Digital Economy Bill

[Gizmo]

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.

 

What the bill is intended for and how it will be used are two seperate things: how are you legally going to differentiate between me watching Lost, and someone else who you described? The fact of the matter is I still illegally downloaded Lost.

[Sheikah]

What the bill is intended for and how it will be used are two seperate things: how are you legally going to differentiate between me watching Lost, and someone else who you described? The fact of the matter is I still illegally downloaded Lost.

Exactly; you don't differentiate. By their way of looking at things, they couldn't care less if they include people in this bill that wouldn't have purchased what they downloaded anyway. Why would they? They are, after all, still stealing. As long as this bill serves its primary purpose; scaremongering people into not illegally acquiring their media - rather paying for it (which as I detailed in my last post, will encompass a large number of piraters), then it's doing its job in their eyes.

 

 

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.

 

Whatever happens regarding the second hand market, there would still ultimately be a huge increase in actual purchases. Even if 99% of piraters who were coerced into legally acquiring media through fear of prosecution then went to buy second hand goods (which I'm not entirely sure is possible; surely demand would outweigh supply), that 1% who went to purchase new titles would still generate more profit for the people involved in the production of the media. But we all know it would be larger than 1%; people often want titles on release, which rules out second hand. What options this leaves, therefore, are pirating (ruled out in this scenario, due to fear of prosecution) or legal purchase. Figures.

 

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.

Well that is undoubtedly not the norm for most. Most people's collections, I would imagine, contain a lot more newly purchased titles, either by themselves or gifts from other people. It's hard to avoid receiving them as gifts anyhow.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Sheikah

[Daft]

TalkTalk defies digital bill

 

Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk's director of strategy and regulation, said the proposals were "draconian": "This is made all the more appalling by the ability of big music and film companies to influence government and the absence of any proper debate or scrutiny by MPs – only 5% of MPs turned up for the brief debate yesterday and the other important parliamentary stages will be bypassed in the wash-up process," he wrote on the company blog.

 

---

 

Thousands of people used sites such as writetoyourmp.com and 38degrees to complain about the anti-piracy measures in the bill, on the basis that they would criminalise people and did not assume the innocence of the accused – and would be expensive to defend against.

 

---

 

The digital economy bill had substantial backing from the content industries, including record labels and film-makers and distributors, which claim that they are losing £400m a year through online piracy and file-sharing. It emerged when the bill passed through the Lords that a key amendment had been drafted by the BPI, which represents UK major record labels.

 

---

 

The Open Rights Group, which is opposing the measures against file-sharing on the basis that they assume guilt on the part of those who operate internet connections, and that they will discourage hotels, libraries and shops from offering free wireless internet, called the passage of the bill "an utter disgrace".

[The fish]

I'm currently watching Lord Clement-Jones laying out, very clearly, how any part of the bill that didn't land absolute power in the hands of the people who want someone cut off has been sliced out entirely.

[Daft]

Stephen Timms –- the minister for Digital Britain – was under the impression that "IP address" referred to "intellectual property", rather than internet protocol. Expect him to appear on Fail Blog any time soon.

 

Fucking idiot.

[Serebii]

Fucking idiot.

...

 

Please tell me that's a joke

 

This entire bill is based upon an idiot? Dear god.

[The fish]

Fucking idiot.

 

Seconded. What a 'tard...

[Serebii]

The fact labour pushed this in so quickly before parliament dissolves, with most ministers not bothering to show up to stuff, really really irks me.

[ReZourceman]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

That is absolute lol.

[Emasher]

One a slightly related note. The ISPs have won the net neutrality case in the US. Simply put, the ISPs in the states are now allowed to censor the internet to their customers as they please. Or charge people more to visit certain sites, ect.

[Nolan]

One a slightly related note. The ISPs have won the net neutrality case in the US. Simply put, the ISPs in the states are now allowed to censor the internet to their customers as they please. Or charge people more to visit certain sites, ect.

 

Ffffff

uck.

