By Alec Meer on March 17th, 2010 at 2:52 pm.
The current British government and its friends in the entertainment industry want the power to regulate what we download – and to punish us if they don’t like it. This must not be; while the Digital Economy Bill is posited as protection of copyrighted content – an anti-piracy measure, in other words – its proposed changes to copyright ilaws are terrifying on a level far beyond Bittorrent. You must take a stand against it. Doing so takes about a minute.
Under the bill, your internet connection will be cut off if you’re deemed to have repeatedly infringed copyright. Obviously that’s cruel and unusual punishment in all manner of ways, plus there’s the big issue of IP spoofing. There’s worse, though. Most importantly, it would require your ISP to monitor your downloading habits and to share records of them with copyright holders.
Gamer Law have an excellent round-up of what it all means, here. Crucially:
The Government would then be able to require ISPs to take “technical measures” against the suspected pirate. This seems likely to include wide reaching action like broadband throttling or ultimately even account suspension (though the Government doesn’t intend to specify exactly what “technical measures” means or how they will actually work until after DEB has become law).
It’s a “three-strikes” system, apparently, although it’s not clear how that will be dealt out, policed, or subsequently appealed against.
Furthermore, if the Bill’s major proponent, first secretary of state Peter Mandelson, gets his way, he’ll have the theoretical power to create whatever filesharing laws he (or his backers) see fit. Youtube, mods, fanfiction, Deviantart… It is an attempt to regulate and reduce everything the internet is. There are further unhappy side-effects, such as the possible loss of free coffee shop wifi and increased broadband charges.
Mandelson is trying to bring this draconian, near-sighted bill into being before the general election that’s likely to result in a change of UK government. This must not happen. At the very least, the bill must be scrutinised and modified, not rushed through before that can happen. If you are a resident of the United Kingdom, you must email or write to your MP and request he votes against it in the upcoming second reading.
The excellent people at 38 Degrees offer a fast, clever system that checks your postcode and sends a polite-but-forceful pre-written email to whoever your local MP is – it takes about a minute to do. Do it. There’s a copy of the letter below if you’d rather mail your local politicker directly.
I’m writing to you today because I’m very worried that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate.
The law is controversial and contains many measures that concern me. The controversial Bill deserves proper scrutiny so please don’t let the government rush it through. Many people think it will damage schools and businesses as well as innocent people who rely on the internet because it will allow the Government to disconnect people it suspects of copyright infringement.
Industry experts, internet service providers (like Talk Talk and BT) and huge internet companies like Google and Yahoo are all opposing the bill – yet the Government seems intent on forcing it through without a real debate.
As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can to ensure the Government doesn’t just rush the bill through and deny us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate.
17/03/2010 at 15:00 Inigo says:
“Oh no! A letter! We cannot possibly put this bill through now! O woe! O misery!”
17/03/2010 at 15:02 Shrewsbury says:
Don’t be so goddamn stupid.
17/03/2010 at 15:04 Alec Meer says:
Seconded. Do you understand what democracy means?
17/03/2010 at 15:10 Mike says:
If your single MP gets just 5 letters or emails like this I guarantee he/she will stop exactly what he is doing and get on it asap…its his/her job
17/03/2010 at 15:12 AVarotsis says:
Well, he might have a point…If you feel strongly about the issue, at least write your own later instead of copy pasting somebody elses. If not, it’s just a petition. A strong worded opinion is a far more effective tool :)
17/03/2010 at 15:39 dhex says:
A strong worded opinion is a far more effective tool
actually, that’s not true. what’s far more important is volume. 1000 chain letters from different people versus 100 individualized letters – which one do you think carries more weight? they don’t care how well or poorly someone writes on an issue, just that they’re pissed and they vote. mob rule and all that. :)
good luck ye sons of albion; i’ve always regarded you as the canaries in the mineshaft of crazed governance, and these new developments are fucked up.
17/03/2010 at 15:57 Inigo says:
I know what a democracy is. I also know what it is not.
It is not a government that is influenced by “friends in the entertainment industry”.
17/03/2010 at 16:05 Guy says:
Nope, I guarantee most MP’s will largely ignore this. I’ve worked for an MP at the same time as a large national campaign was running. We pretty much asked Party HQ for a generic template response, which was provided. Then I spent many hours filling in names and addresses and getting my MP’s signature. And then we did sweet F.A. (in fairness to my MP, the campaign was ludicrously outside of his actual responsibilities and he was one of the few decent MP’s I met)
What it does do though is register. Your MP will be aware that you care about it. Furthermore if they are in a hotly contested seat then they’ll be hunting for every vote they can get. So it can do good- certainly I’ve emailed my MP (a useless, grubby, crook who was rather prominent in the Expenses scandal and who wouldn’t vote against her party [Labour] if you threatened to have her hung from tender-hooks above a boiling tank of cyber-squids).
@dhex,
Mostly we cared whether the handwriting was good. You haven’t lived until you’ve tried to decipher the hieroglyphics that certain members of the British public write in. Individual letters do have slightly more impact though as you have to make very sure to read the whole thing. Identikit letters are much quicker to deal with.
17/03/2010 at 16:10 Baboonanza says:
I’m going to print my personalised version off and snail-mail it too, just to show I actually care.
17/03/2010 at 16:35 Tom OBedlam says:
@guy I sent an email to MP, Nick Clegg, through the Libel Reform campaign, exactly the same style, fill in the blanks etc. Within two days I received a personal email from one of his aides detailing what step the Lib Dems and Clegg in particular was doing on the matter. I’ve since been in correspondence with his office about the issue.
17/03/2010 at 16:50 battles_atlas says:
So what are you doing to fix our sham democracy Inigo? Posting sneery responses to efforts to generate some actual public involvement in the running of our society? Our democracy is broke because we let it get broke, so piss off with your snide apathy. If there’s one thing worse than ignorant citizens not doing a thing to save our political system, its knowable citizens not doing a thing to save it.
17/03/2010 at 16:58 FluffyPanda says:
I sent a letter to my MP about this a short while back and received a personal response, not a template letter.
Then again, I didn’t use a template letter to make my point either. I think 20 of the same letter is a lot more likely to be ignored than if you take 10 minutes out of your day to actually write to your MP in your own words.
17/03/2010 at 17:07 Guy says:
@Tom,
But did you check with anyone else who sent in a the same copycat letter to the Lib Dems to see if you got similar responses? I’m sure later correspondence will have been unique but the first response is usually just based on a template written for that particular issue (i.e. a Lib Dem Party hack writes a generic response letter [including what the Party thinks and says it intends to do] for everyone writing in on the issue of Libel Reform, which is used or adapted by various MP’s rather than writing their own). Certainly I sent plenty of ‘personal emails’ that I’d just taken from the Party Database.
17/03/2010 at 17:10 Guy says:
@FluffyPanda
If you include one detailed, very specific point then we usually had to write a personal letter just to cover it. Campaign letters got the template response (and remember, this isn’t some MS Word template, this is a Party template, available from the Party database).
17/03/2010 at 17:12 Tom OBedlam says:
@guy oh that wasn’t quite what I meant! I’m sure it was the initial form one, (tailored to adjust for the fact that Clegg can’t actually sign EDMs as a party leader) I just meant that I don’t think they are ignored. If their is at least someone responding and corresponding to the emails, they must do some good. I reread your original message again and see your saying much the same thing anyway.
17/03/2010 at 17:55 Wizlah says:
Got a surprisingly prompt, if brief e-mail back from my MP saying that he didn’t think it was going to go through parliament prior to the election. I’m hazzy on details, but I seem to recall that it’s about now that these things do get rammed through.
Consulting Houses of Parliament, it seems that the second reading is yet to be scheduled. With 2 weeks to go until election, I figure it’s a plausible explanation, but I’ll be keeping an eye on the bill’s progress.
17/03/2010 at 20:20 Wulf says:
@Guy
My MP actually voiced real concern about this, and even wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, bless him. That’s Welsh Labour for you, though, they’ve got grassroots in old Labour, the only part of Labour that was ever good. He didn’t like it at all, and what surprised me was that he did his own research, and his letter to the Prime Minister was even more strongly worded than my own! This was a real eye-opener for me.
The problem was with Gordon Brown, one of the Trio of Total Twats responsible for the switch from Labour to New Labour, he sent a letter back which was absolutely choc full of lies! I’m very tempted to publish this online, but I’m not quite sure how to go about it yet. The amount of lies that were present in Gordon Brown’s mail to my MP was worrying, he sent that mail back to me so I could read and I twigged the lies, frankly I think after doing his own research into it, he would have to. To be honest, this is why I think he sent me Brown’s letter back in its original form, so I could decide what to do from here.
If Labour gets this in, then the best I can hope for at least is Wales going independent and stuff like this being tossed out the window. Sorry England. But Wales is still old Labour, thank goodness, because this is where all the roots of old Labour are, and if we could at least go independent then we’d be able to talk to rational, reasonable people about this bill. Whatever Mandy & The Trio of Twats are, they’re not rational or reasonable.
If Britain was smart though, we’d all vote for one of the smaller parties, ignoring both New Labour and the Tories this time around.
17/03/2010 at 20:21 kieran martin says:
I’m always amused by this response. Back at Bath I chaired the student Amnesty society, where we would get people wondering how our urgent action letters could possible have an effect. A third of all urgent actions Amnesty gets involved in lead to an improvement (often not a release, but an amnesty from the death penalty). Now as a statistican I can hum and haw about correlation and causation, but by bringing a light to these cases I do think we made a difference.
In our own country, our own government… well writing to your mp won’t necessairly always work, but it does help them become aware that people CARE about this bill, and thats important. There are, of course, other ways to influence (actually lobbying your mp, if you have the time and inclination, is worthwhile) this system, but the supposed advantage of our rather rubbish electoral system is the constituency link would be madness, and exactly what the unproportionally powerful lobbying companies want…
In short, no its not magic, but it can and does work. Its not much time out of your day, and if you care about an issue, why not do something that costs you nothing?
[trying reply again...]
18/03/2010 at 02:27 Dante says:
Incidentally, for those talking about form letters, the site actually prompts you to adjust it a much as you can to suit your own ends. The template is just that, a template.
I’m actually registered to vote in two different constituencies, so I’ve send one off to each MP (both Labour). I’m not voting for the government in any case, but whoever is least responsive will get voted against.
18/03/2010 at 03:40 GT3000 says:
He’s got a point (OP that is.) as most delegates operate on two schools of thought. Representing the people’s will directly or acting in their best interest despite their feedback. Seem like a case of the latter rather than former.
18/03/2010 at 09:06 Jockie says:
@ Wulf I’d be very interested in reading that letter if you do publish it.
18/03/2010 at 09:46 Bananaphone says:
@tom
“Within two days I received a personal email from one of his aides detailing what step the Lib Dems and Clegg in particular was doing on the matter”
Did the email mention how the Lib Dems tried to include a juicy little extra in the bill that would have allowed the government to block web sites? It was a suggestion by those nice people at the BPI and the Lib Dems thought it was just dandy.
23/03/2010 at 18:22 Dan says:
Bits of response from my MP, Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, London):
“Although it is imperative that jobs in the creative industries are protected, and it is right that artists be paid fairly for work they produce, the bill, as it stands, seems to be heavily weighted in favour of rich and powerful copyright holding companies…
Provisions to suspend file sharers’ connections and to require internet service providers to block access to websites hosting “substantial” amounts of copyrighted material are an over reaction, dangerously intrusive and will only prove to be counter productive.
…there is significant back bench concern on all sides, and I and my colleagues will do all we can to ensure the bill is not rushed through the House without proper debate and scrutiny.”
So that’s good. I’ll be keeping an eye on whether he walks the walk.
17/03/2010 at 15:02 Paul C says:
Done and done.
17/03/2010 at 15:04 Mike says:
Done and sent.
At least Lindsay Roy (Fife, Scotland Labour MP) will hopefully look at the bill more closely.
17/03/2010 at 15:24 Centy says:
and Dundee West’s Jim McGovern I’m also going to send a letter to my MSP aswell maybe we can avoid it up here at least
17/03/2010 at 15:44 Lambchops says:
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute, Lib Dem) has a letter headed his way.
It seems like the Lib Dems in the house of lords made a bit of a hash of ammending the bill to curb some of its extremes and just ended up increasing concern. To the point where they actually tried to amend their ammendment!
17/03/2010 at 16:37 Tom OBedlam says:
@centy haha I had to read that twice. I thought you were going to email the Manic Street Preachers! I thought “well I guess that could work but wouldn’t it be more productive to…. ah… Scotland… them” :)
17/03/2010 at 19:33 Chaos says:
Another one on it’s way to Jim McGovern from me.
18/03/2010 at 02:28 Dante says:
Khalid Mahmood (Lab) and Sion Simon (Lab) for me. I can vote in either constituency, so we’ll see which one persuades me best.
17/03/2010 at 15:05 Shrewsbury says:
I sent an e-mail to my MP last night. You should too.
17/03/2010 at 15:06 Wizlah says:
Done. Now I’m off to read more about problems with the bill.
17/03/2010 at 16:43 LionsPhil says:
1) Object to the bill.
2) Find out what the bill is.
People like you are why democracy doesn’t work.
17/03/2010 at 16:53 phlebas says:
@LionsPhil: Did you miss the ‘more’ there?
17/03/2010 at 17:59 Wizlah says:
exactly. I’ve been aware of the bill and it’s basic premise for some time now, but Alec’s call to arms prompted me to send off a proper e-mail. Having said that, I didn’t realise it was also affecting copyright law – that’s what I want to read up about.
17/03/2010 at 20:24 Wulf says:
@LP
Accusing someone of ignorance whilst displaying ignorance in the same post is displaying a really distilled form of hypocrisy on your part, I’d be more careful about that.
The thing is though, RPS is completely right about this, and of course people trust the journos here and want to get behind them. I’m just thankful RPS, or Alec rather, did say something about this.
17/03/2010 at 22:33 Stromko says:
A bunch of letters and worries won’t really solve anything.
Sooner or later, any right that you are not willing to die for will be taken away. That is just basic human nature.
If there isn’t a riot about this, it’s probably going to pass.
17/03/2010 at 15:08 phuzz says:
I already sent an email to my MP this morning, now I’m going to look like a swot.
Among other things I mentioned how, as an IT bod, I need internet access to work sometimes (and therefore earn money and pay taxes), and if all three of my oh so naughty flatmates all decided to download something one day, then I could loose my livelihood.
Feel free just to copy a form letter, but the more individual you make it the more likely they are to pay attention.
Also, make sure you put your address in somewhere, so that they know you’re one of their constituents (an a possible voter).
17/03/2010 at 15:12 GS says:
done and done
17/03/2010 at 15:13 Eidolon says:
I’ve already bothered Mr Frank Doran about this, but he’s a party man and afeart of the whip.
17/03/2010 at 15:18 Ffitz says:
Is he in a safe seat? If not, you might like to gently remind him that following the party line will most likely mean that he’s unemployed in May.
(Although looking at his voting record on theyworkforyou.com, he bloody deserves to get a damned good shoeing at the election).
17/03/2010 at 15:49 Eidolon says:
I’m not actually sure what way the wind is blowing up here, to be honest. He certainly isn’t uncontested. He sent me a letter a few weeks ago saying that he’d forwarded my concerns to Mandy – fat lot of good that’ll do. He did say that he agrees “on principle”* and I expect that he’ll continue to support it.
*Read: because he’s being a good little MP.
17/03/2010 at 18:03 Grunt says:
Rats, Doran’s my MP too. Ah well, if nothing else it will get my name on a clandestine list of registered file-sharing troublemakers.
17/03/2010 at 15:14 MikeArthur says:
Thanks for posting this here Alec, hopefully our MPs are going to be barraged with letters over this issue and will actually consider what this means for the public rather than just the rightsholders.
17/03/2010 at 15:15 RC-1290Dreadnought says:
Doesn’t this just mean we will from now one encrypt everything we do on the internet, to make it more difficult to detect stuff?
17/03/2010 at 15:20 Mike says:
Exactly.
Its a bit of a faff but once you know how its pretty simple to just mask everything you do on the internet by sending your data through proxies or whatever.
For the illegal filesharers, they are going to be savvy enough to just do that anyway. Everybody else gets screwed.
Its DRM from hell.
17/03/2010 at 15:39 Persus-9 says:
Yeah but if the bill really does give the Secretary of State has the power to pass new laws in regard to this area then he couldn’t he fairly legitimately and very scarily make most encrypted traffic illegal on the basis that it harbours pirates?
It could perhaps work on the basis that any encrypted traffic would only be allowed to go to certain authorised IPs that businesses would have to register IPs they wished to use for secure connections and prove were only being used for e-commerce purposes and the like so any encrypted connection made between two unauthorised IPs would be illegal. That would be horrific to a truly Orwellian level but I get the impression that is might be legal under this bill. 0_o
17/03/2010 at 15:51 sonofsanta says:
@Persus: the powers for the Secretary of State to pull laws out of his ass as he sees fit have been removed by the Lords.
Saying that, they then said “have you thought about…” and now there’s provision for blocking access to sites suspected of harbouring copyrighted material. Bloody Lords.
17/03/2010 at 16:02 Persus-9 says:
Cool, thanks for the info. Still that means that it gives the government the legal right to censor the internet based on their suspicions, that’s more than scary enough for me.
17/03/2010 at 17:40 phuzz says:
Because if this bill passes many more people are going to start using encryption to download their pirat^^^^linux distributions, the security services are actually against the idea.
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2010/03/13/whats-worrying-the-spooks/
17/03/2010 at 15:16 Alex Bakke says:
Anyone living in West Bromwich is sorted, as Tom Watson, one of the best men in parliament for talking about digital matters, is the MP there.
I however, live in Newbury, which has Richard Benyon, i.e. massive dick.
But yes, to anyone who thinks this won’t do anything: MPs, generally, will respond to every sensible email sent to them.
17/03/2010 at 17:07 phlebas says:
Benyon seemed a decent enough chap (bar his party affiliation) until he actually got elected, since when he’s sucked up and taken the party line on everything. I can’t imagine he’d oppose this for any good reason, but it’s possible he could be persuaded to do so on partisan grounds.
17/03/2010 at 17:17 Alex Bakke says:
My friend was at the Hungerford Hustings the other day, and he stood up: “Hi there, I’ve heard some good policies from Mr. Rendal, but none from Mr. Benyon. And he oohed and ahhed, not willing to give anything away. The one policy he did issue was one that the Labour MP (I can’t remember her name, she’s not important.) had said moments before.
Where’re you based?
17/03/2010 at 17:42 phuzz says:
Tom Watson might be pro gaming, but do you agree with everything else he’s been voting for?
Voting record (from PublicWhip)
How Tom Watson voted on key issues since 2001:
* Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.
* Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.
* Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
* Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
* Voted very strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
* Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.
* Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
* Voted moderately for equal gay rights.
* Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change.
theyworkforyou.com
17/03/2010 at 18:54 Alex Bakke says:
I see your point, but the situation so far is that there’s not that many people in Parliament who actually care about gaming/digital rights.
17/03/2010 at 19:25 TeeJay says:
@ phuzz
…those ‘summaries’ don’t tell the whole story – someone can be ‘pro-’ something but still vote against a rival party’s amendments or odd-ball alternatives or simply be absent from the vote. All of these count towards an ‘anti’ / less than perfect ‘pro’ score.
You need to look at the details of the votes/issues in question – which you can find on the same website – before passing judgement.
18/03/2010 at 00:02 andrew says:
@phlebas
yeah, because obviously being a Tory automatically makes you scum. I love how people in certain corners of the internett just assume everyone has the same smug student politics worldview as them and will just categorise anything right of Mao as simply “bad”
18/03/2010 at 00:52 Persus-9 says:
“yeah, because obviously being a Tory automatically makes you scum”
Quoted for truth.
