices again, that ip address is continuing to download, so they apply to court for court order for information relating to that ip address

then it is up to copyright holder to prove that that person, is downloading copyright material, illegally. this would be done by getting court order to search premises for illegal content.

just as a side note, most peeps have a dynamic ip address, which means it could change on a regular basis, but all isps keep a record of what ip address is assigned to which account, and when.

the copyright holder would pass on all ip addresses it has seen, it is then up to the isp to match ip addresses to accounts, and then send out letters accordingly

it is only serial offenders that will eventually be prosecuted/cut off, the aim of the legislation, is to reduce piracy, and apparently, studies have shown that many pirates, stop after first or second letter.

the copyright holder would only be given details of an offender after getting a court order after the 3 letters from the isp.
Woodspoon 8th April 2010, 19:26 Quote
There has still yet to be shown any serious proof that piracy is actually causing damage to the industry's, the ridiculous suggestion from those industry's that 1 downloaded file = 1 lost sale is so inaccurate it's laughable.
Several sources have shown that people who pirate actually spend more.

Are we supposed to be scared of a possible speed restriction? given that for a lot of us throttling is a daily possibility.

The whole thing is a bloody joke, made up by a bunch of people who have no clue as to what their on about.
Next thing you know they'll be trying to nationalize the internet, to turn it into the next British rail or British telecom, British internet god help us!
Mankz 8th April 2010, 20:33 Quote
If i kill Mandleson, whos going to come and support me in court?
knutjb 8th April 2010, 20:38 Quote
Social Democracy at it's best. Punish the masses for the violations of the few. Crappy bandwidth for all! Boy isn't it great when the government decides what best for you without even asking. Is this where we are all headed a China like elitist run nanny government managing a pseudo free market?
Sir Digby 8th April 2010, 20:54 Quote
For me, the worst part of the anti-piracy actions taken by the bill is that they doesn't actually do much to protect the rights of artists, they are still the b****es of the record companies so in reality all the bill protects is the right of corporations to make sickening profits while screwing over both the producers and consumers of music.

To everyone associating this with Social Democracy / China don't be so stupid, this is capitalism at its worst. Good show Labour.
Sleepstreamer 8th April 2010, 21:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mankz
If i kill Mandleson, whos going to come and support me in court?

I'll bring some cake, but only if you do the same when I've macheted Swedens own little IP nazi.

Sorry to hear about this guys, truly
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 21:45 Quote
to be honest it doesn't matter if 1 pirate copy = the loss of 10 sales, the fact is by pirating, you are stealing someones creation which has an automatic copyright protection. agree with it or not theft is theft.

in reality, if the content creator was able to sell the content, at a more affordable price, they would probably make as much money as they do with less sales and a higher price, but then there will always be those who think its ok to take someone elses property and not pay for it
capnPedro 8th April 2010, 21:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
to be honest it doesn't matter if 1 pirate copy = the loss of 10 sales, the fact is by pirating, you are stealing someones creation which has an automatic copyright protection. agree with it or not theft is theft.

Oh jeez... let's not have this debate here, but copyright infringement is not theft. That's why it's called "copyright infringement", not "theft". Theft deprives the owner of their copy.
Tulatin 8th April 2010, 22:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lacuna
Meh, total non issue for people who don't pirate copyright material.

It's impossible to avoid seeing copyrighted images / content on the web. Go ahead, go on youtube and watch a music video.

Congratulations, you're a pirate.
Porkins' Wingman 8th April 2010, 22:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
to be honest it doesn't matter if 1 pirate copy = the loss of 10 sales, the fact is by pirating, you are stealing someones creation which has an automatic copyright protection. agree with it or not theft is theft.

Last time I looked the definition of theft was "to dishonestly appropriate` property that belongs to another, with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

Go to school. Read a book. Sh!t - just use google. Either way, work it out. Theft is theft. Piracy is not theft.
knutjb 8th April 2010, 22:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porkins' Wingman


Last time I looked the definition of theft was "to dishonestly appropriate` property that belongs to another, with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

Go to school. Read a book. Sh!t - just use google. Either way, work it out. Theft is theft. Piracy is not theft.

