Digital Economy Bill

[Daft]

Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night session

 

Since this has got a phenomenal and unsurprising lack of news coverage I thought I'd start a topic.

 

Here's the gist of it,

 

The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "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".

 

The Labour MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

 

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could apply to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

 

It's pretty atrocious the whole thing, the content and the manner in which it was passed.

 

Here's a quick guide to the rest of the DEB.

 

Some highlights...

 

#10: The govt. can tell Ofcom whether it should order ISPs to sanction speed blocks, bandwidth shaping, site blocking, account suspension or other limits against an ISP customer. First, Ofcom must do consultation and consider whether these measures would work.

 

...

 

#15: ISPs that fail to apply technical measures against subscribers can be fined up to £250,000, as Ofcom determines.

 

Democracy in action.

[Cube]

As much as it pains me to say this, I really think it's about time someone did say it:

 

Would this actually affect anyone who doesn't perform illegal downloads?

[Jimbob]

As much as it pains me to say this, I really think it's about time someone did say it:

 

Would this actually affect anyone who doesn't perform illegal downloads?

 

Not really, i don't illegally download (only if i cannot find it legally). As long as i don't get speed-capped or my Live gaming i don't really care to be fair.

[Daft]

As much as it pains me to say this, I really think it's about time someone did say it:

 

Would this actually affect anyone who doesn't perform illegal downloads?

 

Yes.

 

The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "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".

 

The Labour MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

 

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could apply to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

 

It's the legalising of censorship.

 

Also, and slightly more complicated to explain, it pretty much gives corporations direct access of power over the individual. Very much in the same way that psychoanalysis gives the state power over the body of the individual (if you are not seen to conform to mental norms you can be committed, removing for example your right to vote and giving the state right to not just confine you but also give you mind altering drugs). Homosexuality was only declassified as a mental illness in America in 1973, transexualism was only declassified as a mental illness in France this year...you think that's bad? It's the first country in the world to do that.

 

Not sure if I've explained it that well.

[Serebii]

From what I read, Labour is trying to get it in before Parliament dissolves on Monday since they know everyone else hates it and won't do it.

 

As much as it pains me to say this, I really think it's about time someone did say it:

 

Would this actually affect anyone who doesn't perform illegal downloads?

Yes it would. Sky recently blocked Proboards for this reason, then removing the block stating it was due to "faults". Apparently it was because a lot of activity of an illegal nature goes on on some of them, but lots and lots of people's legal forums and access to legal forums got blocked for all on Sky. A friend of my dad had this issue and called them up and was told they were told to by the government. Sky now deny all of it

Edited April 8, 2010 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[Nicktendo]

Absolute fucking bullshit. This is a huge disgrace and labour should be ashamed and I'm reconsidering my vote because of it.

[Debug Mode]

Same kind of shit is going down in the US right now, Net Neutrality is on the out it seems. Illegal downloading is just the defence, which I admit is hurting the economy's progress, but the real reason this is being passed is because of the Media's lobbyists influencing parties, looks like they only got to labour though.

 

Mainstream media has been hurting for quite a while and it's clear that the internet is to blame. I've cut out all the news papers in my life, I wont buy a single one of them, it's hard to get some unbiased news because instead of giving the facts, they'l choose their own side and launch an agenda to influence the public to stick with their opinion. But that's not the point, the point is that many people are like me and beyond that wont buy news papers, wont watch commercial news etc.

 

It's all being done to strip away your freedom and put you under a corporate ruling, there's so much money to be made out of the internet, but the freedom of it takes you away else where for free, whilst the one with influence wants you to not have the freedom of choice and get your free services from them, at a price.

[gothic_hobbit]

Welcome to the New World Order !

[Paj!]

 

---

 

But seriously.

 

I hate.

 

Fuck you, I don't wanna live in China.

[Sheikah]

Isn't this really just common sense? Banning IPs or websites that are, basically, breaking the law?

 

I know some people flip over 'being controlled' and all, but as much as I'd personally hate the bill I can see why they'd pass it.

[Goafer]

Have I read the link incorrectly, or has the bit about blocking certain sites been cancelled?

 

18: High Court can grant injunction forcing ISPs to block access to "online locations" if a "substantial portion" of that location infringes copyright. ISPs must pay copyright owners' court fees unless in "exceptional circumstances". Withdrawn by govt. – will accomplish by other parliamentary means

 

The bit not in bold has been lined out on the original link. I can't remember how to use strikeout or whatever.

[tapedeck]

This is dire.

 

If people accept and stand for this before we all know it the internet won't be recognisable from what it is today. Privatisation and corporate takeovers come to mind. The world wide web will never be chastised by legislation and in this regard that is what makes it a pinnacle and a responsibility of human creation. To take that away in the face of entertainment industries not changing is farcical.

 

Again the governments choose what we the public are to be subjected to. Labour really are at the last chance saloon. You'd think they'd want to remain popular with future voters. Obviously not.

[Jimbob]

Isn't this really just common sense? Banning IPs or websites that are, basically, breaking the law?

