Digital Economy Bill

[ChickenCottage]

The UK's controversial Digital Economy Bill was voted through last night after just two hours of debate - and the presence of only 40-odd MPs out of a total of 646.

"Frankly, there has been a squalid deal between the three Front Benches, and they should be ashamed of themselves," said Labour MP Tom Watson.

The much criticised Clause 18 was removed, but replaced with a very similar measure, allowing the government to force ISPs to block access to websites hosting copyrighted material.

It now gives the Secretary for State for Business the right 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".

This has outraged observers who point out that the words "is likely to be used" in theory allow sites to be blocked even if they haven't actually done anything wrong.

The High Court can also block sites for "any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State."

MPs also voted against Clause 43, which would have allowed the use of so-called orphan works - those for which no copyright holder could be found.

Observers have accused the government of rushing through the bill before the general election on 6 May. Certainly, last night's debate gave the impression that most of the members couldn't wait to get back to the Commons bar.

Conservative MP John Redwood commented during the debate, "It is quite wrong that a Bill of such importance and magnitude was not tabled earlier. It is quite wrong that there is an attempt to rush through all parts of the Bill without proper scrutiny and debate."

And Labour's Austin Mitchell agreed: "A delay of three months would not produce the collapse of the creative industries, which has been held up as the threat hanging over us," he said.

The bill will have a third reading before it becomes law, but it's almost certain to be approved.

Opponents such as the Open Rights Group have vowed to fight on. "We're at the beginning of an election, and the 20 million people who vote now have the opportunity to turn up at hustings, ask awkward questions and ultimately cast their vote," executive director Jim Killock told TechEye.

He added that he believed that the bill contravened human rights law and EU law, and that a legal challenge would still be possible.

Source: http://www.techeye.net/business/digital-economy-bill-railroaded-through-parliament

Clause 11-18 essentially means:

* Your internet can be cut off if someone in your home is suspected of copyright infringement without evidence or a trial.

> Even if you just download more a lot. It'd be up to you to go to court and prove you weren't downloading anything illegal.

* Internet providers essentially DUTY to spy on their users so members of the record/film industry can sue them otherwise they can be fined £250,000

* Goes after 'cyberlockers' aka Rapidshare, Megaupload etc.

Funny how the Sectary of State dined with billionaire David Geffen and something like this comes through parliament.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6797844.ece

I think for once we can all agree that this is f*ck*ng bullshit.

If you want to do something about it:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/index

[Skola]

doesnt seem like theres anything we can say or do to stop this tbh

[Mr. Gayle]

TBH

[ChickenCottage]

doesnt seem like theres anything we can say or do to stop this tbh

"40-odd MPs out of a total of 646" turned up.

Phone or write to your local MP and make sure he knows you oppose clause the bill when the bill goes for the third read.

It's not all done and dusted yet.

[Francis Coquelin]

Hope there's an uprising that makes the poll tax riots look like that American Apparel bullshit

[Mr Q]

Hope there's an uprising that makes the poll tax riots look like that American Apparel bullshit

Lol, yeah right. Our society is passive.

[kurious]

Data Mining, full effect

but we are all involved actually dependant on this military based form of communication, what are you waiting for

[Necksta]

£5 us vpn = enjoy as much as u want. f*ck these rules.

[revs]

[Platinum50]

How does someone get disgraced out of office twice, only to come back as an appointed peer in the house of lords, and kick start any policies his mates want into parliament?

Pure power moves

/

This bill is definately going through

[Guest Lemons]

LOL @ This country TBH

[Natty]

29 ppl can discuss this bill and it can still get passed?

smfh

[DJ Stashman]

Google consistently infringe copyright

Not only is it likely that some perfectly innocent sites will be blocked, but the state is poking its nose into how an entire piece of the private sector does its business. On top of this it sets a precedent for the censoring of the Internet. These are among the reason the European Parliament included an Internet freedom provision in its recent telcom reform package.

[Heero Yuy]

The internet is just too sick, theres a way round everything and you better believe if theres not them cyber boys dem are on it already.

Tbh as downloaders the scene has had it easy for the past couple years. Swear the amount of sites that have gone down since I first used the web and another rose and took its place in 5 minutes

From when Microsofts products are getting cracked and manipulated then what hope does anyone have of keeping anything truely regulated

This Bill = Face Value only

[Natty]

The internet is just too sick, theres a way round everything and you better believe if theres not them cyber boys dem are on it already.

Tbh as downloaders the scene has had it easy for the past couple years. Swear the amount of sites that have gone down since I first used the web and another rose and took its place in 5 minutes

From when Microsofts products are getting cracked and manipulated then what hope does anyone have of keeping anything truely regulated

This Bill = Face Value only

BASICALLY

its a challenge for these cyber mandem to find ways around sh*t like this

[Guest TimeBomb]

look at these cunts just sittin there havin it easy.

[ChickenCottage]

This bill would mean they'd be able to strangle things at the source with more 'real world' consequences.

I should have put a disclaimer for this thread:

Warning: Adults are talking.

[O.Man]

That was the Third reading, done and dusted.