Ok, is the intention to deprive the copyright holder of his due compensation, i.e. money for his product, any different than stealing a retail version of it from the store? Does it really matter who the victim is? Wrong is still wrong. If it costs too much don't buy it, when enough stop buying...

Show me how Piracy does not deprive the copyright holder of his just due for whatever his creation might be? They are fundamentally the same but muddied with unique terminology.
eddtox 8th April 2010, 22:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Digby
To everyone associating this with Social Democracy / China don't be so stupid, this is capitalism at its worst. Good show Labour.

+1. Completely agree with you. This has less to do with socialism and more to do with greed (capitalism)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
to be honest it doesn't matter if 1 pirate copy = the loss of 10 sales, the fact is by pirating, you are stealing someones creation which has an automatic copyright protection. agree with it or not theft is theft.

Yes, theft is theft. However, as a few have already pointed out, copyright infringement is not theft. The record companies have tried to appropriate the term theft (and pirate) in order to provoke a more visceral reaction in people, but COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.

It is, however, an offence in most developed countries.

Frankly, though, the suggestion that it is killing music and artists are dying of starvation because of thieving pirates is a bit insulting when virtually everybody who is part of the RIAA MPAA etc is far wealthier than your average citizen. Piracy is bad. No question about it. However so is being a money-grabbing scumbag.
mourningduke 8th April 2010, 22:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by knutjb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porkins' Wingman
Last time I looked the definition of theft was "to dishonestly appropriate` property that belongs to another, with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

Go to school. Read a book. Shit - just use google. Either way, work it out. Theft is theft. Piracy is not theft.

Ok, is the intention to deprive the copyright holder of his due compensation, i.e. money for his product, any different than stealing a retail version of it from the store? Does it really matter who the victim is? Wrong is still wrong. If it costs too much don't buy it, when enough stop buying...

Show me how Piracy does not deprive the copyright holder of his just due for whatever his creation might be? They are fundamentally the same but muddied with unique terminology.
So you guys have never "Borrowed a CD from a friend and copied it? Or have you never copied an album that you own so that you can have a copy in your car as that too is copyright infringement!!

I thought so you have done these things before, well congratulations you are both pirates!

I have pirated for years but the companies have had their fair share of cash out of me. I have lost count of how many new bands albums that i have downloaded and loved, so I have gone out and bought their albums.

I buy on average 5 albums a month, I have a monthly cinema pass and go to watch as many films as i can. I have about 50 Blu Rays sat in my living room, not too mention the 200 DVDS and I have bought hundreds if not thousands of computer games in my time!!

Everything I pirate in some way I pay back for and I do this so that I can try new things without having to splash out cash for something that I might not like. How many films, cd's or dvds have you tried to return to a shop to get your money back once said item has been opened because it has been utter garbage...
RichCreedy 8th April 2010, 23:34 Quote
whilst we are quoting from dictionaries

infringement - an action that breaks a rule, law, etc

copyright - the legal right to control the production and selling of a book, play, film, photograph or piece of music

theft - (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it

i suppose it depends which dictionary you read, but copyright infringement is tantamount to theft

tantamount - being almost the same or having the same effect as, usually something bad
Ficky Pucker 8th April 2010, 23:40 Quote
and the next thing you know we'll have a CCTV camera in each and every room of our homes...
DXR_13KE 9th April 2010, 00:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
whilst we are quoting from dictionaries

infringement - an action that breaks a rule, law, etc

copyright - the legal right to control the production and selling of a book, play, film, photograph or piece of music

theft - (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it

i suppose it depends which dictionary you read, but copyright infringement is tantamount to theft

tantamount - being almost the same or having the same effect as, usually something bad

Indeed, it is obvious that viewing a music video on youtube (which if not supported by the artist is copyright infringement) has almost the same or has the same effect as going to the store and stealing the CD for that music.