:P
18/03/2010 at 12:20 phlebas says:
@andrew: I didn’t say that. He seemed a decent chap and I would probably have voted for him would that vote not have counted as a vote for a party whose policies I largely detest. It is quite possible to be a decent and worthwhile human being and yet be horribly mistaken.
18/03/2010 at 13:24 phlebas says:
Update: I have a reply from Mr Benyon – kudos to him for the swift response! Not so much kudos for the fact that the reply is a cut and paste of the party line on a different section of the bill and doesn’t actually address what I said.
17/03/2010 at 15:16 Nick C says:
Done. Can I also recommend theyworkforyou.com; it’s got a good record of how your MP votes and general info as well how to get in touch with them.
17/03/2010 at 15:17 Clovis says:
I thought the bill also included something horrific about forcing ISPs to block websites that host significant infringing content or something. I think that part is actually worse than the idiotic 3-strikes style laws.
For readers, like me, who don’t live in the UK, keep in mind that that similar proposal are supposedly part of ACTA. So, pretty much everyone living in a democratic country should be sending emails/letters to their representatives.
17/03/2010 at 15:18 Bhazor says:
Hey Alec, hows about you tell us the facts rather than the paranoid Doctorowesque version of it.
No mention of the required length of notice the government are required to give before taking action? Or the fact that suspending access is the maximum sentence after a person continues to infringe the law after “Technical measures could only be used against infringers who met the threshold for inclusion in a copyright infringement list under the initial obligations. Technical measures would be likely to include bandwidth capping or shaping that would make it difficult for subscribers to continue file-sharing, but other measures may also be considered. If appropriate, temporary suspension of broadband connections could be considered. “? No mentions of the right to appeal? The fact it is up to the owner of the copyright holder to press charges rather than some authoritarian super computer with mind powers and phone taps (so only dickish publishers who are already dicks will be dickish with this bill)? No mention that the list of “infringers” being given to the copyright holder is anonymous so is only functional for statistical analysis? No mention that this is a single clause of a much larger bill that would also see game age classifications to be more strictly adhered to and also require Channel 5 to be less crap?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/en/index_089.htm
17/03/2010 at 15:36 Flimgoblin says:
No doubt some parts of the DE bill that are decent. However, there are some horrifyingly open holes for someone to do terrible terrible things with it at present.
The poll tax had its good points too (like cutting down on the administration required)… (totally trying to avoid a Godwin here)
Don’t be mistaken, this isn’t a “stop the ebil debill!” campaign. This is “stop them ramming it through parliament before it gets properly discussed and all the hideous bits removed”.
This was supposed to be a bill to stimulate the digital economy, as it stands it’s going to cripple it.
17/03/2010 at 15:37 HexagonalBolts says:
I was going to say, there is a lot of bureaucracy you have to go through and rules you have to break before you get banned, and I believe I read something stating that the focus was strongly on bittorrents, and uploaders not downloaders or services like rapidshare (if you were worried about that). In fact one of the copyright holder’s criticisms of the law was that it only targeted less recent methods of filesharing.
But despite this, I still agree this is an awful law. Companies should be taking their own initiative and adjusting like Valve. There was a very interesting article I read, I think in Wired magazine, about the economy of free – there is so much that can be done with advertising, just look at spotify and half of the internet. Why has this not been applied to games in a useful way?
17/03/2010 at 15:37 Lambchops says:
@ Bhazor
I’m sure there’s some sensible things elsewhere in the bill (if it forces Channel 5 to get some real news on instead of Live at Studio 5 then that’s a plus!).. I’m also sure that the government probably wont go to the extremes that the bill allows them to go to.
However just because they probably wouldn’t go that far doesn’t excuse the more draconian clauses in the bill for being there. While they might not be used the fact that they are there and clearly a step too far is reason enough for the bill to be debated with more scrutiny, instead of rushing through some poor legislation.
Also the fact that it’s “up to the owner of the copyright holder to press charges” doesn’t really make the situation that much better. It could lead to copyright holders threatening legal action for somewhat spurious reasons and forcing sites who couldn’t afford to fight a lenghty legal battle to remove content that the copyright holder didn’t like. It may well be that the copyright holder had little ground to start legal action and may well have lost at court but many websites wouldn’t be able to fight this. It’s not an ideal situation and is kind of analogous to the spurious libel claims that sometimes crop up.
17/03/2010 at 15:46 Ffitz says:
I’m also sure that the government probably wont go to the extremes that the bill allows them to go to.
Without wanting to sound all tinfoil hat about it, it’s never, never safe to make this kind of assumption. Any group in power will test the boundaries of that power, whether it’s police (look at the misuse of the terrorism laws), politicians (misuse of expenses) or corporate executives (any number of scandals).
Power has to be controlled and the necessary oversight must be maintained, or it gets abused and us the general population are the ones who pay the price. it’s our job in a democracy to scrutinize those who we give power to. If we don’t (and no-one else will do it for us), we’re fucked.
17/03/2010 at 15:52 Alec Meer says:
Principle & precedent > near-sighted qualifiers
17/03/2010 at 15:56 Lambchops says:
@ FFitz
Agreed. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make but reading my post back it did get lost somewhere amongst some rather mangled writing! Note to self: must read back posts more often.
17/03/2010 at 15:57 Bhazor says:
My point is to go to the source. Don’t read the boing boing bullet point version or the version your mate told you about. Go to the actual bona fide source, catch a freshly hatched fact before it becomes a news.
I do find it vaguely insulting that Alec fails to link to the actual bill as if he thinks us readers are unable to handle reading a frickin’ bill. Let alone encouraging the idea of spamming because obviously we aren’t capable of writing our own frickin’ letters.
17/03/2010 at 16:10 Alec Meer says:
Re linking – this is RPS, man! You surely should know by now that Ineptitude is always the truth behind any perceived conspiracy in our posts. Just forgot the link; mailing from phone atm, but will edit in when back home.
17/03/2010 at 16:12 Nick says:
Maybe thats just what you WANT us to think, Alec.
I’m onto you.
17/03/2010 at 19:41 TeeJay says:
“unable to handle reading a frickin’ bill”
I’m not ‘unable’, but I am not that willing to plough through the entire text to find the bit about cutting off internet access.
As you have taken the time to read the bill already, can you tell me which clauses, topics and schedules specifically relate to this?
17/03/2010 at 19:51 Bhazor says:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/en/10089x–.htm#index_link_8
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/en/10089x-a.htm#index_link_15
These two are probably the most important. The first is what actions can be taken and the second clarifies that blocking someone is a last resort after several warnings.
17/03/2010 at 21:15 TeeJay says:
<i>I do find it vaguely insulting that Alec fails to link to the actual bill</i>
You haven’t linked to the actual bill either. You’ve linked to the “explanatory notes”
“They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament … The Notes need to be read in conjunction with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill.”
*This* is the actual Bill itself: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/10089.i-iii.html
It is important to read the actual text of the laws that will be passed, not some opinion or interpretation by a ministry. The explanatory notes are just a discussion, they are not the final word nor legally binding in any way whatsoever. The views and interpretations included in the explanatory notes are often disputed by other people.
17/03/2010 at 22:02 TeeJay says:
@ Bhazor
Your links don’t actually clarify “that blocking someone is a last resort after several warnings”. The final details for the number of warnings etc are not set out. The Bill gives Mandelson the power to draw up new rules. The explanatory notes just give some ‘possible examples’ – examples which are not legally binding on Mandelson or OFCOM etc.
There is nothing here that would prevent a scenario where a 20-day countdown to blocking is provisionally applied after a couple of emails are fired off at a customer a few minutes apart, automatically triggered when any copyright holder reports any IP to an ISP and from then on it is a matter of ‘appealing’ against the blocking.
This is a *possible* scenario as the bill stands now, and the explanatory note you have quoted discusses other ‘possiblities’, but the Bill itself (which you keep avoiding linking to) doesn’t set out the detailed rules – it just gives the Secretary of State general powers to write them in the future.
17/03/2010 at 15:20 Mr Chug says:
Sent. Possibly the first time I’ve been glad there’s a Tory in my constituency, since the Conservatives don’t seem to have got round to curling out a party policy on this one.
17/03/2010 at 15:22 ChaosSmurf says:
Sent and linked them to this article for “more explanation”.
17/03/2010 at 15:22 DanPryce says:
Done. I threatened to wait outside my MPs house with a sniper rifle if he didn’t act, just to be sure.
17/03/2010 at 15:25 Ffitz says:
“Please lie down on your stomach, and put your arms at your sides. The party associate will arrive shortly, to collect you for your party. Make no further attempt to leave the testing area. Assume the party escort submission position or you will miss your party.”
17/03/2010 at 15:26 Heliocentric says:
Campers deserve nothing.
17/03/2010 at 15:28 Paul C says:
You are NOT credit to team
17/03/2010 at 15:41 DanPryce says:
Just being polite and efficient.
17/03/2010 at 15:32 Flowerpot Wang says:
Done. I love the fast, efficient system that they use to allow me to send an email to my local MP – sent a polite, well thought out letter in less than five seconds (in fact less time than it took to think about and write this comment) :D
17/03/2010 at 15:32 The Diddler says:
>implying politicians care what the mob wants
see Ireland & EU
17/03/2010 at 20:34 DrGonzo says:
Or you could say look at the death penalty being abolished, women getting equal rights and the National Health Service. The general public didn’t want any of those things. People are stupid. Not that I support this internet law issue, but people are dumb and don’t usually know what’s best for them. For example, the EU.
18/03/2010 at 05:49 Deuteronomy says:
Heil Hitler Gonzo!
17/03/2010 at 15:33 Bobsy says:
We’ll miss Mandy when he’s gone. He’s sinister, conniving and creepy, but he is at least entertaining in a villainous way.
And yes, this is a very important cause to get on. My MP’s not known for being particularly vigorous or interesting (he was bludgeoned by a corruption scandal years ago) but still, he deserves to know that this bill he’d otherwise not give a second glance to is very much on the naughty side of the scale.
17/03/2010 at 15:34 HoldTight says:
Old people shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions regarding things like the internet.
17/03/2010 at 17:16 SanguineAngel says:
Hahah, there’s actually truth to this.
IE people should really not be able to make such monumental decisions about things that they have little or no understanding over.
(of course, to stir the nest, that’s also the problem with the basic concept of democracy. The majority rules but the majority rarely knows what’s best or even all the facts)
17/03/2010 at 20:35 DrGonzo says:
I know! Internet Explorer sucks right…
17/03/2010 at 15:37 Myros says:
Done.
Sent an email to the main gov home office too. I can’t believe these unelected “officials” are trying to rush this type of thing through before an election.
17/03/2010 at 15:38 Baboonanza says:
Can’t we just assasinate Mandelson?
Even if it won’t stop the bill? Please?
17/03/2010 at 20:38 DrGonzo says:
I second this.
17/03/2010 at 15:41 Sweedums says:
sent mine to Mr Rooney of Bradford.. :)
power to the people and all that…
17/03/2010 at 15:41 Colthor says:
Check that the site has the correct MP for you; whilst it got the correct constituency for my postcode, it has the Northampton North MP assigned to Northampton South.
As MPs can only respond to their own constituents this could cause problems.
17/03/2010 at 15:47 Vaporz says:
Orwell’s rolling in his grave.
17/03/2010 at 15:53 Ffitz says:
The standing joke is that 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
17/03/2010 at 16:01 Bhazor says:
Yes because this is exactly the same thing as Nineteen Eighty-Four. Just like having a public insurance option is exactly the same as Stalins death camps.
17/03/2010 at 16:05 Ffitz says:
Bhazor, do you have an interest to declare in this at all?
Do you not find the idea of permanent monitoring of your internet traffic (because that’s the only way this will work) to be worrying whatsoever?
17/03/2010 at 16:22 Bhazor says:
1984 happens to be my favourite book and people invoking BB at the slightest provocation is one of my big pet peeves. Particularly since The Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four were freeware (what with the whole communism thing) and freely distributed their books and music. So calling copyright protection Orwellian is so confusing it gives me a damn head ache.
Have some respect for the damn book you basts!
17/03/2010 at 16:30 Ffitz says:
Bhazor, for me it’s the surveillance aspect as opposed to the copyright aspect. More and more legislation from this government takes the view that we’re all potential criminals as opposed to presumed innocent, and that the method of dealing with all these potential criminals is by watching what we do – frightening the population into complying with the law. New Labour have always had a nasty authoritarian streak running through them.
18/03/2010 at 03:19 drewski says:
Left wing parties, oddly, often do. Right wing parties tend to have the constant struggle between libertarians and genuine Torys, which keeps their authoritarian instincts in check, but left wing parties generally don’t have as strong a libertarian ideology (being naturally collective-leaning) and so are more likely to fall prey to authoritarian thinking.
Of course, the libertarian portions of right wing parties tend to be increasingly marginalised these days so the distinction is becoming less clear. Suffice it to say all politicians want to remove your individual rights, they just tend to go for different ones at different times.
17/03/2010 at 15:50 kalidanthepalidan says:
Way to fight the good fight my British friends!
17/03/2010 at 15:56 sonofsanta says:
Sent my lengthy diatribe against the Bill off to Mr Peter Tapsell. Got a bit carried away to be honest. Even used the letters after my name, and I never do that.
In all honesty, this thing is a bloody stupid idea. I’m with Baboonanza, in a sense; though I’d prefer him to be put in stocks so we can all take a good hard kick at his arse, the daft cunt.
17/03/2010 at 18:11 Mac says:
I hope you put that last bit in your letter …
17/03/2010 at 15:57 Tei says:
You will be monitored, hence your privacy will be broken. You will be tagged of criminal, and the single accusation will be enough, so you are not inocent by default in the view of the law. You will be isolated, banned outside of the social and economic centre of our today society, internet.
There has to be very strong forces to push so obvious anti-democraty laws like this one.
17/03/2010 at 15:57 Coins says:
Oh no, you poor British! This almost totalitarian thing has jumped the pond. We had it too, but I think it didn’t pass, since I can’t seem to get any information on it. Ahem, veering off course here. Tell your friends, neighbours, telephone contacts and random strangers. I hope you succeed in battling this infringement on your (and our!) privacy.
Oh, and if you are a part of the EU, which I am assuming, the ACTA agreement might be something to look into, as well.
17/03/2010 at 15:59 Mr Fossy says:
I wasn’t aware this was happening in Britain. I thought the proposed Australian internet filter was bad, but this must feel very distressing for you poor chaps in the UK. I don’t even understand where such legislation comes from (I’m talking about Australia’s filter now, as well). I mean, do entertainment industry lobbyists really have so much influence over politicians who, from what I have read about the UK, should be scrambling to hold onto whichever seats they can?
I suppose the fate of this grassroots action will answer that question :)
Good luck!
17/03/2010 at 16:20 Malibu Stacey says:
Ents industry schmoozers have cash to throw around to entertain politicians if not simply “donating” it to them. The UK is gearing up for an election in May so politicians are getting friendly with anyone who has money to “donate” to their party or anything which they think will get them more votes. That’s where this sort of stuff comes from, politicians don’t just wake up one day & think “I know, today I’ll try & help cut down all the illegal filesharing that is rampant on the internet. That’ll make the country a better place to live for everyone” (politicians don’t wake up & think anything which isn’t directly related to the number of votes they’ll get in the next election or cash going into their “donation” funds).
17/03/2010 at 16:00 a says:
Wow, that’s pretty fucked. Good luck, guys.
17/03/2010 at 16:01 Alaric says:
Someone, give me a postcode to use!
17/03/2010 at 17:08 Collic says:
I’m sure you mean well, but please don’t use the site with a fake postcode if you aren’t a UK resident, it’ll do more harm than good. Spread the word to any other Brits you know by all means though :)
17/03/2010 at 19:48 TeeJay says:
If you are based overseas just send an email to Gordon Brown (and/or Cameron (Conservatives) and Clegg (Lib Dems) telling him how uncool and backwards this looks to people in your country.
18/03/2010 at 11:36 archonsod says:
Or if you’re from a colony other than the US, write to your head of state HRH Mrs Windsor and request she refuse royal assent for the bill
17/03/2010 at 16:08 Web Cole says:
Done.
17/03/2010 at 16:10 Ginger Yellow says:
I dunno. I’m as angry about the state of IP law as anyone, but I think this bill is pretty mild on the whole. There are data privacy concerns for sure, but other than that it’s about as minimal a response to what is under current law rampant lawbreaking as you can get without doing nothing at all.
17/03/2010 at 16:55 Tei says:
“current law rampant lawbreaking as you can get without doing nothing at all.”
Here in spain is legal to download music for no commercial purposes. Your comment is circular, you ask for more laws to stop people that break laws? thats like asking for more gasoline to trown at a fire.
17/03/2010 at 17:06 Ginger Yellow says:
No, what I mean is that rather than, say implementing a regime to thoroughly enforce the current law, (which would result in fines or theoretically imprisonment for up to six months), they’ve implemented a regime which basically gives infringers several warnings and then messes with their internet connection. I’d hardly call that draconian. But that doesn’t mean I think the current law is correct or should be enforced in a draconian manner.
17/03/2010 at 20:17 TeeJay says:
Enforcing current laws would involve proper due legal process (presumption of innocence, trial requiring evidence, verdict reached by independent judiciary etc).
This supposedly ‘milder’ version simply involves accusations/’warnings’ and then ‘punishment’ – a combination of judge/jury/executioner by some petty bureaucrats with the ‘right’ of appeal only *after* the fact. This smacks of the ‘couldn’t-be-bothered-with-proper-justice’ instant and on-the-spot fines that see people regularly getting screwed by target-driven parking companies for example.
If crime is being committed and is having serious impacts then due legal process should be used, not mickey mouse proof-free and process-free bureaucracy.
17/03/2010 at 16:12 Cameron says:
I dont see the point, everything is fine the now so why go to the bother? it seems pointless if you ask me
17/03/2010 at 16:39 Shadow Aspect says:
@ Cameron.
I’m fairly sure you’re joking but one never knows :)
17/03/2010 at 16:12 Super Bladesman says:
I know this law is evil and bad etc and so forth. But for the sake of balance and at the risk of being flamed, I’m not sure I’m against it, per se. If I don’t do anything illegal, and I protect my router, and if I properly supervise my child(ren) when he(they) arrive(s), have I actually got anything to worry about.
Theft is bad, and actually I don’t pirate anything. I quite understand why some sections of government and industry feel this sort of action is necessary :(
I know, I know – evil and bad, the sky risks falling on our heads when this law passes – but to be honest, I also expect a little more balance from RPS…
17/03/2010 at 16:27 Risingson says:
Just think a bit about it, and you will realize that the thought “If I don’t do anything bad why should I worry” is extremely dangerous for the rest of the people and for yourself. Scifi alegories and , well, history, has taught us about it.
17/03/2010 at 16:53 Tom OBedlam says:
I appreciate what you’re saying, but the phrase “the innocent have nothing to fear” ought to strike fear into the innocent everywhere. If there is law introduced (as a convenient fiction) that says that every word we type into our computers will me monitored, for counter-terrorism, anti-piracy, anti-drug dealing, paedophilia, etc. then I will have absolutely nothing to fear as I don’t engage in any of these activities, but I don’t want someone breathing down my neck at all times waiting for me to fuck up. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the very cornerstones of liberal democracy, we should stand up for it even if we’re not the ones that will have our criminal exploits curtailed. Even my mum is incensed by this law and she only uses the computer for solitaire and Peggle!