[UN.Muzik]

Fully ridiculous, its actually a despicable act but very little's gonna be done about it of course

[Heero Yuy]

This bill would mean they'd be able to strangle things at the source with more 'real world' consequences.

I should have put a disclaimer for this thread:

Warning: Adults are talking.

beg you look up

Napster

Streamload

Fullalbums.net

mininova

been trying to target sources long before this bill

allow it just naking yourself look like a novice

/

isps ain't even on this they've always had their own monitoring and usage schemes..their schemes will jus fall into line with the givts policys..make a few examples etc

[O.Man]

The Pirate Party UK also had something to say about the Bill passing.

Somehow all the people congratulating the government on forcing through this Bill "in the face of much popular opposition" seem to forget that there is nothing clear about the Bill (nearly everything is left for secondary legislation to dodge the EU trading standards? directive) and that the provisions that may be introduced through it are unlikely to;

a) negatively impact unlawful file-sharing

B ) if they do reduce file-sharing, increase legal sales

c) encourage any new business models

d) save EMI (and others) from the terrible investment decisions they've made over the last few years

e) protect any artist, author or musician.

The measures in this Bill are designed to help the large, powerful companies with 'armies of lawyers' threaten - or as they claim, "educate" - members of the public. They are not designed to help and small artist. In fact, the words "artist", "creator" and "author" don't appear anywhere in the Bill text (in the sections about copyright infringement, at least).

Today is a sad day for the Internet in the UK; the government and opposition (who colluded in pushing this Bill through) demonstrated that they are more interested in doing what they are told by a few businesses and industry lobby groups (often using very suspect 'facts') than listening to the people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-reactions

http://www.bpiboycott.org.uk/

[ChickenCottage]

This bill would mean they'd be able to strangle things at the source with more 'real world' consequences.

I should have put a disclaimer for this thread:

Warning: Adults are talking.

beg you look up

Napster

Streamload

Fullalbums.net

mininova

been trying to target sources long before this bill

allow it just naking yourself look like a novice

/

isps ain't even on this they've always had their own monitoring and usage schemes..their schemes will jus fall into line with the givts policys..make a few examples etc

But the problem is that if even someone in your house is just suspected of downloading copyright material they can cut your internet off with any evidence. It would be on you to prove your innocence. It's ridiculous, what happened to due process?

It's one of the first steps the state is taking to have more control over the internet. We have a bill that panders to those with a vested interest (like David Geffen who had dinner with Mandelson just before this bill was drafted) in conserving a out dated business model to f*ck over the rights of normal consumers.

Someone downloading a song from the internet =/= A lost sale.

Surely you oppose the bill on principle?

[Heero Yuy]

This bill would mean they'd be able to strangle things at the source with more 'real world' consequences.

I should have put a disclaimer for this thread:

Warning: Adults are talking.

beg you look up

Napster

Streamload

Fullalbums.net

mininova

been trying to target sources long before this bill

allow it just naking yourself look like a novice

/

isps ain't even on this they've always had their own monitoring and usage schemes..their schemes will jus fall into line with the givts policys..make a few examples etc

But the problem is that if even someone in your house is just suspected of downloading copyright material they can cut your internet off with any evidence. It would be on you to prove your innocence. It's ridiculous, what happened to due process?

It's one of the first steps the state is taking to have more control over the internet. We have a bill that panders to those with a vested interest (like David Geffen who had dinner with Mandelson just before this bill was drafted) in conserving a out dated business model to f*ck over the rights of normal consumers.

Someone downloading a song from the internet =/= A lost sale.

Surely you oppose the bill on principle?

Of course bro in principle im soley against it. I just can't see it being feasible to implement. I mean surely the more than half the people in the UK have internet access in their home or access to it. You can't regulate that amount of people. Not without pushing some serious money into it, which will come from where ? no party would dare put a extra penny of tax payer money into such a farse with the current economic climate

Which is what leads me to say this is a scare tactic, don't get me wrong there will be some highly publicised cases, i'm expecting somone scratter who lives off benefits to get hit with a 250K fine he will never finish paying for.

By seeing how many people were actually in parliment to see this bill go through I can't really see that many of them enforcing it. Especially with the country that way it is

[ChickenCottage]

How the costs of the Digital Economy Bill add up for ISPs

Basically the music and film industry (copy right holders) are going to incur 75% of the costs, the other 25% is going to be the ISPs. (the 25% is expected to cost around £500m over 10 years for ISPs according to the FT)

Which basically means in one way or another, we'll be the ones paying.....

[Heero Yuy]

How the costs of the Digital Economy Bill add up for ISPs

Basically the music and film industry (copy right holders) are going to incur 75% of the costs, the other 25% is going to be the ISPs. (the 25% is expected to cost around £500m over 10 years for ISPs according to the FT)

Which basically means in one way or another, we'll be the ones paying.....

SPs will also have to keep anonymised records of how often an individual subscriber has been accused of copyright violations, to keep a list of the worst alleged offenders, and provide copyright owners with the lists on request.

The example cases..... but I said in a similar thread that unless your on some 50gbs a week download ting your going to be flying under the radar.