8BVnL9_UF7Y

For those that saw the above video: You are a thief! So is the uploader and youtube for facilitating this theft AND if you live in the UK, strike 1!
javaman 9th April 2010, 02:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mankz
If i kill Mandleson, whos going to come and support me in court?

You plan to kill Satan? Are you Kratos?
Lazarus Dark 9th April 2010, 03:36 Quote
Watched "1984" with John Hurt for the first time a couple weeks ago. Well, after successfully avoiding slitting my wrists (most depressing movie EVER), I realized that in fact, despite being warned for decades, the UK is heading for that kind of society full steam ahead. I'm starting to wonder if your government is using "1984" as a freaking playbook.
Ravenheart 9th April 2010, 04:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by knutjb
Ok, is the intention to deprive the copyright holder of his due compensation, i.e. money for his product, any different than stealing a retail version of it from the store? Does it really matter who the victim is? Wrong is still wrong. If it costs too much don't buy it, when enough stop buying...

Show me how Piracy does not deprive the copyright holder of his just due for whatever his creation might be? They are fundamentally the same but muddied with unique terminology.

You stupid person!,

Depriving multi millionaire copyright holders their 'Just dues' yet they own what 3+ super expensive sports cars when they can only drive 1 at any one time! They have more money than sense you!! What are they being deprived of exactly? Their 4th or 5th house in the country, can they live in all 5 at once can they f*ck.

None of them are deprived, heck they probably don't even know what that word is/or means! they will never be deprived again even if they never sell another copy or even 1 more mp3 via i-tunes, now go and take your pathetic comments elsewhere you pr*t.
Ravenheart 9th April 2010, 04:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
8BVnL9_UF7Y

For those that saw the above video: You are a thief! So is the uploader and youtube for facilitating this theft AND if you live in the UK, strike 1!

I watched it 3 times looks like i'm f*cked then! Bothered? NOPE!
BlackMage23 9th April 2010, 09:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ficky Pucker
and the next thing you know we'll have a CCTV camera in each and every room of our homes...

Don't give them ideas.
Combinho 9th April 2010, 10:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenheart
You stupid person!,

Depriving multi millionaire copyright holders their 'Just dues' yet they own what 3+ super expensive sports cars when they can only drive 1 at any one time! They have more money than sense you!! What are they being deprived of exactly? Their 4th or 5th house in the country, can they live in all 5 at once can they f*ck.

None of them are deprived, heck they probably don't even know what that word is/or means! they will never be deprived again even if they never sell another copy or even 1 more mp3 via i-tunes, now go and take your pathetic comments elsewhere you pr*t.

Just because they are wealthy, does not mean it is okay. Is it okay to steal from them then (I know piracy isn't theft before that comes up)? Then why is it okay to break other laws that are in place to protect them. The law may be an ass, but the law is the law and is there to protect everyone, wealthy included. This kind of populist b******t really irritates me.
eddtox 9th April 2010, 11:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combinho
Just because they are wealthy, does not mean it is okay. Is it okay to steal from them then (I know piracy isn't theft before that comes up)? Then why is it okay to break other laws that are in place to protect them. The law may be an ass, but the law is the law and is there to protect everyone, wealthy included. This kind of populist b******t really irritates me.

So long as you continue to call it theft, I will continue to find it very difficult to take you seriously.

You are, however, right. When you acquire/consume any media (yes, that includes youtube et al) without the copyright holder's express permission you are infringing upon that person's rights. Regardless of whether that person is rich or poor, that is wrong.

The majority of people here do not object to enabling copyright holders to control distribution/access to their media. However, as some have already pointed out, there is already legislation in place which allows them to do that, without being as open to abuse as this new law.

Some of us are simply uncomfortable with setting a precedent which allows the government to restrict your access to the internet, particularly without a judicial and appeals procedure finding you guilty. This is (like the anti-terror legislation) a "shoot-first, prove later" law.