[Serebii]

It's over. It's all over.

[Wesley]

Yeah this is... actually really scary.

 

I was watching Brown today wheel out a parent of a murdered child, who's killer was caught via use of the the DNA database - using it as a case to prove it's worth.

 

And I'm scared.

 

I mean... this is turning into quite a scary country.

 

I honestly feel like my rights as a human (or rather, what I expect my rights to be) are being slowly twisted or taken away.

 

But erm... I should be doing work and not talking about this.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

This is sad indeed. Censorship really has no place in a free society.

[Raining_again]

This law is about as clear as mud. They talk about repeat offenders/possiblity of a 3 strike system, but then i see people saying its the occasional users and the internet cafés that will be hardest hit. Taking away my internet is like taking away my oxygen suppppppppplllyyy ;__;

 

I'd much prefer a system where you pay an "internet tax" to dl whatever the hell you want (obviously without pissing on your isp's t&c with regards to download limits etc)

[Serebii]

This law is about as clear as mud. They talk about repeat offenders/possiblity of a 3 strike system, but then i see people saying its the occasional users and the internet cafés that will be hardest hit. Taking away my internet is like taking away my oxygen suppppppppplllyyy ;__;

 

I'd much prefer a system where you pay an "internet tax" to dl whatever the hell you want (obviously without pissing on your isp's t&c with regards to download limits etc)

I heartily endorse this event or product

 

I don't do illegal stuff on my network, but it still concerns me :/

[Raining_again]

I heartily endorse this event or product

 

I don't do illegal stuff on my network, but it still concerns me :/

 

I have to say i've been guilty of certain things, but im not a huge mega torrent whoring nerd. Probably 4-5gb a month max.

 

If someone steals your wireless and haxtorrentsdownloads you can be done for that too. And wireless passwords are super easy to hack.

[nightwolf]

I think the world just baffles me, the UK government even more so.

 

Just argh. ARGH to you.

[Raining_again]

I'm moving to America!!! Obama wouldn't do this to the people!!!!!! (maybe)

[Nolan]

I'm moving to America!!! Obama wouldn't do this to the people!!!!!! (maybe)

Did you not see:

One a slightly related note. The ISPs have won the net neutrality case in the US. Simply put, the ISPs in the states are now allowed to censor the internet to their customers as they please. Or charge people more to visit certain sites, ect.

 

It's already happened.

[nightwolf]

Raining, we need to find a cave that nobody owns and make it our own and find a way to get the internet..

 

This may not be possible. But damn I will try.

[Raining_again]

Did you not see:

 

 

It's already happened.

 

Foiled. Dammit.

 

edit: yes nightwolf yesssssss!!! I need my internets! I'll buy an island and make my own damn laws!! Yeaaah! /crazy

Edited April 9, 2010 by Raining_again

[Serebii]

The fact that the government is doing this based on people who can't even get their acronym association right is ridiculous.

[dazzybee]

It's not one mans decision though is it? Obviously. It's no coincidence this is being rolled out in a few countries.

 

If this is to stop illegal downloading then fine, that's okay with me. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. Just because we can argue very succesfully that illegal dowloading doesn't (or doesn't have to) have detrimental effects; the fact is, the people who own it, if they want to stop it fine.

 

My worry is how information can be used, all the copywrite bullshit, and the censorship it could entail... that's worrying but hopefully common sense will prevail.

[Serebii]

It's not one mans decision though is it? Obviously. It's no coincidence this is being rolled out in a few countries.

 

If this is to stop illegal downloading then fine, that's okay with me. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. Just because we can argue very succesfully that illegal dowloading doesn't (or doesn't have to) have detrimental effects; the fact is, the people who own it, if they want to stop it fine.

 

My worry is how information can be used, all the copywrite bullshit, and the censorship it could entail... that's worrying but hopefully common sense will prevail.

It essentially was, albeit more like a dozen. They decided to push it through before Parliament dissolved meaning very few MPs would have been there to vote