17/03/2010 at 20:03 Phydaux says:
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” – Cardinal Richelieu
17/03/2010 at 20:27 TeeJay says:
Any process that works on ‘allegations’ >> ‘warnings’ >> ‘punishment’ means that you aren’t presumed innocent. This isn’t a proper legal process. It’s a bunch of pointy-heads claiming they emailing you once or twice then cutting you off, at which point you need to ‘prove’ you are innocent.
Anyone who has suffered the criminally stupid/corrupt behaviour of certain government benefits/housing agencies or private contractors (eg parking companies) will know that whenever they are given powers without any effective checks on them they routinely screw people’s lives up by cutting off money, making bogus accusations and denying services, often to meet targets and/or gain revenue.
No way should powers be given out for cutting off or downgrading internet connections without a full and fair legal process in place.
21/03/2010 at 02:17 Josh W says:
Anyone who says “If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide”, either hasn’t thought through the implications, or has a weird view on sex.
Some things are private.
17/03/2010 at 16:14 Theory says:
I’m going to start wading into the bullshit surrounding this bill with the bill. Sections 4 through to 17 are the interesting ones. I found it fairly legible and not terrifically long, but nevertheless a flowchart summary is available here.
Onward!
No. Under the bill, ISPs will be expected to scan public torrents for connections from their servers. They will send several warning letters to the customers in question, and if they are repeatedly ignored add that account to a list of serious offenders. Rightsholders can identify people on this list who have been pirating their material with a court order, and then they can then sue the offenders through the courts as happens today.
If that doesn’t significantly dent downloading (as judged by OfCom), then a second bill can be made which replaces an appearance in court with “technical measures”, and an ex-judicial appeals system (don’t be scared: inquests, employment tribunals and planning appeals are ex-judicial too). The measures may include cutting people off from the internet, or they may not: it depends on how effective the bill being tabled today is.
If you don’t want disconnection to become a possibility, then vote with your bits and stop pirating. You’ll be getting plenty of warning letters for encouragement.
First, a “big issue”? The victims here are individuals. Unless you are well-known, there is very little chance that anyone anywhere cares enough to spoof your IP on a tracker. With that said, although a spoofed IP can’t download anything (the responses are sent to the victim’s computer rather than the attacker’s, so parity checks are not received), it may be possible to make it appear that the victim is seeding. It depends on whether seeding requires downstream traffic. IP spoofing is a general security threat however, and I’d be surprised if BitTorrent didn’t counter it somehow (e.g. a handshake).
As pointed out above, ISPs will gather addresses by connecting to public trackers (or equivalents) and examining the IP lists that appear, as any member of the public can. Monitoring an individual’s use of the net is illegal AFAIK, and this bill doesn’t change that.
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. If it’s a reference to the “Power to amend copyright provisions”, then any order under that section still requires “a draft [to have] been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.
From the comments:
I’ve never heard of this before. I don’t think it’s in there.
Initially that is the case, but the rightsholder can apply for a court order to identify people on their list (124A 6c).
17/03/2010 at 16:31 Theory says:
I’ve found Clovis’ clause. It’s an amendment that replaces the section on changing copyright law with one that allows the High Court to block sites which have lots of pirated material and don’t do anything about it.
Finding the amendment shows that the links in my reply above are out of date. Here is the most recent version of the bill. Meanwhile, the latest version and amendments can be found here, but unfortunately they don’t do diffs. ;)
17/03/2010 at 16:42 Bhazor says:
Thanks I was looking for that flow chart.
But lets not muddy a perfectly good frothing session with something like balance or reading the actual bill. That takes too long.
Without further ado
BOOOoo! This is exactly how Big Brothah startted!!!!
17/03/2010 at 17:00 LionsPhil says:
Nice work.
17/03/2010 at 17:22 passingtramp says:
Good summary Theory (and even better Haddock avatar).
17/03/2010 at 17:34 Pace says:
Thanks Theory.
17/03/2010 at 17:37 Bhazor says:
One point I would like to add is that offenders remain anonymous if passed on to the Copyright holder. They’re only identified if legal action is taken after the offender fails to quit after being warned by their ISP.
” * Notify their subscribers if the internet protocol (“IP”) addresses associated with them are reported by copyright owners as being used to infringe copyright; and
* Keep track of the number of reports about each subscriber, and compile, on an anonymous basis, a list of those (“relevant subscribers”) who are reported on above a threshold to be set in the initial obligations code. After obtaining a court order to obtain personal details, copyright owners will be able to take action against those included in the list.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/en/10089x–.htm#index_link_8 (clause 34)
17/03/2010 at 17:42 Bhazor says:
And of course you already clarified it.
Thanks Theory
Thany.
17/03/2010 at 17:53 phuzz says:
The Pirate Bay have admitted that they add spoof IPs to their logs, just to mess with the entertainment lawyers, so even if you are innocent, you definitely still have something to fear (even if it is being collateral damage in the pirate bay’s lulz).
http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-tricks-anti-pirates-with-fake-peers-081020/
17/03/2010 at 17:55 Theory says:
I take credit for the explanation but not the avatar. I nicked it from Kestrel, who sometimes appears in the comments. :-)
17/03/2010 at 18:59 Theory says:
phuzz, IPs are gathered by connecting to an active torrent and downloading from people. Server logs don’t come into it, probably for that very good reason!
17/03/2010 at 20:50 TeeJay says:
@ Theory,
Based on the *flowchart* you linked to:
1. It is the “rights holder” which identifies IP addresses and gives them to the ISP, not the ISP.
2. ISP’s will send emails not letters.
3. No “second bill” is mentioned – the secretary of state can bring in stage 2 technical measures without any new laws.
Maybe the flowchart is different from the text?
Also you seem to be conflating discussion of the “first stage” and “second stage”. The “first stage” is just a transition phase and I severely doubt there will be much measurable impact in the first 12 months of the bill being passed when nothing much has changed on the ground and where the figures are going to be ‘mallable’ anyway. It just gives a bit of a fig leaf cover for moving to the ’second stage’. Do you seriously think that Mandleson et al are not going to say “technical measures / stage two is neccessary”? It’s obvious that stage 2 will be implemented if this bill passes.
(ps you haven’t even linked to “the bill”, you’ve linked to the “explanatory notes”!)
17/03/2010 at 21:21 Theory says:
It’s both. Rightholders do it in Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements, and ISPs do it in Obligation to provide infringement lists to copyright owners.
It’s not stated either way. I expect that most will do both.
You’re right: it’s not a bill but an order. It still has to be approved by both houses, which was the point I was making.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think that after a year repeated warnings followed by litigation would have had any impact they were going to. (It won’t be Mandy in the post BTW, unless Labour somehow win the next election.)
And I did link to the bill, in both cases. The ‘Explanatory Notes’ headings only cover their first paragraphs. :P
17/03/2010 at 22:51 TeeJay says:
@ Theory
You said “Under the bill, ISPs will be expected to scan public torrents for connections from their servers.”
The Bill does *not* contain this requirement.
The process is:
Copyrightright-holder identifies IP address > passes this to ISP (makes a copyright infringment report = “C.I.R.”) > ISP informs subscriber of C.I.R. (see: Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements)
Copyright-holder can request an aggregated “copyright infringement list” from ISP > ISP passes anonymised list (eg total number of CIRs linked to subscriber #936 and names of copyright owners involved) – this is designed to help copyright holders identitfy ‘high volume’ infringements. The Copyright holder would *already* have the IP address. (Obligation to provide infringement lists to copyright owners)
Neither of these things is an obligation on anyone to “scan public torrents”. “CIR” reports only ever originate from the copyright holders, and the “lists” they get back are simply aggregated “CIR” data.
You said “They will send several warning letters to the customers in question, and if they are repeatedly ignored add that account to a list of serious offenders”
The Bill does not contain these details.
It does in fact mention emails:
Clause 4 (part 9) – Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements
“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”
link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/089/10089.1-7.html#j154
Wityh all types of legislation the kind of ‘rule changes’ described in stage 2 are typically “waved through”. It is the original Bill that needs to be examined and dealt with.
There won’t be a whole year of “repeated warnings followed by litigation” – it takes government bureaucracy and lawyers that long to roll anything out – the process will not have been in full swing for 12 months and the figures aren’t even being collected at the moment so any analysis of the “impact” based on them will be very suprious IMO.
Stage 1 is not that different from current arrangements, except it brings in one part of the process. Stage 2 brings in the ‘removal of service’ part (which everyone is getting pissed off by) to replace a proper (and expensive) legal process.
Mandleson is putting in place the enabling processes and legal powers, but leaving the “kick” to later… and it seems some people are being suckered by the ‘it might not happen’ and ‘wait and see’ rubbish.
18/03/2010 at 02:12 Theory says:
OK, yeah, on closer reading I got that bit wrong. ISPs only have to respond to reports from rightsholders. Whether they are expected to cross-reference them against their own logs will depend on OfCom’s quarterly reports.
How else are the IPs to be gathered? It might not be an obligation written into the bill itself, but it’s how things are going to work under it.
Everyone gets a letter for each report, but the rightsholders only get back the accounts of “relevant subscribers”.
5(3): “A subscriber is a “relevant subscriber”…if copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider in relation to the subscriber have reached the threshold set in the initial obligations code.”
8(5): “The threshold…may be set by reference to any matter, including in particular the number of reports, the time within which the reports are made, and the time of the apparent infringements.”
I suppose it’s theoretically possible for OfCom’s code to ignore time factors, despite the wording of the bill, and so allow a prolific pirate to become “relevant” so rapidly that there is only time for a single warning. But that’s pulling a worst-case scenario out of thin air. There will be time buffers.
I’m not sure that cutting people off from the net would be waved through, but I do agree that this bill is the important part of the process.
Reports are from rightsholders and warnings are from ISPs, all private companies. There is no reason why examining trackers couldn’t start tomorrow, and in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if some publishers were already at it.
It allows rightsholders to reliably and regularly identify pirates. It also requires warnings to be sent out. Those are both big differences to my mind.
You would prefer to be taken to court and sued for copyright infringement, assuming, as ever, that disconnections actually start happening? Perhaps if whether an IP had connected to a tracker was a subjective decision I would be keener on the idea of going to court. It’s not like tribunals are somehow unjust anyway: as I mentioned above, the system works fine for inquests, employment tribunals, and planning appeals (and possibly more).
18/03/2010 at 11:11 archonsod says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order to break the law you have to be distributing the material. Merely connecting to a tracker doesn’t prove that – most bit torrent clients allow you to turn off uploading, if I’m leeching without uploading anything then I’m not breaking the law.
18/03/2010 at 15:51 TeeJay says:
@ Theory
There is no mention in the Bill of ISPs cross-referencing complaints with “their own logs”. They simply compile CIRs made by different and report back on the aggregated CIR numbers for each user. There is no mention in the Bill of anyone being legally required to “scan public torrents”. The initial stage 1 code will set criteria using time and number of CIRs, but there is nothing saying that this is a “time buffer” as you claim. In fact it could be the exact opposite: someone might be labelled if they upload more than X files over a certain period (day/week./month). The time limit might refer to an expiration period.
The difference between my “worst case scenario” (rapid reaction, hardly any warnings) and your “best case” (only targetting high volume uploaders , lots of warning), is that I am not claiming mine is written into the details of the Bill, just that the Bill makes it possible for Mandleson (or his Tory equivalent) et al, to write rules like this. Also you are simply wrong to claim that you know that your “best case scenario” is how the rules will operate as there is nothing in the Bill that says this.
Re. a whole year of “repeated warnings followed by litigation”. When I said ‘the figures are not being collected yet’ I am referring to the OFCOM monitoring of whether stage 1 is having an impact, not the monitoring of IP/uploading by copyright holders (which they have already been doing for years). The ‘analysis’ of the impact of stage 1 using quarterly figures for the 12 months following the passing of the Bill is suspect imo – a fig leaf to justify stage 2 (as they either won’t see any impact and/or the methodology of their numbers and what they represent will be meaningless). I am willing o be pursuaded that OFCOM have a rigourous system in place and their figures will be meaningful but the fact that they are not collecting these already makes me initially very doubtful.
As for how fast stage 1 will be up and running: It can’t start running until OFCOM have drawn up the “initial obligations code”. After this the ISPs need to react to this code – allocating people responsible, put in place suitable IT systems and train everyone up about the legal aspects.
Realistically the first six months following the Bill being passed will be spent with OFCOM drawing up and publishing their code, the ISPs setting up their IT systems and training people. Next CIRs will start coming in and warning emails (letters?) sent out. Next aggregate data will start going back to copyright holders who will start choosing some of these to target with court ordered disclosure and prosecutions. The media and internet users will be watching to see how many trials there are and if they are successful … which takes us into the tail end of the first 12 months.
It isn’t plausibe to claim that the 12 month point where the stage 2 “technical measures” can be brought in will have seen a whole year of the system up and running, nor that figures about how much illegal downloading is going on (figures which are not even being collected yet and so which do not have any robust “baseline” nor a proven methodology) are going to show that stage 2 is ‘required’ because stage 1 ‘is not working’. This is nonsense.
It is also nonsense to pretend that the Bill sets out details of time-based or download-based thresholds or number of warnings: it simply gives various people powers to draw up codes and rules and leave it very open as to what these will be. Experience shows that when you leave the door open like this, organisations will often write rules and procedures in a way that produces the results that benefits their body / careers (eg hits their ‘targets’, gives them more power, makes their jobs easier etc.).
It doesn’t take a massive cynic to think that the copyright holders have a cear interest in stage 1 “failing” and for the “stage 2 technical measures” to come in, because this saves them the expense of taking people to court – all they have to do if and when stage 2 comes in is fire off vast numbers of CIRs at the ISPs and thereby shift the whole burden of monitoring and chasing copyright infringement onto ISPs, network managers, householders, wi-fi providers and so forth.
18/03/2010 at 16:16 Theory says:
archonsod, conside yourself corrected. :)
Teejay, I don’t know what your first two paras are about. No, the bill does not spell those things out: they are both left to the code of practice that is to be drawn up by OfCom. Both of our scenarios are speculative, though as you can see from the quotes I drew out, some elements from mine are recommended (e.g. “including in particular the time within which the reports are made”). For the record, my idea of the best case scenario is stage one having an impact and no technical measures of any kind being required.
I can’t really argue with your feelings that OfCom will make a hash of their job. I don’t share them, and that’s that. I can say that the 12 months doesn’t start until the code has been drawn up, however – 9(2). After that it’s straight into the action, so to speak.
I don’t see how any significant amount of training or systems set-up would be required for ISP employees to send letters or respond to reports. You’re really grasping at straws with that argument.
Who has a vested interest in cutting off people’s internet connections? Certainly not OfCom. The order to impose technical measures still has to be approved by Parliament, remember – 11(5).
19/03/2010 at 01:21 TeeJay says:
@ Theory
Yes, both our scenarios are speculative because the details of: ~ the number of warnings that will be given ~ the number of files needed to make a suspect reach the ‘persistent offender threshold’ ~ the minimum or maximum length of time over which the alleged offences happen ~ the kind of “proof” needed, ~etc are all left unstated … to be drawn up by OFCOM at a later date. You have made several claims on this thread which you didnn’t indicate were just speculation – thank you for finally admitting that we simply don’t know (yet parliament is being asked to sign the powers off anyway).
I don’t have a massive problem with the *first* stage which seems to simply involve copyrights holders making CIRs, ISPs informing customers and informing copyright holders about aggregates. Any further action against customers is taken via the courts by the copyright holders. I haven’t seen many people objecting to this part of the Bill.
I realise now that I was misled by your flowchart which indicates the minumum of 12 months for the first stage srrangements starts immediately when the Bill receives Royal Assent – you are right that it actually starts when an initial stage 1 code of practise is in place and the legal and technical provisions could therefore be put in place before the code kicks in. There are all sorts of legal implications and requirements that will need to be met (as mentioned in the Bill and the explanatory notes) not just passing on emails – all systems will have to comply with the new code which hasn’t even been written yet, so of course it can’t be started ‘tommorrow’. I would hope that OFCOM “measurements” of ‘illegal downloading’ are credible and independent and their design and sourcing is not hijacked by interested parties. Again parliament is being asked to sign off approval for something without any details.
As for “vested interests” – copyright holders have a natural interest in shifting their current ‘enforcement’ burden away from their current requirement of collecting information and taking people to court and transfering it over towards the ISPs. OFCOM itself will have an interest in meeting it’s targets – which have been set out as ‘reducing illegal downloading’. It is also tasked with facilitating an industry-led ‘code of practise’. OFCOM will want to show results, possible at low cost, possibly increasing it’s own powers etc. There have been a vast number of studies of bureaucracies and regulatory agencies that show that they do have inherent institutional “interests” and if left to their own devices will often unwittingly pursue these even where they are against the public interest.
The biggest problems people are having are with the stage 2 technical measures. Why is the government seeking these powers now if they will have to come back for them anyway? I am contending that they are putting them in now because they have every intention of moving to stage 2.
What possible objection would you have to removing the stage 2 powers from this Bill and insisting that the government just introduce stage 1 for now? Once it has shown that the initial stage 1 code of practice is in place and publically acceptable, that it is not throwing up false positives or other objectionable outcomes – and once OFCOM figures have shown that extra powers/technical measures are actually needed – at that point parliament can decide to give it further powers for stage 2.
What possible argument is there for ripping up various principles of British law/justice at this stage way before all the details have been written? Surely we need to see enough details and evidence that the proposals are workable, fair and useful before signing off the new stage 2 technical powers that everyone is objecting to? Therefore stage 1 only – get rid of stage 2 and come back when stage 1 is in place and we can see it operating, and we can see the details of a proposed stage 2.
17/03/2010 at 16:15 Langman says:
Talking about Channel 5, I wish they returned to the way they were in the late-90s. Some of their porn ‘documentaries’ back then were alarmingly close to the bone. Also, programs about strip clubs featuring full frontal nudity at 8:30PM? Yes please!!
Much more entertaining than Ian Wright.
17/03/2010 at 16:51 Bhazor says:
I was close to the bone too at the time. I miss the time when it took effort to see nude ladies. Like watching Eurotrash with headphones an inch from the screen while my parents were in the next room, using a vcr to record Channel 5 whilst *watching* Four, spending half an hour waving my aerial around to get a good enough reception that I could actually make out the nipples.
Sigh… the Internet takes all the fun out of pornography.
17/03/2010 at 17:46 Tom OBedlam says:
@bhazor in the midst of all this political arguing, I appreciate someone taking the sensible stand that pornography is too easy. Too many of this generation will be lost to porn fatigue before their 30s. I remember the good old days of finding porn stashed in the woods, trying to decipher what was naked lady flesh through the mildew and decay was half the fun.
17/03/2010 at 18:15 Nick says:
Slug or bush, you decide.
17/03/2010 at 18:26 Lambchops says:
Ah, Eurotrash. Early teenage days, where have you gone?
17/03/2010 at 20:46 Clovis says:
@Tom: lulz, my first experience with porn was a mag found in the woods. Some moron told on us though. Then I had to have an uncomfortable conversation with my parents. Then I was just stuck with the bra sections of catalogues again.
17/03/2010 at 16:17 Swanky says:
Done. Thanks for the heads-up. The government seems quite happy to chip away at our freedom but it surprises me that we accept these curbs so willingly. And to say its fine because it doesn’t affect you is no kind of argument in my book.
17/03/2010 at 16:23 kyrieee says:
I think any legislation that gives authorities the right to deny someone the use of communication tools is bullshit.
17/03/2010 at 16:26 jti says:
Oh dear, that is bad. I hope you guys can make them see sense.
