Beginning of the end for the Internet in the UK

Not very encouraging reading about the UK's 'Digital Economy Bill'
and radical copyright proposal.

Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).

But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power...

www.boingboing.net...

Potential repercussions:

1. Immediate remedies for copyright infringement -- jail sentences and removal of Internet access can be meted out purely at the discretion of an unelected official (that is most likely under the sway and pay of media lobby groups).

2. The raising of pirate-hunting militia -- the Secretary of State could "confer rights" to music labels and movie studios to help them protect their works. It would be within the rights of the copyright owners to compel ISPs, schools and businesses to hand over details of those using their network for 'nefarious' purposes.

3. Pirate-hunting duties could be forced upon ISPs -- not merely content with perusing ISP records, the Secretary of State could force ISPs to act as gatekeepers. You can imagine how it might impact your surfing experience if a copyright lawyer is forced to peruse each and every one of your emails to check for plagiarism.

www.downloadsquad.com...




Link:

Leaked UK government plan to create "Pirate Finder General" with power to appoint militias, create laws.

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

... downloading the torrent of the bill now !

Why is no one seeding ?

Originally posted by Did you see them


... downloading the torrent of the bill now !

Why is no one seeding ?

Why are you downloading it from torrent?

www.publications.parliament.uk...

[edit on 22-11-2009 by quackers]

[edit on 22-11-2009 by quackers]

Sooner or later it will happen in The United Socialist States of Amerika

124A
Obligation to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports


(1)
This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—


(a)
a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner’s copyright by means of the service; or


(b)
a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner’s copyright by means of the service.


(2)
The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so.


(3)
A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—


(a)
states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright;


(b)
includes a description of the apparent infringement;


(c)
includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered; and


(d)
complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.


(4)
An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations code requires the provider to do so.


(5)
A notification under subsection (4) must include—


(a)
a statement that it is sent under this section in response to a copyright infringement report made by a copyright owner;


(b)
a description of the apparent infringement;


(c)
evidence of the apparent infringement;


(d)
information about copyright and its purpose;


(e)
advice about how to obtain lawful access to copyright works;


(f)
advice about the protection of electronic communications networks that use wireless telegraphy; and


(g)
anything else that the initial obligations code requires it to include.


(6)
The things that may be required under subsection (5)(g), whether in general or in a particular case, include in particular statements that—

40

(a)
information about the apparent infringement may be kept by the internet service provider;


(b)
the copyright owner may require the provider to disclose which copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider relate to the subscriber;


(c)
following such a disclosure, the copyright owner may apply to a court to learn the subscriber’s identity and may bring proceedings against the subscriber for copyright infringement;


(d)
the number and nature of copyright infringement reports relating to the subscriber may be taken into account for the purposes of any technical measures.


(7)
In this section “notify”, in relation to a subscriber, means send a
notification to the electronic or postal address held by the internet service provider for the subscriber (and sections 394 to 396 do not apply).”

No mention of a "pirate finder general" or any militia. In fact this seems to be nothing more than a clarification in law of the existing process of infringement notification. In other words, this is already how copyright owners deal with copyright. The only reall addition to this is the "disconnection" which I doubt will pass as it is in violation of the EU convention on Human Rights (contrary to Mandelsons statement in the heading of the bill). It is nice to see there has been a limit placed on the maximum amount of damages that can be sought by the complainant.

The BBC in the UK bans certain types of music, so why not control the Internet?
Its just as logical!

The list on this site is HUGE! That alone would make me irate. How can the gov't tell you what to listen to and what not to!

Source: www.rocklistmusic.co.uk...

God Save the PEOPLE! (not the queen)

Oh no!!!! This is unreal! America will be next. What are our friends in the UK doing about this? My God, It astounds me that I am living in a time when our rights are being taken away right from under our noses. This has got to stop!

reply to post by havok


Just playing devils advocate here. No one is being told what they can and cannot listen to. People can still listen to and watch whatever they want, provided they have done so in the legal and proper manor. The list of "banned" songs, as anyone can clearly see, contain explicit lyrics, they are just as unlikely to be heard on any other channels (itv, c4, ch5), at least before the watershed. As for the rest of the "banned" content, without references, none of it can be verified.


The issue is not with whatever laws are introduced to enforce copyright (copyright does give owners legal protections also), but copyright itself. Get rid of that and all these subsidiary regulations mean nothing.

My daughter goes to college with some very elite kids here in the USoA...

She says everyone in her generation (including her very poor cousins and their in-law relations all the way to kids who go home for break on private jets and/or are heirs to some of the biggest globalcorps on the planet) have up to and over 10,000 illegally down loaded songs.

And thats over $100,000 of illegal songs per kid. Not to mention she says they 'all have' back up disks filled with downloaded movies, rich and poor alike.

I can't believe the kids in Britain are any diff. What are they going to do shut down the country. Oh no least I forget history. Those who are in get off, those who are out pay.

The crooked in this world are too crooked, the straight are too straight, the middle is lost where both extremes are essentially the same.

My daughter goes to college with some very elite kids here in the USoA...

She says everyone in her generation (including her very poor cousins and their in-law relations all the way to kids who go home for break on private jets and/or are heirs to some of the biggest globalcorps on the planet) have up to and over 10,000 illegally down loaded songs.

And thats over $100,000 of illegal songs per kid. Not to mention she says they 'all have' back up disks filled with downloaded movies, rich and poor alike.

I can't believe the kids in Britain are any diff. What are they going to do shut down the country? Oh no least I forget history? Those who are in get off, those who are out pay.

The crooked in this world are too crooked, the straight are too straight, the middle is lost where both extremes are essentially the same.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by DChenO]

reply to post by quackers




I agree about the banned songs.

Most, if not all have explicit lyrics.
I don't imagine any mainstream radio station playing them during the day, be it in the UK or anywhere else.

This pisses me off somewhat, about 5 years a go, i send in a proposal to Downing Street, Directly to Tony Blair, outlying a way to prevent internet sex crimes against women and children. I still have the proposal somewhere and i do intend to find it. My idea was basically what they are doing now, almost word for word, but they have changed a few things to suit themselves. Maybe they just saw it as another way to get more taxes and fines out of the British people i don't know, but they sent me a letter back saying that although they though the idea was a good one, unfortunately it was not possible to implement them, as the Government didn't have control over the internet world wide, and that they would need other countries to cooperate in such a plan, and that would never work. All this shows to me, is that there is not one inelegant individual working in British politics to come up with the idea for them selves, or they are all in to the sex crime scene and that's why that side of it hasn't been dealt with, instead choosing to use the plan to take more money from the people instead. Like the music industry in the UK, isn't ripping people off enough with their prices they have to go and do this. do people really think the music film and software industry is going to benefit from it all, NO they are not, its all about extra taxes and fines. People will just find another way to share files thats all.

I could see all hell breaking loose if this happens;
Mass protests, Riots, people feeling more oppressed;
they wont have anything to do since tv sucks and if the internet goes they will go out and cause trouble, hangout with gangs and rob and steal;

They could spy on everyone's internet connection?
What if youre checking your email or having a conversation with someone; or watching porn; and what about people who have their telephones hooked up to the internet; surely having your telephone conversations spyed on cant be legal?


But then ISP's can also spy on the government's internet connection; so they are just F'ing themselves

There will probably be alot more hacking going on too....

The best way to stop all this nonsense is to boycott the entertainment industry en masse. Probably impossible to do, but imagine the look on the movie/music execs faces when nobody, and I mean nobody, buys their product. Do it for six months and watch them come crawling back to us on their knees begging us to go see a movie.

When photocopy machines became common and cheap in the 70s, the media and publishing industry were up in arms about the public's ability to reproduce books, articles, pictures - without purchasing the source material.

Libraries today nominally restrict how many pages you can copy at one time.

Everyone was up in arms that the print media would be destroyed by illegal copying.

Same thing happened in the 80s when making video copies form television became cheap and easy.

Industries adjusted to the changes and even saw advantages. When material is available to everyone in the world it creates new interests and develops markets.

How the commercial entertainment and information sources will adjust to the Internet remains to be seen. But somehow a new release of something being consumed by 10 million instead of 10 thousand will be exploited successfully.

We'll see who can creatively takes advantage of this and how they do it.


M

Epic fail. I really don't see why the UK government feels they have to resort to something that's just...Honestly, I can't even think of a proper word for it. It's too George Orwellean for me. :S

And as some other posters have stated, I wouldn't doubt the US would adopt this idea and use it to screw Americans even more out of their rights then they already are.

Originally posted by TheComte
The best way to stop all this nonsense is to boycott the entertainment industry en masse. Probably impossible to do, but imagine the look on the movie/music execs faces when nobody, and I mean nobody, buys their product. Do it for six months and watch them come crawling back to us on their knees begging us to go see a movie.

You'd have to convince the world to stop breathing oxygen before you could convince them to boycott the entertainment industry.

Anytime anything changes there are end of the world predictions and claims rights are being taken away.

Ten years ago you couldn't all the stuff you can now. Now virtually all the music, movies, writings ever created are instantly downloadable for free.

No one was whining when this happened, just when there are controls put on it.

Most people are uncreative, spoiled and lazy.

Try spending years researching and writing a book and find no one wants to buy it. They all want free copies.

Then see how you feel about all this.


M


[edit on 22-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by havok
The BBC in the UK bans certain types of music, so why not control the Internet?
Its just as logical!

The list on this site is HUGE! That alone would make me irate. How can the gov't tell you what to listen to and what not to!

Source: www.rocklistmusic.co.uk...

God Save the PEOPLE! (not the queen)

LMFAO when i read that list.. some picks:

Boomtown Rats - Don't Like Mondays
D-Mob - We Call It Acieed
Napolean XII - They're Coming to Take me Away (Reference "mentally challenged")
Ricky Valance - Tell Laura I love her (I love that song)

This is just another baseless story under an attention grabbing headline with more in common with fiction than fact. If I write a book, compose a song, paint a picture,take a photograph or do any other form of creative work the intellectual property belongs to me unless if I do so under contract to another party in which case it may continue to be so, or be shared or wholly owned by a third party but regardless it ain't yours. Why on earth do people assume other's creative work is theirs also? What applies to the "entertainment industry" applies to individuals also. You wouldn't shoplift but cyber shoplifting is totally ok is it?

The only valid arguement I could find in the original post was the level on which privacy would be upheld online. That's a discussion worth having but if people are gonna go up in arms cause they can't steal anything they like then that is a big problem right there.