Imagine if your telephones were cut off (for a number of years) because someone claimed that they received prank calls from one of your numbers. Would that be okay? Wouldn't you at least want them to prove their allegations in a court of law? Even if they did find you guilty, would that be a fitting punishment?

The internet is fast becoming more than a commodity (just like phones) and being unable to access it will have a far greater impact on somebody's life than the copyright infringement they committed had on the artist.

On a slight side note, do you think small, independent artists will be taken as seriously by the isp's as the major labels?
Combinho 9th April 2010, 11:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
So long as you continue to call it theft, I will continue to find it very difficult to take you seriously.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was using theft as a separate example to copyright infringement, and trying to put forward that crime against the wealthy does not make it right. In other words, Robin Hood was a c**t.
rollo 9th April 2010, 11:31 Quote
Not all torrents are illigal, this is were this becomes problematic

As for those saying those who don't pirate have nothing to worry about your wrong

Somebody in every bodys famillly will pirate at one point or another
Xir 9th April 2010, 11:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark
Watched "1984" with John Hurt for the first time a couple weeks ago. Well, after successfully avoiding slitting my wrists (most depressing movie EVER)
Try reading the book....it's even worse :D
RichCreedy 9th April 2010, 14:51 Quote
having read the copyright designs and patents act 1998, section 107 and 198 relate to copyright infringement, if you obtain copyright material for your personal use, it is excluded from copyright infringement. If however you share that copyright material, you are then commiting copyright infringement.

creative works = copyright works = interlectual property

theft - (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it, does the copyright works not belong to someone else, yes it does so therefore you have comitted theft.

at the very least you are handling stolen goods, In English criminal law, handling stolen goods (formerly, under the Larceny Act 1916, known as receiving stolen goods) takes place after a theft or other dishonest acquisition is completed and may be committed by a fence or other person who helps the thief to realise the value of the stolen goods.
RichCreedy 9th April 2010, 14:52 Quote
at the end of the day, its upto the courts to decide, if any crime has been commited
ryall 9th April 2010, 21:08 Quote
I think you guys are confusing Capitalism with greed. Don't feel bad, we've all been brought up to think that they're the same thing.

Ravenheart, just because someones richer than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them. Chances are they've worked damn hard to get there.

That being said, I'd rather download a movie than buy the DVD and have to sit through unskippable anti-piraism ads. Funny how legitamite consumers are the ones that suffer most.

How about watching a show on tv and losing 20mins of your life to blaring advirtisements? Ok I get that ads create revenue to indirectly finance shows, but why incresase the volume? And why increase the frequency of ads towards the end of a movie? It's unneccessary, and it's greedy, and it's screwing people that watch the shows legally. How about f**k you and I'll just download it.

Through the Internet consumers finally have an alternative, can voice their opinions through their actions. This is Capitalism, freedom of choice where the best product wins. And this is what the media industry is trying to quash.
knutjb 10th April 2010, 01:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenheart
You stupid person!,

Depriving multi millionaire copyright holders their 'Just dues' yet they own what 3+ super expensive sports cars when they can only drive 1 at any one time! They have more money than sense you!! What are they being deprived of exactly? Their 4th or 5th house in the country, can they live in all 5 at once can they f*ck.

None of them are deprived, heck they probably don't even know what that word is/or means! they will never be deprived again even if they never sell another copy or even 1 more mp3 via i-tunes, now go and take your pathetic comments elsewhere you pr*t.

I didn't use the word "deprived" in relation to their net worth I used it quite clearly in reference to anyone NOT getting paid for THEIR work. Not everyone who receives copyright royalties is rich. Try looking in the mirror to find said "stupid person."

It is entirely irrelevant how much money they have. I don't care if they have 200 silly money cars, it is still THEIR idea and not yours. If it were my idea I would want it protected and be able to receive proper compensation for my work, and not what you think is proper but what a contract or the market determines. Funny, I think you would want to be paid for your work too or should your employer just keep your pay check because you have had too many bags of crisps and all those poor starving kids could use it instead of you... Maybe you're just a leech on the public dole.

