By Jim Rossignol on April 8th, 2010 at 11:45 am.
The bill was opposed by the Liberal Democrats and some Labour MPs, but it has essentially been forced through by Labour and the Conservatives in around two hours of the final reading. Although Clause 18 – which gave the government extensive powers to block sites across the net – has been removed, it has been replaced with powers for the secretary of state for business to block “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”. That means an unelected peer, Lord Peter Mandelson, now gets final say over content on the internet, albeit mediated by the courts. Forty-two other clauses were considered in just five minutes.
If you are British, please make sure you are registered to vote in the upcoming general election. As James Graham points out in the Guardian today, only a vote for the Liberal Democrats will do anything to fix the broken political system that allowed this to happen in the first place.
08/04/2010 at 11:48 Spyglass says:
I was gonna vote for Liberal Democrats anyway.
08/04/2010 at 22:49 TeeJay says:
Some of the Lib Dems have been involved in writing this Bill: eg Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Razzall
see: “The Lib Dem assault on online liberty – a Lib Dem-backed amendment to the digital economy bill would help make the internet less free, not decrease piracy” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/10/liberal-democrats-digital-economy-bill
Lib Dems make the Digital Economy Bill even worse
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/6/lib-dems-make-digital-economy-bill-even-worse/
25 Lib Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidates sign letter asking Lib Dem Parliamentarians to think again on Digital Economy Bill
http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html
Only 16 out of 63 Lib Dem MPs actually bothered to turn up to vote and even many Lib Dem supporters have been disappointed at the half-hearted and belated opposition the party has put up.
I have had bad experiences of Lib Dems saying whatever they think you want to hear – being all things to all people – and then doing the exact opposite. There is a very good reason that despite Lib Dem manifestos a lot of progressive / liberal / left people don’t automatically support the Lib Dems and there is a reason that their support has been more or less static for such a long time now. IMO it’s because in reality a lot of them are even more two-faced and untrustworthy than the rest!
It’s only fair to actually give credit to *all* the MPs (from whatever party) who actually turned up and voted against the Bill, and stop pretending the sun shine’s out of the Lib Dems arses. It is also worth noting the that there are several other parties apart from Con / Lab / Lib Dem standing in the upcoming elections. People need to be informed about all the candidates in their area and return some decent MPs, rather than get hung up about the fake party politics bullshit that reaches its grand crescendo around election time.
09/04/2010 at 07:58 Grunt says:
Thank you, Teejay. You’ve managed to put across a point I was trying to make far more effectively than I did.
The Lib Dems are an answer to NOTHING.
09/04/2010 at 08:56 archonsod says:
Right, so they amend a clause granting Mandelson the power to arbitrarily shut down sites on a whim, and place it instead into the hands of the courts, where most grown up countries do their law enforcement.
Not seeing how that’s a bad thing myself. Particularly not seeing how it’s any worse, if anything, I’d say it’s far better.
09/04/2010 at 11:39 Beanbee says:
Lib Dems don’t whip their MPs as much as the conservatives or Labour, hence why they don’t have a whole party consensus on really anything.
P.s. 3 cheers for Tom Watson for breaking the whip for the first time in his career.
09/04/2010 at 17:24 TeeJay says:
@ archonsod: “Not seeing how that’s a bad thing myself. Particularly not seeing how it’s any worse, if anything, I’d say it’s far better”
Here’s some Lib Dems explaining in their own words: http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html and if you follow the other links on that post you can find a lot of detailed discussion.
My main point is the Lib Dem party as a whole have not simply taken a single and consistent stance against the Digital Economy Bill.
08/04/2010 at 11:49 Sobric says:
Fucksocks.
08/04/2010 at 12:26 JB says:
Seconded
08/04/2010 at 14:44 Heliosicle says:
Thirded
08/04/2010 at 11:54 HermitUK says:
What really peeves me is that Redwood, my local MP, was at the second reading and opposed the bill. Then didn’t bother to vote.
And the Lib Dems are hardly the shining champion of digital rights. They’re just as guilty in getting this passed through into law as the other two parties.
Also, list of how the MPs voted (those who turned up), if you fancy seeing what your own people did: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/32.htm#hddr_2
08/04/2010 at 11:57 Rob Lang says:
John Redwood is my MP too. I wrote him an email and a letter and he replied saying that this was the sort of rush job that could be expected from a Labour Government. But a deal was done with the Tories.
I saw an interesting tweet: 36.5% RT @dikini MP turnout for #debill vote, 61.4% voter turnout in #ge2005, MPs don’t lecture again on our democratic responsibilities
08/04/2010 at 11:58 Jim Rossignol says:
The Lib Dems did nominally oppose it. They also want to replace the House Of Lords with an elected senate. That alone gets my vote. This bill would not have got this far is the Lords had any real experience with the contemporary world, or was a genuinely independent house.
08/04/2010 at 12:13 Ghiest says:
Exactly what mine said I quote “I share your concern: I was in IT for 10 years before being elected. DS”, Desmond Swayne didn’t even bother to turn up let alone vote against it.
But unfortunately it’s pretty much a safe seat for this asshole as Commys er conservatives have held the seat for the last 90 years or something stupid.
08/04/2010 at 12:15 Sobric says:
That’s precisely why it’s been pushed through parliament now, as most MPs have buggered off to fight in their constituency. My local MP (Lib Dem) didn’t turn up either, but I can’t really blame him since my constituency is meant to be a “swing seat” for the Tories. I’m still voting for him regardless, he fights the good fight on many issues relevant to me.
08/04/2010 at 12:43 Jannakar says:
@Jim
Like the US Senate is less prone to big-business influence than Congress? Don’t make me laugh. If anything the Lords does good job to staying independent from the exactly the sort of shit which got us into this mess in the first place. However it was clear that Mandelson wanted this bill passed, so it was passed.
The upper house (in whatever form) will never be free from political or financial influence and the LibDems are smoking crack.
08/04/2010 at 12:49 Jim Rossignol says:
The US Senate is very explicitly partisan, yes. But it doesn’t have to be. Also, in the UK we can have *unelected lifetime peers*. Think about how broken that is.
No, the Lords doesn’t do a good job, it does a terrible job. Most of the Lords members didn’t even understand what this bill was about.
08/04/2010 at 12:54 battles_atlas says:
@ Jannaker
You’re right that an elected second house isn’t on its own going to solve many of the problems the political system has, but goddamnit if requiring all legislaters to be elected isn’t a fundamental issue in a ‘democratic’ system, then I don’t know what is.
I’m very relieved to see that my mp Nick Palmer voted no as he said he would.
08/04/2010 at 13:02 Kanamit says:
Just abolish the ruddy institution. Bicameral legislatures are the worst.
08/04/2010 at 13:45 Po0py says:
My bloody MP didn’t even respond to any of my letters. He’s a Lib Dem too so I would have thought he wouldn’t mind sending off an automated reply, taking the party line on the issue just to get me to shut up. Didn’t even do that which now leaves me an a predicament on who to vote for.
“This bill would not have got this far is the Lords had any real experience with the contemporary world, or was a genuinely independent house.” Jim Rossignol
Agreed. The problem is that the bill covers so many issues, from photographers copyright issues, to DAB radio issues, internet piracy and such that no one Lord could ever claim to be well informed about all the issues. As a result you have a poorly written bill simply because one Lord makes an amendment suggestion and receives very little opposition because nobody knows what the fuck he’s going on about. So the amendment just gets accepted. And I haven’t even touched on how the lobbyists have influenced the bill. But the result: A very dodgy and poorly written Bill. This is why a proper line by line scrutiny of the bill would have been the right thing to do.
08/04/2010 at 15:37 Nicolas says:
Read this techcrunch article: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/07/nsfw-hey-america-our-draconian-copyright-law-could-kick-your-draconian-copyright-laws-ass/
That is all.
08/04/2010 at 17:37 Kirian says:
WRONG! Redwood was there yesterday, spoke out against the bill and the wash-up in general and voted against it.
http://www.johnredwood.com/
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-04-06b.836.0&s=speaker%3A10499#g845.2
He’s my local MP too.
08/04/2010 at 17:54 Kirian says:
Oh, that link doesn’t work, by the way.
Not that I’m happy about any of this complete and utter fucking hogwash of a mess that’s been created. Nor did I vote for the Hon. Mr Redwood (nor would I have done if I had been living here at the time).
You can’t vote Labour because they’ve proved themselves corrupt, incompetent and against the idea of civil liberties, especially if they can profit from it. You can’t vote Tory because, no matter how good men like WIlliam Hague are, they have to toe the party line. That line appears to be ‘smarm, grease, slick’
The Lib Dems aren’t exactly innocent, and have been known to talk up a completely unworkable policy.
Oh, what’s a boy/girl to do?
08/04/2010 at 18:00 Gorgeras says:
While we’re on the subject of constitutional politics, I’ve always pointed out to people that you can not have an independent upper chamber and an elected upper chamber. The moment they become elected they become the subject of popular opinion, ‘safe seats’ and competitive party politics.
Unless there are restrictions on who can vote for them and who can stand, there’s no chance of independence. The question is, who should be a qualified voter for upper chamber seats and to sit and for how long?
08/04/2010 at 18:11 Ghiest says:
Got a reply from my MP after I sent a not so polite email
Gives me slight hope still I suppose
08/04/2010 at 19:18 Quirk says:
Hell no. If you care one whit about your civil liberties, you’d be praising the House of Lords to the skies for its record over the last few years. It’s fought the government on a whole range of matters from the 42 days detention without being charged (for British citizens) to indefinite detention without trial (for non-British citizens – the death of habeas corpus) to the ID cards fiasco. Perhaps the House of Lords didn’t have the expertise required this time round. So be it. They generally have a much higher level of expertise than the career politicians of the Commons.
We have become a shockingly illiberal state the last few years. The Lords has done a fantastic job at fighting the rot. The debates in the Lords are usually deeper and more to the point than in the Commons; that it is peopled largely by people whose life experience has been less bound up with political manoeuvring than the denizens of the Commons gives it a greater breadth of consideration. It has the fault that it tends to have older members than the Commons, with the prejudices of age that that implies; it has not always been superb at keeping up with social change, and is no better at making computer law than the lower House is. Nonetheless, to rip out the Lords as stands and replace it with a second House of Commons, full of people toeing the party line for fear of losing the whip, would be disastrously foolish. You will not get an independent upper chamber by electing its members.
Electing people to govern you is a fine thing, but without certain checks and balances in place, you get rulers who need think no legislation out in more depth than how it will appear to the regular tabloid reader. That the House of Commons is, even at this unfortunate and authoritarian stage, significantly better than that is something we can be thankful for; but the last thing it needs is a partisan upper House to wave through its whims without complaint.
08/04/2010 at 23:22 TeeJay says:
@ Kirian: “Oh, what’s a boy/girl to do?”
Some other options:
Independent Wokingham Parliamentary candidate Mark Ashwell calls for all politicians to take lie detector tests during the run-up to the election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8598427.stm
A Shinfield councillor is to stand as the first Green Party candidate for Wokingham MP in this year’s General Election: http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2068076_green_campaigner_steps_up_to_be_counted_in_general_election
Owen, Peter (Also known as Top Cat), Monster Raving Loony Party
…or someone called “Zebedee” for UKIP
09/04/2010 at 12:06 battles_atlas says:
If you want alternatives start here (though only standing in Bristol this time sadly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Manifesto
@Quirk you make a good point about independance from the political machine, but there must be a better system for deciding who gets into the Lords than the current mess of hereditary peers (!), the Church of England (!!), and tax dodgers who bankroll the party leaders (!!!).
08/04/2010 at 11:55 Chris Evans says:
Would’ve been better if they let it drop until Parliament is back in action so they could actually think about what they are doing. Bah!
Lib Dems getting my vote…in a safe Lib Dem seat!
08/04/2010 at 12:04 jon_hill987 says:
That is exactly why the did it now, it wouldn’t have passed if there was time for discussion.
08/04/2010 at 11:56 Arnulf says:
Don’t you have something like the Piratenpartei over there? In our last election I voted for them. I’m done with the socialdemocrats and their false promises.
08/04/2010 at 11:58 Rob Lang says:
Yes but they are not national, so there aren’t many people standing for them.
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
08/04/2010 at 12:02 Daniel Klein says:
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
PPs have sprung up all over Europe. Much as I love their policies, it’s a little unrealistic to expect them to really change anything any time soon. If the model of the German Green party is anything to go by, we’ll need about two decades before the pirate parties get into any coalition in power, and by then it’ll have forgotten why it was founded in the first place.
Fucking hippies, amirite.
08/04/2010 at 13:21 Riesenmaulhai says:
But big media for pirate parties means bigger parties to consider the pirate’s agenda. It might be for populistic reasons only, but you don’t ask your soldiers why they’re fighting for you if you’re close to losing the war*. At least it happened in Germany with the hardcorecapitalists, er, liberals (FDP).
* Yeah, I kinda roleplay Civ4
08/04/2010 at 11:58 jon_hill987 says:
I wonder how much it cost the film/music industry to buy this result? A feck sight more than they ever lost to piracy I bet.
08/04/2010 at 12:00 robrob says:
Just one holiday for Mandy seems to have done. Who knew lobbying was so cheap!
08/04/2010 at 11:59 robrob says:
“or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”
So any website then? I wrote to my conservative MP and he wrote back saying they were largely in support of the bill, especially the bits about blocking websites. For people interested, El Reg – the notoriously liberal online tabloid / Playmobil recreation society – has been covering the bill’s progress in satisfying detail here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Tag/mandybill
08/04/2010 at 12:00 Real Horrorshow says:
I’m not a UK resident but this is certainly unfortunate and alarming to hear. I expect this sort of thing from mainland European countries but not Britain.
I’m not familiar with the legal system there, but certainly there’s got to be some course of action to challenge this. This would end up in the court system instantaneously in the states.
08/04/2010 at 12:47 Rich says:
Maybe the European Court of Human Rights. They (theoretically) have the power to go over the heads of national governments.
08/04/2010 at 12:57 battles_atlas says:
@Real Horrorshow
Yes I’m hugely envious of you Americans with your political system unencumbered by the taint of corporate lobbying
08/04/2010 at 13:13 Alexander Norris says:
I’m unsure what sort of fantasy world you live in, because continental Europe has had a far better track record of protecting consumer rights and privacy than the UK in the last two decades.
08/04/2010 at 13:57 alseT says:
What Alexander Norris said. Your comment made me go: “What.”
08/04/2010 at 14:00 Real Horrorshow says:
@battles_atlas
Where did I say it wasn’t? Lobbying doesn’t even have anything to do with what I said. I was simply asking if this could get thrown out by some process like it could if it was in the U.S. (by being deemed unconstitutional in the supreme court). Knee-jerk sarcasm isn’t a good look.
@Alexander Norris
I wasn’t talking about “consumer rights” so much as censorship and freedom of speech. I don’t follow the politics of individual European countries on my spare time, but I get the impression recently that some countries are incredibly weak on it (Netherlands) while I always felt that the U.K. was one of the “freer” countries on the continent, like it had been indisputably the freest country on earth for a long time in the early modern period.
08/04/2010 at 14:00 Rinox says:
Add another “huh?” to that. Contrary to some propaganda, the ‘liberal’ mainland European countries are many more miles away from a Big Brother state than the UK currently is.
08/04/2010 at 14:06 Real Horrorshow says:
Well I guess that’s what I get for getting most of my info on liberty in Europe from Pat Condell videos.
08/04/2010 at 14:11 Rinox says:
:-D Ok, maybe I was being a dick and I had that coming. What you said about free speech is generally true btw – but in terms of privacy and rights of the individual citizen the UK is moving in a very spooky direction. In that context, the right to insult someone/a certain population group (which is often what the free speech laws come down to) seems rather hollow.
I hope that sounded less like a dick! :-)
08/04/2010 at 14:21 Alexander Norris says:
@Real Horrorshow
You’re insane. :P
The Netherlands are pretty much the last bastion of unrestricted free speech and individual rights unhampered by political correctness (although in recent year, the Christian right has tried to curtail this slightly). The UK has just spent a decade doing everything it can to turn into something right out of the pages of 1984. Aside from Germany’s obsession with erasing all mentions of Nazi Germany from everywhere ever and Italy being run by a man who owns more or less every major media venue in the country, continental Europe has a near-sterling record in protecting basic individual freedoms.
I’d argue we even do a far better job of it than the US is doing, what with not kowtowing to big business nearly as much.
08/04/2010 at 15:00 Banana says:
Except France then, they seem to go in the direction the UK is going which is a bit sad. They already have the “shut down internet”-stuff and they are working on some dodgy surveillance stuff. I would love to claim my country did a good job but they implemented mass surveillance on internet traffic last year.
Rest assured that everyone will be pissed like hell about this, media will write a lot about it and after a while it will die out because the government throws some promises about tax cuts or something around. That’s what happened here, instead of basic rights we are debating tax cuts on maids and cleaning.
08/04/2010 at 15:26 Alexander Norris says:
@Banana – not really. Sarkozy is trying, but he’s mostly been cock-blocked since he came to power. The Conseil Constitutionnel mutilated the part of the Hadopi law (basically our DEB) that allowed the government any sort of control over disconnection, by making it a requirement to actually convict people in front of a court before disconnection can even be considered, and even then the decision has to be subject to a further committee review if it comes back in favour of disconnection.
The stuff about banning the veil (and other ostentatious religious symbols) in public is mostly about protecting individual freedom from religious proselytism, contrary to popular opinion.
08/04/2010 at 15:32 Banana says:
The veil stuff I don’t care about, but as I see it even passing Hadopi is a failure… quite frankly. Hopefully he gets cockblocked more but I don’t know, things can always change, people can be talked into stuff etc.
Not to mention a huge chunk of the western world participates in the Acta negotiations which is bound to be a giant shit-fest as well because RIAA and their likes have joined the negotiations.
Frankly I’m not very optimistic about any country right now, they all seem to be run by aging luddites with little to no connection to their voters who think the internet is like any other communication method.
08/04/2010 at 16:06 Alexander Norris says:
@Banana – definitely agree with you. At least continental Europe isn’t nearly as afraid of political debate as the UK, though, so there’s a slimmer of hope still. :(
08/04/2010 at 12:01 Alex Bakke says:
I’m actually at the Lib Dem office right now, in Newbury, doing database stuff. We’re going to win this time.
08/04/2010 at 15:00 dartt says:
It was only when a friend of mine was discussing tactical voting that I looked up the results of the last election in Newbury and saw how close it was between the Conservative party and the Lib Dems, needless to say I was pleased to see I lived somewhere where I could vote for the party I wanted and feel that it had a chance to make a difference too.
Keep up the good work!
08/04/2010 at 16:51 Alex Bakke says:
Feel free to drop by and help out, we need all the assistance we can get. Like you said, there’s a tiny margin between Conservatives and Lib Dems, around 2000 votes I believe. One of the key reasons behind David Rendel losing in 2005 was because he was in support of the ban on hunting, and thankfully most people have forgotten about that now.
Drop me an email at bakka001@westberks.org if you want to know more.
08/04/2010 at 12:03 Radiant says:
Fuck me this is disgraceful.
ps that curves advert pop up thingy crashes my browser [firefox]
08/04/2010 at 12:04 Jim Rossignol says:
I’m fixing that at the moment.
08/04/2010 at 12:04 pignoli says:
Ugh, this is awful and a huge blow for creativity and liberty.
I’ll echo everything Jim said about the Lib Dems. They seem to be the only people even slightly aware of the realities behind these issues. My Lib Dem MP replied to my emails stating his opposition to the DEB – he and they have my vote for sure.
08/04/2010 at 20:26 Grunt says:
I’ve actually voted for the Lib Dems on several occasions – well, ok, once that I can recall – but they lost any favour, and any future votes, from me when they flatly refused to give the Scottish people a say in how they wanted their country to be run, via a referendum. “Under no circumstances” said Nicol Stephen, a position I found to be neither Liberal nor Democratic.
Anyone who thinks this party of mealy-mouthed fence-sitters will fix anything in this country has their head screwed on entirely backwards.
08/04/2010 at 12:06 Dreamhacker says:
The french got it right, just evict the fucking nobility from politics unless they are voted in by the people.
08/04/2010 at 12:08 Starky says:
Which they would be, as they have the money and contacts to do so, or more to the point have the money and influence to buy off elected MPs regardless of background.
We might strip them of titles, but it would be almost impossible (short of stripping them of wealth and freedom) to strip them of the influence they hold in our system.
08/04/2010 at 13:18 Alexander Norris says:
Today’s “nobility” is defined by how much money they have and who they know, not by largely irrelevant hereditary titles, and they are alive and healthy in the political circuit. Until political campaigning stops being about pumping money into buying ad time, the nobility isn’t going anywhere.
It hasn’t gone anywhere over in France, either. The only difference is that the French are a little more politically responsible than the British are.
