Britain's new Internet law

Nod

Nod

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
10,968
Reaction score
2,716
Location
Darling
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.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
 
with crime being SA, I would like them to enforce such a law. I will bribe the spy bot
 
Intent

timgaul said:
We may have sloooowwww broadband but at least we have no draconian Internet laws (yet) that protect one industry at the expense of another.
Click to expand...

We DO they are just not being impemented yet

This is all just the thin edge of the wedge to make ALL internet useage dependent on Gov Fiat.

Shame on the fsking useless Brits for allowing these ponsies to dictate to them.

MW
 
MidnightWizard said:
We DO they are just not being impemented yet

This is all just the thin edge of the wedge to make ALL internet useage dependent on Gov Fiat.

Shame on the fsking useless Brits for allowing these ponsies to dictate to them.

MW
Click to expand...

If you would be so kind as to point me to that particular piece of legislation because I have most definitely not been made aware of any "Digital Media Act" of this kind.
 
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing.
Click to expand...

I had no idea filesharing was illegal. So I cannot share a file that belongs to me now?
 
My brother reckons people are already mobilising to combat this ...... and there they get it done if it affects them.
 
Moederloos said:
I had no idea filesharing was illegal. So I cannot share a file that belongs to me now?
Click to expand...

Semantics dude. Your post is flawed too. Technically the file can't just belong to you, you need to actually own the right to create and distribute copies of it too. One can have a particular copy of a file "belong" to them without retaining the rights to copy and distribute.

If by "belongs" you mean that you are either the author of said file and have not waived or sold your right to copy and distribute, or you have purchased or retained the right to copy and distribute the file then it is legal.

If you are going to argue semantics try not to use broad terms like "belongs". :p

I am sure that we all realised that by "filesharing" the author meant the sharing of intellectual property without being in possession of the rights that allow for reproduction of the intellectual property. If in fact it means that the mere use of filesharing technologies can cause a fine then that is pretty ridiculous and I hope it won't stand up in court.
 
porchrat said:
Semantics dude. Your post is flawed too. Technically the file can't just belong to you, you need to actually own the right to create and distribute copies of it too. One can have a particular copy of a file "belong" to them without retaining the rights to copy and distribute.

If by "belongs" you mean that you are either the author of said file and have not waived or sold your right to copy and distribute, or you have purchased or retained the right to copy and distribute the file then it is legal.

If you are going to argue semantics try not to use broad terms like "belongs". :p

I am sure that we all realised that by "filesharing" the author meant the sharing of intellectual property without being in possession of the rights that allow for reproduction of the intellectual property. If in fact it means that the mere use of filesharing technologies can cause a fine then that is pretty ridiculous and I hope it won't stand up in court.
Click to expand...

Yeah - it is semantics. But the author is discussing a LAW, not chatting on a bulletin board. As such, he needs to be clearer as to what he means.
There are many legal torrents - linux distros for one - does the law now make provision for fining people sharing this content? From his article, it is not clear. In fact, it is not clear even as to whether the issue relates to copyright, or the sharing of ideas in public domain even. Maybe I can get a 50 000 pound fine for sharing a file supporting Atheism on which I hold the copyright and distribution rights - just because someone deems it "unfit material".
 
crazy how a bunch of overpaid, highly overated and mostly drug f***ked movie and music stars get this type of protection and backing, when all they had to do was to sell cds and dvds alot cheaper, theyd still make millions, this entire mission is driven by greed, and the failure of the now close to dying generations ability to change
 
AlwaysOnline said:
crazy how a bunch of overpaid, highly overated and mostly drug f***ked movie and music stars get this type of protection and backing, when all they had to do was to sell cds and dvds alot cheaper, theyd still make millions, this entire mission is driven by greed, and the failure of the now close to dying generations ability to change
Click to expand...

Dude this protection isn't for the movie and music stars, it is for the studios producing the movies and music. Two entirely different entities. Don't confuse this with people helping actors and musicians, these glorified publishers don't give one iota for the people that actually star in these movies and sing these songs.

Compared to the amount of money these publishing houses (and yes these movie studios and music producing labels are basically just publishers) are scoring from the movies and music, the "artists" (if that's what you want to call them, personally I don't agree with that title for most of the people in Hollywood and the music "industry") get next to nothing.

Don't get me wrong, they still get a fairly large amount of money, but is nowhere near what the publishers get.
 
Correction

timgaul said:
If you would be so kind as to point me to that particular piece of legislation because I have most definitely not been made aware of any "Digital Media Act" of this kind.
Click to expand...

It is called RICA :D

( the new amended one )

SA tends to follow what happens in the UK

"Piracy" is akin to "Terrorism" :erm: enough grounds for "credible-cause"

:mad:

MW
 
MidnightWizard said:
It is called RICA :D

( the new amended one )

SA tends to follow what happens in the UK

"Piracy" is akin to "Terrorism" :erm: enough grounds for "credible-cause"

:mad:

MW
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware RICA does not deal with what is communicated, only that a communication is occurring and who the involved parties are. Further legislation is required to make what ever is being communicated illegal, as such RICA has no anti-piracy legislation whatsoever.
 
None of this is about piracy - it is about curtailment of rights. The piracy angle is just a convenient excuse.
 
Moederloos said:
None of this is about piracy - it is about curtailment of rights. The piracy angle is just a convenient excuse.
Click to expand...

Jip, and so they chisel away at our freedoms one bit at a time. Nobody is bothered until it touches them personally.
 
This discussion also hasn't focused on Mandelson as a person.

Remember this guy was forced to resign TWICE over allegations of corruption.

He was also European Commissioner for Trade. You know the European Commission. The body that consists of people that are in no way elected by the people they supposedly represent and yet have a say over how an entire continent is run. While at that post there were again allegations of corruption.

He seems like a serious control freak and also seems very supportive of authoritarian rule and big business interests. IMO he is probably the worst person in the UK to give this power to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X