Your failed class warfare based on jealousy argument doesn't even rise to a pathetic at best rating.
knutjb 10th April 2010, 01:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mourningduke
So you guys have never "Borrowed a CD from a friend and copied it? Or have you never copied an album that you own so that you can have a copy in your car as that too is copyright infringement!!

I thought so you have done these things before, well congratulations you are both pirates!

I have pirated for years but the companies have had their fair share of cash out of me. I have lost count of how many new bands albums that i have downloaded and loved, so I have gone out and bought their albums.

I buy on average 5 albums a month, I have a monthly cinema pass and go to watch as many films as i can. I have about 50 Blu Rays sat in my living room, not too mention the 200 DVDS and I have bought hundreds if not thousands of computer games in my time!!

Everything I pirate in some way I pay back for and I do this so that I can try new things without having to splash out cash for something that I might not like. How many films, cd's or dvds have you tried to return to a shop to get your money back once said item has been opened because it has been utter garbage...

Nope, your assumption is making an ass out of you. I have listened to friends music but I didn't burn it. No, I didn't try to return opened DVDs because they sucked. I only buy movies I have seen so I know what I'm getting and I get them on discount. I don't have a huge collection, just one that meets my standards. Justifying your illegal behavior by implying everyone does it like you and your friends is sad. I have made copies of my music so I don't harm the disc because they are, in many cases, impossible to replace, i.e. Mobilfidelity discs.
Ravenheart 10th April 2010, 05:36 Quote
But knutjb your not entitled to make copies of your music so you don't harm the disc because 'they' said so, and that reason is because you are NOT allowed to have a 2nd copy of the disc you bought as you only paid for one, and you can't rip it to MP3 either but I bet you have (you'll say no you haven't) but we all know you have. Your waffling on about justifying illegal behaviour yet if you rip that cd of yours OR copy it (like you said you did do) then you are also trying to justify your illegal behaviour by saying 'I have made copies of my music so I don't harm the disc' don't even go there! Your just as bad as everyone else so I'd sit your self righteous ass back down if I were you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryall
Ravenheart, just because someones richer than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them. Chances are they've worked damn hard to get there.

That being said, I'd rather download a movie than buy the DVD and have to sit through unskippable anti-piraism ads. Funny how legitamite consumers are the ones that suffer most.

Who you talking to ryall? Who said I've the right to steal from them? Which is what you implied the second you typed 'Just because someone's richer than you doesn't give YOU the right to steal from them' I never said I did your assuming (just like the f*cking stupid government and their Digital Economy sh*t) wrongly assuming might I add, shall I take it your an MP who voted for the bill and i'm guilty until I can prove i'm innocent? Didn't think so......

Oh and you've just contradicted EVERYTHING you said by saying you'd rather download a movie than BUY the DVD and have to sit through unskippable anti-piratism ads then you say it's funny how legitimate consumers are the ones who suffer most.

What exactly are you crying about :'(, because didn't you just say you'd rather download a movie than BUY IT on a DVD, which makes you a pirate, if you were so against it all you'd be sitting there smiling at the anti-piratism ads with a cup of horlicks in one hand and a custard cream in the other waiting for someone to pat you on the back because you've been a good boy and bought the DVD, but oh no you won't do that will you because YOU don't want to be forced to watch those anti-piratism ads so you'd rather resort to piracy! Which you implied as soon as you typed 'I'd rather download a movie than than BUY IT on DVD',

What a mug :|
gnutonian 10th April 2010, 07:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryall
Ravenheart, just because someones richer than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them. Chances are they've worked damn hard to get there.
At the same time, just because someone (a company) is rich enough to pay off the media to say how great and innovative their new film is does not give them the right to rip us off. "2012" and "Avatar" were both so hyped up that I considered going to the cinema or buying them on DVD when released. However, wary of propaganda, I thought I'd have a sneak peek first... I'm glad I did. It would've been such a waste of my hard-earned money. In my opinion, those movies sucked so badly they weren't even worth the bandwidth or time, and I'm glad I didn't spend a single cent on them (or watched them fully).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryall
That being said, I'd rather download a movie than buy the DVD and have to sit through unskippable anti-piraism ads. Funny how legitamite consumers are the ones that suffer most.