17/03/2010 at 16:31 Po0py says:
The problem is that the DEBill is so vague. It leaves the doors open for goal-post shifting after the bill is made law. It’s really just a template to fiddle with after all is said and done. That is what is horrifying. I’ve already emailed my local MP a week ago about it asking for him to oppose it and at the very least demand a proper debate on it in the house of commons. No response yet. I think it is important to try to re-word the template letter and personalize it. Don’t allow it to come across as a template letter.
I really don’t think people understand quite how this bill can change the face of the internet and how we use it. Example: Say someone logs on to an open wifi spot at a coffee shop of local library and downloads some copyrighted mp3′s on the sly. That coffee shop or library could then be sued by bullish law firms acting on behalf of the copyright owners. Basically, if this bill is passed, you could see an end to open wifi in all these small business. At least all but the brave. Many coffee shops, landlords, hotels, etc offer free wifi as a way to draw in customers so this Bill could even potentially hurt our economy.
Piracy is wrong. But like DRM, there is a right way to deal with it and a wrong way. This is yet another very wrong way. You could potentially call it a big old dose of DRM on our internet. It is the same thing; punishing innocent people and businesses because the British Phonographic Industry currently gets more of Peter Mandleson’s attention than British tax payers.
17/03/2010 at 16:37 LionsPhil says:
Wow, form letters. Compelling argument, that.
“Someone, give me a postcode to use!”
Yeah, you can now see why this is going to be taken totally seriously. Maybe you should start a Facebook group too? Is petitionsonline still going?
17/03/2010 at 16:39 Collic says:
You’re absolutely right. Smug cynicism is a much better approach. The only way to assure nothing gets done is to do nothing.
17/03/2010 at 17:05 Bhazor says:
Form letters are just spam. Emails can be deleted. Seriously, if I was an MP I’d just assume it was one guy sending in a dozen emails from different accounts and dismiss the lot.
If you want to be noticed and remembered send a hand written letter writtened all by yourself. You know, put some effort into it.
17/03/2010 at 17:11 LionsPhil says:
The problem is, the opponents to this bill are pirates, so that “all e-mail letters are spam” assumption probably holds. Pirates have got this mental state that makes them think that that’s actually a good idea—they’ll rewrite their sense of ethics so that it’s right to them that they should push MPs with every ounce of force they can muster, because they’re just fighting back against the UNFAIR media companies, right? Ask for more postcodes! Sign up for more webmail addresses!
I’d be seriously worried about the fitness of any MP who *didn’t * outright disregard all Internet chest-beating when trying to gauge the opinion of his constitutents.
18/03/2010 at 03:32 drewski says:
I’m not a pirate, and I oppose this bill.
@ Bhazor – maybe the fact you think constituents should be ignored is a pretty good reason you’re not an MP. Believe me, MPs take notice of EVERYTHING that comes into their office (or their staff do), even if it’s just aggregate numbers of correspondance about a particular issue. Voters actually bothering to contact their MP is suprisingly rare given the numbers of voters, so MPs tend to treat it as serious. They even have a little scale which caluculates the “value” of different types of correspondance.
17/03/2010 at 16:38 Collic says:
Done. Thanks for posting this RPS. I sent an email to you about this an age ago, it’s good to see something like this being set up. It’s a lot harder to ignore than the typical internet petitions that nobody reads. I just hope it does some good.
17/03/2010 at 16:41 pedant says:
Best of luck to you guys!
As someone who took part in trying to stop similar and worse things in Sweden I wish you the best of luck. You will need it.
As for the people saying you have nothing to worry about if you haven’t done anything wrong, have you considered that a state that accidentally shoots people in the head seven times (with no one accountable!), doesn’t realize soldiers in Afghanistan might need helicopters/kit and are behind both the Royal Mail and NHS might not be the best people to administer this in a safe and sound way?
Whatever pol you hate the most, imagine what they would use this legislation for and consider adding? Once you say it’s fine turning off the Internet for one thing, why not another?
17/03/2010 at 16:46 Tull. says:
They are about to do worse things in Sweden? What things?
17/03/2010 at 16:46 Po0py says:
Upon reading a lot of the posts in this comment thread I’ve gotten quite a bit suspicious about certain posters. Suddenly there is an influx of people passionately defending the bill with only a few post counts to their name.
You can post all the arguments you want for the bill to go through, but all that is being asked for here is a debate in the fucking house of commons. A simple right that we all expect in a democracy. If you don’t like people campaigning for democracy and due process the fuck off. And don’t fucking post on this site again.
Cunts.
17/03/2010 at 16:57 LionsPhil says:
Ohmygod, people disagreeing with me! They must be:
1) Grassrooters being drawn here who have no other interest in the site!
2) Against DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM.
3) Told to shut up and never express their dissenting opinion again!
4) [Ad-hominems]
Ah, politics on the Internet.
17/03/2010 at 16:59 Collic says:
If you have nothing positive to contribute, don’t contribute and crawl back under your bridge.
17/03/2010 at 17:00 Collic says:
(that comment was directed at LionsPhil, not Poopy)
17/03/2010 at 17:06 Tom OBedlam says:
Gah! Collic, The people who are intelligently arguing that bill isn’t so bad have as much right to be here and discuss it as anyone. We can disagree and debate without accusations of trolling surely? Look at Theory’s discussion of the point. That is how intelligent debate is done.
17/03/2010 at 17:07 Tom OBedlam says:
Sorry, that should read p0opy not Collic, apologies
17/03/2010 at 17:10 Collic says:
I agree, but the accusation of trolling is directed at him for a reason. None of his posts constitute an intelligent argument about the bill, just cynical apathy and sneering.
17/03/2010 at 17:16 Collic says:
oops sorry Mr Bedlam, i missed the follow up post there. I stand by my point though. I can’t stand people who just pour scorn on these sorts of activities. Yes there are other ways to make your voice heard, but discouraging people from doing anything at all by crapping all over something positive really annoys me.
17/03/2010 at 17:24 Po0py says:
I’m simply responding to people who represent certain lobby groups trying to influence opinion by spamming on blogs and websites they previously never have posted on. If this is what they are, then they are simply not welcome here on RPS. I don’t think that is in any way a ridiculous thing to say. I suspect many RPS readers feel this way.
I’m simply repeating what I’ve said earlier. All that is being asked for here is a proper debate in the House of Commons. Is it not outrageous that such a huge and controversial Bill can be passed on the sly without debate? If you disagree then I’m sure you can write to your MP and tell him your opinion. But for me, the general consensus seems to be that this Bill is poor and needs to be questioned in a proper debate.
Democracy. It’s important.
17/03/2010 at 17:27 Bhazor says:
So you want a debate but anyone who debates is a cunt?
17/03/2010 at 17:29 Collic says:
This isn’t the house of commons.
17/03/2010 at 17:30 Tom OBedlam says:
@po0py, I completely agree with your standpoint. I’m just saying that open hostility isn’t the best way to have a debate. If people are posting that usually don’t then there’s an equal possibility that they are just lurkers who’ve found they want to talk about this, innocent until proven guilty is sort of the point of protesting against this bill, isn’t it?
17/03/2010 at 17:31 Tom OBedlam says:
@collic, of course it isn’t but that’s no reason we shouldn’t be civil.
17/03/2010 at 17:32 LionsPhil says:
I forgive you both for your poorly-aimed rage and continual ad-hominem attacks. You’re merely helping demonstrate my point that Internet “discussion” of politics is made of knee-jerk bawling and should be ignored by anyone in power, after all.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I do believe this site is about fine computervideogames for my IBM Compatable Personal Computer. I shall go and find one of the posts which is actually on topic.
17/03/2010 at 17:49 Po0py says:
Bhazor says:
“So you want a debate but anyone who debates is a cunt?”
No. There is plenty of really intelligent debate on this site, and long may it continue. It’s people who represent lobby groups trying to influence debate that I was aiming it. You only need to look at the current state of American politics to see how big business lobbyists run that country. They are currently trying to pass a perfectly reasonable health-care bill that would help millions of Americans get decent, affordable health-care but are getting nowhere fast because of lobbyists representing insurance firms and the like. This is what I detest with a passion. And it is getting more and more commonplace here in the UK. It is disgusting. It hurts democracy. It is simply not in the best interests of UK citizens.
17/03/2010 at 18:06 Lambchops says:
@ P00py
You might not like lobbyists – but instantly assuming that somebody is a lobbyist because they have a low post count and a different opinion to you is somewhat judgemental. Bringing post count into a discussion is really quite poor form.
You could at least try and engage them with some sort of level of civil debate before throwing around accusations and thinly veiled insults.
As much as I disagree with some of what Lions_Phil has posted (not all opponents to the Bill are pirates for a start) that doesn’t mean I’m going to make sweeping assumptions about his motivations.
17/03/2010 at 19:36 cliffski says:
This happens on slashdot a lot. If 90% of people think one way, anyone who disagrees has a lot of abuse thrown at them and is presumed to be ‘a corporate shill’.
It’s sad.
Not everyone agrees on everything. That doesn’t make the other people ‘cunts’
17/03/2010 at 20:08 Po0py says:
Firstly, I never made any assumptions about anybody in particular. It’s just that the first time in a long while this site posts something with a political bent you see an influx of people with low post counts. Yes, it could be entirely innocent but I stated that if, yes, IF you are one of those paid posters then your posts are not welcome. People get angry at this type of manipulation because it happens all the time. I can accept that my language could have been better.
17/03/2010 at 16:57 the wiseass says:
I’m not from the UK so I can’t write a letter. But I’ve been closely following the proceedings this bill and you can do the same under the following link:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html
17/03/2010 at 16:59 Wednesday says:
I really don’t mean to be a dick here, but that letter could do with rewriting.
I’m going to send it off anyway.
17/03/2010 at 17:04 Jim Rossignol says:
That’s just the one they suggest, I wrote one from scratch.
17/03/2010 at 17:16 phlebas says:
They do encourage you to rewrite/customise it and provide some tips for doing so.
17/03/2010 at 17:02 Mort says:
I hate these ‘vote for my cause!’ things, as much as I hate them facebook groups, sad to see it here.
Nonetheless, much as I dont fire letters to my MP on request, I’ll at least go get some actual facts and make my own decision.
17/03/2010 at 17:05 Jim Rossignol says:
Yeah, pesky democracy with its causes and voting. Not like Feudalism? Good old days, eh? These steamships are ruining everything.
17/03/2010 at 17:08 Mort says:
That’s not what I’m saying. And you probably know it.
17/03/2010 at 17:22 Bhazor says:
Yeah pesky democracy and its being utterly paralyzed by pressure groups who don’t bother READING THE FUCKING BILL AND ACTUALLY FINDING OUT THE FACTS BEFORE SPAMMING THEIR MP WITH A DAMN FORM LETTER!!!
Seriously Jim, not cool.
17/03/2010 at 17:48 Wednesday says:
Have you never opposed a law without reading the Bill? I’ve never read section 28, but I reckon I’ve got a fair stab at saying its abhorent.
Surely “the facts” are right there at the top of the page. This is what journalism does, or is supposed to do, presents facts in a clear and concise manner to aid the public can make decisions.
Just to be clear, you’ll be reading the bill right? The whole thing?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.i-ii.html
17/03/2010 at 18:02 Jim Rossignol says:
@Bhazor: You realise that what people are calling for here is the bill be properly debated in Parliament, right? Because it seems to me you are getting angry about something that you actually agree with.
17/03/2010 at 18:26 Bhazor says:
Mort says
“Nonetheless, much as I dont fire letters to my MP on request, I’ll at least go get some actual facts and make my own decision.”
Your response is to say he opposes democracy. Am I alone in thinking that’s not exactly fair on your part?
Yes I’d like to see this discussed in the Houses but really you’re muddying the waters relying on third hand accounts that are now outdated due to the various amendments that have been made to it each time it’s been discussed by the committees. The Houses may be the ones you see on TV but its the committees which house the people who know what they’re talking about. Ever listened to Today in Parliment,? 90% of the time in the Houses is just back biting, one upmanship and character assassination. Three aspects which are not entirely beneficial to discussion.
17/03/2010 at 18:51 Jim Rossignol says:
You’re right, it’s probably not fair, I just get shirty when people seem to complain about being asked to give a damn.
17/03/2010 at 19:34 Ol' Sam says:
Democracy isn’t “utterly paralyzed by pressure groups”. That’s just as alarmist as those arguing that this Bill is part of some sort of sinister plot.
The fact that people are willing sit in judgement over something without thoroughly researching the issue is a fact of modern politics (perhaps life?), and one shared by some MPs as well as voters. I would venture that few voters pore over the full text of a bill without forming an opinion, I doubt the general public ever has done.
I think it’s admirable that you care about it so much though, few do. Expletives do nothing for your argument however. While I agree that the sight of so many people jumping on a bandwagon is riling, I think it’s a wagon that is heading in the right direction.
You briefly mentioned lobbyists. As I’m sure you are aware there are lobby groups representing just about every interest. In fact the section of the bill behind this furore was originally proposed in response to one such group.
What is of concern to me are any constraints placed on information that can be enshrined in, and enforced by law. I would rather the subject be debated more publicly and more thoroughly than it has been, since ultimately the passing of the bill would result in some form of legislative control over internet use. There can be no grey areas here, regardless of your opinion on intellectual property (or for that matter, the other “good” proposals). Amendments to the bill have been made just as hurriedly as the bill was proposed, the aim being to push it through before the general election.
17/03/2010 at 17:03 Artur Foden says:
Im sorry I live in Ireland because I would offer my support to those in the UK who will be affected by this ludicrous proposal. This may seem over the top but I thought that the BNP was the only fascist party in the UK.
I never thought that greedy old men like those proposing this rubbish could exist without opposition but it seems they are happy to keep the populace ignorant. Looking forward to seeing this DEB fail. Keep us poste RPS
17/03/2010 at 18:05 Malibu Stacey says:
What? Are you seriously comparing this to fascism?
17/03/2010 at 20:57 Wulf says:
Pushing a Bill through without a full parliamentary debate doesn’t sound like fascism to you? It sure as hell sounds like a fascist action to me, and a real breach of what little democracy we do have.
People need to drop their Hollywood definitions of things, really. Fascism isn’t what you saw on the silver screen, it doesn’t necessarily need to involve stamping barcodes on the heads of people.
18/03/2010 at 03:37 drewski says:
Although that’s fun too.
18/03/2010 at 15:03 Artur Foden says:
MalibuStacey yes I am. Remember the UK’s form of democracy isn’t the same as other democracies such as the US one. In the UK you are not entitled to freedom of speech if its offensive to minorities (Racism basically, and no I’m not saying racism is a good thing.) In the US you are allowed to say what you like. Especially in your own home. They have Freedom of speech even if it is offensive.
Other laws you may not have heard about? Well what about having to get permission to take photographs in populated places? In other countries such as my native Ireland you are allowed to take pictures or say what you like on public land (Roads, cities etc) providing you don’t impede others rights.
The UK isn’t what you think a democracy is. You do not have absolute freedom of speech. Now I dont want you to think Im an armchair conspiracy theories. I’m just quite shocked that a life changing bill such as this hasn’t gone through years of public debate. And in my opinion this particular bill atleast is somewhat fascist…
17/03/2010 at 17:03 Wednesday says:
*ah, there’s a “compose letter” bit. Might give it a touch up.
17/03/2010 at 17:15 z3r0 says:
Is that a picture of Peter Mandelson?
17/03/2010 at 17:19 OptionalJoystick says:
It’s an artist’s impression. Mandelson does not show up in photographs.
17/03/2010 at 17:21 Tom OBedlam says:
ahaha
17/03/2010 at 17:29 Langman says:
It’s a bit embarrassing that Rossignol went down the whole sarcasm route here – it’s pretty obvious what some of the people here are trying to say. The whole ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us!’ attitude here is pretty simple-minded from a lot of people.
17/03/2010 at 17:35 gentimouton says:
This kind of law happened in France as well last year … I think a part of it passed (like you can be warned by your ISP at least twice before they shut your connection down)
17/03/2010 at 18:16 tapanister says:
It was completelly shut down by the Constituional court, actually. Nothing passed.
17/03/2010 at 21:00 Wulf says:
And France will get to laugh at us if we’re foolish enough to let this pass, and they will laugh, loudly and with gay abandon.
One of these years I’m just going to say sod it and just move to Sweden.
17/03/2010 at 21:03 Wulf says:
Or was it Norway? I forget, I’d do the research when the time comes.
Either way, the UK is looking more and more like a place where I don’t want to stay.
17/03/2010 at 17:43 geldonyetich says:
I’ve never particularly sided with popular sentiment over ethical sentiment, and so I’m not really in a hurry to oppose anything that’s an effort to halt the complete and utter wanton appropriation of copyrighted content on the Internet.
People want to get free stuff, people are addicted to getting free stuff, people can imagine a world where they can’t download their favorite anime or games-they-might-buy-except-that-damn-DRM-or-maybe-it’s-just-not-worth-the-money. Statistics have indicated 9 out of 10 of you see nothing wrong with piracy.
However, though you can’t readily perceive it, you’re absolutely killing the artists. The PC gaming world has been shoved heavily in the direction of the easy cash grabs, and it’s largely because these are the only kinds of business that can survive anymore.
Does this bill overreact? Probably. Honestly, I think I’d take an overreaction to the alternative right now.
17/03/2010 at 17:55 Simes says:
Sure. It’s not like overreacty rushed legislation has caused us any problems up to now.
In all seriousness, forget what the bill is about. Are you in favour of legislation being rushed through parliament without being debated, or not? It’s not just about internets or piracy here, there’s a fundamental issue with how our democracy is (or is not) working.
17/03/2010 at 18:14 geldonyetich says:
Personally, I’m from the U.S., and while it might seem overly precocious for a fellow from the colonies to butt his nose into your government’s endeavors, I do want to offer one insight from a country that has been doing democracy a little longer:
A country which never accomplishes anything because the opposition need only filibuster until the endeavor seems fruitless is far worse off than a country that attempts improvement without having explored each and every possibility first.
We have poor public health care, our schools are a travesty, and half the country is being manipulated by organized crime. We allowed it to happen in the name of democracy.
17/03/2010 at 18:18 Lambchops says:
The current Government does have a bad habit of rushing legislation when put under pressure (after the expenses scandal new legislation passed through the houses with a mere few days worth of debate, resulting in legislation that some believe to be poorly thought out).
There are some occasions when rushed legislation is of real benifit (something clearly a step forward with cross party support – such as when the Northern Ireland power sharing agreement was put into place – spring to mind) .
17/03/2010 at 18:26 Tom OBedlam says:
“insight from a country that has been doing democracy a little longer”
Wait, what? You do know our democratic parliament executed a king not long after your country was found right?
17/03/2010 at 18:26 Katsumoto says:
“I do want to offer one insight from a country that has been doing democracy a little longer:”
Huh? ;)
17/03/2010 at 18:26 sonofsanta says:
@geldonyetich:
You sure on that? ;P
Saying that, if this goes through, our democracy will have stopped and you only have to wait to make that claim.
(Down with Mandy! Never elected, always sacked, always resurrected. Boo!)
17/03/2010 at 18:38 geldonyetich says:
And this defeats the sentence how?
Another tip: nit-picking one sentence out of a paragraph because you think you’ve found something to argue with does not produce a fruitful result. That’s not a United States citizen tip, that’s a fellow-who-has-hung-out-on-Internet-forums-for-too-long tip.
17/03/2010 at 18:43 Nick says:
I thought for it to be a democracy everyones vote had to be worth the same?
17/03/2010 at 18:48 Tom OBedlam says:
Mate, I’m not saying your argument isn’t valid. Just that on one very major point you’re wrong. As three people have highlighted. Our country has the oldest continuous democracy in the world. A two hundred year old country cannot claim that.
17/03/2010 at 18:48 geldonyetich says:
It’s good in theory. In practice, this just means if you’re rich you can afford more of them.
The truth behind the subtleties of what I did there will probably be lost to most, and this too is an important lesson in democracy.
17/03/2010 at 18:49 Katsumoto says:
More insightful way of defeating that -particular- sentence would have been mentioning, e.g. the Glorious Revolution of 1688, or the Bill of Rights of 1689 etc.
Totally nothing to do with the main thrust of what you were saying, of course! :D! Heh.
17/03/2010 at 18:50 geldonyetich says:
Very well. Change my earlier sentence from “insight from a country that has been doing democracy a little longer” to “insight from a country that only been a democracy” or some such. Honestly, I don’t put a great deal of importance in my credentials, but that shores it up just as well.
17/03/2010 at 18:54 Tom OBedlam says:
“I thought for it to be a democracy everyones vote had to be worth the same?”
not at all. we didn’t allow women to vote until early last century but you’d be a mad man to say that wasn’t democracy. simply because the democracy in england was a boys club for most of its life doesn’t stop it being a democracy.
17/03/2010 at 21:07 Wulf says:
It’s as simple as this: The bill is unethical in and of itself because the people who are being trusted with the bill aren’t competent enough or knowledgeable enough about technology to uphold it without false positives.
False positives which could potentially ruin lives and lose people jobs.
This is why the law shouldn’t work like that, the idea is that a person is innocent until proved guilty, there must be no end of evidence which isn’t circumstantial in order to convict. The problem with this bill, and what makes it unethical, is that all suspected people are believed to be guilty off the bat, and all false positives will be punished. There’s likely going to be very little avenue of appeal, either.
So it’s really not a good idea to cite ethics in the support of this, morality maybe, but not ethics.
17/03/2010 at 22:37 Stromko says:
The bill is wrong because it is tantamount to cultural suicide.
It will come to pass, however, until such time as people are willing to die to protect their rights.
If there isn’t a riot to protect the freedom of information, to prevent people being blacklisted from society just because information wants to be free, then this thing is going to pass.
18/03/2010 at 04:21 GT3000 says:
Good job guys on strawmanning the argument. Regardless of America’s tenure as a democracy, it’s still insight from a different prespective and blasting it because of it’s experience however irrelevant is missing the point. Just thought I’d give ya another way to look at it.
@Wulf
The recording labels, artists, designers, producers, movie-makers, game designers and etc. are constituents too. Is this measure ill-conceived? Maybe but it’s a reaction to HUGE pressure by these companies. Their interests are not important but they can press MUCH harder on the government than you.
18/03/2010 at 07:37 Lemon scented apocalypse says:
This argument veered dangerously close to the partiotic auto-fallatiotc vitriol so common on huge swathes off the internet. Not impressed RPSers.
18/03/2010 at 13:42 Tom OBedlam says:
That’s not a strawman. Its pointing out a funny thing that someone has said. If someone in the pub were to tell me that America was older than England I’d make fun of that too. Have a look at everything else I’ve said in this thread, I’ve been the main person asking people to be civil. There’s no patriotism here, just humour. Laugh, live longer.
19/03/2010 at 00:35 GT3000 says:
@Bed
I am man, or I try. I’m just trying to correct the slight derailing however humorous. Lol, I can now understand why people’s blood boils over these things.
17/03/2010 at 17:49 TheBlackBandit says:
Signed and sent. Pleased to be part of the cause.
17/03/2010 at 17:50 M.P. says:
I have always argued that the U.K. is becoming a bit of a police state, but on this particular matter I have to commend you Brits for resisting far more vehemently than other countries (eg. France) did. This is something which neither the public nor the ISPs want, nobody, in fact, but the music and movie industries, and the fact that governments are enacting it against public will represents the bankruptsy of Western democracy.
17/03/2010 at 22:40 Stromko says:
I’m now of the opinion that freedom of expression and total protection of intellectual property cannot coexist. Nations must choose one or the other, sooner or later that is what it will come down to.
18/03/2010 at 03:47 drewski says:
Why does it have to be black and white? You can have both to varying degrees, it’s just a matter of getting the balance right.
17/03/2010 at 18:01 TheApologist says:
Done and sent.
To the dissenters, two kinds of argument seem to be developing.
Type one seems to defend the bill on the grounds that its punishment for what it deems unacceptable behaviour ‘could be worse’ and come with warning. However, this accepts the premise that it is a policy makers’ right to discipline us in ways that are of no conceivable benefit to ordinary citizens – and observation is disciplinary. A cultural acceptance of this kind of pointless observation and authority seems deeply dangerous.
The others are cynics about the possibility that the action could be successful. It seems to me that this kind of statement brings with it the responsibility to justify the cynicism and to begin the development of alternative tactics for action. Unless you do these things, what is the point of posting?
17/03/2010 at 18:13 tapanister says:
UK, the land of 1984. You already have all the cameras, this really isn’t strange. I’m gonna have to guess it’s going to pass and people won’t even realize what just happened. Hell, you let them put facial recognition cameras all over your streets and didn’t even blink.
Best of luck sorting shit like this out without a constitution.
17/03/2010 at 18:28 Katsumoto says:
“Best of luck sorting shit like this out without a constitution.”
Huh? ;)
(That’s enough “huh ;)” now – Katsumoto’s Inner Ed)
17/03/2010 at 19:19 tapanister says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
You know, a bill of rights etc. The kind of document that doesn’t allow the gov’t to spy on people 24/7.
17/03/2010 at 19:22 Katsumoto says:
But you just linked to an article about the UK’s constitution… plus the English Bill of Rights was 1688 I do believe? ;) ! Just sayin’!
17/03/2010 at 19:25 Katsumoto says:
“Just sayin’” – and being a bit silly too, before you take offence :D. Damn not being able to edit!
17/03/2010 at 20:18 tapanister says:
Well, if you have to be silly about it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
Know what I’m sayin’, yo?
17/03/2010 at 20:21 Katsumoto says:
No! I need you to be a lot more explicit please!
17/03/2010 at 21:05 ulix says:
I’ll help:
The Uk does not have a single constitutional document, and no constitutional text that is absolute.
The problem is: parliament has absolute power, they can change everything. EVERYTHING.
They could theoretically abolish the “Bill of Rights” tomorrow.
There are no checks and balances. None.
17/03/2010 at 23:34 Lilliput King says:
“There are no checks and balances. None.”
Nonsense! We have the Queen!
17/03/2010 at 18:17 JimmySpades says:
I registered and everything just to say that I’ve sent mine off.
Also: hello you fine, handsome people.
18/03/2010 at 08:51 Sagan says:
Hello handsome.
17/03/2010 at 18:22 Army of None says:
Damn, I wish I could help as an American. Best of luck across the pond, I’ll continue to do my best over here.
18/03/2010 at 10:26 mpk says:
Can you send the marines in?
17/03/2010 at 18:24 autogunner says:
good lord this post has brought out the a level politics posers… I have sent mine off lets hope democracy works once in a while.
17/03/2010 at 18:24 Bhazor says:
Mort says
“Nonetheless, much as I dont fire letters to my MP on request, I’ll at least go get some actual facts and make my own decision.”
Your response is to say he opposes democracy. Am I alone in thinking that’s not exactly fair on your part?
Yes I’d like to see this discussed in the Houses but really you’re muddying the waters relying on third hand accounts that are now outdated due to the various amendments that have been made to it each time it’s been discussed by the committees. The Houses may be the ones you see on TV but its the committees which house the people who know what they’re talking about. Ever listened to Today in Parliment,? 90% of the time in the Houses is just back biting, one upmanship and character assassination. Three aspects which are not entirely beneficial to discussion.
17/03/2010 at 18:30 TheApologist says:
@Bhazor – I haven’t seen anything from you justifying why greater observation and controls on ordinary people’s use of the internet is helpful or beneficial to them? Why do think greater observation is not in itself a justification of protest?
17/03/2010 at 18:31 TheApologist says:
And by “them” I mean ordinary folk using the internet.
17/03/2010 at 18:55 passingtramp says:
I can’t speak for Bhazor, but in my opinion: Greater controls benefit society overall, as we all like to consume well made digital products. Enforced intellectual property rights are necessary to ensure that artists receive rewards for creating these products, and are thus incentivised to continue producing them.
17/03/2010 at 19:27 TheApologist says:
The reference to artists is interesting. I am not sure a decent sized developer counts as an artist. But maybe an indie studio does. That being said, I am not sure they operate in quite the same rational, income maximising way that is suggested.
Anyway, the main point I would make is that your comment seems to run counter to several observable trends:
- the recent rise of small indie studios has happened without these controls. They don’t seem to need them though it is possible they might benefit from them
- larger studios in the industry seem to be experiencing growth until a severe recession hit a couple of years ago
- crucially, even if the existence of some large studios were in some way facing increased threat within the status quo (which seems to be the extent of the “threat” here), what would be the loss to me and you?
A few less 3rd person character action games, or average fps’ a year doesn’t seem to hurt anyone. Whereas greater observation and regulation of your private actions in online spaces does seem like a real problem.
17/03/2010 at 19:52 passingtramp says:
Artists don’t have to income-maximising for my point to be valid – they just need to want some income. I have no particular love for the games/film/music companies themselves – I’m quite open to the idea that a lot of the middlemen could be removed. But the artists at the bottom still need funding.
Re the growth of games companies – perhaps because the gaming market is expanding?
Re the growth of indies – that is indeed the power of the internet. But just because the internet enables a lot of good, doesn’t mean it can’t enable some bad. And just as if in real life you visit a warehouse where criminal activity is known to occur, if you visit a website where criminal activity is known to occur (e.g. the pirate bay) it’s not unreasonable that the authorities look into whether you’ve been conducting criminal activity.
P.S. Your idea that big games companies aren’t artists: no-one would suggest that they are. But a lot of the people employed by those companies are.
17/03/2010 at 18:26 Hyoscine says:
Fired off the template along with a lengthy post script. Mine’s gone to Simon Burns, which is awesome. .
17/03/2010 at 18:30 Hyoscine says:
Bah. I had an oh so clever reference to him possibly scuppering that anti poverty bill, but I messed up my html. : (
17/03/2010 at 18:28 pedant says:
@Tull
- FRA (and welshing on the deal to make it a closed shop). I believe that to be a rather large long term threat/risk. Not like we haven’t got form there.
- Wholesale storage of all Swedish traffic habits.
- The right for ABP to act as private investigators using IP data (outsourcing police work is not my thing).
- The fact that informal filtering of sites already takes place and is not subject to legal review or challenge (and as you may know the list has been shown to be inaccurate).
- And on a slightly related note, the decision that the swedish databank for DNA (one of the largest in it’s kind) is no longer unavailable to the police.
So while the UK is very bad in many ways Sweden is quite awful in others. Race to the bottom it seems.
17/03/2010 at 18:29 Mister Adequate says:
My local MP is Keith Vaz, so yeah, anyone in the know will be aware of how much impact my letter will have. :( I sent it nevertheless.
17/03/2010 at 18:36 Greg Wild says:
I wrote my own:
Dear Michael,
I would like to voice my concern regarding the Digital Economy Bill currently in the process of being fast-tracked through parliament without coming under scrutiny, and would kindly request you represent the concern I and many others in our constituancy and throughout the UK feel towards this deeply worrying piece of legislation.
Should this law be passed, I believe that Britain will continue down the path of totalitarianism that I see creeping into view. In practice, I deeply believe that the ability to spy on the British citizen’s use of internet, and shut down their provision only has comparison in post-Election Iran.
This law is an effrontary to the tradition of British liberty. No matter how much the political class has misused its position over history – recent or otherwise, the people of Britain have continually forged a path towards individual liberty. To allow this bill to come to pass will reverse that process, while damaging the nation’s ability to access the full liberty enhancing benefits the internet offers.
I genuinely believe it will hurt economic interests in the long run, too. Statistically, it is believed that the target of this legislation – the so called “pirates” generally spend more money on music, films and games than those who do not. Should these statistics prove correct – and indeed, they should be too scrutinised in parliament before any decision is made – such a piece of legislation could curtail economic freedom as well as personal and political.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider what I have to say.
Best Regards,
Greg Wild.
17/03/2010 at 18:43 HairCute says:
Jesus Fuckin’ Christ. Good Luck, fellows. I am completely surprised by how many people in this thread are just willing to roll over and die.
17/03/2010 at 19:25 pedant says:
@hair cute
Some of us have fought and been roundly defeated in these matters. I don’t blame anyone who is pessimistic about things whilst being thankful for those who try to fight a good fight.
Me, I’m trying to learn about proxies, tor and cracking wireless networks. Treat me like a criminal and I will fight back, didn’t have to be that way though.
17/03/2010 at 20:10 Wulf says:
@Hair Cute
It’s British idiocy, the world knows us for it, and our Gov’t knows us for it too. It’s mostly the fault of the English as far as I can tell, but it’s an infection that’s spreading out over all of Britain, the notion that no matter what happens the Queen’s nation will not be shook. Stiff upper lip and all that! Just brush it under the rug because everything will be all right tomorrow! I don’t have to act, because my super-nation will automagically fix itself without any effort from me!
Twits.
I’ll be doing all I can to fight this nonsense, but Mandy really is a headcase, and the problem is that people don’t realise just how much of a headcase he is. He should be in an asylum, hammering on the walls of a padded room, not in bloody Gov’t! How can people be so in the dark? It’s baffling.
17/03/2010 at 18:48 HighMemetic80sHero says:
I am really worried about this issue since i’m living with 4 other students and the internet is under my name, if they do anything i would take the shit for it because it’s under my name.
Used that guide and re-wrote it a bit and sent it to Chris Grayling MP of the Conservatives for my area.
17/03/2010 at 19:10 PetitPrince says:
I thought only the french were dumb enough to promote those kind of bills (I was refering LOPPSI and french officials, ’tis not a general insult).
17/03/2010 at 19:15 Frenz0rz says:
Done and sent. Hopefully Simon Burns, Conservative MP for West Chelmsford for the last 23 years, will take note of my polite yet strongly worded email. Who knows, maybe he’s an RPS reader.
Or maybe not.
17/03/2010 at 19:20 Aninhumer says:
The job of gathering evidence is that of the Copyright Holder as far as I understood from the Bill. The ISP only has to keep records of people who were complained about, and send them letters.
17/03/2010 at 19:21 Aninhumer says:
Bah reply fail
17/03/2010 at 19:28 Devan says:
Hmm, since in Canada the Queen is “technically” our head of state, and we “technically” require the support of her Governor General for our laws, does that mean we “technically” have some influence on these decisions too? Can I write your MP?
17/03/2010 at 19:45 El Stevo says:
@ Devan:
Nope.
17/03/2010 at 19:32 Ol' Sam says:
Bhazor,
Democracy isn’t “utterly paralyzed by pressure groups”. That’s just as alarmist as those arguing that this Bill is part of some sort of sinister plot.
The fact that people are willing sit in judgement over something without thoroughly researching the issue is a fact of modern politics (perhaps life?), and one shared by some MPs as well as voters. I would venture that few voters pore over the full text of a bill without forming an opinion, I doubt the general public ever has done.
I think it’s admirable that you care about it so much though, few do. Expletives do nothing for your argument however. While I agree that the sight of so many people jumping on a bandwagon is riling, I think it’s a wagon that is heading in the right direction.
You briefly mentioned lobbyists. As I’m sure you are aware there are lobby groups representing just about every interest. In fact the section of the bill behind this furore was originally proposed in response to one such group.
What is of concern to me are any constraints placed on information that can be enshrined in, and enforced by law. I would rather the subject be debated more publicly and more thoroughly than it has been, since ultimately the passing of the bill would result in some form of legislative control over internet use. There can be no grey areas here, regardless of your opinion on intellectual property (or for that matter, the other “good” proposals). Amendments to the bill have been made just as hurriedly as the bill was proposed, the aim being to push it through before the general election.
17/03/2010 at 20:06 Wulf says:
I argue that the bill is a slightly sinister plot, but not because of the Gov’t so much but rather the man responsible: Mandy. Anyone who’s been following his exploits is well aware that he isn’t really all there, he’s quite, quite nutty.
17/03/2010 at 19:35 Monkeybreadman says:
Done. I am very dissappointed this isnt getting the mainstream media coverage it deserves. I bet my grandmother if the Sun were running this story it would be dropped tommorrow
17/03/2010 at 20:05 Wulf says:
Because it’s a breach of base freedoms, privacy, and the Gov’t getting a false positive on you as a pirate could cause you all sorts of heartache.
The human capacity to brush even massive problems under the rug never ceases to amaze me, and the British are especially better at this than any other peoples. “Oh, that doesn’t matter. Stiff upper lip!”
17/03/2010 at 20:13 Wizlah says:
article in t’Guardian. And in print, too (filed last night online, in today’s print edition).
17/03/2010 at 19:47 TheSombreroKid says:
what’s so important about this particular futile attempt to infringe our civil liberties? like as opposed to the stop and search laws the 28/48 day limit, id cards, the dna database, or any other number of heinous acts this labour government has commited in the name of democracy? of al those things this will affect people the least.
17/03/2010 at 19:51 TheSombreroKid says:
i should stress the reason it will have little to no impact is because it is already out of date with how the internet is used on a daily basis and will become increasingly so before the law can be put to use. a quick example how many people today rely on soley on thier landline for using the internet?
17/03/2010 at 23:12 TeeJay says:
“what’s so important about this particular futile attempt to infringe our civil liberties?”
They are trying to push it through in the next six weeks.
17/03/2010 at 19:57 Wulf says:
I actually wrote a personal letter to my local MP a bit ago, he seemed very concerned too, but unfortunately they sent him a letter filled with lies back. I’ve been thinking of publishing those mails online for all to see, just to show how clearly parts of the UK Government are misleading other parts. Should I?
The thing is though, no one should be surprised by this because the person responsible is old, mad, mad Mandy, one of the Trio of Total Twats responsible for turning Labour into New Labour. Bastards. I don’t exactly want the tories in power, but I don’t want this gimp in power, either. Sigh, if only I could somehow convince every British voter to vote for a party that isn’t the all new bastardly labour or the bloody tories, but I digress. Of course, that people are so uneducated that they keep gravitating between two parties whilst ignoring all the others is as much of a problem as the parties themselves. Hooray for the UK, uneducated idiot capitol of the world! Possibly more so than anywhere else, now! Okay, I admit, there are a few other countries that are particularly stupid about politics, but most countries would laugh at us for dealing with it so frivolously. :|
17/03/2010 at 20:03 passingtramp says:
” Whereas greater observation and regulation of your private actions in online spaces does seem like a real problem.”
I think the popular acceptance of this sentiment is interesting. When does an action on the internet become public?
17/03/2010 at 20:04 passingtramp says:
Whoops, that was meant to be a reply to the Apologist.
17/03/2010 at 20:14 kieran martin says:
I’m always amused by this response. Back at Bath I chaired the student Amnesty society, where we would get people wondering how our urgent action letters could possible have an effect. A third of all urgent actions Amnesty gets involved in lead to an improvement (often not a release, but an amnesty from the death penalty). Now as a statistican I can hum and haw about correlation and causation, but by bringing a light to these cases I do think we made a difference.
In our own country, our own government… well writing to your mp won’t necessairly always work, but it does help them become aware that people CARE about this bill, and thats important. There are, of course, other ways to influence (actually lobbying your mp, if you have the time and inclination, is worthwhile) this system, but the supposed advantage of our rather rubbish electoral system is the constituency link would be madness, and exactly what the unproportionally powerful lobbying companies want…
In short, no its not magic, but it can and does work. Its not much time out of your day, and if you care about an issue, why not do something that costs you nothing?
17/03/2010 at 20:17 TheApplogist says:
The point I was trying to make is that the threat or problem that this is trying to deal with, and the one you cited in your comment, that is that there will be some kind of crisis in videogame production without this legislation is a fiction.
I think that is something you agree with acknowledging that indie companies and large companies alike seem likely to carry on with no change.
That being the case, what possible justification is there for this kind of incursion into our privacy by the state?
17/03/2010 at 22:12 cliffski says:
I’m not sure thats accurate,
Almost everyone I know who makes a living from indie gaming is looking into online games and flash MMOs, because they are the only games that seem to reliably make money,
The people I know making single player RPGs and other simialr titles consider the futrue incredibly bleak.
People pirating games does not exclusively affect evil companies, it aeffects the whole industry, even if we react in different ways,
17/03/2010 at 23:01 Wulf says:
@cliffski
“Almost everyone I know who makes a living from indie gaming is looking into online games and flash MMOs, because they are the only games that seem to reliably make money, [...]”
Yet despite that independent development seems to be thriving, with as many interesting indie games on the horizon as triple-A titles. It’s true that some will look into MMOs but that’s only because by their very virtue MMOs rake in the most money, and some people will want to try and fight the MMO big boys in order to take a slice of that pie.
But that’s more about simply going after the big money more than anything else, because nothing’s going to make as much money as something like Free Realms or World of Warcraft, so of course there are going to be people who’ll pursue that kind of money, even though that pursuit isn’t exactly wise.
However, looking at the indie games on the horizon, I think the amount of indie developers seeking a slice of the MMO pies is less than the amount of indie developers who’re just looking to put out a decent single- or multi-player game to make a decent profit off of.
You should see my Steam list, shortcuts and games bought on Steam alike, 80% of what I have and what’s installed is indie. If there was no money there then no one would be pursuing it, and there wouldn’t be a quarter of the incredible indie games on the horizon as there actually are.
“The people I know making single player RPGs and other simialr titles consider the futrue incredibly bleak.”
I haven’t seen this sentiment on any of the independent developer blogs I follow, and being a fan of the indie scene I follow quite a few. Rather than just having you speaking for the masses, I’d prefer to see a few of these people actually show up and state their case. But there’s nothing to say whether you’re telling the truth either way, or whether you’re using the fallacy of the anonymous many in order to support your own faltering position.
“People pirating games does not exclusively affect evil companies, it aeffects the whole industry, even if we react in different ways, [...]”
And there’s little evidence that piracy is having the effect that people say it is, because when piracy is mentioned sales figures are rarely shown, it’s probably more that the demographics are all screwed up. For example, STALKER will sell better on the PC than the cell-shaded Prince of Persia, because PC gamers use a PC for PC games. For every story of ONOZPIRACY, I’ve seen a story of success. For every 2DBoy, there’s a Wolfire, and for every Ubisoft, there’s a Valve.
The only problem with sales is that people are trying to sell games to demographics which aren’t all that interested in those games, they’re not making the kinds of incredible sales they expect and see from consoles, they’re just making ‘satisfactory’ sales, and those aren’t good enough. Moreover, there are many publishers which are alienating the PC audience with DRM and DLC, which is convincing people not to buy games.
Here’s a bit of wisdom: Not every lost sale is due to piracy. Most lost sales will be due to a lack of interest in either the game or the publisher, and if that’s the case then the publisher needs to look at what they’re selling and how they’re selling it. If anyone is struggling within any given industry, it’s a failure on their part to pitch their product properly, Wolfire and Valve stand as a testament to that. If someone wants their product to sell, they should target and market it to the correct demographic, and they should treat their customers with the respect and dignity a human being would expect.
If you feel your sales are suffering, then maybe you’re not making the right kinds of games, or you’re not making games for the right reasons, maybe you’re marketing them incorrectly, and maybe (as you’re showing now) you’re viewing your customers with a neurotic, paranoid eye that’s putting them off buying your goods. I’ll feel less inclined to buy your games in the future because you have this attitude, and I can’t be the only one who feels this way.
17/03/2010 at 23:34 TheApplogist says:
@cliffski
I respect your sense of the indie scene, and the challenges facing developers of course. And we have exchanged before on piracy – I think it is wrong and don’t do it, and now it’s even more wrong that it is providing the state with reasons to lock down Internet use.
Still, I think this law is wrong. Partly I think that games production will find other forms as you suggest if it needs to and partly I just wouldn’t swop entertainment, even that I love, for
this.
18/03/2010 at 08:49 cliffski says:
“Here’s a bit of wisdom: Not every lost sale is due to piracy”
wow you are the first person to ever type these words. what insight!
nice straw man,given nobody here ever claimed it was.
As for sales fuigures, whenever they get quoted by, you know, people who actually sell games, they get a bucketful of abuse and hatred heaped on them from angry internet men.
Which is why developers and publishers have given up trying to debate the issue and just make MMO’s instead. I don’t blame them.
And I love how every time I ever mention that piracy affects the industry people start trying to suggest reasons why my games do not sell. Again, I never claimed my games do not sell, they do.
But if I was a rational investor I’d invest my money in a different industry. Or at least a different platform.
18/03/2010 at 08:53 cliffski says:
“maybe you’re marketing them incorrectly, and maybe (as you’re showing now) you’re viewing your customers with a neurotic, paranoid eye that’s putting them off buying your goods. I’ll feel less inclined to buy your games in the future because you have this attitude, and I can’t be the only one who feels this way.”
Because I do not use any DRM and openly state so?
http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html
Or because I provide free demos?
I’m not sure you have really researched this as much as you claim. Any developer who ever opens his mouth in the prescence of a loud angry rant about the evil MAFIAA etc always gets shouted at. Thats why 99.9% of developers just roll there eyes and don’t get involved.
17/03/2010 at 20:20 Wazzle says:
Well, I’m sorry to say that I live in the USA, so I clicked on the article in hopes of helping out but realized I could not. However, know that I am vehement in my opposition of this disgusting real-world realization of 1984/Brave New World/etc.
17/03/2010 at 20:20 Recomposer says:
I’d like to do this, but given that my MP has just died its not going to help.
17/03/2010 at 20:22 TheApplogist says:
And that was in reply to passingtramp!
You have a point that public/private is not clearly resolved on the internet, but the greater danger seems to me the collapsing of the two whereby the state justifies almost boundless observation and regulation.
17/03/2010 at 20:22 Tim Ward says:
Alec. Be honest. Did you actually look at the relevant text of the bill yourself, or did you just rely on some hysterical “summary” of it’s contents posted on another site?
I looked at the bill and decided not to send any letter, because there’s really nothing especially objectionable or draconian in it. The only difference now is that they have to keep a record of who gets sent those letters and an escalating program of sanctions for people who ignore them.
To anyone thinking of sending a letter: read the relevant sections yourself, then decide. If you still have objections, then more power to you. Your letter to your MP will be both informed and able to refer to specific sections you have problems with, rather than vague and sensationalist.
17/03/2010 at 21:20 Wulf says:
I’ve nosed at the Bill. The problem: This Bill might be sound but the technology isn’t, data-gathering technology in regards to the Internet can never be sound. This Bill will have false positives accused to be real pirates, it will have many false positives. This Bill cannot work because the technology it props itself up on is completely fallible. That’s the problem, it’s not the Bill but how they plan on tracking potential pirates.
17/03/2010 at 23:03 Tim Ward says:
Uh, it’s not going to be some kind of giant master computer searching the Internet for people on torrents, copyright holders have to supply a certain standard of evidence to the ISP for the ISP is compelled to act.
There is an appeals process.
17/03/2010 at 23:34 Collic says:
The law is iterative, and if something is on the table that opens up those potential legal consequences it needs some real scrutiny. This is really scary stuff. The decision on whether or not you get cut off (or one of the other ‘measures’ levied against you, rests with the secretary of state. NOT the courts. You might have a civil case against you that you can fight as is your legal right, but when it comes to cutting you off, the final decision is his.
If he decides you’ve been a bad boy, ISPs are are under a ‘technical obligation’ to prevent users from doing so:
(2)
A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an
10
obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or
all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or
reducing infringement of copyright by means of the internet.
(3)
A “technical measure” is a measure that—
(a)limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a
15
subscriber;
(b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to
particular material, or limits such use;
(c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
(d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
I don’t know how anyone couldn’t be frightened by that. Not only could you be up in court, but you could get cut off as well, with no legal recourse that I can see to defend yourself against that. It doesn’t matter how many ‘strikes’ there are, putting that decision in the hands of a minister, not the courts is unacceptable.
17/03/2010 at 23:38 Collic says:
I take that back, there is an appeals process. But the onus is on you to disprove that decision, and it’s a bloody tribunal, not the civil courts system. That’s very important.
18/03/2010 at 03:56 drewski says:
Tim – you seem to have completely misunderstood Alec’s point. The point is that the Bill should be debated and, where necessary, amended, not that it’s the coming of the Anti-Christ.
Yes, that was hyperbole, I’m not suggesting you’re suggesting Alec thinks the bill is the coming of the Anti-Christ.
Alec’s objecting to the rushing of the Parliamentary process – whilst I have no doubt he also disagrees with the Bill itself, that’s not what he’s asking people to write in about.
18/03/2010 at 16:43 Theory says:
Ken Clarke (Tory shadow secretary for business) is going to decide every time? Just think about that idea for a second.
OfCom will recommend what evidence and process is required in their code, then Secretary of State will make his order and set up whatever the infrastructure will be. It is theoretically possible for him to ignore the evidence, and if he’s crazy try to decide every case himself, but before the order it becomes law both the House of Lords and the House of Commons must approve it.
18/03/2010 at 18:00 Collic says:
That may be true, of course I don’t ever expect the secretary of state to make decisions on these cases personally, but the decision WILL be taken by an unelected body, not the courts system. A tribunal isn’t nearly the same thing.
If your talking about something that imposes a punitive measure against an individual, it should be handled by the courts. Not a quango, a committee, or anything else set up to adjudicate these things. Nothing you’ve wrote changes what I’m disagreeing with about the Bill.
18/03/2010 at 18:22 Theory says:
Neither courts nor tribunals (which are exactly the same, actually) consist of elected members. They are both run by appointed people who applying the law as laid down by Parliament – exactly as happens under the bill.
For the record, an inquest can lead to murder charges and a planning appeal can order you to tear down anything you’ve built without permission. Both of those have more gravitas than having your net connection cut in my mind. If, as I keep pointing out, that ever even becomes a possibility.
18/03/2010 at 19:39 Collic says:
You can argue with me all you want, but you’re just arguing semantics. The semantics are irrelevant when legal precedent is going to determine what counts as guilt. If you feel fine with opening up the law in this area like that, fine. I, and alot of other people think it’s a very bad idea.
17/03/2010 at 20:43 shalrath says:
Out of curiosity, who’s going to pay to have people check for these things? The cable companies? Fuck that, how on earth would they get the manpower.
I’m not taking anyway away from this, and I love that people are being involved, but realise that all is not lost. Even if they pass the bill, it would be virtually impossible to enforce.
17/03/2010 at 21:16 Wulf says:
Indeed. The problem with this Bill is the nature of technology, and this is why only people who aren’t tech-stupid should be allowed to judge the ethics of it and whether it’s actually a good thing or not, because otherwise we have people talking out of their bleeding arse, and we’ve seen some of that in this comments thread.
The problem is is that it’ll most likely work on word of mouth and culminated data based on IP, and do I really have to say what’s wrong with both of those? If my IP is linked to a site which sometimes carries wares, then I’m a false positive. If someone has a grudge against me and accuses me of piracy, then I’m a false positive.
Fuck that.
It’ll be a case of 1 real pirate arrested for every 1,000 false positives. This is so bloody asinine, so incredibly blisteringly stupid that I can barely bring my mind to accept that it’s real. They’re going to have methods in play which are absolutely prone to failure, and will have a higher failure rate than success, and the people responsible for the Bill think that technology is a magical thing that always works, the people supporting the Bill think that the Government will be able to use this infallibly despite how fallible it is.
It’s days like this when I just want to maul people.
18/03/2010 at 17:26 Theory says:
The rightsholders pay the ISPs for their effort. 6(4).
18/03/2010 at 21:01 Gorgeras says:
This is 6(4) in full:
“The provision mentioned in subsection (3)(a) may, in particular, specify that a right or obligation does not apply in relation to a copyright owner unless the owner has made arrangements with an internet service provider regarding—
(a) the number of copyright infringement reports that the owner may make to the provider within a particular period; and
(b) payment in advance of a contribution towards meeting costs incurred by the provider.”
Which is better understood if you read 6(3) first:
“The provision that may be contained in a code and approved under this section includes provision that—
(a) specifies conditions that must be met for rights and obligations under the copyright infringement provisions or the code to apply in a particular case;
(b) requires copyright owners or internet service providers to provide any information or assistance that is reasonably required to determine whether a condition under paragraph (a) is met.”
Section 6 concerns “Approval of code about the initial obligations” basically instructing Ofcom about the requirements of whatever code and guidelines they come up with for how all this filthy business goes down. It does this the same way all bad legislation does this: by making squillions of small changes to obscure parts of other bills, in this case section 124 of the Communications Act 2003 which itself ascribes how Ofcom will give directions for “Suspending service provision for contraventions of” conventions laid out in section 120, describing “Conditions regulating premium rate services”. Section 124 is replaced with sections 124A all the way through to M.
It’s all very well criticising people for relying on summaries instead of reading the bill, but not everyone is a lawyer or a hyperlexic autistic.(ohai)). Most people have to inform themselves with other peoples summaries and give us your honest opinion- who has the most dumbed-down and uninformative summaries of anything in the DIgital Economy Bill: the BPI + friends or ORG + friends?
It’s not enough to just read the bits you quote to ‘show’ people are wrong: they must read and trace the taxonomy of the specific section in full; see what it affects and what affects it. Theory, have you done this and if so, why? Were you just casually interested in the law and after a sober and thorough reading you came to the conclusion that it’s not so bad? Chief Wyrmskin cries bullshit. The bill is impenetrable without a determined effort.
6(4) in the bill does not say that copyright owners will pay ISPs. It says that the copyright owners should be responsible for their arrangements with ISPs and the arrangement must include costs.
17/03/2010 at 20:44 Morangie says:
@Alec Meer
“Seconded. Do you understand what democracy means?”
Do you understand how democracy works? Labour proposed the bill, the Tories support it and it was Lib Dem peers who put in the amendment taken word for word from the BPI. I’ve happily sent the form email to my MP but living in a rock solid Labour seat, it was meaningless. Those of you in marginals may have better luck but I don’t see many MPs ignoring the whip for something The Sun and The Daily Mail aren’t behind.
17/03/2010 at 20:44 Wulf says:
So I’m using this site to write to my MP again, here’s what I have:
“Dear Mr. Davies,
I know I’ve written to you before, and that Gordon Brown sent you a letter back playing down (and in some cases outright lying about) the Digital Economy Bill, but the situation has gotten worse, I need to write to you again. See, the bill is being just pushed through at the moment, it’s not even getting the chance to undergo a proper parliamentary debate. I expect you still have concerns, as I do, and this is why they’re doing this, so that you and many other MPs won’t have a chance to say anything about this. That’s duplicitous, and it should tell you that something questionable is going on, here.
I think there are many points still left to be raised, questioned, and debated in order to bring all aspects of the Digital Economy Bill into the light. There are many scenarios in which this bill could cause problems for people, it could even rob them of their livelihood, it could result in lost jobs, it could ruin lives, and this could all happen through false positives, since one person does not equal one Internet connection, and often it’s hard to link the activities of one person to an Internet connection, because the Internet just doesn’t work that way.
For example, say an Internet connection is in place for a flat, where a person has four flatmates, if two of those four flatmates are downloading then all four get punished for that, but it gets worse. Say one of those people has an IT job and needs to work from home? They couldn’t, because they’d be banned from the Internet under the three strikes system, despite not having done anything illegal. This is what I mean by false positives, and it’s an uncaring, undiscerning system, and one which could be devastating to the lives of people and the economy.
Here’s another example: Let’s say that someone gets a false positive, and yet they buy all their content from legal, online content providers? You can look these up yourself, but there are services like iTunes, Steam, Good Old Games, and many others which provide goods with no physical aspect to them, there are also individual content providers online who sell their content. Telltale Games is one such instance of this, and all of these can be found on Google. Now if someone has a false positive hit them, they have no paper receipts or boxes to show for their legally purchased content, and despite having done nothing illegal they may end up having their Internet connection taken away. There’s so much room for error in this system that it’s truly not funny.
I’m not voicing this concern alone either, because there has been a furore raised by Internet Service Providers and Content Providers alike. Companies like Talk-Talk, British Telecom, Google, and Apple have raised concerns about this, and they think that this is a very bad idea, they’ve many of the same concerns as I do. This system is a blind system, one open to exploitation, and it’ll do nothing but wreak havoc upon Britain and leave us in a weakened state, with people and businesses alike having much less faith in the Government. Each and every false positive is going to be damning for the party in power.
Yet these are concerns that the Government isn’t letting you or other MPs air, and I’m hoping that as my MP you’ll take a stand against this, because it’s clearly very questionable, and it needs to be questioned and debated, it has flaws and these need to be exposed, if that wasn’t true then why would they be so dubiously trying to rush this through without even allowing any kind of challenge? They’re just hoping it’ll slip by without anyone noticing. Please don’t let that happen. If you can, talk to other MPs about this too and let them know how you feel.
I’m only writing because I’m concerned. The thing is, I use a lot of online Content Providers, like Steam, and iTunes, and I have a lot of content that I legally own that’s sitting around on my hard disk, a lot of legal content that has receipts in emails but not on paper, and if I get hit with a false positive, then all of my Steam content, all of the content I’ve bought online could look bad for me, because the people upholding these laws just won’t be educated enough as to how the Internet works in order to understand my legal purchases. And that’s the problem, the Bill itself shows a lack of understanding of the Internet. If I buy a game off Steam, I could be at risk. Even that fear could be damaging for the economy.
I know I’m appealing to your emotions here, but I really don’t think this is right at all, and I implore you to do your own research, into the companies who’ve spoken out against this, into online Content Providers, and into the Bill itself, and I’m hoping your findings will leave you as worried about this as I am. All I ask, as a constituent, is that you follow this up. All I can do is bring your attention to this and hope that you’ll do the right thing. This bill needs to be questioned, please do all that you can to ensure that that’s allowed to happen.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Omitted]”
Yes, I did steal one of the examples here, thanks to whomever gave me that idea!
17/03/2010 at 20:52 lazy_n_crazy says:
Long time reader, first time commenter, this law irritated me enough to bring me out of the woodwork. I have a deep distrust of our government when it comes to this kind of legislation, even if I agreed with it in principal, which I do not, I fear they are likely to enforce it in the most unfair, most arbitrary way possible, if its practically enforceable at all.
Sent my email off. I do not think it will do any good, I think my MP has taken the labour party line on everything since she was elected. Is there going to be any kind of meatspace protest over this? That would probably me more effective than angry emails if people want to show they really care about this bill.
17/03/2010 at 21:02 ulix says:
More often then not I am very happy to live in a country with a written constitution and a court with the power to defend it. Thanks to that this (probably, hopefully…) wouldn’t be possible in Germany (other thing would, I know…).
17/03/2010 at 21:09 JohnP says:
Sent, although I have no faith in my MP – she’s a Labour lackey through and through and has sent embarrassingly party line towing stock replies to everything I’ve sent her in the past. Last time I looked she’d never voted against the government.
17/03/2010 at 21:21 Greg Wild says:
Bloody insipid MPs. Nothing worse than those party-line idiots.
17/03/2010 at 21:49 Initialised says:
I’m spreading this everywhere I can think of!
17/03/2010 at 22:16 Lambchops says:
Yeah the flatshare argument is quite a powerful one.
Over the last five years of staying in shared residences I’ve never been in a situation where at least one of my housemates is a heavy downloader of pirated material (particularly movies).
Not having the internet would have had a horrible affect on my ability to work effectively and probably stressed me out somewhat. However I wouldn’t have been able to change my housemates’ minds on this. would they eventually stop pirating after several warning letters? Probably they would – but it’s not a given and it would have also put my own internet use under unfair scrutiny despite having not done anything wrong.
17/03/2010 at 22:52 Lambchops says:
“Is” in the second sentence should read “isn’t.” Edit doesn’t seem to be working for me!
17/03/2010 at 23:06 Tim Ward says:
“Clause 14 inserts new section 124K in the 2003 Act. Section 124K sets out how the mechanism for subscriber appeals will work. It requires that the initial obligations code and any technical obligations code provide a route for appeals and sets out grounds for appeal. It also requires that the codes must provide for an appeal to succeed unless the copyright owner or ISP shows, in relation to each relevant CIR, that there has been an infringement of copyright and that this has been correctly linked to the subscriber’s internet account. A subscriber appeal must also succeed where the subscriber shows that the infringement was not carried out by the subscriber and that the subscriber had taken reasonable steps to prevent an infringement.“
17/03/2010 at 23:27 Wulf says:
Am I crazy or does that say…
- In order to make a proper appeal, you must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you weren’t responsible for pirating, and prove the invalidity of the research that lead to you being accused.
- You must prove that you will be able to ensure that this never happens again, even if it means utilising some kind of mind-control or behavioural conditioning to stop any and all current or future flatmates from committing such a breach.
Guh.
17/03/2010 at 23:30 Lambchops says:
@ Tim
Thing is in a flatshare situation I’ve never been “the subscriber.” I’ve always paid money to someone else who has organised the internet account. If the subscriber was the one doing the pirating then you’d still be shafted. If not then you’d have to go through the inconvenience of an appeal process – but as long as that option existed from the moment of the first warning then I guess it would be alright – apart form the whole being presumed guilty thing – which is clearly a load of bollocks. So quite a big apart there!
I guess if I was in that hypothetical situation where I wasn’t the subscriber and they weren’t budging I’d just move out and find someone who cared more about being a friend than watching films for nothing
It also would presumably be pretty easy to circumvent the rules (just ensure the subsriber is someone who doesn’t infringe copyright – you’d get bogged down in an appeal process but presumably you’d eventually win)..It would be a fundamentaly dishonest thing to do though.
Neither scenario is particularly appealing.
17/03/2010 at 23:36 Tim Ward says:
“It also requires that the codes must provide for an appeal to succeed unless the copyright owner or ISP shows, in relation to each relevant CIR, that there has been an infringement of copyright and that this has been correctly linked to the subscriber’s internet account.”
It says clear as day that it is up to the ISP to prove the there was infringement and that it was you, not vice versa.
“and that the subscriber had [note: past tense] taken reasonable steps to prevent an infringement.“
So, yes, you are crazy. Or have woefully bad reading comprehension, or are just being willfully dishonest.
17/03/2010 at 23:42 Tim Ward says:
@Lambchop
I’m not sure why people are having such difficulty with the idea that you are legally responsible for what your Internet connection is used for.
17/03/2010 at 23:47 Lambchops says:
@ Tim
I’m also having trouble understanding why you are having so much difficulty with the idea that it’s impossilbe to control what somebody else is doing over a shared connection.
I’m a pretty good judge of character so I know that if we got a cease and desist letter over copyright theft then my flatmate’s would stop.
However there are people out there who wouldn’t. Who would assume that the worst isn’t going to happen to them and just not give a shit about the people they are staying with. You can’t always choose your flatmates and you certainly can’t control them.
17/03/2010 at 23:55 Lilliput King says:
“- You must prove that you will be able to ensure that this never happens again, even if it means utilising some kind of mind-control or behavioural conditioning to stop any and all current or future flatmates from committing such a breach.”
No, it says the person appealing must be able to show that he had already taken these steps before the alleged offence. By that wording, it would appear to be the person’s responsibility if anyone on their internet connection does something untoward unless the person has already done everything conceivable to make sure it doesn’t happen.
It’s practical, but it doesn’t seem fair.
18/03/2010 at 00:17 Wulf says:
@Lambchops
That’s precisely what turned my stomach, I might not have the specifics down but I understood the gist of it, and it still expects people to be able to mind-read and control others, which is — as you say — absolutely impossible, under any circumstances. Thus resulting in (hooray!) false positives.
Gods, if this gets through it’s going to be a disaster, hilarious for the rest of the world though.
Hey, everywhere that’s not Britain? If this gets through, grab the popcorn, because you’re probably in for a whale of a time!
18/03/2010 at 00:40 Tim Ward says:
In what way does the words “everything conceivable” play a part in “reasonable steps”. Given the difficulties involved in blocking bittorrent traffic (it can use any port, so you really can’t do it without a home router- best you can do make life difficult ) with a home setup, even if you do have the technical knowhow. This likely involves telling them not to and cutting their Internet off if they refuse. If they continue to do so without you knowing, then you have still taken “reasonable steps”.
@Lampchops, it’s not impossible to control. Things like firewalls were invented for a reason. In this specific case, however, it is actually very difficult to block torrent traffic, and impossible to distinguish between legal torrent traffic and illegal torrent traffic, so they idea that this law means that you must take all kinds of extraordinary measures to stop torrenting is fiction.
If you’re not the subscriber, but are simply paying the subscriber to use a connection that’s in their name then… yes, you are rather at their mercy. There’s nothing to stop them putting on 30 torrents and eating up all the bandwidth, never mind the legal implications. That’s the risk you take when you enter into these agreements. I don’t think the risk of third parties getting screwed should stop the government enforcing the law, though. It’s like saying no one should have the power to impound cars because other users of the vehicle might be inconvenienced.
18/03/2010 at 01:58 Wulf says:
@Tim
I’m sorry, but please clarify for me, did you just really say: I understand and accept that the method for finding convicts is completely fallible, but that shouldn’t stop the Gov’t from pursuing criminals under a bill that automatically presumes the guilt of the accused?
The problem is that the technology is fallible, the scenarios weaken the already fallible technology, and nothing is going to stop a veritable tsunami of false positives, and each and every one of those false positives is going to be presumed guilty off the bat.
If you don’t think that’s a problem, then I’m at a loss.
18/03/2010 at 16:55 Theory says:
Wulf, he said “you are jointly responsible for a shared internet connection”. Don’t try and twist it. “Presumed guilty” is also weasel wording: are you being “presumed guilty” when you are arrested for an offence? The appeal is the equivalent of the court case here, and it “must succeed unless the copyright owner or ISP shows that there has been an infringement of copyright”.
Furthermore, no, the tech is not fallible. If an IP was downloading from a torrent, it was downloading from a torrent. It is quite literally a binary distinction.
18/03/2010 at 17:01 Theory says:
Perhaps I should explain further, since “the appeal is the equivalent of the court case” looks weird.
- A judicial trial determines guilt; you are likely to be held in custody beforehand
- A judicial appeal determines whether the trial was fair
- A “technical measure appeal” determines guilt; you are likely to have technical measures in effect beforehand
- Subsequent technical measure appeals determines whether the first appeal was fair
You could argue that holding the infringer “in custody” before the “appeal” starts is unreasonable, but given the amount of warning that will be given and relatively minor loss incurred, it seems okay to me.
18/03/2010 at 19:23 Tim Ward says:
Wulf,
Would you like to name any part of the justice system which is infallible? If you cannot, do you think that means we should have no police and court system? If no, then what I said is in fact completely reasonable.
Your idea that the bill automatically ‘presumes guilt of the accused’ is just flat out retarded: it quite simply doesn’t.
You have repeatedly claim there will be a “veritable tsunami of false positives”, something for which I have seen no evidence at all. You talk about the massive flaws of the technology, do you even know what ‘the technology’ is? It’s logging onto a torrent with infringing material and looking at the IP address of people connected to it, then getting the ISPs to them a nasty letter and (this is the new part) keep a record of nasty letter recipients, and start throttling their connection if they keep it up. The only way to get a false positive out of that is if someone uses your connection without your knowledge, and the bill makes provisions for that.
17/03/2010 at 22:16 Gorgeras says:
The main problem with people using summarised versions of the bill is not that they can be so easily accused of fear-mongering over it.
It’s that some nobodies appear from nowhere and distract everyone from what is wrong with it. Currently, people accused of piracy by copyright holders are told to pay a settlement or be dragged to court.
If the bill passes, it doesn’t matter that the accused is sent warnings or that they get a chance to appeal: their presumption of innocence at every stage along the way isn’t there. It’s questionable enough that there isn’t full-proof technology to make the suggested measures work; but for someone to prove they have not been distributing or obtaining copyrighted material is just plain impossible. Accusation alone will screw them; the rights holders have all the power and rights. It’s worse than libel law; at least with that the truth is an absolute defence.
17/03/2010 at 22:35 Wulf says:
That’s exactly my point, yep.
Due to the fallible nature of the technology involved, if this piece of distilled idiocy passes then we’re going to have a lot of fun with false positives, people who’re accused and get screwed over, despite being totally innocent of what they’re being accused of.
18/03/2010 at 17:19 Theory says:
You misunderstand the justice system. You are presumed innocent in court, but certainly not before then. If a person is accused of a crime and there are reasonable grounds for suspicion (being spotted and reported downloading a torrent fits that bill, I’m sure you’ll agree), then you are investigated on the assumption of guilt that needs to be proved. If detectives assumed innocence when investigating criminals, their job would be an utter farce.
When enough evidence is gathered (reports received and confirmed, warnings sent) You will be arrested (technical measures imposed) in preparation a court case (appeal against TM) and it is there that you are presumed innocent. In both cases – 14(5).
18/03/2010 at 17:49 Gorgeras says:
Sorry but no.
Being accused, arrested or charged with an offence at no point prejudices a person before the law: there is no requirement for a person to appeal against any of them. Your twisting of this reminds me of the very first Next Generation episode where Q explains why the crew have no presumption of innocence: “To put the innocent on trial would be inhumane!”
Not guilty is as good as ‘not proven’ in Britain. The outrageous usurpation of the Digital Economy Bill is that it doesn’t even have to find someone guilty; copyright owners don’t have to prove, they just have to accuse. Technical measures are not an arrest(you can prove wrongful arrest for a start, independent of being found guilty or not guilty) and the appeal is not a trial: *it’s an appeal*, an appeal against mere accusation and shoddy evidence.
18/03/2010 at 18:41 Theory says:
I don’t understand your first paragraph. You seem to be agreeing with me? Being accused of or suspended for an infringement at no point prejudices a person before the appeal either. (I think you misunderstand the purpose of Q, incidentally: his purpose in the series, aside from being irritatingly petulant, is to reveal such paradoxes.)
Your second para assumes that there is no need for evidence. This is untrue – 4(3). The precise level of evidence required is to be set by OfCom’s code, but for the first year it must at least match that required by the courts today. It makes no sense to claim that it will regress to mere accusation afterwards.
It’s not like whether or not an IP connected to a tracker is an ambiguous question.
I posted just above this comment thread about the trial-like nature of the “appeal”, at which the rightsholder or ISP must to prove guilt. I think the only reason it’s being called an appeal at all may be because it’s optional: for the bill to call it a trial (or inquest or whatever), it would have to be compulsory.
17/03/2010 at 22:58 A Harper says:
Just a quick note as a gamer who completely agrees with this protest and works in parliament getting this sort of mail –
do NOT copy and paste that letter. Write your own, with your own thoughts and opinions. Bulk will not persuade an MP. I get hundreds of identical letters everyday about every nutty issue from every interest group. It does not persuade.
What does is a thoughtful and individual letter that your representative (if their team is any good, and most are) will get to read themselves.
It’s easy to click yes on a forum, it’s easy to copy and paste words. It’s harder to write out why you believe in something yourself and your MP will pay much more attention when you bother to do so.
Someone above said will an MP care more about 1000 identical letters or 100 individual. They seemed to think it was a no brainer that it was the former. Absolutely not. 100 individuals taking the time to make their views known will win over the thousands of identikit protests on every issue that every MP always gets.
17/03/2010 at 23:18 DJ Phantoon says:
That makes sense, actually. If someone can’t be bothered to write their own letter, do they really feel that strongly about it?
17/03/2010 at 23:17 DJ Phantoon says:
England is a bizarre place.
Still, you have much better roads then we in the states do.
17/03/2010 at 23:31 Wulf says:
Unfortunately, this doesn’t apply to only England but all of Britain.
We do have better roads though, at least currently, but goodness knows where we’ll be in a decade from now.
17/03/2010 at 23:40 Lambchops says:
Could have fooled me about the roads!
At least if the likes of the A82 and A9 in Scotland are any evidence (of course it’s all dependant on the local councils and it seems that both Argyll and the Highlands are somewhat bad at mainitaing or improving roads).
17/03/2010 at 23:55 Nick says:
All of the UK shirly?
18/03/2010 at 00:09 Lambchops says:
Ah, the poor Northern Irish. So often missed out!
18/03/2010 at 00:13 Wulf says:
@Lambchops
Blaenau Gwent county council are actually pretty good about the upkeep of roads, it’s sometimes disturbing how often I see roads pulled up for repairs, I suppose I was hoping that we’d all be so lucky.
18/03/2010 at 00:25 tapanister says:
@Wulf:
I’m sure in 10 years from now there’ll be a lot of political prisoners on community service or worse to keep paving those roads XD
18/03/2010 at 01:18 Gorgeras says:
I remember a letter to a newspaper in 2003 after Saddam’s statue was pulled down; one thing on the video caught the reader’s eye:
“So after a month of bombing, Baghdad still has better roads than than most UK cities…”
18/03/2010 at 01:54 Wulf says:
Good thing I don’t live near a city, I guess, especially since the air would kill me. I went to London once and almost had some sort of seizure, very unpleasant.
I’ve mostly got fields, woodland, and things of the sort for miles around.
18/03/2010 at 00:59 Saul says:
The best thing to do is to write your own letter, and write it in such a way that it contains questions that can’t easily be answered by a form letter. If possible, you should reference a variety of issues, so that your letter has to be handed between departments.
18/03/2010 at 01:09 cncplyr says:
Done! However, I don’t expect much from my local mp…
18/03/2010 at 01:34 TeeJay says:
I’m curious how easy it would be for someone to open up a new account if their old one is cut off…
…do they black-list an address, a phone number, a person, a credit-card or bank account? How long does someone stay ‘cut off’ for?
18/03/2010 at 02:10 wazups2x says:
Sadly this will also someday happen in my country. We seem to follow in your footsteps.
18/03/2010 at 04:37 Lemon scented apocalypse says:
@Wulf – Old labour are good? Are we talking about the same old labour here? The old labour that came close to wrecking britain in the 70s? The same old labour that left a culture of useless and overpowered unions? Not to cause offence – but you can keep ‘em son.
18/03/2010 at 05:35 Wulf says:
@Scented
Anyone can pull a bunch of negative aspects out of their arse in regards to any party that’s been in power long enough, and none of them are fantastic. What you say is true, but Thatcher did far worse to our country than Old Labour could even aspire to, even on their most inept days, and then there was Blair, Blair who took us to war, a costly war that’s done nothing for our deficit.
So I won’t deny any of what you’ve said, but when it comes to a lesser of evils, Old Labour are that. The thing is, anything sounds bad unless you compare it with the alternatives, as a logical, reasonable, rational individual would realise, of course.
Old Labour are angels compared to the alternatives.
18/03/2010 at 06:37 GT3000 says:
Angels of what exactly?
It’s a bit depressing that one must constantly juggle between lesser evils. Too hard to campaign your own party amirite?
18/03/2010 at 07:13 Lemon scented apocalypse says:
In regards to shit-slinging at our political pasts: True enough – Although im afraid i believe that despite all the old crones faults, she actually saved this country from wilsons reddder-than-thou double-quagmire. She typifys a loveless but unswervingly pragmatic leadership witch is hard to warm to but ultimatly far more effective than any of the knee-jercking, PR-whoring, policy-void partys that we see before us today. Its a miserable fact that the coming elections will be the first in which i am legally able to vote and the choices make me want to cry.
18/03/2010 at 08:05 Mac says:
I got a reply back from Douglas Hogg.
18/03/2010 at 08:27 Mac says:
I can only recall a Labour government bankrupting the country every time it has got in power (history doesn’t lie – does it?), and surprise surprise they have done it again …
A socialist experiement with full employment by the state will always bankrupt a country – i’m surprised they didn’t learn from USSR when they had to abandon Comunism in the 90′s. If everyone is employed by the state, then there is nobody producing anything of value, therefore you cannot fund the state – end result = bankrupt.
The one thing that needs to go out of politics is the bare faced cheek of telling me something blatently untrue to get a headline, then sneeking out, a little later, a small statement saying that the previous comment was a load of tosh, with the hope that more people see and believe the blatant lie than the clarification. It’s just not honest – and yes, our politicians should be whiter than white, and the less honest ones should be cast out. If that means clearing out the whole house, then so be it.
We all know that the driver behind this legislation is money – the lobbyists have made promises to the government, and the government is determined to get their hands on the cash to fund their bankrupt party. Lets be fair – if the labour party was a normal company they would be in administration … if they can’t even run their own party finances correctly what hope is there for the countries economy. Also, in what other place could you have someone with no business or accounting experience running a multi-billion pound budget – you wouldn’t see that in industry, so why do we see it in the highest echelons of government? What qualified Darling and Brown to run the countries finances?
The music/TV industry really need to stop trying to claim every download is a lost sale – it isn’t. However, I did watch an intersting piece on TV the other night, which stated that people who download music illegally actually spend more on legit purchases than people who don’t pirate. Which can lead you down a number of avenues – either prices are too high and people buy what they can afford and pirate the rest; or there is so much tosh out there, and people want to try it first before buying – either way, there are sales models which would support this behaviour, and tempt people away from pirating in the first place. Sure, there are people who believe they have a god given right to everything for free, and these people should rightly be sought out, but you should not criminalise the majority due to the minority.
Why not look at a model where you pay ~£5 a week and you can download whatever music you want (large catelog, not just a select few) – that way the artists get an income, and Jo Public who is interested in music gets to update their collection regularly. You could even make the downloads time limited – as people could re-download them under this model, but if they ceased subscription they lost access to the music.
Rather than carrying on with the same broken model and criminalising people – come up with innovative solutions and make it easier to be legit than it is to pirate.
This goes for DRM in games too – penalising legit customers with draconian DRM will only result in people seeking out ways to avoid such DRM – it is self defeating.
/end of long rant ….
18/03/2010 at 09:00 cliffski says:
“Why not look at a model where you pay ~£5 a week and you can download whatever music you want ”
And the £5 gets distributed how? Do you think it gets distributed fairly? to everyone including small developers? or just cut in half between EA and activision?
As someone who makes a living from games, let me be the first to say NO THANKYOU. A system where people actually buy stuff is MUCH fairer to everyone than that, including fairer to the gamers. Why the hell should I pau £5 a month if I spend $30 a year now on games? Why the hell should I subsidise all the game addict kids in that case? That is a terrible idea.
The current system of a free market works just FINE, if everyone actually sticks to the law. It seems people are bending over backwards to find ways to justify all digital media being free. Especially strange, because the people arguing most fiercly for it are college age kids, who are more likely than anyone else in human history to end up in careers entirely dependent on IP for income…
18/03/2010 at 09:26 TheApologist says:
@Cliffski
In fairness, not everyone here in opposing the bill is advocating that digital media should be free. I know I’m not. And I agree with you that a straightforward process of paying a chunk of money I think is reasonable for a chunk of content is the best way forward.
As a (paying) consumer who does abide by these principles, I currently don’t see a crisis in the production of content, though as I said before I respect your sense that there will be – as a developer you are far closer to this than I am.
This leaves me in an third position (i.e. not digital media should be free or subscription, and not denying a potential problem in production with the status quo) which is that I will do without the entertainment AND the government surveillance and control.
Some things are more important than fun, sadly.
18/03/2010 at 09:38 Greg Wild says:
I’m in agreement with Cliffski here. The only fair way is for a developer to be paid their just deserves.
I’m not opposed to the reasons why the bill is being put into place – anyone who relies on IP to pay their bills, and put food on the table should be protected by the law. It’s the deeply worrying implementation that should be scrutinised. Nobody should be allowed to spy on a citizen’s internet habits without the case being examined by judicial authorities.
18/03/2010 at 09:57 Mac says:
I have no problem with paying the developer what they deserve – my only observation is that the current market model is broken, and putting in place legislation will not fix it … prohibition anyone? Or as another example, the ban on driving and using a mobile phone – has this stopped people from doing it?
I suggested an alternative model which I readily admit isn’t perfect, but it does go some way to addressing the underlying issue – however, rather than debate how we can fix the problem, you say “The current system of a free market works just FINE, if everyone actually sticks to the law”. This is a strange comment, as the system obviously doesn’t work “just FINE”, as not everyone sticks to the law – so what would you propose instead?
18/03/2010 at 10:18 cliffski says:
My proposal would be to totally ignore ordinary pirates, and crack down like a thuderstorm of raging inferno on those who actualyl crack and uplaod and host stuff.
Throwing some 13 year old kid in jail for torrenting silent hunter V would be nuts, but throwing the guys who run the pirate bay, or a warez forum in a cell makes a lot of sense to me.
if someone runs a website with 1,000 subscribers, takes paypal ‘donations’ and their servers host thousands of games and they ignore content removal requests… well in circumstances like that i say ‘fuck em’ they know they are breaking the law and leeching off other peoples work, prosecute the fuck out of them;
Thats where the law should be applied, at the hardcore enablers of piracy, not the actual gamers. And I can’t see how anyone can oppose doing that, unless you actually are members of, or the owners of a piracy website, in which case, fuck you :D
18/03/2010 at 16:05 TheApologist says:
@Cliffski
That kind of thing I would get behind. I wonder if this could be done within case law + some political will and without new legislation?
18/03/2010 at 17:31 Mac says:
@Cliffski I have no problems with that approach at all, but we would need Super McBroon to save the world again and get international agreement, otherwise they would just host in a friendly country.
18/03/2010 at 09:34 Jockie says:
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2010/03/letter-to-the-ft-financial-times-amendment-120a-digital-economy-bill/
Tom Watson (and co) raises the interesting point here that such a bill could be very harmful to British online industry and do damage to our reputation as a place to do business.
18/03/2010 at 10:43 mpk says:
My MP (Peter Wishart, Perth SNP) supports the bill. I knew speaking to loony nationals was a waste of time (even though all his arguments are all very rational and well thought, and I’m sure he’s a lovely man, he’s still a loony national).
*sigh*
18/03/2010 at 11:26 Leonard Hatred says:
Such is the price you pay for socially-acceptable manskirts and a ready supply of tennants super. Retaining your right to vote should be dependent on actually writing your MP a minimum of one letter a year.
We should do a statecorp reunion in l4d2 sometime soon, i want to jump on your back and ride you hard. also in l4d.
18/03/2010 at 20:51 mpk says:
I played L4D exactly 7 (seven) times but as much as I enjoyed it, I just never seemed to be on at the right time for games. Hence I never bothered with L4D2. Also I accidentally my graphics card.
18/03/2010 at 10:48 Slim says:
Mail sent yesterday, adapted from that form thingy. My MP is Adam Afriyie who is the Shadow Minister for Innovation and Science so could be an interesting response….
Made it clear that while I have some concern about the bill itself, my main issue is the rushing through Parliament without due debate to avoid potential bone-headedness.
Got a mail back from his Parliamentary Assistant asking for a postal address so that he can send me a personal response.
My first tentative steps into matters political. How exciting.
(also my first post on here, despite lurkage from the beginning of time)
18/03/2010 at 11:11 AbyssUK says:
My MP is Sir Nick “first class” Winterton… I sent the letter.. possibly it’ll be the only letter he has received this month without any insults in it, so good chance of a decent response :)
18/03/2010 at 11:46 Jakkar says:
Good work, RPS. You persuaded me to do what I’d decided wasn’t worth it last night. I’ve no faith in politics. On the other hand, it only took a few minutes to spruce up the pre-written letter and send it off.
Never trust anyone who -wants- to don a suit and talk politics for a living. They’re surely just broken.
18/03/2010 at 11:53 Schmung says:
Just got an email from my MP asking for my postal address so that they could reply. Quite what’s wrong with my email for those purposes I do not know, but whatever.
18/03/2010 at 16:01 TeeJay says:
Because they want to add you to their local party database which the local activists use when knocking on doors before each election.
18/03/2010 at 12:10 Magic H8 Ball says:
Haha, so true.
I don’t even know why you’re resisting, you didn’t give a damn about privacy when they installed 4,200,000 CCTV cameras and now it’s suddenly a problem?
Remember: The system affects only criminals!
18/03/2010 at 13:11 Alex Bakke says:
No, it doesn’t. A post earlier stated (Para) : I share a flat with 3 other house-mates, and the internet is under my name. If anyone in the house illegally downloads something, then I will be the one responsible for it.
18/03/2010 at 12:24 Navagon says:
Done! I wrote it myself to make it look less copy pasta.
18/03/2010 at 13:04 Alex Bakke says:
A reply from Richard Benyon.
Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.
I appreciate that this particular section of the Bill has caused a great deal of concern amongst content creators and can assure you that it is something that my colleagues have been considering carefully to get right.
From his conversations with the Government, my colleague Jeremy Hunt MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, believes that it is listening to some of the concerns raised by photographers. The Government has said that it will be bringing forward a whole host of changes to this clause for the Report Stage of the Bill. My colleagues will examine these changes closely and make sure they address each of your worries below.
My Party and I are keen to move amendments that address the problem of people stripping out identifying information from a digital image. We want to clamp down on this and ensure that the Bill does not encourage such activities. We also want to see in the legislation specific requirements for a search for the rights holder and a system in place if that rights holder comes forward at a later date. In no way should this Bill actually harm content creators.
I am very hopeful that we can get this right as sorting out the current system will unlock a whole host of content that can be used for the public good. I really believe that the BBC and British Library archives for instance will be much easier to access under these proposals.
Thanks again for letting me know of your concerns. My colleagues and I will do all we can to make sure the Government takes these into account.
Yours sincerely
Richard Benyon
_________________
Thats the Conservative view, anyway.
18/03/2010 at 16:28 phlebas says:
Snap!
22/03/2010 at 15:38 Colthor says:
@Alex Bakke:
My reply from Brian Binley seemed a much more personal response, and actually covered the concerns raised – including the worry that there might be a lack of time for scrutiny.
An interesting point he made is that anybody cut off (which everyone claims is unlikely) may be able to sign up to another ISP immediately anyway. If this is the case, the punishment seems a waste of time.
18/03/2010 at 14:59 John Dixon says:
This all began a long time ago, it started with CCTV, police radar traps, phone taps, bugging devices, this is seen by the powers that be as being a natural progression towards totalitarianism. The ultimate goal of left wing and social politics, where ever you look in the world, seemingly innocent motives take on draconian guises, and we are assured that ‘for your protection’ ‘ in the name of safety’ ‘to improve our services’ reassurances that the state really cares. Total Bullshit, the state cares about one thing and one thing only and its not you!! Capitalism is the ultimate communism, in that those with the money run the world, same difference. Hound your local MP, if he/she once mentions the words, ‘I understand your concerns’ you can bet they do, not
18/03/2010 at 15:55 Theory says:
archonsod, conside yourself corrected. :)
18/03/2010 at 15:55 Theory says:
Hooray for my first reply fail!
18/03/2010 at 17:23 Dirk says:
Remember citizens, before you write to your MP, please, please write to your MP.
18/03/2010 at 18:10 Mac says:
???
18/03/2010 at 19:14 Gorgeras says:
“don’t understand your first paragraph. You seem to be agreeing with me? Being accused of or suspended for an infringement at no point prejudices a person before the appeal either.”
If you’ve been disconnected: you have been prejudiced. A punishment has been imposed without trial. Real arrests are inconvenient but are not punitive and do not imply guilt.
“Your second para assumes that there is no need for evidence. This is untrue – 4(3). The precise level of evidence required is to be set by OfCom’s code, but for the first year it must at least match that required by the courts today. It makes no sense to claim that it will regress to mere accusation afterwards.
My supposed assumption that there is no need for evidence is your own invention. My point is clearly stated: as regards the evidence this is not set out in the bill and it is just assumed that there will be a workable system coming out of this where the evidence will be reliable. That it must match what the courts require today is irrelevant: the copyright owners have to this point relied heavily on keeping it out of the courts and only choosing the very few prolific cases based on the cost:benefit of winning or losing. They have relied on peoples fear of being dragged to court and made to pay even more than what the copyright owners extort from them with threats. If it’s a choice between cutting someone’s web connection off or getting thousands of pounds out of them, they’ll take the money.
In the event that they use the courts; how can a copyright owner prove the defendant guilty? Every answer given so far has been bullshit. Unless there is something pretty frikken awesome tucked up their sleeve(in which case it will only work for as long as it’s a secret), they’re going to carry on as they are: using the threat of courts rather than the courts themselves.
18/03/2010 at 19:15 Gorgeras says:
This was NOT a reply fail. I feckin clicked reply.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
18/03/2010 at 20:21 Theory says:
OK, let’s continue here.
No, no, no. Oh dear. “Prejudice” is when the judge or jury (or whoever it is who decides your fate) is biased one way or the other. Saying that the defendant has been prejudiced makes no sense at all. Of course you’re prejudiced, you want to get off the hook!
It’s tangential given the above, but how can being imprisoned pending trial not be punitive? Is that not punishment before guilt has been proven too?
That’s how I interpret “copyright owners don’t have to prove, they just have to accuse”.
Connect to torrent > gather list of IPs. That log will later be corroborated by the ISP’s own. Pretty clear cut if you ask me.
Er, so what standard of evidence would you like to see? What is the rest of your reply even about? I’ve never said anything about how successful file sharing court cases are.
18/03/2010 at 21:21 Gorgeras says:
Nice quote-mining but I did specify the nature of the prejudice I was talking about. Being arrested is not punitive, disconnection is: there is the difference. A punishment is delivered by law without the authority of a court or trial.
I saw you use the custody canard earlier and it’s bullshit. I was burgled after christmas, the guy was caught and charged with that offence plus a string of others and it’s serious enough that it’s being referred to Crown court. But he hasn’t yet spent a single day in prison and spent one night in a police cell: *like most people charged with any crime*. He will not go to prison until found guilty of something. The bail conditions imposed on him required a court judgement.
Nothing in the Digital Economy Bill requires a court judgement until the appeal. It’s a fucking farce.
Now we’ve finally arrived at a discussion about the quality of the evidence; why do you think that’s clear cut? It’s one of the major criticisms of the bill and the ignorance of MPs and Lords in regards to using IP addresses to identify pirates. Did you miss it? But that’s pretty much the point: the copyright owners don’t care about what is true or not, who has done wrong and who hasn’t: they’ve had solicitors threaten people on the basis of this evidence anyway, refuse to admit the flaws in it even when some of those affected(documented by Which?) are obviously innocent. They wish to legitimise this shitty standard of evidence.
If you’re going to be coy about how copyright owners have threatened people, fuck you. It’s not about you convincing me or me convincing you: it’s about showing that even if you are not a shill, the only kind of people that could possibly support this bill are assholes that don’t give a shit about the harm it will cause. You don’t have to talk about the abuse in order for me to talk about it: I’m doing so precisely because you were avoiding it. Copyright owners abuse the legal framework and there is no denying this. There is no denying their almost unprecedented lobbying campaign and there is no denying they have affected the structure and intent of the bill. There is no denying that their pas and present behaviour is a good predictor of their future behaviour. Taken together their intent is for the bill to legitimise and further enable their shit-headedness.
19/03/2010 at 00:36 nickylee says:
Heh, Lindsay Roy’s my MP too. So that’s at least two mails coming his way.
19/03/2010 at 11:52 Jim says:
I sent it and got this response from my MP:
Thank you for your recent email and for letting me have your views on the Digital Economy Bill.It is not clear at this stage whether or not the Bill might be enacted before the General Election. But as I share your concerns about the possible consequences of the proposals, you can be sure that I will be doing what I can to influence the final content of the legislation.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this important issue.
20/03/2010 at 02:30 Spyglass says:
Just received a reply from my MP about the email i sent them which reads: Thank you for your email to Chris Huhne MP, this is receiving attention and a letter will be going in the post to you shortly.
Best wishes
Jo White
Will post the response from the letter.
20/03/2010 at 02:49 WilPal says:
I got an email back telling me that i had sent the email to the wrong person (Damn you 38Degrees! (Or whatever it’s called)), the guy did helpfully give me the email addresses of who i should contact though.
20/03/2010 at 13:10 Dr Snofeld says:
Got a letter back from SNP MP for Dundee East, Stewart Hosie, saying he’s in support of the bill. Funny thing is I’m all but certain he was opposed to that anti-terrorism bill a while back that would potentially have the government checking everyone’s emails. (I say potentially because it, like this, is stupid and unfeasible.) I wonder why he opposed that but is in support of this? I didn’t intend to vote SNP anyway but now I’m not going near them with a barge pole.
I can’t be alone in not seeing how this could possibly be enforced, am I? How could a government body possibly check EVERY file downloaded? That might catch “The_Final_Countdown.mp3″ or whatever but what if, say, an enterprising music pirate put an entire album in a .rar named “Holiday_Photos_Majorca_08.rar”? What of encrypted files? Feel free to butt in if I’m misunderstanding something, which I probably am.
22/03/2010 at 18:26 Laneford says:
Just got a great big detailed and personal (I hope) reply from Ed Davey (Lib Dem, Kingston & Surbiton)
Quite impressed.
24/03/2010 at 13:55 SJ says:
Another knee-jerk and poorly thought our law from this govt. Unfortunately the majority of the populous seem to stupid to realise our current government is not fit to run a piss-up in a brewery, never mind the country.
24/03/2010 at 23:25 matte_k says:
Thought some people might be interested to read my MP’s response to the letter I sent him: transcribed directly, here it is:
Thank you for your email dated 17 March 2010.
I regret to say that someone is running a mischievous campaign, which misinforms people about the progress of the Digital Economy Bill, and the progress of it through Parliament.
1. It is not the case that “the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate.”
2. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, where it received its Second Reading, after a full debate, on 2 December 2010.
3. The Bill measures which cover on line copyright infringement are Clauses 4 to 18. They were the subject of much debate in the Lords, during eight Committee sessions, and three Report stages.
4. In the House of Lords, the Bill received its Third Reading on 15 March 2010.
5. The Bill seeks to introduce a system whereby ISPs, when notified by rights holders that copyright infringement has occurred, will send a series of letters notifying the identified subscriber that an alleged infringement has taken place from their computer. There will be an industry Code, to be approved by Ofcom.
6. ISPs will be required to keep records of repeated infringements, so that it will be possible to distinguish between serial offenders and curious one-off or unintended file sharing.
7. Copyright holders can already get IP details with a Court Order. However, at present they cannot tell how many times one subscriber has committed an offence, because IP addresses are dynamic.
8. In response to concerns expressed during debates in the House of Lords that the first letter should be helpful, the Bill was amended, to require that the first letter which a subscriber will receive, must provide information regarding where to get advice to protect an Internet access service from unauthorised use.
9. In addition, the Government has suggested that the final notification should give a clear warning of likely court action, if the warning be ignored.
10. Disconnection would only be used as a last resort, and would only be applicable to serious repeat offenders (for example, those who have engaged in perhaps 50 or more incidents of copyright infringement).
11. Those threatened with disconnection would have a right of appeal against that decision, to an appeals body set up by Ofcom.
12. If an alleged offender were not satisfied with the decision of the Ofcom appeals body, then that person could make a further appeal, to a First Tier Tribunal.
13. Depending on the date of the General Election, the Digital Economy Bill will be fully scrutinised in the House of Commons. It is unlikely to have its Second Reading before 6 April 2010.
14. Of course there should be, and will be, proper protection for individuals. Correspondingly, there has to be a clear sanction for persistent infringers.
15. This country has an impressive record in making and selling creative content, and building creative businesses. They account for 6.4% of the UK economy, and about 4.0% of UK exports. The creative industries, and the jobs they provide, are central to a balanced, knowledge economy. They are one of the keys to the economic recovery which is just starting. They are likely to be a significant factor for the whole economic future of this country.
16. A big challenge which the Digital Economy poses for the creative industries is content producers’ ability to generate revenue from what they do, so that it is worthwhile investing in creation. If new ideas and products are going to be developed, then a reliable way of rewarding such creativity and investment must be found.
17. There has probably always been copyright infringement, but the threat faced today from digitally enabled on line copyright infringement is on a different scale altogether. The Government has decided to act, to protect the creative industries. Hence the Digital Economy Bill, the aims of which are broadly supported by both the other main political parties.
18. A particular concern has been Clause 17 of the Bill. That provides a limited capability to “future proof” powers in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, to deal with civil infringement of copyright on line.
19. Technology in this area moves fast. Clause 17enables a government to move quickly and flexibly, if the existing legislation is not able to provide adequate forms of redress for civil infringement of copyright which takes place on line.
20. The powers under Clause 17 are quite restricted, both by limitations in the drafting of the clause itself, and in the way in which that power can be exercised.
21. The wording of Clause 17 sets out that the power can only be used by a government:
(a) to prevent or reduce copyright infringement on line if appropriate to do so, having regard to technological developments which have occurred, or are likely to occur;
(b) to amend the copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, but only in ways which do not create or amend any criminal offences;
(c) following consultation;
(d) by means of the “affirmative resolution procedure” in both the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.
22. That is, for a government to exercise this power, there must first be a consultation, followed by a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
23. It is no surprise to me that major ISPs oppose certain aspects of the Bill, because of course the Bill would require them to play their part in lessening repeated copyright infringement, instead of simply abdicating responsibility thereby destroying jobs and creativity in the UK.
R
Rob Marris
MP for Wolverhampton South West
25/03/2010 at 03:30 Rath says:
I sent the email on the day the link was posted on the front page, and to date I have yet to receive a reply from Nia Griffith. I am in no way surprised.
08/04/2010 at 11:16 Gordon Brown says:
Congratulations, the bill has passed.
We have won.
Game Over.
08/04/2010 at 11:36 Jacques says:
My MP didn’t bother showing up. Sigh.
09/04/2010 at 19:43 Maya says:
Hi, this isn’t really completely relevant but i’ve read allot of these posts and one said a smaller party would be better and we wouldnt have these problems (or something like that) . Anyway, im not that interested in politics, I vote but i dont really follow it (mostly because i get a little bored). But my friend showed me this survey – http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ – and i found it interesting that even though the green party has so few votes they have by far the most people choosing their policies over all other parties. I know this isnt a great representation of society as only a certain person would fill out the survey (some stick by labour and conservative no matter what and wouldn’t really bother doing a survey like this). But i think it shows that maybe we should reassess these parties and if you were thinking of maybe voting for green do it, dont think about wasting the vote as maybe it will …i dunno…help.
Anyway just thought id share that with you, but try the survey…