 

I know some people flip over 'being controlled' and all, but as much as I'd personally hate the bill I can see why they'd pass it.

 

It is common sense. People who "break" the law by illegally sharing stuff to users un-willing to pay for it should be shut-down. Helps the economy if people are "forced" to buy the product instead.

 

Fair enough, people don't want this to be passed. It's like you said, some don't want to be controlled. But in many ways, it can help to protect others.

[Emasher]

See, this is what happens when one western country starts doing something like this. First Australia, with the excuse of blocking child pornography and other forms of pornography which no other civilized country in the world censors. Not that they actually stuck to censoring that sort of content. Many websites for political ideologies other than the governing party were censored, the same happened with religious sites, and a bunch of other sites that shouldn't be blocked. It may look like the UK is only going to be censoring piracy sites (Just for the record, I hate piracy, please don't get me wrong), but I really doubt that will be the only type of site blocked. Once Censorship has been legalized it just starts the ball rolling. There's a very good chance that any government that manages to legalize censorship will exploit it.

 

If something like this ever happens in Canada, well, lets just say, my MP would end up being very annoyed with me at the very least by the end of it all.

[Daft]

Have I read the link incorrectly, or has the bit about blocking certain sites been cancelled?

 

 

 

The bit not in bold has been lined out on the original link. I can't remember how to use strikeout or whatever.

 

Yep, you're right. It's been left to be debated. The bandwidth throttling and account suspension levelled at individual consumers is the biggest problem, I think.

[Sheikah]

I'm going to sound like a DVD...but if you stole a car, you'd be 'forced' into a prison cell, and have your hotwiring/whatever tools confiscated. In this case, if you steal films, music or games, you'll have your 'thieving tool' confiscated/banned and be fined.

 

We've always been 'forced' to cease breaking the law when found out, regarding various things. It's not really any different.

[Daft]

Except the laws of copywrite, which is what the bill is aimed at, aren't as simple as just pirating. It's much broader and extends to sites like Wikileaks - the site that leaked that 'Collateral Murder' video, a video I think we have a right to see.

[Goafer]

What makes me smile a bit is the fact that the record companies/movie studios etc aren't going to make any more money with this thing. People who weren't willing to pay for it before aren't going to suddenly think "Fuck me! £13 for a DVD suddenly seems like roaring good value!" and rush out to get things legally.

 

People pirate things because they can't afford/aren't willing to fork out the money for the product. This new bill won't change their circumstances/attitude.

 

I don't care that much either way. I usually go the legal route, but even if I did decide to start pirating stuff, I've got 2 free warnings and even then, I can just go down the marketplace and buy some dodgy DVDs from them like everyone used to.

[Sheikah]

 

People pirate things because they can't afford/aren't willing to fork out the money for the product. This new bill won't change their circumstances/attitude.

Actually, that's not true. People who pirate (at least in this country) can often afford to pay for at least some of the things they obtain for free or for a much cheaper value (knockoff). I know many such individuals. So many people have an R4 or some sort of DS flashcard alternative.

 

So it's rather the other thing you said; people don't want to. If something can cost money or be free, many people opt free. But if they were coerced, such as through fear of being disconnected or sued (perhaps due to knowing friends who had been disconnected/sued) then it's quite possible that they'd avoid downloading for fear of prosecution. And since people do actually want to listen to music at some point in their life, they may well take the risk-free option of buying it.

[Gizmo]

Pirating is bad yadda yadda. I don't have Sky1, I'm not going to pay for Sky1 just to get Lost, so I download Lost. Theres no loss of revenue anywhere, because I wouldn't spend any on it anywhere down the line. No advertisers lose money, because I wouldn't have seen the adverts anyway.

 

Even more to the point, if I hadn't downloaded Muse's first four albums illegally, I wouldn't have paid £50 to go see them live. So rather than losing out on £50 of revenue from 4 albums sales like people would like to believe, they have in fact gained a fan (who will spread their music to others, such as my friend with whom I went to see them - another £50), made money on the tickets and tshirts I bought, and lost no money on the album downloads I made, which I wouldn't have if it was gonna cost me £50.

 

The same has happened with countless other bands. Yes its illegal blahblah, but maybe thats a problem with the law, and not the system?

 

I'm not saying it works like this all the time, but what I'm saying is that it's far less of a problem as they would have you believe, due to the reverse effect as I have described above. I would say that with this in mind, the con's of the bill far outweigh the pro's.

[chairdriver]

Music should be free.

[Daft]

Actually, that's not true. People who pirate (at least in this country) can often afford to pay for at least some of the things they obtain for free or for a much cheaper value (knockoff). I know many such individuals. So many people have an R4 or some sort of DS flashcard alternative.

 

So it's rather the other thing you said; people don't want to. If something can cost money or be free, many people opt free. But if they were coerced, such as through fear of being disconnected or sued (perhaps due to knowing friends who had been disconnected/sued) then it's quite possible that they'd avoid downloading for fear of prosecution. And since people do actually want to listen to music at some point in their life, they may well take the risk-free option of buying it.

 

It's not that black and white. Take the blogosphere and the hypemachine, tracks are purposely leaked onto blogs to generate hype through word of mouth. Similarly most bands make their money from live tours as opposed to record sale.

 

And looking at the bigger picture, pirating can easily be seen as a counter-cultural reaction to society's forms of coercion and consent. What better way to distract the workforce from their mundane jobs than through mindless media?

 

Think about how people distract themselves by waiting for that game they want/that new album/the sequel to that film/next week's episode.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Daft

[Sheikah]

It's not that black and white. Take the blogosphere and the hypemachine, tracks are purposely leaked onto blogs to generate hype through word of mouth. Similarly most bands make their from live tours as opposed to record sale.

Yes, some situations call for this more than others. Gizmo and Lost on Sky1 for instance- he's never going to subscribe to Sky just for the show, so they'll never lose money no matter what he does.

 

This bill aims to get people who fall into every one of these categories to pay for copyright material:

 

- People who obtain music/films/games without paying, and;

- People who (perhaps just about everyone) would cease an activity when they believed arrest was a genuine possibility (perhaps having known real life persons affected) and;

- People who, after feeling pressured into ceasing illegal acquirement of copyright material, still wish to have their own music collection, watch DVDs and play games.

 

That really does cover quite a lot of people who currently pirate. People in this country who currently pirate do so because they can acquire vast amounts of games/music/video that they could not normally purchase all of. And, because they can save money or spend their money on other things that they cannot illegally acquire. That said, if these people were scaremongered into ceasing the acquirement of copyright material they would most probably still want to have their own music, watch films and play games. Thus, it's certainly likely that it would lead to an overall increase in the legal purchase of media and thereby paying the people involved in their manufacture.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Sheikah

[Nicktendo]

The fact that the bill is being put through is the issue I have. The concept of censorship: we have a choice to break the law, knowing the consequences of what we choose to do. Removing this choice directly affects and removes our freedom. It also, crucially, sets a precedent. Now I'm not condoning anything illegal here, but if someone downloads child porn, that is their choice - as wrong as it is, and of course they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

However once you determine illegal downloads, child porn, bestiality and murder videos as "banned" from the internet, where does it stop? Who decides what is allowed and what isn't? Where do the people decide what they can and can't view/download or is it up to the government and the companies to 'regulate' something that doesn't belong to any of them, or anyone for that matter.

 

I take the view that the Internet is one of the greatest inventions mankind has ever achieved, it has completely conquered time and space at an global and individual level. I love the fact that I can look around my uncles house in Australia, import games from Hong Kong, look around hotels and plan a detailed trip to South Korea, even download new music (I won't go into detail, but there are massive benefits to downloading music and we have discussed it to death). Now, someone who has no real right, decides I can't do some of those things any more, or I have to do it in a different way or through a certain institution. Regulation of the internet will end in disaster. Things like censorship, net neutrality and all that bollocks simply have no place in something that no nation state or corporation owns.

 

If I choose to break the law, I must be willing to stand in front of a judge and jury, as I have every right too and defend myself in a fair trial. I will probably lose, but I as a free citizen understand those rights and removing them completely undermines my freedom as a human being, makes a mockery of democracy and simply installs the corporations as our real leaders. Now, I can completely understand people accepting this - sure, if you are a law abiding citizen why would you need to worry? The reality is, it's a very worrying prospect as to what it symbolises and while it may be good to crack down on illegal downloaders, at the end of the day it won't crack down on anything but our basic human rights and our freedom and set a very dangerous precedent which would be impossible to reverse.

 

That really does cover quite a lot of people who currently pirate. People in this country who currently pirate do so because they can acquire vast amounts of games/music/video that they could not normally purchase all of. And, because they can save money or spend their money on other things that they cannot illegally acquire. That said, if these people were scaremongered into ceasing the acquirement of copyright material they would most probably still want to have their own music, watch films and play games. Thus, it's certainly likely that it would lead to an overall increase in the legal purchase of media and thereby paying the people involved in their manufacture.

 

I disagree, it would probably just vastly increase the demand for the second hand market. There is a reason why CeX is completely booming at the moment and that is because people are coming round to the fact that it's better/cheaper/easier to just wait and pick something up second hand. Banning illegal downloads would increase the demand for second hand good ten-fold. I have almost never bought anything new because I simply can't afford it.

 

My entire DVD collection (300+), Music collection (500+) and Game collection (100+) is almost all second hand, with the realistic exception of about 5% new. Almost all my DVD's are from CeX, purchased for as little as £1-3 a time, there's just no way I'd spend over a tenner on a film or DVD when I know it will be way cheaper in a few months. Same goes for my cd's - all from Amazon Marketplace, it just seems stupid not too because it's so much cheaper. People who download will never pay full price for consumables and will only increase the second hand market.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Nicktendo
Automerged Doublepost

[Emasher]

The real way media companies should be fighting piracy is by releasing large portions of their content for free online, but putting advertisements all over the place. It wouldn't really work for more expensive things like games and movies. But its already working for TV shows, and it could easily work for music.

 

Just to clarify, is your government suspending internet access, or are they actually blocking websites entirely?