How about watching a show on tv and losing 20mins of your life to blaring advirtisements? Ok I get that ads create revenue to indirectly finance shows, but why incresase the volume? And why increase the frequency of ads towards the end of a movie? It's unneccessary, and it's greedy, and it's screwing people that watch the shows legally. How about f**k you and I'll just download it.
Advertisements (except the volume) I can understand, but I fully agree with the legitimate customers suffering: the unskippable anti-"piracy" ads on DVDs piss me off - I just bought the damn thing, and thanks to the "entertainment" industry's propaganda I'm well aware that sharing my newly-bought DVD is a direct cause of cute bunnies being tortured to death by the ghost of Jeffrey Dahmer.

The crippling DRM on just about anything else doesn't help their cause either: it's regularly reported that it's a lot easier to play a game or use an MS Windows OS that's been "pirated" and has had the DRM removed than use a legitimate, accuse-you-of-being-a-"pirate"-once-a-week copy. When you piss off your legitimate customers enough, they're not going to stay legitimate customers.

For example, I have only bought three DVDs in the past few years, because those three didn't have any DRM (coincidently, also no anti-"piracy" ads) on them. Others I wanted to buy had DRM so they weren't worth my money - if I can't play them on my player of choice, what's the point in having them? (Didn't download them either, because what's the point of having their product?)


Now, as I don't understand the UK system: is this thing going into action now?
TWeaK 10th April 2010, 09:40 Quote
@gnutonian - This bill started in the House of Lords (from Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State), not the House of Commons, so it is slightly different just in that the Commons and Lords bits are the other way around. If you check here you can see that the Ping Pong and Royal Assent happened on Thursday, so yes, it is now law.

However the courts can still decide whether it is a legal law. If it violates some other law (in the UK or EU) then it might not be enforceable.
eddtox 10th April 2010, 11:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryall
I think you guys are confusing Capitalism with greed. ...

My dear friend, what else do you expect to result from a system which places the acquisition of wealth as the goal of all human endeavour?

When capitalism was thought up, the assumption was that it would be a self regulating system. However, those great thinkers didn't count on the fact that, when profit is the only goal, people will think of ways to play the system, at the customer's expense. Eg: deliberately 'gimping' a product in order to be able to sell it over multiple iterations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
pointless load of waffle

Rich, the courts decided years ago that, the laws covering theft do not apply to copyright infringement. That is why the new term was coined and new legislation passed which addresses it specifically. SO, unlike what the record industry would have you think, in legal terms, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT (just like theft is not copyright infringement. There have been occasions where the distinction has been made in court:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Blackmun, USA vs David LaMACCHIA

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate
with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a
separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright:
"Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by
using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the
five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the
copyright." There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's
unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of
copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights.
It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an
infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably
fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by Sec. 2314.
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the
copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over
the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While
one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of
wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex
set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion
or fraud. As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language
Congress chose - "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" - to describe
the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment Sec. 2314 makes criminal.
Id at 217-218 (citations omited).

Full article here
ryall 10th April 2010, 11:55 Quote
Ravenheart: No I didn't.

Gnutonian: Couldn't agree more, how many pirates has DRM inconvienienced? How about legitimate consumers?
gabe777 10th April 2010, 14:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meaty Pete
I live in a shared house. ALL male ALL downloading ALL the time. Wouldn't be surprised if MI5 breach the front door, after practising on CODmw2 =)

Not too worried to be honest. Like with all piracy, it evolves while officials are still scratching their balding heads over the last crack/mod/homebrew etc.

Even less worried considering we can already encrypt downloading to disguise it from ISPs.

In fact there are already programs that do it without you even knowing. Fabulous.

Maybe I should shut up and try to keep this quiet hahaha. Stupid MPs they are rubbish :)
This is what O2 are saying and TalkTalk... who appear to be fighting against it.