08/04/2010 at 12:07 Starky says:
That is the problem with this screwed up system, no one serves as an MP (or very few do) to serve the British public, they all go into politics as a career.
So they obviously do what they can to earn money, and the money lies with corporations, either funding, or with careers after they leave politics.
So over and over the interest of the public is shafted in order to serve the greed and interests of the political lobbyists with the most wealth.
All of the parties are the same, the ones who say different are just saying so to be contrary to those who are in power – and the few, those precious few honest MPs who do care about the interest of their constituents over that of their own bank account are drowned out in a tide of backhanders, and reach-arounds.
Is it any wonder more people under 30 vote for X Factor than they do in elections.
A vote in X factor actually matters, a vote in an election is just swapping one slimy eel for another 99% of the time.
08/04/2010 at 12:09 Corporate Dog says:
Our governments must gossip with each other over coffee.*
It was recently ruled in our courts that the Federal Communications Commission doesn’t (presently)have the authority to enforce Net Neutrality; a decision which paves the way for our network providers to decide which internet traffic should be able to dominate the bandwidth.
So if your favorite gaming site doesn’t pay a premium to Comcast? You might be able to access it… slowly. Perhaps not at all, if another big gaming site decides to pay that premium, and signs some sort of exclusivity deal.
Bye, RPS. Nice knowing you.
* Or tea, I suppose. Probably a bit of a sore spot, and not one that our governments would want to dredge up when they’re chatting about how best to screw us.
08/04/2010 at 12:18 Sobric says:
“not one that our governments would want to Dredge up”
I wouldn’t mind dredging it up. I like my tea strong and it’s been brewing in the harbour for 250 odd years.
08/04/2010 at 12:29 Corporate Dog says:
Mmmmm. Earl Grey, petroleum compounds, and lobster poop.
We will have to tax you for it, of course.
08/04/2010 at 14:03 Real Horrorshow says:
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
08/04/2010 at 12:12 Pzykozis says:
Meh, I can’t really agree with any of the parties conduct with this, Lib dems supposedly opposed it yet didn’t turn out in number to vote, and of course the labour front benchers and the tories are the real ****s in this as they forced this through so quickly, atleast some of labour’s backbenchers were fighting against it.
Overall just a sad day for our democracy.
08/04/2010 at 12:23 Mike Arthur says:
The Lib Dems did oppose this but they didn’t have the numbers, even if they all turned up, to stop this going through. More Labour MPs voted against the whip than Conservatives. The blame lies squarely on the Labour and Conservatives for this.
08/04/2010 at 12:43 Malibu Stacey says:
There were 189 Ayes. Lib Dem’s only hold 63 seats in the House of Commons so even if the other 45 or so turned up & voted No it would still have passed by about 100 votes.
Labour have 341 seats, Tories have 193 so you’re fucked when they stick together even if some of them don’t bother turning up or go against the party whips.
08/04/2010 at 13:00 Colthor says:
@Pzykozis/Malibu Stacey
You can’t blame the Tories for the bill passing – only nine of them even bothered to turn up, and five of those voted against it. Blame them for being lazy, useless fuckers by all means, but they didn’t vote for it.
Only 18 of the much-praised LibDems bothered to turn up and vote against it, which shows how much they really cared.
Christ, more Labour MPs rebelled than votes from any other party! The whole thing’s a joke.
“Actually vote this time”? Unlike the people you’re electing. Unless they’re bribed/ordered to by the party whip.
08/04/2010 at 13:10 Pzykozis says:
@Myself and commenters… you never know, this reply system… is fun
Colthor I agree with you somewhat;
My main problem with LD and the tories, is simply that they just didn’t bother, they chose not to vote which doesn’t help at all, it doesn’t even show any real care one way or the other. The point is they have the chance to vote and have their opinions heard, but instead they chose the easier option of not even bothering, why should I bother to vote for someone like that?
Watson would get my vote atleast he tried to do something.
08/04/2010 at 12:12 Colthor says:
A slightly more easily readable breakdown of party stances, with a list of everyone (by party) who voted against:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-digital-economy-bill-saints-the-mps-who-voted-against-labours-internet-freedom-clampdown-debill-18757.html
(Thanks, Gap Gen!)
Seems that hardly anyone bothered to turn up and vote for it, and no fucker at all turned up to vote against it. Without a powerful bribery group to buy MPs to do our bidding we can’t really expect anything else.
08/04/2010 at 12:14 Kieron Gillen says:
Pleased to see that my MP voted Nay, as he said he would.
KG
08/04/2010 at 12:50 MrPyro says:
Lucky you: my MP voted Aye, even after replying to my e-mail stating she agreed with my concerns.
Probably wasn’t going to vote for her anyway: this just cements it.
08/04/2010 at 15:02 KindredPhantom says:
My MP didn’t even respond after 2 e-mails or even turn up to the reading.
08/04/2010 at 12:15 Paul C says:
The golden age of the internet is over, it’s all downhill from here. Sorry chaps.
08/04/2010 at 12:17 Spandex says:
Shame voting for the LDs is a wasted vote. Conservatives for the economy is ultimately the only sensible vote.
08/04/2010 at 12:23 Jim Rossignol says:
And yet insane in every conceivable way.
08/04/2010 at 12:24 Corporate Dog says:
If your conservatives are anything like our US conservatives? HA! I say.
For them, ‘fiscal responsibility’ is a buzzword that means, “Screw your social programs. We’re getting drunk, and then we’re writing up the defense budget.”
And I’m not even talking about the fringe that have taken over the modern day Republican party. That’s a whole ‘nother level of batshit crazy.
08/04/2010 at 12:25 Mike Arthur says:
How is it a wasted vote? This isn’t first-past-the-post nationally, just locally. A Lib Dem MP is someone who has voting powers to vote on those issues.
Also, if you look at what Vince Cable has been saying about the economy for the last few years and the Chancellors debate then voting for the Conservatives purely for the economy looks even more foolish.
08/04/2010 at 12:28 sonofsanta says:
Thinking any vote for a party other than the big two is a wasted vote is how we came to be stuck with two identical parties coloured red and blue in the first place. Don’t give in to the paranoia about wasted votes, if enough of us stop ourselves thinking like that and just vote Yellow we might actually get somewhere.
(Note that I would normally be blue [by upbringing] but David Cameron makes me feel nauseous, he’s so slimy. I didn’t like Tony Blair, so why would I vote for Diet Tony Blair in Blue. So I am going through this whole “wasted vote” debate internally as well)
08/04/2010 at 12:35 Radiant says:
The thing with Cameron is that the Obama makeover has to stop.
No matter how red you paint your car it will never be a fucking fire engine.
The trouble is that the vast majority of people he appeals to do not remember the 80′s and early 90′s.
LISTEN TO ME.
IT WAS HORRIFIC.
Except for the music that was aces.
08/04/2010 at 12:40 Mike Arthur says:
Consider the last election’s breakdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005
The Lib Dems don’t need as big a swing as many people would think. Hell, the voter turnout was so low that any party could win if they convince a bunch of people who didn’t vote to do so.
On a side note, looking at the breakdown of votes to seats shows why we need proportional representation; the current FPTP system just makes the Lib Dems seem more insignificant than they are.
08/04/2010 at 12:42 Biggles says:
Because as we’ve just witnessed, individual MPs have very little say, and the conviction of one barely makes any difference to the end result. The power lies with the whips and the front bench of whichever main party has the most seats. That is incredibly unlikely to be the Lib Dems any time soon.
On top of that, the Lib Dems are notorious for jumping on and off of populist bandwagons, knowing full well that they won’t have enough power to push for anything on their own and that very few people really pay enough attention to them to remember what they said a few months beforehand anyway.
08/04/2010 at 15:04 KindredPhantom says:
@Radiant
I’m sure the mine workers and steel workers remember. Being the son of a former mine worker i know how bad it was.
08/04/2010 at 15:06 dartt says:
A good link from Mike Arthur there, here is one that I found enlightening when a friend sent it to me: http://tacticalvoting.org/.
08/04/2010 at 20:13 Flimgoblin says:
If enough people decide to actually vote who don’t already it’s not necessarily a wasted vote even in a safe seat ;)
And even without requiring a large shift in voters at the very least you’re reducing the margin of whoever wins, thus making them more likely to listen to their constituents next time, and paving the way to do better in the next general election.
08/04/2010 at 23:49 TeeJay says:
@ sonofsanta: “if enough of us stop ourselves thinking like that and just vote Yellow we might actually get somewhere”
I don’t agree that people should follow blindly party-politics as more and more we can see there are good and bad MPs in all parties, including the LIb Dems.
Also it all depends on what is happening in your local election – there isn’t any ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution.
If people are concerned about this Bill specifically then they should look at the track record of the various candidates.
08/04/2010 at 12:19 mrrobsa says:
Oh man, but if I vote for LibDem, then PoliticsBot V3.2 might win. I don’t wanna be governed by an android.
(CAPTCHA: C….U….N….5, awww…)
08/04/2010 at 12:22 Dan (WR) says:
Wasn’t there a Lib Dem peer who pushed for a clause that was verbatim from the BPI? I’m still voting Lib Dem, but the House of Lords is a joke.
08/04/2010 at 12:24 sonofsanta says:
My MP didn’t even turn up. I home he comes by my door now so I can ask him why I should bother voting for him if he can’t be bothered to even turn up to work on the days they discuss the issues important to me (and yes, I wrote him a lengthy e-mail detailing my objection to this being rushed through).
Fuckers, the lot of them. I bloody hate politicians with a vehemence I can barely comprehend. How did we end up in such a shitty situation as to have the choice between corrupt, idiotic and short-sighted for our vote?
Wish we had the same power as the Swiss citizens, to repeal any new law passed by government provided you can gather sufficient signatories.
08/04/2010 at 12:26 sonofsanta says:
*hope he comes by
08/04/2010 at 12:29 Kanamit says:
As someone from an American state governed (in practice) by referendum, no, you really don’t.
08/04/2010 at 13:09 battles_atlas says:
The problem with the Swiss system is that it requires an engaged electorate, and however much we like to lambast our MPs, fact is if we the electorate all took more than a once-ever-five-years interest in politics, it might not be so god awful.
California tried the Swiss system but with our political culture of apathy, corporate influence and general igorance, and its now bankrupt after 20 years of voting for tax cuts and more spending.
08/04/2010 at 12:27 utharda says:
At this time I thin it is perhaps appropriate to quote the measured words of Public Enemy.
“Burn Hollywood Burn.”
and since we’re talking about extralegal sanctions against private citizens,
“Pulled to the curb gettin’ played like a sucker
Don’t fight the power shoot the mother farker.”
Good luck over there. Time to start threatening my “elected representatives” over here.
08/04/2010 at 12:28 Biggles says:
I would love to do a whip round and very publically buy a nice holiday for a senior front bencher from either party to change their mind on this one. With a note saying how if 20,000 letters wasn’t enough, perhaps we should have instead put in a quid each and bought influence via better established means. Would that embarrass them enough?
08/04/2010 at 12:31 ZhouYu says:
My email to my local mp (Emily Thornberry) about this was summarily ignored. So good to know the system works.
Rack up one more vote for the lib dems.
08/04/2010 at 13:00 Ogun says:
our local MP (labour) hasn’t voted on it either according to that hansard thing, probably for the same reason.
i’ll support LD rather than either of the bickering incompetents we’re supposed to choose from. the argument that you should pick between a rock and a hard place instead of trying for what might be open water is no argument at all.
08/04/2010 at 12:33 Isometric says:
That is it then, i’m voting Lib Dem. The Green Party will have to wait for my vote next time.
08/04/2010 at 12:34 Out Reach says:
I e-mailed my labor minister and he agreed with me that the bill was stupid. But he didn’t want to be a labor rebel, so he just didn’t vote on the bill :\ Which is a shame TBH.
Liberal Democrats it is I guess.
08/04/2010 at 12:36 JB says:
Looks like mine did the same, and yes it is a shame. The Lib Dems are looking better and better =\
08/04/2010 at 12:37 JB says:
Sorry, I mean she agreed it was stupid, but then didn’t vote.
08/04/2010 at 12:51 Malibu Stacey says:
That’s understandable since there’s an election next month.
You’ll probably find all the Labour MP’s who voted No are either in safe seats or are expected to lose their seat in the coming election. Unfortunately those who need party support to fight for their consituency in the election would either vote yes to appease the party whips or abstain as this chap did.
08/04/2010 at 12:34 Malibu Stacey says:
I can only hope the Scottish parliament do something sensible like opt out of this ridiculous nonsense.
Goes to show how pointless it is voting for Labour or the Conservatives. You get shafted either way, only difference is the colour of the shaft used.
08/04/2010 at 12:41 Skusey says:
Still not old enough to vote, but I’m crossing my fingers for Lib Dems.
08/04/2010 at 12:43 Ygtdf says:
“The french got it right, just evict the fucking nobility from politics unless they are voted in by the people.”
Look what good that did to us, last year we got a similar bill as this one.
08/04/2010 at 12:54 Malibu Stacey says:
Can’t complain when you vote a bunch of racists into power tbh.
08/04/2010 at 12:47 Lambchops says:
There is an extent to which I understand why people who opposed the bill didn’t turn up. They didn’t have much of a chance of stopping it – with an election coming up they’ve probably got other things they can do with their time (election campaigning) than sit through what for them will be a somewhat forgone conclusion. My MP (Lib Dem) responded to my letter basically saying if the Government chose to rush the bill through there was nothing that could be done to stop them (and by saying the PM had too much power a none too subtle hint to vote for the Lib Dems and their policies of electoral reform!) so there’s little suprise that he didn’t turn up to the debate (and to be fair to him he did express his concerns in writing about the rushed nature of the bill).
It’s the rush that bothers me slightly more than the content (indeed the whole “wash up” procedure seems kind of ludicrous – a week of half baked compromises and political horse trading which seems to show only limited proper consideration of the issues at hand). I have to say that ultimately although the DEB is an issue for me there are other more important considerations in who my vote is going to. As I’ve got centre left political sympathies anyway of the main parties I’m inclined towards the Lib Dems anyway and after Vince Cable’s strong performance in the chancellor’s debate that inclination has strengthened (despite them having some rather pointless seeming policies – new railways? Really?).
08/04/2010 at 12:48 fizz144 says:
Come on stop pretending that anyone can actually make any difference. The lib dems will probably cock everything up even more.
08/04/2010 at 13:05 Malibu Stacey says:
People said that about the SNP before the last Scottish Parliament Election in 2007. They’ve done a pretty damn good job so far. I’ve never voted for them but am very likely to in all the forthcoming elections if they have a better chance of winning the constituency than the Liberal Democrats.
08/04/2010 at 13:13 battles_atlas says:
@fizz144
Congratulations, you’re why everything is broke. Give yourself a pat on the back for your defeatism, then go back to lying down.
08/04/2010 at 13:26 fizz144 says:
@battles_atlas
“Everythings broke” is a stupid statement, the country still functions ok and the sooner you accept that people are flawed and nothing will ever be perfect the sooner you’ll be able to relax and pat yourself on the back like me (and blaze chron all day)
08/04/2010 at 13:29 Lambchops says:
@ MalibuStacey
I agree, the SNP have proven themselves to be relatively competent, although like all parties in power they have dropped a few clangers.
It’s a shame that their main policy is independence as I actually agree with them on many other things (their somewhat naive opposition to nuclear power being a notable exception). Still I can’t bring myself to vote for them as I just don’t think independence is a great idea.
08/04/2010 at 14:46 somnolentsurfer says:
@MalibuStacey
At the last election, the SNP’s policies on nukes and stuff left me wishing I could vote for them here in Yorkshire. Watching the second reading debate the other day though, Pete Wishart did a pretty comprehensive job of putting me off them.
08/04/2010 at 15:35 Malibu Stacey says:
The way I understand it the SNP wouldn’t just announce independence, they would call a referendum on it. I don’t particularly care for it myself but I have been very impressed by the policies they’ve been able to put into practice so far. I’ll be encouraging everyone I know to tactially vote for either the Lib Dems or SNP in this election where possible.
09/04/2010 at 00:22 Jimbo says:
To be fair, the SNP are in a pretty enviable position right now – they can just claim anything good is down to them and anything bad is Westminster’s fault. Being in charge when the buck really does stop with you is a totally different ball game.
I suspect Scotland would have been completely fucked had they been independent when the banks needed ‘rescuing’, and I think that will have had an impact on the outcome of a referendum on independence. I’m a Unionist (and English), but if you’re going then just have the referendum and go already, stop banging on about it on my dime.
09/04/2010 at 09:21 archonsod says:
We’d be shafted anyway, just compare the contribution Scotland makes to Britain’s GDP with that of England. Salmond is wanting to sneak independence in via the backdoor by offering a referendum with two ‘no’ answers to try and split the opposition vote.
Although I wouldn’t agree the SNP have done a particularly good job thus far, beyond wasting a large amount of money on pet projects they seem to have been content to sit back and blame everything on Westminister.
I might vote Lib Dem. I might vote via the shotgun. Haven’t quite decided yet.
09/04/2010 at 12:23 battles_atlas says:
@Fizz144: “Everythings broke” is a stupid statement, the country still functions ok and the sooner you accept that people are flawed and nothing will ever be perfect the sooner you’ll be able to relax and pat yourself on the back like me (and blaze chron all day)
It is a stupid statement, but less stupid than “stop pretending that anyone can actually make any difference”. That’s certifiably stupid.
Besides, I have higer aspirations for humanity than ‘functioning ok’, especially if by ‘ok’ you mean a country in which the population relies on prescription drugs or ‘self medication’ to get by. Shit is fucked. Fact. Your apathy depresses me, now I need a bifter.
08/04/2010 at 12:48 Martin Coxall says:
“only a vote for the Liberal Democrats will do anything to fix the broken political system that allowed this to happen in the first place.”
What THE FUCK, Jim? Lib Dem peers, MPs and whips supported the bill all the way through. If you’re going to lie about politics, at least do it convincingly. And exactly how would a vote for the Lib Dems stop washups from happening in the future? Lib Dem whips participate in the washup with all the other parties.
Final point: your comment is illegal and violates the Representation of the People Act. You (or RPS) are technically committing an election offence.
08/04/2010 at 12:55 Mike Arthur says:
Er, no they didn’t support it all through, the Lib Dems voted against. The Conservatives and Labour voted for.
The Lib Dems propose serious electoral reform such as introducing proportional representation, something which would stop the winning party from strong-arming stuff like this into law.
Saying something you didn’t agree with isn’t a lie.
Perhaps you should investigate the vote breakdown:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-digital-economy-bill-saints-the-mps-who-voted-against-labours-internet-freedom-clampdown-debill-18757.html
08/04/2010 at 12:57 Jim Rossignol says:
Martin: the Lib Dems are the only major party that actually wants significant constitutional reform. If the Lords had actually been able to scrutinise this bill coherently it might not have got this far.
08/04/2010 at 13:08 Martin Coxall says:
The Liberal Democrats wish to gerrymander the system to their own advantage. They are craven, deceitful fucks with no beliefs, that will say anything to anyone to get elected.
Their proposals for “reform” are almost all woefully ill-thought-out and stupid ideas, that fail to see the wood for the trees, and will create a situation of permanent legislative gridlock held hostage by a small Lib Dem rump.
Your naivety and dishonesty on this point is astonishing.
08/04/2010 at 13:18 Mike Arthur says:
People who disagree with you aren’t naive, they just disagree.
Proportional representation works in plenty of other countries and is being used (in a form) in the Scottish Parliament too. To say they’ll say whatever it takes to get elected couldn’t be any more claimed of the Lib Dems than the Conservatives or Labour. What matters it their actual portfolio and decisions on key points, none of which you’ve actually engaged with. Parties are allowed to change their mind, they’d be stupid to hang on to the same decision forever just because they once thought that.
The other reason the Lib Dems change their minds often is their portfolio is partly determined by a vote between members of the party, something that the Conservatives and Labour do not do.
08/04/2010 at 13:23 Jim Rossignol says:
Right, so we shouldn’t vote for anyone in case they don’t match up our gilded ideals, and there’s nothing we can do about making the world better anyway, because they’re all as bad as each other. Really Martin, it’s you who is being naive.
08/04/2010 at 14:12 Alex Bakke says:
Martin I agree, only the Conservatives are completely lie-free!!!!
08/04/2010 at 14:21 Alex Bakke says:
Also, through my knowledge gained from volunteering at a party office and knowledge through A-Level Politics, RPS only commits an offense if they encourage people to vote for the Lib Dems in a particular constituency; showing support for the entire party is not illegal.
Could be wrong.
08/04/2010 at 14:50 Gwyn says:
Jim, the Lords can debate it as much as it likes, and suggest amendments too.
Except there’s no time for the Commons to debate any amendments. There’s a reason people are saying Labour have ‘forced’ it through – there’s no way for the Lords to say anything, informed or otherwise, without blocking the legislation and causing a democratic crisis.
08/04/2010 at 17:20 DXN says:
@Martin Coxall/Alex Bakke:
Uh, what exactly is illegal here and how? I’m having trouble finding a summary of that act that gives me an idea of why Jim’s comments would be non-kosher.
Also Martin, your tone does nothing to bolster your credibility, and I don’t find anything substantial in your arguments but FUD.
08/04/2010 at 18:12 Jim Rossignol says:
The press is obliged to be neutral during election periods.
08/04/2010 at 18:17 jsutcliffe says:
@Jim
This is true, but is RPS “press?” I wonder how that is defined.
08/04/2010 at 19:47 Alexander Norris says:
@Jim – since when is someone’s private blog about video game “the press;” or have arguably personal blogs finally been redefined as such when I wasn’t looking? (Honest question.)
08/04/2010 at 20:05 Alex Bakke says:
@DXN: I was trying to be sarcastic with the first comment.
The second might have been poorly worded, but what I meant was that as RPS are not supporting a single MP, and rather showing support for the party itself, I do not believe that they are doing anything illegal per se. If they were, then the Sun would be subject to criminal charges as well, and so on.
09/04/2010 at 02:39 TeeJay says:
“Final point: your comment is illegal and violates the Representation of the People Act. You (or RPS) are technically committing an election offence.”
Rubbish.
+++ Broadcasters +++
Media Handbook, UK Parliamentary General Election in Great Britain (The Electoral Commission)
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/88034/UKPGE-Media-Handbook-GB-Final-Web.pdf
Q. What are the rules on political impartiality for broadcasters and programme makers? A. Political impartiality in broadcasts is covered by the editorial guidelines or code relevant to that particular broadcaster.
The BBC’s editorial guidelines on broadcasting during an election can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/politics/broadcastingdur.shtml. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code can be found at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/elections/
+++ Print publications which have signed up to the PCC code +++
The Press Complaints Commission enforces a code of practice for the UK newspaper and magazine industry, covering accuracy, discrimination and intrusion, amongst other things. Complaints can … be made about online versions of newspapers and magazines which already subscribe to the PCC code.
Q. Can a newspaper publish articles which are biased in favour of one political party over another?
A. This is a question that is raised quite often, particularly around election times. Press regulation differs from broadcast regulation in that the Code of Practice upheld by the PCC does allow newspapers and magazines to be partisan generally, including in their coverage of election-related material. Further, the Commission considers the selection and presentation of material for publication to be a matter of discretion for individual editors – provided, of course, that the Code of Practice has not otherwise been breached.
source:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs.html#faq2_18
(and RPS isn’t a print publication anyway)
everybody +++++++++++++++++++++++
It is illegal to make a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate in order to affect the return of a candidate at an election. It is a defence to show reasonable grounds for believing that the statement was true.
08/04/2010 at 12:52 Greg Wild says:
I was already going to be voting Lib Dem – maybe Greens – anyway.
Though there’s no party advocating my favoured idea – a Lot Chosen (like Juries) House of Citizens [Lords] sadly.
08/04/2010 at 12:52 Phil says:
The Lib Dem’s performance on this actually pushed me the other way – I’ve voted LD the past two general elections and shan’t this time.
Only one of their MPs managed to show up for the debate on Tuesday, and not even a quarter of them voted against yesterday, that’s pitiful. Tom Watson (my new hero) did more on his own than the entire Lib Dem party to oppose this bill.
08/04/2010 at 13:01 Mike Arthur says:
A higher proportion of Lib Dems voted against this than any other party.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-digital-economy-bill-saints-the-mps-who-voted-against-labours-internet-freedom-clampdown-debill-18757.html
Lets see who turned up and voted:
Lib Dem: 16/62 MPs
Con: 9/198 MPs
Lab: 218/356 MPs
So Labour had by far the highest turnout but also the vast majority voted for the bill. I agree the Lib Dems didn’t do as well as they could have on this bill, more should have shown up, but even if they all did, they couldn’t have blocked this. Instead, many of them are trying to campaign and actually get more power in the next election and you can blame Labour for that shitty timing.
08/04/2010 at 13:10 Martin Coxall says:
75% of Lib Dem MPs and 100% of Lib Dem peers supported the bill.
This is typical of the Lib Dem tendency to say different things to different people. For Jim to say the Lib Dems opposed the bill is a LIE. An outright, obvious Lib Dem lie of the kind they make so frequently and often nobody even bats an eyelid.
08/04/2010 at 13:15 Mike Arthur says:
Martin: Want to show some actual sources (as I have done) for your numbers? I assume you are talking about something prior to the final vote. Various Lib Dems have said they would support parts of the bill, with amendments. What matters is the actual aye/nay vote about it being into law, which all members voted against. There was a lot more in this bill that just the anti-piracy stuff.
09/04/2010 at 03:01 TeeJay says:
@ Martin Coxall
First you claim that RPS is breaking the law (utter bollocks).
Now you claim that that 75% of Lib Dem MPs “supported” the bill, when in reality not a single Lib Dem MP voted for it. They simply were not there and didn’t vote.
08/04/2010 at 12:54 Radiant says:
Can we talk about Peter Mandelson?
Resigned as an MP TWICE due to corruption and then there is this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/may/19/bilderberg-skelton-greece
Seriously how fucked are we that we don’t have any real checks and balances for our Government?
08/04/2010 at 13:13 Flimgoblin says:
It’s OK, they’ve replaced those with cheques and balances ;)
08/04/2010 at 13:26 battles_atlas says:
ZING
08/04/2010 at 14:01 Radiant says:
lol I hear the veal is good.
08/04/2010 at 12:55 Calabi says:
Great example of how worthless the governments/political system is.
Its going to be funny to see how this plays out, I’m betting it will have proved to be waste of time, doesnt have any effect except annoy a few poor people, possibly stunt UK broadband/technology growth a bit, and is written off in a couple of years.
08/04/2010 at 13:15 Nullh says:
Mine wrote me a nice non-form letter back after my second email saying he was opposed to it and agreed it needed discussion, then didn’t bother to show for the reading.
I am not best pleased.
08/04/2010 at 13:20 Donkeyfumbler says:
Lib-dems already had my vote even before this, even though they were way behind labour or conservatives at the last election in my constituency so mine will doubtless be an invisible vote in terms of the impact it will have.
Ironic thing is that mine is a marginal, in that labour only had a 3% lead last time, so if I were to vote for one or other of them it might make a difference, at least to them. Whats the point though when it’s a choice between greedy fuckstick A and pocket-lining fuckstick B though?
It fucks me off no end to know that my views, and the views of millions of people in this country will literally be ignored at the general election because of the ridiculous first past the post system we have.
You have to tell yourself that voting lib-dem won’t be wasted though – the more of us that do, the closer they can get to being a realistic third choice in all constituencies and then next time those people who would have voted for them if they had a chance, but instead vote for the least bad one between labour and the conservatives instead to keep the other one out, might just actually vote lib-dem after all.
Also, if we can get a hung parliament then the lib-dems can push though electoral reform as their price for supporting whoever.
Then maybe we can stop shitty, corporate-purchased crap like the DEB from going through.
08/04/2010 at 13:22 Tei says:
corporations@internets$ apt-get remove freedom
E: Unable to lock the administration directory (/var/lib/democracy/), are you the people?
corporations@internets$ su politicians
politicians@internets$ sudo apt-get remove freedom
Reading package list.
Modern Culture, Technology Leader and Peace depends on freedom.
Do you want to remove these too (y/N)?[]
08/04/2010 at 13:25 Flobulon says:
Gotta love that Tei.
08/04/2010 at 13:28 battles_atlas says:
This seems relevant: a piece on the IT-Industrial Complex
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18490
08/04/2010 at 13:34 Andy says:
I’d be interested to know how they were planning on enforcing this if/when it goes into law (This isn’t the final phase by the way, it still needs to be okayed in the house of lords before it becomes law). I can only really imagine it being done at the ISP level and even then only by blocking traffic directly from the list of sites.
Unless they are planning on an expensive (and impressive) ‘great firewall’ similar to that in China or deep packet scanning at an ungodly level then we’re going to see a lot of proxy services making a lot of money in the near future.
08/04/2010 at 17:06 Eight Rooks says:
But presumably if the bill is applied as strictly as you all claim it will be, then every proxy service will instantly be banned because the majority of their users will supposedly be people trying to circumvent legal restrictions to break copyright.
08/04/2010 at 13:39 Fatrat says:
Grr the Labour MP in my area voted for aye, goddamned asshole. I can’t wait to see those tossers out of power, i really hope it happens. And yes i’m voting.
08/04/2010 at 13:42 AbyssUK says:
right that’s it I’ve had enough of this country, time to find another home. Hopefully many other technically/scientifically minded people will do the same and send Britain back into the dark ages.
But where to go…. now Britain has allowed such a bunch of stupid laws other countries will surely follow… maybe Germany or Sweden ?
08/04/2010 at 13:46 KikiJiki says:
Personally I’ll be heading for a scandanavian country as soon as I have everything I need sorted (language, job, home) to emigrate.
I’m fed up of contributing economically to this country, and I BUY my music unlike most of my peers, to just get bent over the table and violated by our broken political system.
The proposed NI hike from Labour doesn’t sit well with me either as I’m sure the figurative you can imagine.
08/04/2010 at 13:59 Wulf says:
Scandinavia is one of the best places in the World. Both Sweden and Norway are very open-minded, but Norway has the upper hand when it comes to very lefty laws. To be honest, Scandinavia is where I would go, if I could. I can’t really afford that kind of move at the moment, too many considerations in my life and I have to be realistic, so I’m chained to the UK.
But if only…
08/04/2010 at 14:20 Lambchops says:
@ Abyss
There are more important considerations in terms of science and technology than the DEB. Funding for science being the most obvious. Overall under Labour science funding has gone up above inflation. Due to the economic situation all the major parties are in agreement that this wont be able to continue – with only the Lib Dem spokesman saying that funding will be maintained and the other two refusing to rule out cuts (though Labour effectively protecting science, technology engineering and medicine from the cuts to university funding suggests they will try to protect science funding).
Labour have clearly damaged their reputation with scientists with the recent debacles over their treatment of the academics involved in drug classification and their brutal cuts to fudning in certain areas (astronomy seems to have been hit unfairly hard – as much as I don’t personally like it as a subject it has been a big part of many major tehnological advances and seems to have been very shoddily treated). This sort of action again pushes me towards voting Lib Dem (as far as I’m aware the Tories have a history of cutting funding).
08/04/2010 at 16:36 pedant says:
@abyssUK
Don’t get your hopes up.
Sweden:
- Recently decided to privatize hunting for pirates, now your friendly record label can sue you in civil court, up to you to prove innocense there.
- The SE equivalent of GCHQ recently got permission to tap the entire Swedish internet, currently provisions are being made for all departments to request data/analysis from this
- Unofficial blacklists are maintained by ISPs for banned sites, meant to contain child porn but not all have done. No legal process exists to get off this list.
Denmark:
- Already cuts of sites from the net.
- Horrible broadband compared to Sweden and a strong ISPI/similar lobby.
Norway:
- Swedes call it the last Soviet state. Nuff said. Also Norwegians come to Sweden for cheap alcohol, it really is that bad. Nice seafood though.
And anyone who thinks taxes are bad in the UK/wherever is in for a bit of surprise. But don’t take my word for it, read here http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showforum=2 for what bitter Anglo-Saxon expats in Sweden say. (I don’t agree with them but still, fun)
08/04/2010 at 13:48 tiktaalik says:
Oh good, I do love political debates on the internet :/
I have to say I don’t think the Lib Dems were any better than the other parties on this though – if they actually cared they’d've turned up to vote.
08/04/2010 at 13:58 Smurfy says:
If you watch the video, you can see quite a few of them did turn up and actually shouted no action movie style. “All those in favour” “Aye” “All those opposed” “NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”
08/04/2010 at 14:41 Mike Arthur says:
A higher proportion of Lib Dems turned up to vote than any other party voting against the bill.
08/04/2010 at 13:54 fizz144 says:
I think the best bet is to sing that song from that Crusha milkshake advert over and over again
08/04/2010 at 13:55 Wulf says:
Sigh.
Witless fucks.
I was going to vote for the Liberal Democrats, too. This has just cemented it, really.
So, anyone want to vote how many lives will be ruined by false positives and idiots fucking around?
Drunk Moron with a Grudge: Yeah, I think my neighbour’s selling pirated copies of things.
This is going to be fun. So very fun.
It also really cements what the political sites have been saying around the Internet for the longest time, now, too: Ever since Labour became New Labour they’ve had a hard time differentiating themselves from the Tories because they’re almost the same damn party with nigh on the same policies, therefore a vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories, and vice versa, as there is nothing between them. New Labour isn’t Labour, that’s a good thing to keep in mind.
Our only hope now is that with Lib Dems in power and evidence that this is ruining the lives of innocent people, this tripe can be overturned.
08/04/2010 at 13:56 Wulf says:
(By ‘witless fucks’, I meant New Labour and the Tories, no one else. They seem to have no idea how many innocent lives this will undoubtedly ruin with false positives.)
08/04/2010 at 13:57 James says:
@Jim
While I agree that Martin seems to have a somewhat defeatist attitude, I think there is a point to be made about the systemic problems with almost all “western-style” democracies.
As this applies to voting or not voting, I can’t see that either one will be very meaningful until these systems start to hold their members accountable (to some predetermined standards relevant to their office) AFTER they have taken that office. These systems are currently set up in a way that undermines the whole campaign process, by making claims and promises of candidates, for all practical purposes, inconsequential after they are elected.
It is a difficult issue to correct for a variety of reasons, but given that there are examples in the world where this is not the case I would suggest that this is the type of issue that should be addressed first if anything is to actually change.
Anyway, I like to see the political stuff here once in awhile. I might humbly suggest that you occasionally take the opportunity to advocate for something proactively (I know you’re not a political blog, but as this article shows it can sometimes be relevant) instead on reporting on troublesome stories as they develop. Apologies if I’m forgetting/missing something.
In solidarity,
Random American Guy
08/04/2010 at 14:02 KikiJiki says:
While i can understand your sentiments, I really don’t think politics has a place on a PC Gaming blog unless it specifically relates to PC Gaming/Gamers (and I use that loosely because almost anything can/will/does affect us).
If my experiences of Internet debate are anything to go by, there are three things you never discuss online if you want to stay sane:
Politics
Religion
Sexuality
08/04/2010 at 14:10 James says:
@KIKI
Well, personally I don’t believe in “a place for everything, and everything in its place”. Real life is always a mix, as I think this article somewhat demonstrates. I think the number of comments demonstrates a general willingness of the readers to participate.
As for those three subjects, I’d argue that we need to have a lot of discussion on those topics because they’re important and we should be able to discuss anything sanely.
08/04/2010 at 16:09 Ian says:
@ James: But they themselves specify this as a PC gaming blog, rather than a blog that happens to feature a lot of stuff on PC gaming. I have no issue when it’s relevant, but I don’t come here in the hope that the Hivemind are going to start getting up on their political soapbox.
As regards those three topics, in my experience it’s hardly worth discussing politics or religion in real life. Too often it just involves people shouting their own opinion repeatedly.
“Well I think A!”
“I see your point, but I think B.”
“Hmm, interesting. I think A.”
“I think B, I’m afraid.”
“A.”
“B.”
And then somebody calls somebody a nazi.
08/04/2010 at 16:55 James says:
I think it’s pretty clear from what I wrote that I’m speaking of a political topic that has relevance. I know what RPS is, I’m not suggesting they do anything significantly different than they presently do (see this article).
I understand what you’re saying, but discussion and argument are two different things, and I don’t want the later. Whether or not it’s possible to have a discussion about these things without some element of conflict is another topic, but I don’t believe branding them taboo and not worth the effort helps anyone at all.
Look at how pervasive the idea is that these subjects are useless/impossible to discuss productively. That’s why I think we should all make SOME effort to do just that. That’s all, I’m not advocating that this site changes its whole format to do so.
08/04/2010 at 13:59 Smurfy says:
The House of Lords isn’t going to be unelected for long. Depending on the outcome of the election it’s going to be replaced with either a fully elected or a largely elected Senate.
08/04/2010 at 14:53 Gwyn says:
Let’s just pray the Lib Dems don’t get a majority, then.
08/04/2010 at 13:59 kadayi says:
If the lib dems had any sense they’d campaign on this using Lord Mandelson as Internet Big Brother (which he effectively now is). I think if more of the general public were made aware of how Labour & the Conservatives clubbed together on this and effectively opened up the UK internet to (political) censorship they might not take to kindly to it (Facebook group anyone?)
Personally was planning on voting Lib Dem anyhows, as the thought of the conservatives getting and dismantling the BBC at the behest Rupert Murdoch and his cronies worries me greatly, but even more reason now.
08/04/2010 at 14:01 Wulf says:
Agreed.
09/04/2010 at 12:29 Cunzy1 1 says:
I’m a survivalist and a realist. My advise is to just download all the filth from deviant art now and then don’t vote for anyone.
08/04/2010 at 14:02 Benjamin says:
Just wanted to say I’m glad RPS picked up on this. Thank you for mentioning it when others have glossed over it.
08/04/2010 at 14:04 Wulf says:
What gets me about this whole fucked up business is that I don’t pirate, but… what if someone tips them off that I do and they stop by and find my DVDs with GoG.com backups? How exactly do these blasted halfwits actually tell the difference between digital downloads and pirated games??
The stupidity of this is so painful that it feels like it’s turning my brain inside out, I’ve seen our Gov’t do some amazingly idiotic things in my life, I really have, I’ve seen the parties run this country into the ground, I’ve seen them do some things which I have detested for how corrupt and unethical they are, but this really takes the cake. It’s going to be fun living in fear because of this because I have stuff which isn’t pirated but looks like it is.
Yay.
08/04/2010 at 14:06 KikiJiki says:
Echoes of the Terrorism Act really. Another law passed with little scrutiny, little understanding and massive loopholes gleefully exploited by local government.
08/04/2010 at 14:06 mandrill says:
By all means register to vote, but under no circumstances should you actually vote.
The UK gov’t is corrupt. We’ve had enough evidence of this in the past few months to prove that beyond doubt. I’m not saying that every individual MP is taking backhanders, but that the system is inherently broken and unrepresentative at a fundamental level. This bill is simply the tip of the iceberg, under the surface is a whole world of patronage and graft which looks after the interests of the parties’ big sponsors and friends.
The Digital Economy Bill has shown that our MPs will not listen and are not prepared for the new world that the increasing connectivity of its citizens ushers in. They live in the past, just as those companies and publishers who lobbied for this bill do. They are unwilling to embrace the monumental changes that our technology is bringing about and try to keep the status quo when everything about it simply will not work in this new world.
By voting you give your tacit approval for the gov’t to do whatever it likes in your name, even if you don’t vote for the party in power. The basis of any government is that it only governs with the permission of the governed. By not particiapating you withdraw that permission.
The current government has no mandate. The prime minister was elected by an elite (the labour party) and not chosen by the people in a general election as he should have been. In the last general election they gained power through the votes of a minority of the UK population (due to low turnout).
If there is a general election and no-one turns out to vote, they will no longer be able to make the false claim that we live in a democracy (they can’t really make that claim now, but even lower turnout would make it obvious)
We stand on the edge of a precipice, on one side a plunge into tyranny, on the other a long hard climb to freedom. That climb will be easier if we dump the dead weight of our government over the cliff.
08/04/2010 at 14:28 Ffitz says:
Mandrill, with the greatest of respect, that’s fucking dumb.
Register to vote, AND VOTE. Just not for one of the big two parties. It’s shit like this that means that governments get elected on shamefully small turnouts, and then proceed to crow about how they’ve got a “mandate from the people”.
By not voting, all you’re doing is contributing to that. We’re not going to have some sort of revolution in this country. The only way we have to effect change is with the tools at our disposal (and here’s a clue, they don’t include V For Vendetta masks).
If you don’t vote, you have no right to get angry at what’s going on in this country. I’ll repeat that, because it’s important. If you don’t vote, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to bitch and whine and complain about everything that’s wrong.
If you vote, you’re involved in the process. You have the right to disagree with those who voted differently to you. You have the right to argue with them, and try to make them see your point of view, even to change their minds about things.
You could even go further than that, and join, or form, a political movement that fits your beliefs. Campaign, influence, fund raise, be engaged.
But don’t, DON’T, believe that apathy, cynicism and inaction will ever solve a single problem, because they won’t. You’ll just be bitter and spiteful.
So vote. For the Lib Dems, the Greens, even the fucking BNP if that’s what you believe, but DO something, rather than sitting on your arse expecting some magic political fairy to come along and make it all better.
Yeah, politics is bent, many politicians are in it for themselves and the two main parties differ only in the colour of their rosettes, blah blah blah. Find someone else to vote for, and get to work trying to convince other people to vote for them too.
But don’t come round here complaining that “it’s all shit” if you don’t fucking vote.
08/04/2010 at 14:39 Wulf says:
I want to vote for the Greens. It’s my honest belief, knowing how left they are that one good mail would have their Prime Minister turning this horrid thing over on its head. I really do believe that. I know it in fact because I know they’ve campaigned about the same things before, they’re very clued in, unlike almost every other party. I really wish they could get in, but they don’t have a chance, do they?
I’m likely going to be voting for the Lib Dems, since they have a chance, but my ideal party is the Greens. I’d love to see them in Gov’t, because they’re probably the least corrupt party we have, and I say this from the personal experiences I’ve had with them. Bless ‘em. I wish they could get in.
08/04/2010 at 14:44 Mike Arthur says:
I’m still going to vote, regardless, to that’s your plan screwed.
If you want to make a difference, get off your arse and campaign about these issues and run for parliament yourself.
Opting out of politics does not make any statement at all, it means your voice is completely silent.
08/04/2010 at 15:15 mandrill says:
Are you all blind? Can’t you see that by voting you give them the right to dictate how you live your life? Your vote is absolutley worthless, it means bugger all. It doesn’t matter who you vote for its always the people with the deepest pockets that are going to be listened to.
You’re sheep, all of you. Voting is a waste of time and effort for absolutely nothing in return but a life of servitude to the parasites in Westminster. You’re brought up to belive that voting matters, that it actually makes a difference, because thats what they want you to believe. The truth is that voting doesn’t matter, your voice will never be heard, because the ears of the governement are plugged with banknotes provided by their corporate sponsors.
A protest vote for a marginal party is even worse than not voting at all. not only does it not make a difference, it cements your approval of the government that does get in, becaus they can say “look you voted, you believe that the system works, This is a democracy, sorry your party lost but now you have to do as you are told.”
The system is broken. The system is corrupt. The system wants control over every aspect of your life.
Break it. Break the laws you don’t agree with, uphold the laws you do. By all means tell the MP, that you didn’t vote for, what you think of them, but don’t expect them to listen.
You think you live in a free society? You’re blind and deluded.
08/04/2010 at 15:16 jsutcliffe says:
I’m really on the fence about whether to vote, for two reasons: 1) I’m registered to vote in a constituency I won’t be living in shortly after the election, and I don’t think it’s proper that I have a say in who represents that constituency. 2) Both the constituency I’m registered in and the constituency I’m planning to live in are very safe Labour seats. Until we have proportional representation (even a mixed member system like the Scots have would satisfy) it is hard to believe that my vote counts.
As far as I’m concerned, two things need to happen for electoral reform:
1) Drop FPTP and get proportional representation going
2) (wishful thinking) Make it mandatory to vote in all elections (i.e. local and national), with the choice of a ‘none of the above’ candidate.
08/04/2010 at 15:21 HermitUK says:
Actually if you’re looking to make some sort of statement you’re better off going along and spoiling your ballot paper – Spoilt ballots are recorded as such, and it’s certainly more of a protest than simply not voting (by not voting, your “protest” will be seen as nothing more than voter apathy).
08/04/2010 at 15:22 somnolentsurfer says:
Voting is expressly our only way of indicating our disapproval of the the government. Yeah, it’s a shame that our electoral system is bollocks and most votes are meaningless, but the only way to get reform is to vote for someone who’ll actually push it through.
I was very surprised to see that http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ recommended I vote Labour on democracy issues, until I remembered they promised electoral reform in ’97 and it still hasn’t happened. I couldn’t support the Lib Dems on that, as they’re still proposing PR rather than ATV, which would strengthen the party system not weaken it. I think all the whipped morons rolling in from the pub after the debate had finished last night illustrates how that would be a bad thing.
08/04/2010 at 15:34 somnolentsurfer says:
@jsutcliffe
You have every right to vote if you’re moving. This is a national election. It dictates national policy, and you’ll be affected by it wherever you live.
FPTP won’t be dropped unless people indicate in the election that it must be. Basically, unless a party with an interest in an alternative system has a say in government. So, even ‘protest vote’ is worth it if it helps us get a hung parliament.
08/04/2010 at 15:36 Ffitz says:
Mandrill
Then au barricades, mon frère, and lead us to glorious victory in your new free world. Or, you know, go and live in Antarctica.
Yes, the machinery’s a bit fucked at the moment, because it’s been roundly abused by those in power. And you know what? We’re partly to blame, as well. It’s our job as voters to hold those we elect to account. And most of us can’t be bothered, because the football’s on, or the wife’s nagging about geting the door fixed, or a million other reasons.
So from that point of view, it’s not about the politicians, it’s about the people. Lots of people don’t care, which is the tragedy. If you can get someone to care, you’ve made a difference. Shouting “sheep!” at people probably won’t have the desired effect though.
08/04/2010 at 15:43 Mike Arthur says:
And, as for ignoring laws we don’t like, presumably it’s fine for someone who doesn’t like the law about “murder” to come round and torture you to death in your own home?
I assume not. What you are advocating is basically anarchy. Feel free to opt out of our political process and we’ll continue to get involved. I don’t see you trying to make it better, I just see you complaining.
I do live in a pretty free country. Other countries are better in many regards but I’m not being persecuted for my religion, I can say what I like in person and on my blog and I have no personal desire to break any laws (even although I do think not all laws are just).
If it’s not working for you, go live in the wilderness.
08/04/2010 at 15:55 CMaster says:
@Mandrill you make so many errors in that first post, but I’m just going to correct a couple of them:
The current government has no mandate. The prime minister was elected by an elite (the labour party) and not chosen by the people in a general election as he should have been. In the last general election they gained power through the votes of a minority of the UK population (due to low turnout).
OK, two things here.
One, no the Prime Minister was chosen by The Queen. Always is. Convention and political reality dictate that she need pick a Prime Minister who enjoys the support of the Commons – this almost always means the leader of the largest party. When the lead of the Labour party, who had a working majority stepped down, she simply selected the new leader as a replacement. The general public never get to vote on PM. Their vote for their local MP may (although most of the while it doesn’t) effect the party that ends up with a majority in parliament. Best way of having a say in who is PM is to join the party likely to win the next election and vote in their leadership ballot.
Two, almost every (if not ever) UK government has been selected by a minority. The “Labour Landslide” of 1997 with one of the largest parliamentary majorities ever seen came off the back of 43% of the vote in a 71% turnout election where far from every eligible adult was even registered to vote. The lack of a genuine mandate isn’t a new phenomenon, although it may be a problem.
Beyond these inaccuracies, I really don’t think your idea will work. Low turnout just means low turnout, and the politicians will just talk about how to improve it. (The cynical ones may talk about how to improve turnout among their supporters and suppress it among others). The only ways you will get the system as a whole to change is either by electing those who profess a desire to change the system, or by revolution. Non-participation doesn’t in itself lead to change. Non participation leading to disenfranchisement leading to violence, maybe but thats a long cycle and you’d look less silly to stake your position as a revolutionary now.
08/04/2010 at 16:08 golden_worm says:
@mandril Why can’t we have a default “apathy party” that receives registered votes from those who can’t be bothered or who would vote “none of the above” if given the option?
Their basic policy would be to vote “no” to anything suggested by the ruling party.
If they got in (automatic if turnout is less than 50%) they immediately call a general election, with the proviso that no one from the other parties who has stood before in a seat won by the apathy party can stand again.
It might take a couple of goes but eventually we would get to what people actually want.
08/04/2010 at 16:15 Corporate Dog says:
@Mandrill: What IS The Matrix?
08/04/2010 at 16:46 somnolentsurfer says:
@golden_worm
I looked into starting a political party called “None of the Above” that would do nothing but lobby for the creation of a none of the above/reopen nominations option on ballot papers, and then resign their seats once it was introduced. Turns out it’s illegal!
08/04/2010 at 17:12 RobotRocker says:
Reminder: Don’t vote BNP as a protest against this as they were actually for the bill before it was signed in as they are still ridiculously butthurt over Wikileaks hosting the member list leaks and other stuff and want the ability to censor. They will probably flip-flop over it because of the anti-Labour sentiment in the next while but generally you should go for the Greens if you want to throw in a protest vote.
09/04/2010 at 03:57 TeeJay says:
@ mandrill: “The basis of any government is that it only governs with the permission of the governed. By not particiapating you withdraw that permission.”
Sorry mate but noone gives shit about you giving or withdrawing ‘permission’. If there was actually a mass movement that was boycotting the elections then it would mean something – it would be a meaningful political expression.
You however are just burbling a load of meaningless sixth-form philosophical slogans. How are we ‘giving them the right to dictate how we live our lives’? You can’t seem to make up your mind whether voting is ‘meaningless’ or it is this great moral transaction that ‘transfers rights’. You can’t decide if noone is listening or if our votes are taken as an ‘indication’ of something.
Worst of all your great cause simply seems to be a half digested wish to “do what I want” without any kind of meaningful political programme of any sort – you know, stuff about people’s welfare, justice, rights, the environment, society, education, health, economic activity etc.
Make some *practical* and *concrete* suggestions and people might pay attention – what you’ve said so far just sounds like an angsty teenage tantrum, not a coherent plan.
08/04/2010 at 14:09 Frenz0rz says:
Oh fuck, now I have no idea who the hell to vote for. Lib Dems have looked appealing to me, but I totally disagree with their stance on Europe. Damn, damn, damn. Sent a letter about the bill to my Conservative MP, who was totally like “yeah, we sort of oppose it, meh” and proceeded to list off a load of stuff about the economy that had nothing to do with the bill. Plus he’s the only local MP of any party who refuses to join a local debate because the BNP have been allowed to join in. Idiot.
Oh, what to do, what to do.
08/04/2010 at 14:45 Mike Arthur says:
For what it’s worth, the Lib Dems support a referendum on any other major changes on our relationship with Europe. I honestly believe we would have had one on the Lisbon treaty if they were in power.
08/04/2010 at 15:16 mandrill says:
Don’t vote. see above triades for why.
08/04/2010 at 14:12 Gwyn says:
It’s daft to base an attack on the Lords on the fact they don’t get the Internet. The Commons doesn’t get the Internet either, and most of those guys have paid researchers to explain it to them. I guarantee you that in ten years’ time we’ll have appointed peers with a lifetime of experience in IT, Telecoms and the Internet, and we’ll still have nobody in the Commons who know what the fuck’s going on.
Witness the Human Embryology Bill of a few years ago – nobody in the Commons had a clue about biology or medical ethics, so it fell to the luminaries in the Lords who drafted a comprehensive piece of progressive legislation. Without the Lords under New Labour, we’d have been much worse off.
Also I have to point out that the Lords has no power to block legislation, only to suggest amendments to be debated in the next Commons session. In theory they could use this delaying power to block legislation forced through the Commons at the last minute, but in practice such a move would only be done if it was necessary to defend the Constitution. The DEB isn’t really a concern on those terms, so peers will likely shrug and let it pass.
There’s no need to emphasise that peers are unelected. They need to be in order to work properly. They scrutinise and oversee legislation without needing to grab headlines or toe the party line. They don’t have any constitutional power, and so have nothing to be accountable for. The fact they are unelected is in fact immaterial, as they can’t exert any power on the Commons save to give them the benefit of experience and expertise which the elected chamber lacks.
But yeah, vote Lib Dem.
08/04/2010 at 14:19 Biggles says:
Very well said.
09/04/2010 at 00:58 Jimbo says:
Agreed.
So long as they are subservient, I think Lords has a lot of merit as a ‘dampener’ on the legislative process. How they are initially selected could be better, but not not having to worry about subsequent elections often allows for much sounder decision making. I think replacing them with essentially a ‘Second Commons’ would be a huge mistake.
08/04/2010 at 14:22 Wulf says:
I vote we all lobby Moffat into power, it’d be very helpful if we had an obsessive Doctor Who fan as the Prime Minister. It would change things radically if the person with the most power there would be the sort of person to ask himself what The Doctor would do. Plus, the man has a decent understanding of technology. Who knows? Putting a man like that into power could lead to a golden age.
(Yes, this is a joke post… buuuut I find all this incredibly depressing and I had to add something frivolous. Though mostly this was on the back of being reminded of what Douglas Adams said in Hitchhiker’s, that the most fit people to lead are usually the ones that absolutely don’t want to.)
09/04/2010 at 04:03 TeeJay says:
“ask himself what The Doctor would do”
Run around in a state of near-manic psychosis making random smart-arse remarks while waving a “sonic screwdriver” at things to a Carmina Burana soundtrack?
08/04/2010 at 14:36 QBall says:
Did your MP vote for or against this trash? Check it out here…
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/32.htm#hddr_2
08/04/2010 at 15:29 phuzz says:
Link doesn’t work:
“The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it”
Instructed not to let me have it, aiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
08/04/2010 at 15:41 jsutcliffe says:
@Phuzz
This is a decent alternative link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0032.htm#divlst_3
08/04/2010 at 17:05 7rigger says:
@Jsutcliffe
Thanks for that link. I wanted to know how my local MP had voted, but now I’m sad.
He voted for it obviously :(
08/04/2010 at 14:40 Lukasz says:
can someone please explain what’s so bad about this bill?
wiki is useless.
08/04/2010 at 14:46 Wulf says:
It’s a potential life-ruiner and can leave you without any Internet access at all if they believe you’re a pirate. The chance of false positives is very high.
Ex: They get a call from someone I’ve had a disagreement with saying that I sell pirated things, they investigate and on doing so they find my GoG.com backups, which will look very much like pirated games to the fucking uneducated mendicants they’ll have doing the enforcing. They might decide then and there that I’m a problem, and remove my Internet access, or worse. Will I get a chance to defend myself? Un-fucking-likely.
08/04/2010 at 14:47 Mike Arthur says:
Basically gives the government power to tell ISPs to deny access to any sites of their choosing, gives rights-holders some similar abilities and you can now get disconnected from the internet for illegally downloading stuff. All of this is outside a court and if you want to fight it in a court you’ll need to defend yourself or pay up.
08/04/2010 at 14:48 cliffski says:
people are upset because it gives the copyright holders the right to have a letter sent to people suspected of pirating content, and asking them to stop. If they dont stop, and dont deny it, after 3 letters they can apply to have their conenction cut off.
Apparently this is how nazi germany started.
I’d rather not have this bill, but a bill that just slung people in prison for a year if they got caught running a warez or torrent site where > 95% of the content was copyrighted. They knwo what they are doing
Nobody can pretend thepiratebay isnt a pirate site, ditto many warez forums. Doubtless some are UK hosted.
Lets make hosting that stuff, or uploading it, illegal as fuck, and not waste time on the kdis getting voter puberty by sticking it to the man.
but even if someone did propose this, the ‘pirate party;’ would be on here moaning about that. Unless all content producers work for free, dicks like that will never be happy.
08/04/2010 at 14:48 Alexander Norris says:
This will probably do it, as would this.
Basically, when this becomes law, the government will have the power to disconnect anyone from the Internet after they’ve been accused (but not convicted in any way) of violating copyright (by, say, looking at a copyright image being used somewhere without explicit permission from the rights holders) by rights holders three times, as well as the power to request any site be blacklisted at the ISP level if it hosts copyrighted material without the rights holders’ permission, all of this without going through the judicial system at any point.
That’s in addition to the Secretary of State having the power to change copyright law whenever he or she feels like it so they can “keep up” with technological innovation and make sure no new technologies that allow copyright violation are legal.
Oh, and the government can order any website that has been, is being or might be used to violate copyright blacklisted at the ISP level.
08/04/2010 at 14:53 Alec Meer says:
People are also upset because a) it’s taking brutal, cynical advantage of a time when MPs are otherwise engaged to slip something through b) the resulting low turn-out and minimal debate proves that a vast number of MPs are deeply uninterested in even remotely engaging with the concerns of their constituents and c) it gives terrifying precedent for an unelected peer to create and modify a law to suit his own interests, and the interests of his business partners.
The bill itself is the least of the problems surrounding the DEB.
08/04/2010 at 14:56 Wulf says:
@cliffski
Questionable as ever, I see. This is why I kind of don’t like you, I’m sorry. And the thing is that this impacts your games, since your games are sold via a method where it’s hard to defend them as legally bought.
“people are upset because it gives the copyright holders the right to have a letter sent to people suspected of pirating content, and asking them to stop. If they dont stop, and dont deny it, after 3 letters they can apply to have their conenction cut off.”
Bullshit. People are against it because if someone falsely implicates them and the examiners are too witless to properly judge whether the person is pirating or not then they can have their Internet cut off, or worse, even if they are innocent.
“Apparently this is how nazi germany started.”
Bullshit. No one’s claiming this.
“I’d rather not have this bill, but a bill that just slung people in prison for a year if they got caught running a warez or torrent site where > 95% of the content was copyrighted.”
You’d be putting this in the hands of people who wouldn’t understand what defines a warez site. Well done.
“They knwo what they are doing”
That’s a laugh.
“Nobody can pretend thepiratebay isnt a pirate site, ditto many warez forums. Doubtless some are UK hosted.”
Actually, the Pirate Bay is about 50/50, like any torrent service. There’s plenty of free software, free music, and other, similar resources on their trackers. To damn someone for having downloaded a Linux distro from the Pirate Bay tracker is as idiotic as the morons who penned this bill, and just as clueless. Well done.
“Lets make hosting that stuff, or uploading it, illegal as fuck, and not waste time on the kdis getting voter puberty by sticking it to the man.”
Let’s make sure that we have intelligent people checking up on this stuff, first, people who actually understand the Internet. And let’s make sure that we don’t have idiots pushing for laws that can’t possibly be handled properly if we don’t.
“but even if someone did propose this, the ‘pirate party;’ would be on here moaning about that.”
Yes, because of course only the fucking pirates would have a stake in this, rather than people who are well aware of how fallible such an investigative system could be. Of course. Right.
“Unless all content producers work for free, dicks like that will never be happy.”
And [I tragically undermine myself by resorting to puerile name-calling.]
08/04/2010 at 15:02 Wulf says:
Alec: I can understand why you edited me but this whole thing was just Cliffski being incredibly patronising to people who take umbrage at this, and painting them all as pirates, therefore he is being an apologist. I’m sorry for my views, but that’s how I feel.
08/04/2010 at 15:02 Gwyn says:
Alec, it’s not a precedent. Ministers are routinely given powers of this sort, and Prime Ministers have always been allowed to put peers in his cabinet. This sort of legislation has a pretty long tradition.
What people are actually angry about is that Mandelson’s the current Biz Sec. But Labour aren’t going to be reelected, so he’s not going to see a sniff of the DEB power.
Also, the DEB powers are totally arbitrary and won’t stand up to scrutiny by the Supreme Court anyway.
08/04/2010 at 15:05 Alec Meer says:
Wulf: there’s flat-out no excuse for the personal insults. It’s absurdly easy to make the exact same points without ‘em.
08/04/2010 at 15:09 Matthew says:
Wulf: nothing like hyperbole, eh?
I think when cliffski said ‘they know what they are doing’ he was talking about the warez site runners, not the people behind this bill. But honestly, I suspect you were in the mood to jump on anything you didn’t like the look of by that point.
08/04/2010 at 15:09 Wulf says:
Fair enough Alec, then let the edit stand as a personal lesson, I really have no problem with that… but I’m still very angry at Cliffski. I can’t help it. This is the sort of thing that could ruin someone’s life, even if they’ve never pirated in their life, and to whitewash over it like that is just infuriating. I guess he pushed all the wrong buttons, there.
The thing is, you’re right though, and I should have kept my cool. I shouldn’t have done that. But as I said, the edit stands and lesson learned. I think the rest of the post sums up how I feel pretty well, anyway. I’m just stunned, and a little bit disgusted, that anyone would try to defend this anyway.
08/04/2010 at 15:11 Wulf says:
@Matthew
“Wulf: nothing like hyperbole, eh?”
I don’t agree, everything I’ve said has a very real chance of happening.
Let’s wait and see.
“I think when cliffski said ‘they know what they are doing’ he was talking about the warez site runners, not the people behind this bill”
It didn’t look like that to me.
“But honestly, I suspect you were in the mood to jump on anything you didn’t like the look of by that point.”
Same thing could be said about Cliffski, but I can understand you jumping on me, everyone takes a side in this.
08/04/2010 at 15:21 Matthew says:
Well here’s the thing Wulf: not once in cliffski’s post did he say he was in favour of the Bill, other than a passing comment that suggested he felt the reaction to the Bill was overly strong (the ‘nazi germany’ comment). In fact he wrote, ‘I’d rather not have this Bill’. So yeah, I think you were jumping on him.
The rest of your response was a critique of his alternative, which is entirely your right to do, but I’d argue that a lot of your response was objecting to the practical aspect of enforcement of cliffski’s idea rather than the actual plan itself. That’s entirely fine. But you’re setting him up to vent at something he didn’t actually say and that’s what I’m taking issue with.
08/04/2010 at 15:32 cliffski says:
sigh
I knew I’d just get abuse hurled at me.
I even said I didnt support the bill. Nobody noticed that though.
I guess nobody is ever willing to read any comment on this topic unless its ‘rah rah rah! copyright is teh evil!’
Its truly pathetic.
08/04/2010 at 15:36 mandrill says:
What cliffski fails to realise is that this bill is not being brought in to protect him, far from it. I doubt any of the people involved in drafting it even know that independent games developers exist let alone rely on digital distribution in their business model.
This bill is to serve the interests of the middle men, not the creators. Its the publishers, record labels, movie distributors andothers who have lobbied for this because they (if not the politicians) know which way the wind is blowing and their time is almost up. There is no real need for them anymore when creative people, such as yourself cliffski, can deal directly with the consumers of theri work, cutting the middle men out of the picture completely. Musicians, authors, filmmakers and games makers can offer their music directly to their fans.
This is what this bill will be used to curtail, puiracy is a smokescreen. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the internet knows that piracy (whilst it is a ‘bad thing’) will never be beaten completely. Especially with such a blunt instrument as this bill. The ‘pirates’ and ‘hackers’ will find a way to continue doing what they do anonymously, secretly and securely. Simply because they are very very good at it and there are thousands of them.
You’ll find that if this bill stands, the big publishers will be able to call for smalltime creatives such as cliffski, to be blacklisted, simply because they don’t like the competition. Unless of course they sign up with the publisher and hand over a substantial cut of their profits. Its a protection racket pure and simple. “Play along with the way things are and keep us in the gravy and everything will be fine”
This bill has so much wrong with it that any debate would have killed it dead, this is why it was rushed through. Deals were done and I would check out the campaign funding details for the labour party when they are finally published, I wonder how many publishers are on that list.
This bill is not for you cliffski, its for those who see you as a threat and they will try to beat you down with it if given the opportunity.
08/04/2010 at 15:53 Mike Arthur says:
I’ve not ever bought any of cliffski’s games, I played the demos and they didn’t appeal but … GOOD GRIEF PEOPLE!
He said he doesn’t want the bill! Please, please read! Also, his opinion IS valued because he is someone who actually has stuff to lose from piracy. How many of you have your incoming depending on people paying money for your games? Yes, this bill is bad (as cliffski himself says) but copyright violation is also a crime and unless someone has said you can have their product for free (as some musicians do) then you are a bit of a dick, when demos are available to try them before you buy.
I’m willing to bet cliffski could get a nice job doing something other than making games and that would pay his bills probably better than doing what he does. I’d also be willing to bet that some of those who download his games actually take home more money in a year than he does. Lets try and think of the little guys and the PC gaming industry, the more you justify piracy the more you work into the hands of those who would impose disgusting, draconian legislation in order to stop it.
08/04/2010 at 15:54 somnolentsurfer says:
@cliffski
Copyright is not teh evil. I’d fully support the right of authors and content creators to have some kind of say over the use of their material and to earn money from it. That doesn’t mean that it’s not in need of reform. Broadly speaking, I think the proposals of the UK Pirate Party (have you read their manifesto?) are sensible in this regard.
There was a line on the Now Show last week that compared the DE bill to an attempt to protect blacksmiths by requiring that horseshoes be nailed to cars. Apologies to Mr. Walker, of course, for finding anything of merit in that show, but I didn’t think that was an unfair comparison.
08/04/2010 at 16:07 AbyssUK says:
@cliffski – The DEB as pointed out by many is much much more than just about copyright, also I suggest you read the pirate party manifesto, they want to give content creators more rights not less, many freelance music producers like the pirate party manifesto.. it isn’t about just getting free software its about a better way a different direction. cutting out the middle men and the idea for the drug patenting process should be taken very seriously!
Please don’t label the members of the pirate party as freetards.
08/04/2010 at 16:19 cliffski says:
From:
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2010/mar/22/pirate-party-uk-launches-its-2010-election-manifes/
A new right to share files (which provides free advertising that is essential for less-well-known artists).
# The right to share files provided no money changes hands.
Someone explain to my feeble brain how this right does not totally, utterly destroy copyright 100% overnight.
if this was the law, I’d be looking for a new job immediately. I’d have to. I have to pay the rent FFS.
Sorry, but people who claim the pirate party are not anti-copyright are just WRONG.
If everyone gets your work without paying you, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether anyone else profited from your work…
08/04/2010 at 16:41 somnolentsurfer says:
@cliffski
So, as a “less-well-known artist”, do you now regret your decision to release Gratuitous Space Battles without DRM? ‘Cause I’d always imagined that the free publicity they mention was part of the reason you did it?
I understand that game developers don’t have the ability to make money from live shows as musicians do, but this letter by an independent musician to his union is more articulate than me: http://www.stevelawson.net/2010/04/my-letter-to-the-musicians-union-about-the-digital-economy-bill/
The roots of copyright are in preventing others from making money from your work. That’s the understanding of copyright that most laypeople still have, and it’s this that the Pirate Party proposals get back to.
08/04/2010 at 16:57 Lambchops says:
The Pirate Party are ridiculous. They propose to not raise taxes whilst simultaneously proposing massively expeinsive policies. Supporting them based on the idea that content should be easily shared and ignoring the obvious flaws in this and some of their other policies is pretty stupid.
For example, I don’t see how they can possibly afford to cover pharmaceutical R&D expenditure if they do as the propose and remove drug patents. They’d also discourage new and potentially benificial research by removing the potential rewards. Why would anyone in a small company bust a gut to make something novel when they know it’s just going to get made either generically or by one of the big pharma companies. That sort of policy will hinder innovation as well as being unaffordable. Sure the way the pharmaceutical sector works is far from perfect but this sort of policy isn’t going to help.
It’s far from the only one of their policies which is dubious at best.
08/04/2010 at 17:09 CMaster says:
@Lambchops
Actually, it’s pretty clear how that policy would pay for itself. The state-funded health service saves a vast amount of money by buying cheap generics whose margins are driven down by competition, rather than proprietary drugs and treatments with a large markups (oh, and a big bill to fund the marketing of this drug in the first place, and a smaller one for the R&D). Some or all of this saved money is put into government funded medical research, with the additional benefit that money and effort could go into things like developing new antibiotics (which nobody has done in years) rather than lifestyle drugs (baldness cures, Viagra etc)
Sure, you run the risk of harming innovation in terms of people coming up with some new, exiting idea and getting it all the way to market. It might not be any better than the current system. It hasn’t been tried yet. But it’s easy to see how it could be afforded.
That said, I haven’t read the Pirate Party manifesto, so I can’t comment in if they do make largely unaffordable promises.
08/04/2010 at 21:03 Grunt says:
@Wulf
Mate, you really need to lay off the caffeine or whatever you’re drinking these days. The is the second time in a week I’ve seen you fly off on some rant about a comment that in no way justified your response. Seek help. Get laid. Take a holiday. Whatever works for you, dude. Just quit turning these posts into your private one-man crusades against whatever the hell is bugging you this week.
““Apparently this is how nazi germany started.”
Bullshit. No one’s claiming this.”
Yeah – right here? I don’t think he was being entirely serious. I see it as some very dark humour. But you? “OMG – he just compared the UK to Nazi Germany!?!? What is this guy ON???!!!!”.
Totally out of proportion. I remind you again: RPS is not Digg! If you want the clash of polarised opinion against hardened viewpoint I suggest you find somewhere more suited to it, before the Hivemind are forced to ban your antics.
My money’s on you not even having the grace or humility to apologise, either.
08/04/2010 at 22:57 Lukasz says:
thx guys. that was very informative. lots of problems with the bill and everybody has slightly different idea on what’s so bad about it.
wonder whether Australia will follow UK.
(the answer is most likely yes)
08/04/2010 at 14:54 Chris Evans says:
The only way we will get change in the political system is to stop voting for Labour or the Tories, Lib Dems are the best bet for an overhaul which is much needed, bring in a form of PR and change the Lords. The worst thing about the passing of the DEB is that is occured during ‘wash up’, if it hadn’t been going through parliament so close to the announcement of the election we may have seen more debate on it. Not to say it wouldn’t have been passed, but the way our system works, there should be debate and checks and balances occuring all the way through the development of a bill, not rushing through because an election has been called.
From Rich McCormick’s PCG blog post (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=241929)
“Spending over one hour debating one clause of a 50 clause bill with one hour for all the rest… it’s frankly disgraceful”
I put my thoughts in long form here – http://thereticule.com/2010/04/on-the-digital-economy-bill/
08/04/2010 at 14:56 Matthew says:
MY MP is Iris Robinson. Oooops.
08/04/2010 at 15:01 Bob says:
Just goes to show none of them listen to anyone, only time you see or hear from them is when they want voted in! lol That’s why I don’t even bother voting as there is no point
08/04/2010 at 15:03 The Great Wayne says:
For all it’s worth, you british guys have my total support on this question.
We’ve been suffering from the same bullshit in France for a few months, with state controlled medias campaigns talking about “the evilness of the Internet” so that the masses would support this kind of laws. Fortunately, we got some people in the senate that are extremely reluctant to go on the securitarism route -all political tendencies appart- even if it means displeasing some lobbies. And even then it’s still a tight question.
Also, you should try to contact your european parliament delegates. There are things that are no longer under national sovereignty only, and liberties upon the Internet are one of those.
08/04/2010 at 15:03 Schyz says:
Here in Spain we do have the same problem. Our “Culture Minister” is a producer from the movies industry and recently achieved to approve a law that allows a political comission to close websites without trial in less than 4 days.
We do have a civil movement here supporting a campaing called “Internet will not be another TV”:
[Spanish] http://internetnoseraotratv.net/
Anyway there is an english word to define my feelings about this: riot.
08/04/2010 at 15:05 Tauers says:
¡ Estamos bien jodidos ! ;)
08/04/2010 at 15:04 somnolentsurfer says:
RPS is carrying ads for the Lib Dems now? Really? lol.
08/04/2010 at 18:15 somnolentsurfer says:
By that I meant banner ads, obv. It wasn’t a slight on the article. Not seen another since though.
08/04/2010 at 15:05 deejayem says:
I wrote to my MP, too. Got a very nice letter back saying how concerned she was – didn’t bloody turn up for the vote, though.
More worryingly, she included a letter from Steven Timms, who is Minister for Digital Britain, trying to answer some of my queries. He ignored most of the more serious ones – what rights do copyright holders have to spy on internet users; what right to internet users have to appeal if they are wrongly accused, etc.etc. – and his letter was full of basic errors of terminology – eg “IP address” = “Intellectual Property address”.
Nice to know we’re being taken seriously …
08/04/2010 at 15:12 somnolentsurfer says:
This is all rather sad. Until now, I’ve quite liked Timms, but this clearly isn’t his field. I thought Tom Watson was supposed to be a “close personal friend of the Prime Minister” or something? Why didn’t he get the digital Britain portfolio? Is it ’cause he might be a bother for Mandy’s mates?
08/04/2010 at 15:05 john says:
“continental Europe has a near-sterling record in protecting basic individual freedoms.”
HA HA, ha ha, ha ha ha!
Classic, the common law countries ie US UK Australia NZ Canada, have a tradition of protecting the freedoms of the individual going back centuries. Concepts like jury trial, natural rights innately belonging to free born men rather than granted us by the almighty state, freedom of speech and habeas corpus etc are utterly alien to continental Europe. The protection of life,liberty and property has been non existent in Europe until extremely recently. Spain Portugal and Greece were fascist dictatorships until the 70′s and eastern Europe and East Germany communist ones until the late eighties. Being part of the EU has seen the civil law of the continent rape our legal system and the infection of our parliamentary democracy with European style political corruption and hubris.
If you think individual freedoms are comprised of some rather lame anti-business consumer protection laws then you’ve probably been smoking too much weed.
08/04/2010 at 15:18 Rinox says:
I wouldn’t exactly take Portugal, Spain and Greece as historical examples of European norms and values. The founding members of the EU are generally speaking much more representative.
08/04/2010 at 15:39 The Great Wayne says:
Stalinism domination over eastern europe, franquism or the Ioannidis ruling over greece could hardly be taken as examples of the european ideology. In fact, this kind of totalitarian episodes are what motivated the creation of the european geopolitical entity in the first place, so that it never happens again.
Considering history with manicheism is a very bad way to analyze it. No country has emerged all clean from the centuries, be it Britain or whatever.
08/04/2010 at 16:14 Alexander Norris says:
Right; because Stalinism and fascism all occurred in the last twenty years:
Edit: because someone is bound to miss what I’m saying here: the whole comment thread is talking about the last two decades. You know, the period since the fall of the USSR and the Treaty of Maastricht.
08/04/2010 at 15:09 Roadrunnerr says:
Man, our democracy system sure is full of win ¬________¬
I’m too young to vote, but If I could, with my limited knowledge of politics, I would probably use my vote as a countervote against labour and the tories, primarily because Brown is characterless and Cameron is a complete, full on tosser.
I see absolutely no point in not voting.
08/04/2010 at 15:18 Wulf says:
I don’t take so much umbrage at Brown, he’s not as bad as the others, but he’s just a bit of a puppet. He always came across as incredibly apathetic, and therefore he doesn’t really say anything against the likes of Mandelson. What little fight he had I think was beaten out of him in the tiffs he had with Blair.
Whomever we vote for, this year, it should be anyone except the Tories or New Labour. Vote for whomever you like, but not them. Never them.
08/04/2010 at 15:13 Hogofwar says:
Well, fuck. They are probably going to block the Pirate Bay now aren’t they? “Uh, block thepiratebay.org because the bill says i can so duh!”
08/04/2010 at 15:20 Wulf says:
Yup. I can’t believe it. There’s a lot of great stuff on the Pirate Bay which is free. I mean, that’s where I downloaded PoopMods from (Oblivion mod package), and that’s where I downloaded the Vampire – The Masquerade: Bloodlines community fix pack from, too.
:/
08/04/2010 at 15:30 Rob says:
For sure there’s content on The Pirate Bay that’s legitimate, but it’s a stretch to suggest that there isn’t as much or more clearly pirated material, and that the legitimate material would be unable to find an alternative place for torrent hosting. I think the danger of making a site like that your rallying cry is that it makes it very hard for your arguments to be taken seriously.
08/04/2010 at 17:25 Wulf says:
@Rob
You may think that, but from where I sit, you’re totally wrong. But I think you’re wrong in regards to comprehension of what I’m saying, so I’ll reiterate.
I’m really into the PC mods scene, and a lot of people seem to really like using The Pirate Bay as their primary source. My problem isn’t with losing The Pirate Bay, so much, because as you suggest there will be other services, my problem is with damning a user who uses The Pirate Bay in order to get some of that legitimate content that is there. And as I said, it’s widely used by the modding community. In fact, the PB trackers were the only place that had PoopMods when I checked.
That’s all I’m saying, please understand that.
08/04/2010 at 15:15 Rinox says:
I just checked the MP distribution in Parliament in the UK and I was pretty shocked at just how big the dominance of Labour and Conservatives is. Disregarding Libdem for a moment, every other party seems utterly powerless. Heck, Sinn Fein (more or less a one-issue party) is about as big as any other remaining ideology-based party. That’s pretty weird.
I can’t really imagine that the division of seats in Parliament is a proper image of the voting behaviour in the UK. Is this because of the first-past-the-post principle?
P.S. Oh and where are the Greens? I saw them mentioned in this thread. Maybe their party name doesn’t refer to being green and I just missed them?
08/04/2010 at 15:26 Colthor says:
@Rinox.
The Greens are, indeed, green. They just have no seats and got about 1% of the vote last time out.
But, apparently, everybody likes their policies: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
08/04/2010 at 15:41 Rinox says:
Thanks for the clarification Colthor. It’s strange that they didn’t even manage to secure one single seat when all sorts of fringe parties get 4+. The more in light of that link you posted. :-)
The main thing that strikes me about that website is that the votes per policy seem much more divided than the towering dominance of the 2 big parties in Parliament.
08/04/2010 at 15:59 Mike Arthur says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#Votes_summary
It’s worth comparing votes to seats here. Yes, this is broken and yes it’s because of FPTP. This would be fixed by proportional representation and improved by single-transferable vote.
SNP are in power in the Scottish government. I think they’ll pick up quite a few more Westminster seats in the next election.
08/04/2010 at 16:09 Lambchops says:
@ The Greens
It’s no suprise the greens are doing well in terms of people liking their policies. Read their manifesto and there’s lots of stuff that sounds great (some tosh too but a lot of it is clearly going to be popular tosh!). However knowing they are a marginal issue based party they know they don’t have to worry about practicalities like how they are going to fund all these wonderful things. You can pretty much identify the green policies with ease on that site (they are the ones that mention policies that only those with a severe hatred of Europe, immigrants or disbelief in climate change could possibly disagree with) but personally having done so I tended to shy away from them as unrealistic. Hence ending up with supporting the Lib Dems on a third of the policies and even split of Greens and Labour on most of the rest and . . . err . . . UKIP . . . on the environment of all things. What can I say, I just like nuclear power!
09/04/2010 at 05:41 TeeJay says:
@ The Green Party
The 1% figure (283,084 votes) in the 2005 general election is partly because they only contested about 40% of UK constituencies. In the places they did stand they got a slightly better 3.4% on average, they managed over 5% in 23 places and their best result was 22% in Brighton Pavilion.
They always do far better in European and regional elections, for example 6.3% (1,033,093 votes) in the 2004 euros and 8.7% (1,223,303 votes) in the 2009 euros. Their best results in 2009 included first place in Norwich with 25%, in Oxford with 26% and in Brighton and Hove with 31%. Their strongest regions were London and the South-East (11-12% overall).
In London Assembly elections they got 11.1% (2000), 8.37% (2004) and 8.29% (2008). In 2006 local elections they got a 10% average vote and in 2007 fielded a record 1,421 candidates in local elections. As of 2009 they had 125 local councillors.
They are hoping to finally win a seat – in Brighton – at this 2010 general election. The Green Party vote is most likely far lower in general elections because people are focussed on the ‘main event’ between the big three political parties and the Green candidate isn’t a contender, but this is starting to change in a few places where the Green party has built up a strong base (eg Brighton, Norwich, Oxford, Lewisham) and as they have gained a higher public profile with people like Caroline Lucas as an MEP and appearing on Question Time etc.
The Green Party is not “a marginal issue based party”, it has a full range of policies covering all areas and is broadly ‘liberal-left’ with a splash of “libertarian”. They have had a reasonable stab at costing out all their manifesto policies (as far as any political party does that properly these days) and they don’t tend to go for massive top-down tax-and-spend style stuff in any case.
The Green Party has a lot of very practical and sensible ideas – for example the Green Party were very much involved in Ken Livingstone’s expansion of buses, pedestrianisation and congestion-charging in London, which was intially opposed by others but is now a role-model for other cities. Other examples are pushing to upgrading UK homes in terms of energy insulation and introducing energy efficient light bubs – in fact a whole range of things that 10 years ago people were laughing at the Green Party about have now become the new orthodoxy that all parties want to claim as their own ideas.
You have probably guessed by now that I kind of like the Green Party, which yes, I admit I do. They are not perfect but overall I like what they contribute to UK politics and hey deserve to have more of an input than they currently do, so whenever I get the chance to vote for them, even if it is just to encourage them to carry on standing in subsequent elections and help them get 5% and save their deposit – even if this doesn’t mean they win immediately it does help build up a local support base for the future and other people will notice them doing well. This can in turn persuade more people to vote for them and it can also persuade other political parties to take their policies more seriously.
09/04/2010 at 11:54 Rinox says:
@ Teejay
Thanks for the explanation! What’s their stance on the EU, exactly? I assume positive (most green parties I know in Europe are positively inclined towards the EU in any case)?
09/04/2010 at 17:49 TeeJay says:
I’m not sure how to sum it up so I’ll just link you to their policy: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/mfsseu.html
Also their 2009 European Election has lots of stuff about the EU and Europe: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/EU_Manifesto_2009.pdf
tl;dr re. current EU – they like some aspects, dislike some aspects and have a list of various reforms they want to see.
08/04/2010 at 15:18 Hmm says:
When did RPS become Liberal Democrats’ propaganda tube?
I just checked what those people stand for. Commies in disguise.
08/04/2010 at 15:22 Wulf says:
Commies? The evil red menace? Really?
:/
Sigh. ‘Commies’ are a better choice than New Labour or the Tories at the moment, in my opinion.
08/04/2010 at 15:24 Rob says:
We’re still using ‘Commies’ as a slur for liberals? Plus ça change indeed.
08/04/2010 at 15:29 Wulf says:
That’s what I thought too, Rob.
Commies does make me though though, because whenever I think of that word, I think of a large, overweight man, with a bible in one hand and barely carrying a shotgun with the other, yelling about the “DAMN PINKOS!”. I find this image utterly hilarious, and that’s what my brain summons up whenever I see that, because really… commies? Really? Are we going to go back to calling them pinkos next? Are the Lib Dems really the *gasp.* Red Menace? Did the world go back a number of decades when I wasn’t looking?
08/04/2010 at 15:41 mandrill says:
More like the yellow peril.
The liberal democrats are not classically Liberal in any sense of the word (look it up, Classical Liberalism in google, go on) They are basically socialism lite, and just as statist and freedom hating as all the rest.
08/04/2010 at 15:43 Malibu Stacey says:
Even though they’re a central party, the Lib Dem’s are probably more to the left than ‘New’ Labour these days so yeah they’re evil commie scum when you think about it really hard & squint quite a bit.
08/04/2010 at 15:21 Sobric says:
The Lib Dems should have taken this stance on basically every issue over the last year. This is a perfect election to really become the “third” option (“We Are Not Them”), but they’ve absolutely failed to capitalize on it.
This is partly because ol’ Cleggy is rubbish, and partly because they probably aren’t all that different from Tory or NL.
08/04/2010 at 15:25 K.Boogle says:
Wow, I thought the bill was so absurd there was no way it would have passed.
Ah, humanity, you surprise me again.
08/04/2010 at 15:25 anonymous17 says:
Having just looked through the bill, it seems to me that the copyright infringement enforcement commences two months (usual) after the royal assent of the bill. Presuming that it does not get held in the Lords (unusual), it could mean that the bill enters effect before the end of the summer.
Several websites seem to say that the bill will not be enforced until sometime next year – but the bill itself say nothing of this.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
09/04/2010 at 05:49 TeeJay says:
“Anyone have any thoughts on this?”
That this illustrates exactly how shit this Bill is – it leaves a lot of the detailed rules very vague and ‘to be decided later on by an agency’ (eg OFCOM or whichever quango it is) and/or ‘the minister’ in consultation with ‘relevant interest groups’ (aka businesses).
09/04/2010 at 15:18 Gorgeras says:
This confuses a lot of people because the parts of the bill that I’ve read(concerning clauses 11-18) do not say “ISP’s must do this” or anything like that. For almost the whole thing Ofcomis used as a proxy(irony) for government action. The bill lays out what new powers it is giving Ofcom and then telling Ofcom what they must do with them broadly speaking. The actual minute details are up to Ofcom; the bill simply legislates on what the effect should be.
09/04/2010 at 17:58 TeeJay says:
IMO there is something a bit suspect about giving people the legal powers to enforce rules way in advance of those rules being written as it leaves the door open to abuse and manipulation. These agencies should first of all publish their proposed rules before getting the legal authority to enforce them, giving parliament and general public the opportunity to check that the rules and procedures are in fact fair, proportionate and workable beforehand.
08/04/2010 at 15:30 subversus says:
Can someone explain to me, an outsider, what is so bad about this bill? As far as I understand it gives authorities power to block sites with copyright-infringement content. What is so bad about it if you’re not an active user of course?
08/04/2010 at 15:39 anonymous17 says:
For copyright issues, it certainly makes some sense – the ability to identify those in breach and outlining some basic powers to shut them down. This is effectively how the MPs see the bill. However it is broad and could easily be used to effectively police websites or users in any way the government decides – which seems to be Wulf’s main contention. Wulf further points out the problem of having people policing the system that know absolutely nothing about copyrighted material or sites such as gog.com.
Additionally, the common law system in Britain relies on establishing ‘beyond all doubt’ before a conviction can be found in the criminal courts, but only ‘in liklihood’ for civil offences. A legal problem with this bill is that it seems to blur these two boundaries in effectively establishing a civil crime but then leaving the doors open for a criminal conviction.
The real point is not so much that it is trying to prevent copyright but that it effectively gives a way for a government to clamp down on media that casts the country or government in a negative light. Whilst most people in Britain in automatically declare that such a thing could never happen, it does happen all the time – lack of transparency and whip control at Parliament are two high level examples.
It effectively is letting the government into the internet in its typically heavy handed and adolescently awkward way. Personally I doubt the libdems would have any alternative other than to acknowledge the bill should they gain a majority or a hung parliament formed.
08/04/2010 at 15:40 somnolentsurfer says:
The government is taking the stance that Internet access should be equivalent to a human right, and pushing for universal broadband access nationwide. At the same time they’re including a clause allowing for Internet access to be denied to a household on the basis of simply an accusation, and that it be done without trial.
Irrespective of whether you think it’s right to consider broadband a human right (and it’s certainly hard to function in today’s society without it), that is hypocrisy of the highest order, dangerously anti-democratic, and a breach of basic principles of justice.
08/04/2010 at 15:44 Rob says:
The amendment inserted yesterday concerning the control of access to websites is what has a lot of people bothered subversus.
From the Bill itself:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.”
Two elements of this amendment concern people. Firstly that it is the Secretary of State making said provisions, and secondly that the remit is as vague as “is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.” It is the vagueness that causes the issue, because at what point is the line drawn?
Going further into the amendment, although “The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless satisfied that [...] the use of the internet for activities that infringe copyright is having a serious adverse effect on businesses or consumers [and] making the regulations is a proportionate way to address that effect”, this is again vague – what is “proportionate” in this case – and somewhat undermined by the next subsection, which allows the injunctions against a site “which has been, is being or is likely to be used to facilitate access to a location [...] from which a substantial amount of material has been, is being or is likely to be obtained in infringement of copyright”; which read at its broadest could be a reason to prevent access to any site which allows obfuscation of web history, VPNs and so forth.
In the end it’s conjecture, but the fear is that the law is there and the breadth of its application is as yet unknown, but potentially enormous.
I don’t know quite what to make of it myself, parliamentary language has never been the easiest stuff to parse.
08/04/2010 at 15:52 Wulf says:
The funny thing is that the media of other countries are all ready having a field day with this. Just wait until it’s passed and we become known as “UK, the country where Internet access is an inalienable human right, but keep in mind that if the British Government decides they don’t like you then you technically aren’t human, because they can take that Internet away! If those who have their Internet taken away aren’t human, then what are they? It seems a very interesting and dubious line is being drawn, here.”
We’re going to be a laughing stock. Again. That’s, what, the 183rd time in as many weeks? I lost my ability to take any pride in this country a long time ago.
08/04/2010 at 15:53 Wulf says:
Errr… bad wording there. What I meant to say is: wait until it’s active.
08/04/2010 at 15:59 anonymous17 says:
Is it not better that at least as people of a nation we are able to actually view and criticise government legislation?
Many countries simply do not allow this and frequently brand intelligent and comprehending people as non-human.
Whilst you may not be able to respect the country, acknowledging its advantages and recognising the debate for its worth is hardly formidable – despite it being so elsewhere.
08/04/2010 at 17:29 subversus says:
well, thanks everybody for such detailed answers, I can see what’s wrong with this bill now. And there I was thinking that such lawmaking nonsense occurs only in my country’s so called parliament. Stupid people are stupid.
08/04/2010 at 15:31 Lambchops says:
@ Mandrill
OK so you’ve ranted about “them” and “sheep.” You’re upset. You’re angry.
What is your response? Do nothing? Be miserable?
If you feel that strongly about something then surely you can suggest an alternative? i’m not even looking for something that’s particularly realistic. Surely you must stand for something? Surely there is some system that you’d prefer; even if it is just anarchy.
Sitting there being a cynic and dismissing everybody as part of a broken system is well within you’re rights but it’s hard to take you seriously unless you have some sort of stance on the right way to do things and the way things should be rather than simply decrying what you think is wrong with the country.
08/04/2010 at 15:58 mandrill says:
I left. I no longer live in the UK. I have removed myself form a country I believe is going straight to hell.
You may say that this gives me no right to comment, you’d be wrong. The UK is my home and I hate what is being done to it. I also know that staying wouldn’t have got me anywhere, it would have just made me more angry and depressed. I’m happier now, though only marginally.
My opinion is there is no right way to do things that will suit everyone. That is the heart of the problem. A one size fits all gov’t does not work. I therefore refuse to be governed by anyone but myself. I’m big enough and rational enough to make my own decisions between what is right and wrong and don’t need some pleb in a suit who knows nothing about me or my life to tell me what to do. They have no moral or ethical right to do so. I basically make my own rules and live by them.
Unfortunately this won’t work for everyone for a whole variety of reasons, most prominent being that the state has taken so much personal responsibility away from the populace that they no longer know how to be responsible from themselves or their own actions. They’ll need parliament to tell them how to wipe their arses soon enough.
You say I’m cynical, I belive I have every right to be. Your MPs have lied, stolen, cheated and been bribed (or at least made it clear that they could be) and still you let them rule your lives. Of course I’m cynical. I question their motives, just as I question the motives of those who vote for them.
They say you get the government you deserve, think about that for a while.
08/04/2010 at 16:03 Mike Arthur says:
Lots of people think the UK is in a bad way. Most people decide to try and do something about it rather than running away from their problems.
You of course do have the right to comment but telling us what we should do with our political system when you’ve chosen to opt out is not helpful, it’s just destructive.
08/04/2010 at 16:06 CMaster says:
@Mandrill
How is Somalia this time of year?
08/04/2010 at 16:27 Lambchops says:
@ Mandrill
“I left.”
Fair enough. It’s more than a lot of people who moan about their country do (indeed while I was writing my post above the “if you don’t like it then fuck off” line did cross my mind briefly but I’ve always felt that’s a rather pathetic response whenever I see people use it, so I refrained and felt rather guilty that it had crossed my mind in the first place!).
May I ask where you moved to?
As for cynicism – there’s nothing wrong with it, I just feel that if people don’t act on their cynicism (something which you certainly can’t be accused of) then it’s all a bit wasted. I’ve got a certain degree of cynicism about the political process myself; however it hasn’t reached the levels wehre I don;t think that changes can be made and that compromises can be made that do just a little bit to improve things in this country. Also despite my cynicism about some aspects of politics I have few complaints about quality of life and my ability to pursue what I want to achieve in the UK, despite its problems. Maybe that will change in the future but for now I’m content and will take whatever opportunities I have to try and make a stand in making whatever improvements are possible.
In short, much as I may disagree with your views, fair play to you for actually taking a stand.
08/04/2010 at 16:47 Ffitz says:
Fair enough, if you can’t stand it any more, but why not then leave it all behind, make the break and get on with your new life where ever you are? Why fall in to the old ex-pat trap of looking back at the old country? It’s not your home any more, after all.
09/04/2010 at 06:05 TeeJay says:
@ mandrill
Unless you are floating around in a boat somewhere you are still living in a jurisdiction and under a set of rules. You can “refuse” all you like but noone cares. You are still subject to the law of wherever you are, just like anyone else. “Making your own rules” – what does this even mean?
Guess what, whenever you have more than one person you end up with “rules” – at their most basic they consist of ‘could you please wash up after you’ve used stuff’ – ie consideration for each other. You may argue that people have no “moral or ethical right” to make rules you don’t like, but then again why should they put up with your behaviour either? The idea of compromise is at root the basic basic version of a ‘law’ and government a way of administering these.
OK, so you are going to explain that your voluntary anarchism community is not government, but it does have rules, doesn’t it? Either that or you live in a cave up a mountain somewhere, all by yourself.
08/04/2010 at 15:38 DarkFenix says:
I normally don’t care much about the elections, living in a traditionally safe Labour constituency, but last election Labour only won a 7% majority over the Lib Dems here. I guess it’s finally time to get out and see if democracy actually does something for a change, not that I’m holding my breath.
08/04/2010 at 15:43 7rigger says:
I have to agree that a vote for the Lib Dem’s seems the only logical choice. Sure, they may turn out to be as bad as the rest – but when I look back at this debacle I would like to be able to say I did SOMETHING to try and change it.
@Mandrill – I can see your point, but it is rather stupid. If you believe that not using your vote will bring change, then go ahead. Just don’t expect me to follow you.
“You’re brought up to belive that voting matters, that it actually makes a difference, ”
Yep. I was also brought up to belive that pain hurts, gravity makes things fall and fire burns. I’m not about to change my opinion becouse some random person on a gaming site called me a “sheep”
08/04/2010 at 15:48 Ken McKenzie says:
Mandelson did not ‘resign twice due to corruption’, and I’d suggest that libel was a bit of a baddie even if Mandy is the target.
First time, he resigned over a home loan made to him by Geoffrey Robinson that was not declared. Robinson was under investigation by Mandelson’s department and it was felt this was a conflict of interest (Robinson ended up having to resign as well).
Second time, he resigned after it was alleged he affected a passport application made by one of the Hindujas. He left the Government but was exonerated by an official enquiry.
08/04/2010 at 16:02 mandrill says:
My point is that voting does absolutely nothing to change anything. If it did I would be the first person to advocate it. I’m not advocating armed revolution but simply ignoring the whole sorry lot of them and living by your own rules and not theirs is a good start.
Those in power, and those who will be in power, have a vested interest in keeping the status quo of gov’t as it is, when it really isn’t adequate to a 21st century society, as this bill has proven.
08/04/2010 at 16:10 CMaster says:
@Mandrill
Just ignoring the rules and doing things your own way doesn’t work.
The government have the legal system, the economic controls, the police and the military all on their side. They’ve got a million sticks to beat you with and carrots to tempt you, or tempt others to stop you. If you want to live in libertarian fantasy land, or anarcho-communist love land then you’re going to need to remove or change the established system. Sure, a revolution at this moment would probably fall flat on its face – but that or change from within is necessary for what you are suggesting.
08/04/2010 at 16:14 7rigger says:
@Mandrill -I think you may have replied to the wrong person there :P
As I stated – I understand your point (It’s not a very difficult one) I just think it’s silly and lazy.
“When they tried to take our freedoms through democratic reforms, I was there.”
“What did you do daddy?”
“I ABSTAINED”
“Yay! Because silence is the only true form of revolution!”
08/04/2010 at 17:32 mandrill says:
yeah I replied to the wrong person o\ that was aimead the comment above yours *facepalm*
In answer to you though.:
Its not absaining, its passive resistance. I will not allow a system of government which I believe to be broken and corrupt to have any say in how I live my life. I will not give my approval to a system which I believe to be a complete charade by participating. I will not allow my moral code to be defined by laws which were written by people I have no wish to associate with and who know nothing about me or my life.
If a law detrimentally impacts my way of life as I choose to live it I will break it. If I find that I agree with a law and that it agrees with my moral and ethical philosophy, then I will uphold it. Any law that has no impact one way ot the other will be ignored. I’m a rational being and my moral code is based on reason, and experience. I don’t need one imposed from outside thankyou very much, especially one imposed without my consent.
There is no point in civil disobedience if you are not willing to take it to its logical conclusion, which is total refusal to participate at any level. I will not recognize anyone’s authority over me but my own, and I accept the responsibility that comes with that freedom.
08/04/2010 at 17:48 7rigger says:
@Mandrill – Your point is well put – now that you have stopped calling people sheep :)
In short, I’m not going to convince you – and you’re not going to convince me – so I suggest we “Passivley Resist” any further arguments or attempts to convince people.
I’m still voting Lib Dem.
09/04/2010 at 06:28 TeeJay says:
@ mandrill “There is no point in civil disobedience if you are not willing to take it to its logical conclusion, which is total refusal to participate at any level. I will not recognize anyone’s authority over me but my own, and I accept the responsibility that comes with that freedom.”
You don’t really have your ‘freedom’, nor do you have any real ‘responsibility’. The idea that you are not ‘participating in any way’ is suspect – here you are using a computer and the internet, using all the resources of the economy and society around you – you don’t have any responsibility for that. You don’t have any responsibility for running a hospital or school. You have the same freedoms as anyone else, and as soon as you step beyond that you will be jumped on just like anyone else. I somehow doubt you are creating some mini-’free-state’ which you can physically defend for very long.
Maybe I’m wrong – you have bravely headed off into the deepest wilderness and are building a new civilization. But my guess is that you are just doing the old euro-squat-festival-demo tour thing. Which is cool etc. but which does actually involve cooperating and collaborating with people, making group decisions and respecting some kind of rules rather than just doing whatever the hell you want and damn everyone else.
Some people argue that this kind of small scale community living is fundementally different from what goes on in wider society and in elected governments, but I’d argue that in many ways it is just a matter of scale from small group > village > town > city > country. At any scale you can have someone ‘owning’ key resources, and varying levels of voluntarism and compulsion, freedom versus rules. A self-selecting group (eg a small communal house) can fool itself by externalising various things (value conflicts, getting resources, need for healthcare, childcare etc) to outside the group, but this doesn’t make it a viable model for the rest of society which can’t pull this trick.
08/04/2010 at 15:56 LAWLS says:
@battles_atlas
Yes I’m hugely envious of you Americans with your political system unencumbered by the taint of corporate lobbying.
Big Tobacco was one of the biggest lobbyists in the US and they banned flavored tobacco sales, still. So, what, exactly, is your point? You’re sarcasm does not improve your internet situation and hopefully the constitution will be enforced long enough for it to not happen here.
Oh btw, check out lobbying in the UK. Seems lobbying has a pull their too, at least enough for politicians to start complaining about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7189466/David-Cameron-warns-lobbying-is-next-political-scandal.html
08/04/2010 at 16:05 Rosti says:
At least it’s not quite the Aquinas protocol…
I was disappointed in my MP’s (excellent, well-written) letter agreeing that this Bill is important enough to deserve proper scrutiny and discussion. And then didn’t. Ho hum.
I’ve got the Lords discussion of the Bill on in the background, which is intriguing. I don’t know enough about the system to comment properly, but it’s interesting to see nevertheless, particularly the bit where Lord Young claimed that they’d spent sufficient time discussing it. Again: Ho hum.
Many thanks for keeping an eye on the serious stuff as well as the whimsy, RPS.
08/04/2010 at 16:07 ulix says:
Luckily (for once) I live in Germany, where the liberal party (FDP) stopped a law like this from happening (actually its the law against the blokcing of child-pornography, but since the reasoning behind it is to not create an infrastructure for censorship, it wouldn’t have mattered what kind of content).
And I am still hoping they won’t fall under pressure from their coalition partner, the CDU, which would not only like to block websites, but also ban violent videogames (not unanomously, granted).
Otherweise the Pirate-Party would probably get into Parliament, which would also be cool, but lets just hope it won’t come that far.
08/04/2010 at 16:13 Tei says:
My problem with democracy, is that the system seems geared to “vote who want to command the system”. Thats not really what I am interested. I don’t have a strong position on most things, I have not magic formula to fix economy, or make the education system better, etc. but I have a strong position about Internet. A better system would make a better question “vote if you want internet neutrality”, “vote if you want privaci of comunications on the internet”, and things like that. This democracy systems is not direct in a way that you have to choice betwen too few options, people that may probably disagree about these issues. Is a WTF of a political system.
A possible workaround, could be to ignore the query, and choice the party that support your strong position issues. Here will be (probabbly) to vote the Piracy Party, not because you think will be better at govern the country. Only because are more probably with the same opinion as you about that issues.
08/04/2010 at 16:22 Ian says:
I think it’s fair to say we can ignore anybody who advocates ignoring any rules “you don’t like” and move on.
08/04/2010 at 16:25 7rigger says:
I’m ignoring this comment :P
08/04/2010 at 17:46 mandrill says:
Sorry but I can’t ignore this.
So mindless obedience is your thing is it? If they passed a law saying that everyone should skin a baby once a day, you’d do it would you?
Too many laws do not only weigh down a government with bureacracy, they also strip away the basic ability of people to reason for themselves with regard to right or wrong. There are people who now believe that it is against the law to photograph a policeman, simply because a policemand has told them not to. Over-reliance on laws to define a moral and ethical code is what causes those codes to break down along with our ability to think about them rationally.
Instead of relying on ‘someone in authority’ to tell you what is right and wrong, use the reason and intelligence you were born with to figure it out for yourself. Who is to say the authority figure is right?
08/04/2010 at 18:10 7rigger says:
And another of my jokes starts an argument.
7rigger = Humour fail
08/04/2010 at 16:31 Shrewsbury says:
I’m voting Monster Raving Loony.
08/04/2010 at 16:35 Xander says:
Wait… doesn’t Youtube infringe on copyright on a daily basis? Hell I’m sure using ‘Hourly’ would be restrained. Goodbye to watching old episodes of Screenwipe then…
08/04/2010 at 16:47 Ygtdf says:
“Can’t complain when you vote a bunch of racists into power tbh.”
Not really sure where did you get that from / what does that has to do with the topic at hand / who are you talking about exactly / why are you assuming most people support the government, especially in light of the recent election results that showed otherwise.
Out of touch, offtopic, sounds like your standard anti-french propaganda that some people in the english-speaking world seem to like so much.
To be honest.
08/04/2010 at 17:14 Wulf says:
I’m actually glad that doesn’t apply to me, as racism tends to rub me the wrong way. I’ve never liked the idea of racial supremacy, no matter who’s responsible or what excuses they have, because there’s no race or creed that’s any better or worse than any other.
08/04/2010 at 18:00 7rigger says:
Personally I’ve always hated the term “racism”
In my mind we are all the same race. Collies and pugs are both dogs, and I don’t really see humans as any different. I feel that that by defining yourself or anyone else as a seperate “race” you are opening the door to discrimination.
Just my thoughts on the matter – however off topic they may be :)
08/04/2010 at 16:49 Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
cliffski: “Someone explain to my feeble brain how this right does not totally, utterly destroy copyright 100% overnight.”
Copyright infringement wasn’t a crime until very very recently. Yet copyright as a concept was not destroyed. The policy you quote doesn’t totally, utterly destroy copyright because most people, despite your paranoid rage, aren’t desperate to bankrupt you. Most people realise perfectly well that if nobody BUYS creative content, creative content will stop being made.
That’s why most people don’t pirate, and it’s also why numerous studies all show that most pirates spend MORE money buying creative content legitimately than non-pirates.
There’s no need for anyone with even the most basic internet literacy to pay for any kind of digital content now, because absolutely everything can easily be found and downloaded in a matter of minutes, or hours at the outside. The pirated product is usually easier to obtain and often superior in quality (eg lacking DRM or those fucking DVD nag screens designed purely to punish legitimate purchasers).
AND YET. Videogames sold more and made more money last year than any year in history. FOUR TIMES as many singles were sold in 2009 as in 2003, despite 2003 being roughly the point where broadband went mainstream and brought the possibility of easy piracy into almost every home, when previously it was solely the preserve of tech nerds. The App Store generates billions of dollars despite jailbreaking being simple. Etc etc.
Piracy has become exponentially easier over the last decade or so. The chances of detection and prosecution are microscopically small. But sales of creative content have not plummeted accordingly – in fact, the reverse is true. Care to put forward an explanation for that? Or would you rather stick to your normal Daily Mail ranting, whereby a tiny handful of people who would never pay for anything get wildly exaggerated into the norm, and we end up putting every benefit claimant and every immigrant in prison?
08/04/2010 at 17:13 Wulf says:
Bless you for being a reasonable and intelligent person.
The thing is with this is that it’s like DRM: DRM doesn’t care about its targets, and usually it will hit legitimate customers harder than anyone else.
This Bill? The shrewd pirates will find ways to outwit the slow, lumbering, prehistoric beast that is our Government, I guarantee it. The people who’ll be hurt by this? Well, those are the innocent false positives who’ll get accused and get their lives turned upside down despite not being guilty of anything.
When will they stop this? All they’re doing is punishing good, decent people and convincing them that they have to be unethical in order to survive.
08/04/2010 at 21:14 Grunt says:
Rev, I’d be interested in seeing some data to back up those statistics you’ve mentioned. Have you got a link or two to share?
08/04/2010 at 17:00 Dan (WR) says:
From the HC debates ( http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2010-04-06b.877.2 )
“The best way to illustrate this is by means of an old-tech linear-medium metaphor. In this metaphorical world that they have constructed, my hon. Friend Mr. Watson, who is in his place but not paying attention, is Luke Skywalker. He is the little guy, the plucky loner fighting the machine. Clay Shirky is Obi Wan Kenobi, the wise, broad, almost mystical guru figure. Peter Mandelson is obviously Darth Vader. Rather more counter-intuitively, however-this is where the metaphor begins to fracture-the evil Sith Chancellor Palpatine, the most evil universally bad figure of all, turns out to be Steven Spielberg. ”
… >.> … <.< … 0_0 … ;_;
08/04/2010 at 17:06 Wulf says:
I have no words.
08/04/2010 at 17:38 Phil says:
Watson’s later response to that did make me chuckle:
08/04/2010 at 17:19 ArtyFishal says:
I respect the right to intellectual privacy, but through lawsuits, not legislation. These are big interests with big money we’re talking about. They have the resources to devote to identifying and bringing charges against copyright violators, it is not governments’ responsibility to proactively protect against possible copyright violation but to enforce the law when such a violation has been proven. The internet the potential of the internet is dwindling everyday.
08/04/2010 at 17:35 Wulf says:
I couldn’t agree more with that, legislation should stay well out of this…
All I really want at the moment is to move to a country that’s known for more sane laws, something that’s worthy of respect, maybe a nation that has a higher HDI index value than 21.
I still love Wales, I really do, it’s a beautiful land and it has some fantastic people, but my respect for Britain has gone down the crapper.
08/04/2010 at 17:51 Harlander says:
The UK is at position 21 in the HDI ranking. Out of 182.
Its HDI value is 0.947 out of 1, and the highest-ranking nation, Norway, has a score of 0.971.
If you’re looking to move up to somewhere with a higher HDI score, I hear Canada is pretty nice, though.
08/04/2010 at 18:04 Wulf says:
Canada and Scandinavia are the most tempting prospects, actually.
And yes, I think 21 is low when those countries are setting the standard, a standard that we could follow, but don’t.
09/04/2010 at 11:15 CMaster says:
@Wulf
HDI differences on the scale of 0.02 are pretty close to trivial, and HDI also doesn’t really helpfully distinguish between developed nations.
Free (bad) Games || Mountainbiking Videos || Gaming Videos
08/04/2010 at 17:28 clive dunn says:
Right i’m not happy. I sent that email thingy to my MP and she promised to ‘look into the issues’ blahdeblah. Now i’m getting fucking spammed morning and night by her; begging for my fugging vote. I’ve even had phone calls from the local labour party; how the fuck did they suddenly get my number? What the fuck is going on. Is my little vote worth that much?
Oh and by the way, i always vote for the candidate who seems least likely to get his (£500) deposit back (as long as they arn’t the fucking fascists). That, my freind, is called supporting democracy.
p.s. One little observation from last week. Was in Burnley town centre (really wouldn’t recommend it) and there was this BNP stall handing out flyers and generally being your freindly nazi representatives. They were even handing leaflets to passing asian families.
Now i may have just been playing too much GTA IV but i wanted toi jack a car and drive it at full speed through these fuckfaces.
Now THAT’S democracy!
08/04/2010 at 17:43 Arca says:
Anybody else think that the ‘Pirate Party’ would get hell of a lot more support from people if they changed their name and made it seem that they were more for the freedom of speech, yada yada than just being able to pirate on the internet, which the name implies.
08/04/2010 at 17:50 mandrill says:
Yeah its a tricky one this. the name ‘The Pirate Party’ gets them a helluva lot more publicity than their eminently sensible policies ever would. Have any of you ever heard of the Libertarian Party, or seen them get any mainstream coverage? I’m willing to be the number is small.
Being called the Pirate party is a calculated risk.
08/04/2010 at 17:56 mbp says:
A couple of weeks back Obama made a speech that scared me somewhat. In it he pointed out that Western nations are no longer competitive at manufacturing anything. The whole wealth imbalance that we enjoy in the West is based on the tenuous notion of intellectual property.
Intellectual property is an artificial concept so the laws made to protect it are almost certainly going to be unfair and abusive but without them all wealth would flow to whoever can manufacture stuff cheapest which is certainly not anywhere in Europe or the USA.
The conclusion is that without these silly restrictive laws that enforce dubious intellectual property rights there is no reason why a worker in Los Angeles or London can expect to earn more than someone doing the same job in Beijing.
If you accept that perspective, which does make a lot of sense if you think about it, then someone one in the UK voting against the DIgital Economy Bill is a bit like a turkey voting for Christmas. The rules created to enforce intellectual property rights may be unfair and silly but ultimately they are allowing you and I to enjoy a totally unrealistic standard of living compared to the bulk of the World’s population.
08/04/2010 at 18:02 Wulf says:
All of that, as eloquent as it is, totally misses the point.
The point is this: Pirates will always exist. Governments won’t stop them, laws won’t stop them, and most of them will be shrewd enough not to be caught. The Digital Economy Bill is just like DRM. Pirates will be smart enough to sidestep it as though it didn’t exist, to the point where it’s totally impotent at the job it’s designed for.
The Government will likely find other uses for it when they realise this, uses which wouldn’t be at all legal without the presence of the Digital Economy Bill, such as manipulating media and holding this over the heads of people. So who’s going to suffer the most?
Who suffers the most at the hands of DRM?
The legitimate customer, that’s right!
This will hurt the legitimate customer with false positives, because the people who’ll be investigating piracy won’t be able to tell Steam, from GoG.com, from Digital River, from Direct2Drive, from piracy, and if it doesn’t have a case and/or receipt then it’s a pirated copy, that’s that, that’s one count against you, one count that could quickly turn into three, you’d then lose your Internet. They’d decide that you’re guilty and defending yourself is very difficult.
If we’re not careful, stuff like this will destroy intellectual property by convincing people that intellectual property (especially digitally distributed stuff) just isn’t safe to own.
08/04/2010 at 18:05 7rigger says:
I agree with you there. I heard somewhere (please don’t ask me to provide a link) that one of the biggest contributors to the American economy is the state of California, and that money can only really come from Hollywood. If we devalue the intellectual property that they produce then we could destroy what allows us our cushy western lifestyle. (If America gets a sniffle, Britian gets a cold)
As said above though, I’m not entirely against the act – just the way it was forced through.
08/04/2010 at 18:20 7rigger says:
I meant I agreed with mbp.
But I agree with Wulf as well.
I am getting confused
08/04/2010 at 21:37 Grunt says:
“because the people who’ll be investigating piracy won’t be able to tell Steam, from GoG.com, from Digital River, from Direct2Drive, from piracy, and if it doesn’t have a case and/or receipt then it’s a pirated copy, that’s that”
You don’t keep your receipts? Maybe you should start.
But to save your lazy ass the companies that sold you games WILL keep tabs on which products you bought, all neat and provable should the twisted lamp-light of the law ever shine upon you. But if you’ve got a copy of Assassins Creed, say, sitting there on a burned DVD – no corresponding shop-bought copy or receipt to prove ownership – well that’s slightly trickier to explain away as an innocent mistake, isn’t it? I’d be interested in hearing how you’d justify that….
Also, I find the fact you believe that only utter incompetents will be investigating these cases to be extraordinarily laughable. Won’t be able to tell the difference between a digitally encrypted Steam game and GoG unbranded? Funniest thing I’ve heard in ages. No, really.
08/04/2010 at 23:35 Wulf says:
I expected better Grunt, I really did, from you at least…
“You don’t keep your receipts? Maybe you should start.”
See, I didn’t say that. But whatever.
“But to save your lazy ass the companies that sold you games WILL keep tabs on which products you bought, all neat and provable should the twisted lamp-light of the law ever shine upon you.”
But what if they don’t understand an email receipt from Digital River?
“But if you’ve got a copy of Assassins Creed, say, sitting there on a burned DVD – no corresponding shop-bought copy or receipt to prove ownership – well that’s slightly trickier to explain away as an innocent mistake, isn’t it? I’d be interested in hearing how you’d justify that….”
Don’t bullshit me, please. You know that’s not what I’m talking about and we both fucking well know it. See, this is what pisses me off the most: intellectual dishonesty. You’re making a flawed assumption, and it appears to be on purpose, and you don’t bother to check with me if what you’re saying is true, you just present it as something I said in order to cover your own backside. This is called intellectual dishonesty. I don’t like it, I never will.
You’re implying a pirated copy of Assassin’s Creed II and trying to paint me into the corner as a pirate, it’s almost like you’ve been bloody brainwashed. Look, here’s the point: I buy a game from GoG.com, GoG.com has a DRM free installer. I write the installer (and maybe some others) to a DVD and write the name(s) of the game(s) down on the label. To you, and to them, that would look like a pirated copy, your own flawed assertion there backs me up on that.
Now the question is: If this looks like a pirated copy to you, and them, would they be educated enough then to understand an email receipt? Would they accuse me of fabrication and ask me for a paper receipt for these products? Would they then assume guilt (out of incompetence) and damn me anyway? These are perfectly reasonable doubts to have. To err is human, to be incredibly fucking fallible is a human Government, and this is a system which assumes guilty first and gives you little chance to defend yourself.
“Also, I find the fact you believe that only utter incompetents will be investigating these cases to be extraordinarily laughable.”
Yes, laughable like a British Internet police cop having porn on his own computer, the same kind of porn that he’s supposed to be investigating, and being guilty of the crimes he’s supposed to be investigating, and being too fucking stupid to hide his own porn. Look it up.
Usually when computers are involved, investigators are not smart people.
“Won’t be able to tell the difference between a digitally encrypted Steam game and GoG unbranded? Funniest thing I’ve heard in ages. No, really.”
All right, then take a trip to your local constabulary and ask them if they know what Steam is, or even if they know what digital distribution is. Likely the people enforcing this will be none the wiser. You put far too much stock in the competence of your own Government. Far too much. Considering the huge fuck ups our Government has made over the last few years I’d have to say that you are providing the laughs by believing in their competence without a basis to do so, regardless of a heavy amount of evidence to the contrary.
Let me know once you’ve woken up to the real world, where people aren’t perfect and mistakes happen, often at the hands of people who’re given jobs they don’t understand.
09/04/2010 at 00:59 mandrill says:
Well said Wulf, bravo.
Government is very rarely competent, do you know why? Because they have ‘rules’ and ‘guidelines’ and ‘laws’ to do their thinking for them. Ours is a government of bureaucrats and managers, bean counters and jobsworth’s. They dare not overstep the bounds of their responsibilities by thinking for themselves and fall back on doing things ‘by the book’. So that they can say, when it inevitably blows up in their faces, that they were only following the rules.
The MP’s expenses hoohah is a prime example of this. The people in power, the people you voted for, were prefectly correct when in their defense they stated “Nothing we have done has broken any rules.” As if in some way this absolved them of all blame.
Now we have a whole new set of ruled (the DEB) which will allow the jobsworths and busybodies to pry and poke some more and exert their petty power over us. It may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but to them, if the rules say its an ostrich, then by god its an ostrich.
Do not trust your gov’t to be fair, just, competent, or even to care about you in the slightest. It exists not as a benevolent parent does, to care and look after you. It exists only to continue its own existence, at any cost.
10/04/2010 at 16:09 Grunt says:
“I expected better Grunt, I really did, from you at least…”
Thanks for the compliment, albeit slightly back-handed.
But what if they don’t understand an email receipt from Digital River?
See, this is the crux of where we disagree. You tend to fear the worst. I agree it is entirely possible that an investigator could fail to grasp the most basic tenets of their job but see it as unrealistic. Tthe degree of incompetence you seem to expect simply does not correspond with my own experiences of the real world. Of course there are huge f***-ups in every line of work, and outright stupidity being perpetrated on a daily basis, but by-and-large these events are the exception rather than the rule.
“But if you’ve got a copy of Assassins Creed, say, sitting there on a burned DVD – no corresponding shop-bought copy or receipt to prove ownership – well that’s slightly trickier to explain away as an innocent mistake, isn’t it? I’d be interested in hearing how you’d justify that….”
“Don’t bullshit me, please. You know that’s not what I’m talking about and we both fucking well know it. See, this is what pisses me off the most: intellectual dishonesty. You’re making a flawed assumption, and it appears to be on purpose, and you don’t bother to check with me if what you’re saying is true, you just present it as something I said in order to cover your own backside. This is called intellectual dishonesty. I don’t like it, I never will.”
No, I was positing a hypothetical example, not trying to pin any skullduggery on you personally, Wulf. If you must be ever vigilant for ‘intellectual dishonesty’ (whatever that actually is) at least learn to give others the benefit of the doubt before reaching for the great stick of condemnation. I do concede, though, that this should have been more clearly expressed, My apologies. To clarify, I was trying to point out that there WILL be a distinction made between genuine downloads and those sourced illicitly.
“You’re implying a pirated copy of Assassin’s Creed II and trying to paint me into the corner as a pirate, it’s almost like you’ve been bloody brainwashed. Look, here’s the point: I buy a game from GoG.com, GoG.com has a DRM free installer. I write the installer (and maybe some others) to a DVD and write the name(s) of the game(s) down on the label. To you, and to them, that would look like a pirated copy, your own flawed assertion there backs me up on that.”
Look like a pirate at a glance. It would take precisely one day to train an officer (or whoever) in at least the existence of the various types of digital downloads that exist in the market today, and to put in place a process that would require on-site evidence be corroborated. Having built processes and trained people in their use in the past this is well within my sphere of expertise.
“Now the question is: If this looks like a pirated copy to you, and them, would they be educated enough then to understand an email receipt? Would they accuse me of fabrication and ask me for a paper receipt for these products? Would they then assume guilt (out of incompetence) and damn me anyway? These are perfectly reasonable doubts to have. To err is human, to be incredibly fucking fallible is a human Government, and this is a system which assumes guilty first and gives you little chance to defend yourself.”
Not educated enough to understand an email receipt? Who is being sent out here – Peter Griffin?
“Also, I find the fact you believe that only utter incompetents will be investigating these cases to be extraordinarily laughable.”
“Yes, laughable like a British Internet police cop having porn on his own computer, the same kind of porn that he’s supposed to be investigating, and being guilty of the crimes he’s supposed to be investigating, and being too fucking stupid to hide his own porn. Look it up.
Usually when computers are involved, investigators are not smart people.”
That’s an over-generalisation. I cannot agree with it based on only one example of what does sound like incredible stupidity but sadly, having looked as you suggested, I can’t seem to find any corroborating evidence to back that up.
“Won’t be able to tell the difference between a digitally encrypted Steam game and GoG unbranded? Funniest thing I’ve heard in ages. No, really.”
“All right, then take a trip to your local constabulary and ask them if they know what Steam is, or even if they know what digital distribution is.”
Oh, you’re being silly now. Your local constabulary may not know now (what if they do?) but if they have to enact and enforce this law I fully expect at least the merest hint of education and briefing to take place on the subject, or do you think that the people investigating child porn were simply pointed at the internet and told to “get on with it”? They’d have accomplished NOTHING if that were the case.
“Likely the people enforcing this will be none the wiser.”
An entirely subjective opinion.
“You put far too much stock in the competence of your own Government. Far too much. Considering the huge fuck ups our Government has made over the last few years I’d have to say that you are providing the laughs by believing in their competence without a basis to do so, regardless of a heavy amount of evidence to the contrary.”
On the contrary, I put stock in the general decency of human beings to at least try to do their jobs to something like a competent level, if not to the best of their ability. You, by contrast, seem to automatically assume the worst. I’m no fan of UK Govt; I’d have the whole corrupt edifice torn down and reconstructed if the power to do so were mine. But I refuse to believe that the whole organisation, the civil services, and other services surrounding them such as the police are staffed predominantly by mental incompetents. It’s just not realistic given what they DO achieve.
“Let me know once you’ve woken up to the real world, where people aren’t perfect and mistakes happen, often at the hands of people who’re given jobs they don’t understand.”
Typical Digg-baiting. The call to “wake up”. Your opinion is so clearly the paragon of reason while my own must be the fevered ravings of an unhinged, unseeing mind. Unworthy of you, Wulf. Must Try Harder.
08/04/2010 at 18:09 undead dolphin hacker says:
That picture reminds me of a university math(s) course three quarters of the way through a semester.
08/04/2010 at 18:10 Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
Actually, California is pretty much bankrupt:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jobs-terminated-as-california-goes-bankrupt-1624892.html
08/04/2010 at 18:17 7rigger says:
Thanks for the link, I had no idea direct democracy was failing that badly.
I worked from these facts (from wikipedia)
“California’s economy is the largest of any state in the US, and is the eighth largest economy in the world.”
I wonder how their problems will relate to the rest of the U.S.?
08/04/2010 at 18:11 Quercus says:
If you want proper Electoral Reform, you HAVE to vote Lib Dems – end of.
If they had been in power the Expenses scandal and lobbying scandals would never have happened.
It is a shame they only got 29% of their MPs in the Commons for this debate but presumably the rest of them (and definitely Nick Clegg) are already involved in the election campaign and are either campaigning in their constituencies or (in the case of Nick Clegg), rushing around the country campaigning.
My own MP (Sir John Butterfill) was the Tory MP caught out by the lobbying scandal so that says everything about his moral status.
Seriously, make a change by voting LibDem.
08/04/2010 at 19:03 clive dunn says:
Fuck voting! LET’S RIOT!
Get ourselves down to the BPI and burn the fuckers out of their offices.
Call yourself a pirate?!
08/04/2010 at 19:23 jsutcliffe says:
… I just can’t reconcile my childhood image of Clive Dunn with the monster he’s become.
08/04/2010 at 19:32 DJ Phantoon says:
Jim Rossingnol for House of Commons!
Though this isn’t a nomination, I’m not British. Merely a suggestion.
08/04/2010 at 19:34 clive dunn says:
apologies folks. long day today, ending in anger at reading all this. Sometimes you just wanna smash some shit up.
09/04/2010 at 01:06 mandrill says:
It may yet come to that Clive.
I’m not going to say anymore on this subject (I can hear the cheers from here, thanks :P) but I’ll leave you with three choice quotes which I feel sums up how I feel about the whole debacle quite well:
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
“I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time.”
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
I’ll leave you to figure out who said them.
08/04/2010 at 19:36 Mario Figueiredo says:
This is not good bill. But this is the necessary bill. And for once I’m happy my own country is a spineless lap dog ready to follow on the ankles of Europe’s greatest. Because that means sooner than later we will have the same bill over here.
I just simply don’t like living in a world that promotes, encourages or otherwise protects the trash that tries to steal from me my right from gathering dividends for my work.
And if anyone here sees this Bill as a wrongdoing, you are probably right. But exactly what did you expect? What exactly was our answer to unregulated internet access? The rampant violations of copyright laws, technological barriers to protect minors from pornographic content, an ever increase of identity theft, rampant and uncontrolled cyber crime,…
How many slaps in the hand do we really deserve until action must be taken? Just yesterday I was reading on Ars Technica people commenting on what they felt was their right to download eBooks from P2P websites for books they already owned. What the fuck?!
What? Anyone in here thought they could have an unregulated internet forever? Are you dreaming!? Today the internet is a multi-billion dollar arena for large and small business. It can amount to as much as a 2 figure digit in a country’s internal product. And we asked for these businesses to be here. We asked for them! For Amazon, for D2D, for cloud networks, for all sorts of services and products. And then what? They weren’t going to do anything to protect their investment?
Who cares if you think this is not going to stop piracy! It will put a damn dent on it. And do pray it stops it or seriously hampers it. Because if it doesn’t, the answer is not a new world where everyone will have Greensleeves parties around the fireplace singing about the free world. No, it will be even more restrictions.
Because, my friends, we need an economy. It puts the food on our plates. And on my case, I need my rights as a creator to be protected. Not vandalized.
08/04/2010 at 21:08 Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
“It will put a damn dent on it.”
No it won’t. Don’t be fucking stupid.
08/04/2010 at 21:35 Uhm says:
Odd, then, that there’s such vocal opposition from big companies. On the internet.
09/04/2010 at 02:09 diddly says:
you’re insane if you think that the future of digital media is going to be anything but free for the vast majority of pirating users, and this won’t make the slightest difference to that.
good luck making money in whatever field you work in, but my advice would be to adapt, not to hang on to the past.
09/04/2010 at 02:30 nil says:
The interesting thing about the internet is that regulations don’t really matter. Code does. And given the choice between trusting politicians or math, I think obvious answer is obvious.
08/04/2010 at 19:43 SpakAttack says:
My fucktard MP voted for the bill.
I warned him that I’d be voting for the opposition if it got through, so I’ll be voting for the candidate most likely to displace him, and hopefully good riddance.
08/04/2010 at 19:53 deuterium. says:
I’m mad. Wrote to my MP informing him of this travesty and all I receive is a token “it’s important to us”.
Then barely anybody turns up to vote on an issue affecting millions of internet users in the UK and the very core of our freedoms? Utter nonsense, now my options are to vote for a party I’m not entirely sure I trust to capably run the country or vote for either of the two behemoths responsible for perverting our democracy.
I will most likely null vote unless something changes.
08/04/2010 at 20:02 Jacques says:
@Mario Figueiredo,
I’ve purchased limited edition books at full retail (as much as $300). I have no moral qualms in downloading a PDF version of the same book now that I’ve purchased it at such a premium price.
08/04/2010 at 20:29 Mario Figueiredo says:
So, just we get this straight: You don’t have any moral qualms in promoting and supporting the continued existence of criminals who make publicly available copyrighted material. Is this right?
Or, you don’t actually agree with what they do? But if you don’t, why do you use their services? And if somehow you do live in that gray area where you feel it’s just swell to no agree with what they do and use their services at the same time, where exactly do you think that puts you in the human scale of social responsibility?
You don’t actually need to reply to this. It’s meant more to give you some food for thought.
08/04/2010 at 20:39 Jacques says:
@Mario Figueiredo
Of course I have moral qualms about supporting criminals making money off other people’s work, but what worries me more is that companies are so stuck in their backwards thinking that they can’t see that the world has evolved. If I buy a copy of a book/dvd/game/album it’d be nice if I had the rights to use that product across a variety of platforms without being stuck with some draconian DRM. The first company that realises this fact, and markets their product at a low price will make an absolute killing.
I’m not going to try to defend piracy, because there’s no point, I think anyone sane can see why it’s wrong, but, and this is a real clincher, the entertainment industries need to be made to realise that they’re stuck in the past, and putting their customers in court isn’t going to solve any issue.
08/04/2010 at 20:55 Rath says:
Oh good. Now I am utterly despondent over who to vote for. I didn’t think there was a single party or candidate worthy of my support before as none of them represent my views, but now I have to vote Lib Dem if I want even a half-arsed attempt at a single issue being rectified? Fucking great. I’m all for keeping the Tory scum as far from power as possible, but this country seriously needs a fourth party, and soon.
08/04/2010 at 21:24 Uncredited says:
Fuck politics and fuck politicians.
There’s no single party or politician in this country who is even remotely representative of me and mine, and I doubt there ever will be…. All they ever do is make ill-informed decisions that at best benefit one minority whilst screwing over another, and at worst just shit all over everyone for their own selfish gains. On any average day they just dick about like the shower of overpaid lying toff twats they are and squander our tax contributions on coke parties, third homes and duck ponds.
As a nation, one moment we’re all up in arms that the evil politicians have oh-so-shockingly decided to bone us all again – either through sheer incompetence or pure malevolence – yet two moments later we’ve all completely forgotten about it and swiftly moved on to giggling about some Tory’s involvement with a gimp mask, a bowling ball and an under-age rent boy. Several moments later, we’ve all given up completely and are all back on Facebook poking our “friends” about what we ate for breakfast, cheering on some talentless moronic hacks on Pop Idol, or gawping at Jordan and Generic Retarded Chav Boy Toy #38′s train wreck sham of a relationship plastered all over the front of the nation’s most popular newspapers. That’s our Great British democracy for you right there. She is a beautiful beast, no?
Look, I’m not saying I have a better alternative or have a batshit clue how to fix any of it, but I don’t have to like what I’m given either. Quite frankly, I JUST DON’T GIVE A TOSS ANY MORE. Let them sit there in their little castles and brazenly dictate their fickle edicts upon us all, I’ll simply shrug, slap on my headphones and get my FPS on.
Escapism isn’t an answer, it’s a defence mechanism, and in this day and age it’s more brilliant and powerful than it has ever been at any other time in history. I feel like I’ve shoved my hand in the sand and discovered there’s a lesbian porn shaped candy store staffed by Jessica Alba and Kate Beckinsale under there.
In all sincerity, life is too damn short and bizarre to worry about the many, many things you and I have absolutely no power to change. So fuck ‘em lads… who wants some TF2?
09/04/2010 at 18:09 TeeJay says:
However, you are either financially a net contributor (via tax) or a net recipient (via public services and benefits) and there will in fact be a difference between the parties for you personally (if you can manage to work it out).
You may well have various choices curtailed depending on your specific lifestyle and interests.
It might be that everyone else’s involvement in the political process keeps the major parties from veering to one extreme or another and/or keeps out more nasty extremists, but I’d argue that you should contribute to this as well – at least keep an eye open on what is happening, just in case.
08/04/2010 at 22:27 Rei Onryou says:
My local MP is Paul Burstow (Lib Dem). I wrote an email to him. A lackey returned a one line email saying it would be read based on priority. He voted against the bill. Whether he would have anyway, or was just going along with his party’s position, or he was actually swayed by people, I don’t know. At least he voted sensibly.
I’m fairly certain this is how the Galactic Empire began. Giving power to one person to make decisions, ignoring the democratic process. The next thing we know, Emperor Mandelson will issue Order 66 and wipe out the Jedi. Won’t somebody please think of the younglings!!!
08/04/2010 at 22:49 ArtyFishal says:
News like this, the US’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and Ubisoft’s DRM are creating an atmosphere of increasing persecution on the internet. We have all become suspects instead of users and customers. Interestingly, this is not unique to the digital world. If anything the internet is playing catch-up. The author, Ellen Goodman, wrote an essay titled, “The Suspect Shopper” 29 years ago that I feel has become more poignant with time. Look it up for an interesting reflection on the current state of the net from a pre-net time.
08/04/2010 at 23:03 bitkari says:
Bitkari will be voting on May 6.
Cynicism achieves nothing.
08/04/2010 at 23:18 We Fly Spitfires says:
UK politics is just a mess and I can’t really stand any of the parties. I like the Lib Dems the most but everyone knows they don’t have a chance of getting into power.
09/04/2010 at 01:44 Wulf says:
That might be true… but I still can’t–in good conscience–vote for either New Labour or the Tories.
I feel really lost with this, I want to vote for the Greens, but they’ll never get anywhere, I may vote for them because there’s a slim chance they may end up in a favourable position with a hung parliament, I can’t vote for New Labour or the Tories, they’ve both been responsible for far too much incompetence and wrongdoing.
So, yep… kind of lost. Might vote for Lib Dems… what a mess.
What a mess this all is.
09/04/2010 at 14:30 jsutcliffe says:
@Spitfires
Actually, if Parliament is hung that most likely gives the Lib Dems their best chance at a say in government in a long while.
09/04/2010 at 18:24 TeeJay says:
Anyone who lives in the Brighton Pavillion, Norwich South or Lewisham Deptford seats should definitely vote Green.
PS.
An independent website http://www.voteforpolicy.org.uk allowed users to pick a pick their preferred political policies without knowing which political party they came from covering crime, democracy, economy, education, environment, Europe, NHS, immigration and welfare.
The result after 62,000 votes was:
1. Green Party 28%
2. LibDem 18%
3. Labour 17%
4. Con 16%
5. UKIP 11%
6. BNP 10%
09/04/2010 at 18:32 jsutcliffe says:
@TeeJay
Those results from voteforpolicies cannot be trusted in the slightest. For example, after I did two serious passes to see if my anti-Labour feelings would be reflected by the policies I chose (they weren’t), I then started to do a few muckabout surveys, trying to max out BNP, UKIP, and Greens.
11/04/2010 at 06:56 Grape Flavor says:
@We Fly Spitfires
Ha, you think UK politics is a mess? Come across the pond into total hell. At least you have a system which is open to multiple parties. Try having to deal with our ideologically binary, plurality-takes-all system that splits the moderate vote, thus ensuring only the nutbags make it into the general election. Every stage of the thing is goddamn rigged and it will always be thus because if the Dems and Repubs can agree on ONE thing, it’s to maintain the strictly two-party institution at all costs.
It always amuses me when people from countries with relatively sane political systems wring their hands about how broken THEIR politics are. No civilized nation on earth has to deal with an political system as broken, rigid and absolutist as the United States. So take a deep breath and count your blessings. :)
08/04/2010 at 23:35 Rick says:
I wouldn’t vote Liberal Democrat if you gave me 5 billion quid and sovereignty of Gibraltar and Bermuda, regardless of whether or not they liked this bill, or the fact that both my MPs (being a student, I’m eligible to vote in two areas, but can only cast my vote in one of the two, not both) would have voted for it. There are more pressing issues in the world, where the Liberals still fall as flat on their face now as they did in 1922.
Honestly, the last part of this blog post wasn’t needed. This is a video game blog, not a political one. Report political news relevant to the industry by all means, but please don’t presume to tell me how I should vote.
09/04/2010 at 08:05 Grunt says:
I agree, Rick. That crossed a line and I’m not happy to see it here.
There are places for this kind of thing, Mr Rossignol..
09/04/2010 at 18:27 TeeJay says:
It’s their blog, they can do what they want. It’s not like it has somehow damaged you to read his personal opinion, nor is anyone else here prevented from expressing their disagreement.
09/04/2010 at 19:33 Wulf says:
I completely agree, Teej. In fact, I don’t like the insinuation that (to use a word I like) Jim has harangued anyone. He shared his opinion, something which is purely subjective, personal, and individual, and something that one can ignore at their own leisure (unless they’re really weak-willed).
Though I wouldn’t be surprised if there were such a group of incredibly weak-willed people here, since there are a group of the sort which tend to jump on folks for opinions, opinions which are not facts or brainwashing, but just harmless opinions. If you don’t like it, ignore it, but don’t presume to tell RPS what they shouldn’t talk about. Their blog, their rules.
10/04/2010 at 15:20 Grunt says:
“If you don’t like it, ignore it…”
Hypocrisy worthy of the most two-faced politician you care to name, Wulf. Or have you apologised to Cliffski for your [latest] outburst?
Of course Jim is entitled to his opinions. I maintain that RPS, however, is not the forum for these types of opinions. The remit of RPS is PC gaming, nothing more, nothing less. I don’t pick up a copy of PC Gamer for the latest political commentary, so I don’t expect, or want, subjective political opinion on a gaming news site. Each writer has their own personal blogs where I’d be more than happy to read their political expressions – let’s keep the focus of RPS on the games.
09/04/2010 at 00:48 Mike Arthur says:
The Lib Dem Lords were condemned by the potential parlimentary candidates, as you yourself posted.
The Liberal Democrats had a proportionally higher turnout than any other opposing party. If the Conservatives had all turned up and voted against, this bill would not have gone through. The problem is the timing of pushing the bill through just after the election has been announced, people are having to choose between campaigning for the election and voting on this bill. Arguably, the Lib Dems could not have swayed it either way by voting and want to get a lot more seats in the next election.
More importantly, the reason why Jim says to vote Lib Dem isn’t because they were against this but they want electoral reform (such as proportional representation) which would stop the party in power from being able to force through bills like this simply because they got a large majority over four years ago. That is a reason to vote for them, if nothing else.
09/04/2010 at 00:49 Mike Arthur says:
The Lib Dem Lords were condemned by the potential parlimentary candidates, as you yourself posted.
The Liberal Democrats had a proportionally higher turnout than any other opposing party. If the Conservatives had all turned up and voted against, this bill would not have gone through. The problem is the timing of pushing the bill through just after the election has been announced, people are having to choose between campaigning for the election and voting on this bill. Arguably, the Lib Dems could not have swayed it either way by voting and want to get a lot more seats in the next election.
More importantly, the reason why Jim says to vote Lib Dem isn’t because they were against this but they want electoral reform (such as proportional representation) which would stop the party in power from being able to force through bills like this simply because they got a large majority over four years ago. That is a reason to vote for them, if nothing else.
09/04/2010 at 00:50 Mike Arthur says:
Gah, silly reply system. This was meant to be a reply to the reply to the first comment.
09/04/2010 at 02:32 A-Scale says:
Can someone give me the short version of this for a privacy/freedom conscious American? I read as many of the comments as I could stomach, but still feel rather ignorant about what this bill is for and what it does. Does this relate to the secret ACTA discussions?
09/04/2010 at 09:49 Delusibeta says:
The Guardian (newspaper) has a decent tl;dr edition of the bill.
Basically, ISPs now have to hobble, fine or disconnect people (depending on an Ofcom consultation) people who are suspected of illegal downloading. Obviously, since this is all based on IP addresses and assumes that your router is secured, it’s going to be false-positive-tastic.
Also, if the Culture Secretary and a court agrees that a site will be blocked, it will be blacklisted at ISP level. (I half expect Viacom to attempt to use the measure) More details here: Again, another consultation required before the doomsday scenario would occur.
Bonus round specific to video games: clause 41 “Extends game regulation under Video Recordings Act 1984 to games that include violence to humans or animals, encouragement of criminality, drug use, encouragement of alcohol or tobacco use, sexual messages, swearing, offence.”, to quote the Guardian. I’m hoping it’s not as bad at it seems.
09/04/2010 at 07:42 Soobe says:
As an American I was shocked to learn that (and this is just what i heard) political advertising is completely different in the UK. Here in the US it’s all about corporate spending and donations from special interest groups to put ads on the TV, radio, etc.
Is that correct?
No matter, even though your financing systems are quite different, you get just as bad of results. It’s a no-win everywhere I guess.
09/04/2010 at 11:25 anonymous17 says:
Unfortunately many laws within Britain suffer from this lack of accuracy, some argue it is part of the common law tradition but it is really just sloppy law making – mainly due to the confused multiple messages that MPs and civil servants hand the drafters.
I have done some more looking into this and many websites seem to hold that the provisions come into a year after the bill is enforced – whether it returns for a final reading in the House of Lords seems to also have been confused.
This is because it is the role of OFCOM to oversee the implementation of the new bill and the enforcement procedures – which are at least likely to take a year to get into place.
However this is unfortunately vague and despite the bill mentioning OFCOM, the legal authority to shut down an individuals internet – provided infractions have been detected and reported three times – will exist two months after the bill is passed.
This will probably mean that during the next year the internet populace will be unsure as to what the actual stance is until the government finishes setting up the oversight agencies and the ISPs attempt to start to identify net traffic. Meanwhile, whilst OFCOM will not have formally begun to the enforce the bill provisions, it could use them against anyone before the completed system is running.
Like I said, lazy and sloppy.
09/04/2010 at 18:35 TeeJay says:
I don’t think this is correct. First OFCOM will draw up a code covering “stage 1″. Stage 1 will run for at least 12 months starting when the OFCOM code comes into effect. Stage 2 may come into effect after that. Stage 1 just involves copy-right holders making infringement reports to ISPs who will in turn inform users but enforcement action still has to go through the courts like it does now. Stage 2 is the part that brings in “technical measures” for cutting connections and ‘tribunals’ instead of using copyright laws via the courts.
09/04/2010 at 11:58 bill says:
I have truly reached the point where I have no idea who to vote for. I’ve always felt voting was important, but right now I actively don’t want to vote for anyone.
I don’t mean this in some form of teen-angst fueled rebellion, just as a slightly worn out and disenchanted person.
On this bill, and many bills like it, the parties have become so close that there’s really little to choose between them. And I think the system actively works against the needs of many of the population. But I don’t see it ever changing much.
While a lib-dem win might mean some changes in the lords, I don’t think it’d address (m)any of the main problems.
PS/ Quick, everyone change to TalkTalk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/08/internet-piracy-bill
09/04/2010 at 18:14 Yaksemash says:
Bill – you’re not alone man. I and many of my friends feel exactly the same, we’re all interested in the subject but the state of UK politics is pretty dismal.
The sad reality is that nothing we do on 6th May will effect real change for any of us. Red, blue, yellow, green, ultimately they are all apples fallen from the same tree. The entire system (the media included) encourages and actively promotes the wrong qualities in leadership, with little accountability or recourse available to the people who are affected by corruption and mismanagement.
I for one will not be voting next month. A vote for any of the parties who stand even a remote chance of getting into a position of influence is really just a vote to re-elect the same personalities and ideas, something I am sick and tired of.
But I agree with an earlier sentiment in this thread – why beat yourself up over things you have no power to change? There are plenty of other things in my life I actually have some control over, I’ll worry about those instead.
09/04/2010 at 18:45 TeeJay says:
You could just vote on the basis of what will make you and your friends / family / etc personally better of from a tax, benefits, services point of view. Who this is depends on your income, state of health, whether you have school-age kids, whether you drink cider, drive a car or whatever else adds the most to your household bills. It also depends on whether you can actually work out what each party is proposing and how far you believe what they are saying corresponds to what the will actually do it reality.
As selfish as this sounds at least it is a bit easier to work out what will benefit you than making some grand and complex calculation about what will be better for 60 million other people, and if everyone correctly works out what they like/want then hopefully the politicians can just get on with working out how to achieve it, rather than ramming their preferences down peoples throats.
10/04/2010 at 02:19 ronpaul says:
Orwell is coming, and i’m afraid we can’t escape.
my advice: stop watching tele, stop reading papers, get your own opinions!!!
if you must read, read history books, regardless of the era, we goign through the same shit every few decades anyways, cause people do not read about it ;-)
Peace
10/04/2010 at 22:15 Phil says:
You pretty much had me convinced until I looked at some of their websites.
I’m scared now.
11/04/2010 at 06:04 mister_d says:
Lib Dems? HA!
I will vote Conservative, despite living in Manchester which is the biggest Labour cesspit in the country. They stand for things I believe in strongly; localism, getting rid of the worthless NHS desk jockeys, a less centralised Europe, tighter controls on immigration, maintaining the union, and a whole host of other issues. Of course, there are many areas where I disagree with them, but you can’t have it every which way.
The Lib Dems and Labour are the same party at this point. The only difference is that the Lib Dems disagree with everyone who is not a Lib Dem, just because. Under the surface both parties are populist, very broadly socialist, and practise a horrible brand of faux-liberalism that believes equality laws and “rights” actually prevent discrimination (hint: they actually create it by way of positive discrimination against perceived majority advantages and by creating hierarchical systems of “rights”.)
So, take your Lib Dem propaganda and…
20/04/2010 at 15:48 TM says:
Has anyone actually looked at the content of the act? This act has a requirement for copyright owners to send the details of the infringing I.P to the I.S.P before anything will happen. This is the biggest pile of rubbish I have ever seen – what kind of private individual will have the resources to protect copyright in this manner? The only people that this benifits are the big industries who own the copyrights and can afford to track copyright infringers on the net. Thanks very much members of parliament for once again putting the big big businesses first and the common member of the electorate last.