They say people will switch to less transparent methods - encrypted newsgroups and so on (or just Rapidshare etc. using SSL tunnelling that costs £10 a month! As long as the newsgroup provider or SSL provider is in the States, the British authorities cannot get a warrant to go a fishing trip!

Bottom line, anyone with any sense that wants to download in private, has a choice of methods. All the ISP sees, is garbled, encrypted data. Useless to them.
mr.Ironic 10th April 2010, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
Oh jeez... let's not have this debate here, but copyright infringement is not theft. That's why it's called "copyright infringement", not "theft". Theft deprives the owner of their copy.
Perhaps we should call it 'Cloning' :)

If I clone an MP have I stolen him?
mr.Ironic 10th April 2010, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ficky Pucker
and the next thing you know we'll have a CCTV camera in each and every room of our homes...
You've not seen natal?
Kyle J.S. Campbell 10th April 2010, 20:36 Quote
I would say there are only hundreds of them and millions of us, but they have the military and police don't they? So really what those few think means more than what the actual country they are supposed to be representing think. That's funny, we all accept being bullied don't we, or better yet; terrorised. Ironic huh?
Ravenheart 11th April 2010, 03:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by knutjb
I think you would want to be paid for your work too or should your employer just keep your pay check because you have had too many bags of crisps and all those poor starving kids could use it instead of you... Maybe you're just a leech on the public dole.

Your failed class warfare based on jealousy argument doesn't even rise to a pathetic at best rating.

Sorry,

I forgot to mention I don't eat crisps ;), oh and for the record if I did I've give a packet to those starving kids your going on about, oh and guess what I am NOT a leech on the 'Public' dole, but you probably are.

Class warfare as well you say? Don't talk crap, it has nothing to do with class warfare you self righteous pompous pr*ck.
theflatworm 11th April 2010, 12:58 Quote
Qoth the digital economy bill:

"(1)

The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical

obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State

considers it appropriate in view of—

(a)

an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under

section 124G; or 25

(b)

any other consideration."


In black and white. For 'any other consideration' they can impose any 'technical obligation' on your ISP. In plain language they can cut you off or throttle your bandwidth for literally any reason. Defend that.
Ramble 11th April 2010, 20:10 Quote
Bring it on.
Fizzban 11th April 2010, 21:37 Quote
Just one more reason to emigrate. Shame I can't afford to. :'(
rak500 11th April 2010, 21:44 Quote
To me, the real issue in this debate is not whether the user is wrong to download copyrighted material illegally or not, the problem is that we, the consumers, are going to be blamed and prosecuted because media companies cannot, or simply don't want to adapt to a new format.
The digital bill is not going to help new artist to make more profits, any new artist knows how to use new formats and new technologies to promote their work. I think, as it stands, the digital bill only help major companies as it allows them to stay in an old, more profitable marketing format.
If the media industry cannot follow the trends and won't adapt to new technologies, well, tough ****! the consumers should not be blamed for the media industry's inability to create new ways to promote and sell their content.
This being said, most of what the digital bill wants to prevent is probably what made the industry move forward, everybody heard the statistics stating the illegal file sharers were more likely to buy legit content.
I am the first concerned by this, and I try to buy as much as my tastes and budget allows.to me, it seems that the quality of what has made available in the last ten years has gone down, either because there are more choice, or because the media are riddled with s***, all in all, I like to know what I am going to buy, downloading allows me to spend my money better.
RichCreedy 11th April 2010, 22:03 Quote
very little of the digital economy bill deals with copyright infringement, that is a very small part of the bill, you need to read it
rak500 11th April 2010, 22:10 Quote
Well, my post doesn't really say what I mean... I'm only french...

This though sums my thought and I could not agree more on what is being said:
Nick Doody talks about Britain's Digital Economy Bill on Youtube

That's what I meant.
triprunner 11th April 2010, 22:26 Quote
heh, who uses P2P anymore? rapidshare, hotfile, usenet ftw
rak500 11th April 2010, 22:31 Quote
Rapidshare, and the lot are concerned too.

The violation of privacy side of things is a bit shocking too... As I understand it, I could be seen as an heavy downloader by my ISP if I were to download several Linux ISOs, I would have to prove that it wasn't copyrighted materials to a court if my ISP was to cut my connection...

I find that slightly shocking...
triprunner 11th April 2010, 22:46 Quote
ok but seriously, mandybill will change nothing... it was created to shut up mandy's chums like Cowell, or that dickhead from EMI who ran his company into the ground because he did too much coke with teenagers and spent too much and blamed it all on pirates...

internet is and always will be untamed, it cant be regulated by any laws, its only law being the law of nature: survival of the fittest (smartest). you see, why do people pirate? its easy, costs nothing, can get you access to stuff you might have spurned in the past because u had no money for at the time...
show me a similar legal service, where i can download a show from usa 10 mins after its broadcast WITHOUT ADS...
show me how many game companies offer demo versions of their products before release like they used to do back in the day - now its only hype, hype, hype and then a dissapointment (Silent Hunter 5 for example, almost bought it because of my faith in Ubisoft, and the game is shite, fortunately i dled it from rapidshare, tried it and binned it 2 hours later)
user of the internet will always find a way, or in many cases he'll piggyback on a smarter users ideas to do so. no mandybill is going to stop that.
and i wouldnt worry about GCHQ or MI5 breaking down the doors, they've got better things to do.
triprunner 11th April 2010, 22:51 Quote
@rak500

if that ever happens, u change your ISP. bethere is already offering 3 months contracts and more will follow. if the worst happens ull just be skipping ISPs. if push come to shove tho, if we'll be met with the apocalyptic future of internet downloading then i predict illegal internet connections, black ISPs offering connections without restrictions... - pure William Gibson man!!
theflatworm 12th April 2010, 00:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
very little of the digital economy bill deals with copyright infringement, that is a very small part of the bill, you need to read it

So what? It still has a bit in it where the secretary of state can cut off your internet for absolutely any reason under the sun.
RichCreedy 12th April 2010, 21:07 Quote
are you saying that he is gonna cut people of no consequence off willy nilly, i don't think so.

there are a lot of laws that allow the secretary of state to do things, that many peeps wouldn't agree with. he doesn't use them, willy nilly

if he so chooses, he can turn off all televison and radio broadcasts
eddtox 12th April 2010, 22:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
are you saying that he is gonna cut people of no consequence off willy nilly, i don't think so.

there are a lot of laws that allow the secretary of state to do things, that many peeps wouldn't agree with. he doesn't use them, willy nilly

if he so chooses, he can turn off all televison and radio broadcasts

The point being made is whether he should have that amount of power.
RichCreedy 12th April 2010, 22:51 Quote
my point is that just because the law would allow that, doesnt mean he will do that.

people are whining about things that, won't affect the majority of law abiding citizens, innevitably mistakes may be made, to err is human, and its not as if it can't be corrected if a mistake is made.
eddtox 12th April 2010, 23:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
my point is that just because the law would allow that, doesnt mean he will do that.

people are whining about things that, won't affect the majority of law abiding citizens, innevitably mistakes may be made, to err is human, and its not as if it can't be corrected if a mistake is made.

The problem is that a power is granted in law which makes it easier for less democratically-inclined governments to abuse their position. I'm not saying the current home secretary is abusing it. I'm not saying the next one will. But what about 10 years' time. Or 100 years time? Can you guarantee that nobody who is inclined to abuse these powers will ever become home secretary? Can you guarantee that every home secretary will resist the temptation of quietly silencing the odd critic?
RichCreedy 12th April 2010, 23:33 Quote
nothing is guaranteed in life, except death and taxes
Zabuza 30th April 2010, 01:53 Quote
Just bumping this.

Found this site:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/index
eddtox 30th April 2010, 12:02 Quote
Sent the e-mail, thanks
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums