Fucking shit, discuss.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Bill

 

Also Sorry if Mark has already made a thread about this but the admin on this forum are fucking retards.

You discuss first.

I don't want to get all ranty, I just think it's a fucking stupid idea and it's not going to get anybody on the side of the music industry at all, they need to find ways to work alongside downloads rather than completely shut it off and risk alienating people.

 

Most people I know who download things, download a lot and then buy what they really like, I know I do that. So really I'm probably going to be less likely to buy music now as I wont be able to see if I like it before I pay money for it, assuming they make it impossible to fileshare. They are just fucking over the full enjoyment of music because they think it'll make them more money.

 

Most bands don't even make money from the records they sell anyway, it goes to the record company for the most part, the bands make money from touring, which is why most sensible bands don't actually give a fuck about music piracy as people will still come see them play live, will love their music and they wont be losing money because of it.

There are no "losses" from internet piracy (as the wikipedia page seems to claim). Music sales have climbed steadily post-MP3. This is the great myth the government relies on to be able to pass bills like this. Like Bono and Lady Gaga will quit writing music unless someone's offering them tens of millions to do it.

 

 

There should be a "busking" website that lists all musicians, and allows you to send them money directly, bypassing the RIAA entirely. It could be linked on all the torrent sites. If it is even marginally popular, artists might abandon the RIAA and other similar agencies.

This is not just about music, its video games, movies, books, you name it. Anything with a copyright. This bill, however much you agree or disagree with it, was inevitable. The biggest injustice though is that we can hop over the North Sea into Netherlands and download what the fuck we like. We're either part of Europe or we're not!

the admin on this forum are fucking retards.

and thanks for that, love you too! :kiss:

This bill, however much you agree or disagree with it, was inevitable.

 

I'm a bit surprised we didn't already have something similar to this in the first place, so I had little to say as to why it's such a shock.

and thanks for that, love you too! :kiss:

 

LOL U R SO FUNNY

 

Seriously though, do you know how fucking ridiculous it is? The forum crashes on me randomly because you've forced me to not be able to see Mark's posts, can you change it back?

That's stupid

lmao

 

Apparently the "Minister for Digital Britain" doesn't know what an IP address is:

 

http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

Use Peerguardian and a Firewall,problem solved.

This also includes orphan works, which means if you can't contact the owner or identify them, you can use their works without having to get permission from the copyright holder. Not good for the online art community, quite nasty actually.

LOL U R SO FUNNY

 

Seriously though, do you know how fucking ridiculous it is? The forum crashes on me randomly because you've forced me to not be able to see Mark's posts, can you change it back?

Mark requested it, maybe you should contact him to find out what his problem is.

Mark requested it, maybe you should contact him to find out what his problem is.

 

I request you change it back. Are you his bitch or something?

 

I've made a really valid point to Lore, hopefully she passes it onto you. If the only problem is him being offended by what I say then why isn't he the one ignoring me out of his own accord?

lmao

 

Apparently the "Minister for Digital Britain" doesn't know what an IP address is:

 

http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

 

Hahaha! Brilliant.

 

Mark requested it, maybe you should contact him to find out what his problem is.

 

What the fuck? Mark's one of the only regular members (Not spambots, newbs etc.) to push for a ban, and now he's calling the shots?

 

If the only problem is him being offended by what I say then why isn't he the one ignoring me out of his own accord?

 

Exactly. As the mods/admins (AKA YOU BURNS) have always said, if you have a problem with someone, that's what the Ignore function is there for.

sounds then like Mark has had enough of Nathan following him round the forums with his many accounts. Wanted the ignore feature's big brother unleashed.

All of Nathan's 2 accounts? He never used Technicolor before it happened.

sounds then like Mark has had enough of Nathan following him round the forums with his many accounts. Wanted the ignore feature's big brother unleashed.

 

Has Lore forwarded my message to you?

lmao

 

Apparently the "Minister for Digital Britain" doesn't know what an IP address is:

 

http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

 

...wow

 

Mark requested it, maybe you should contact him to find out what his problem is.

 

Can I request Mark not being able to see any 14-year-old girls' posts? :wacko:

dp...

Can I request Mark not being able to see any 14-year-old girls' posts? :wacko:

 

Great point!

This also includes orphan works, which means if you can't contact the owner or identify them, you can use their works without having to get permission from the copyright holder. Not good for the online art community, quite nasty actually.

 

That part of the bill has been dropped (for the time being)

 

Take Sweden for example, when they bought in laws against privacy there was a sharp drop in internet traffic but a couple months after the law the traffic levels were higher than before but this time the pirates were using protected encryption sites which meant nobody could track then.

 

All this new law is going to do is catch the odd unlucky casual downloader out, the serious downloaders have already moved to encrypted systems and also send out letters to more wireless printers & innocences whose IP addresses has been cloned.

That part of the bill has been dropped (for the time being)

 

Take Sweden for example, when they bought in laws against privacy there was a sharp drop in internet traffic but a couple months after the law the traffic levels were higher than before but this time the pirates were using protected encryption sites which meant nobody could track then.

 

All this new law is going to do is catch the odd unlucky casual downloader out, the serious downloaders have already moved to encrypted systems and also send out letters to more wireless printers & innocences whose IP addresses has been cloned.

 

Yeah, getting a fake IP address is easy shit... people need to realize they're only going to catch the amateurs with IP address traking

 

(perhaps they should learn what one is first...)

Even protected wi-fi can be broken quite easily.

 

And what's not to stop someone buying a 3G data-stick putting credit on it to download stuff before dumping it?

 

What does Con-Lib mean for the Digital Economy Act?

 

A frisson of anticipation ripples through Twitter. Now that the Lib Dems are in power, will Nick Clegg repeal the Digital Economy Act?

 

The Act threatens anyone who illegally downloads copyrighted content with being denied access to the web. In addition, blocking injunctions could close down sites that distribute copyrighted content illegally.

 

There are grounds to hope for repeal. On the face of it, the Digital Economy Act offends at least five varieties of liberal principle. First, there’s the serious risk of arbitrary enforcement. Second, there’s the civil liberties problem. Next, there’s the mercantilist impulse to shore up threatened industries at the expense of citizens.

 

Aside from that, there’s the question of proportionality. Suspending web access for persistent offenders is a draconian step: it diminishes free speech and could disenfranchise citizens in a world where e-government becomes the norm.

 

Finally, there was the ugly Parliamentary stitch-up -- as Nick Clegg described it -- that led to this law’s passage through Parliament in the dying days of Gordon Brown’s government. The Act, Nick Clegg argued during the election campaign, was a "classic example of what's wrong with Westminster". In mid-April, the Lib Dem leader promised to "take [the Act] off the statute book and replace it with something better".

 

Activists smell an opportunity. Yesterday, the Lib-Dem coalition published a list of basic aims, including a Great Repeal Bill or Freedom Bill, designed to roll back some of New Labour’s restrictions of civil liberties. The Digital Economy Act wasn’t mentioned, but many are hoping that the Act -- or, at least, the clauses that deal with downloading -- will be consigned to the dustbin of Parliamentary history, alongside ID cards, biometric passports and the national identity register.

 

The hopes of activists received a boost yesterday when Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat, was sent to run the Department for Business Innovation & Skills. It was here that the Digital Economy Act originated. The problem for Cable is that crucial decisions about enforcement need to be made soon. Take the precise arrangements for banishing persistent offenders from the web. The Act asks Ofcom to set out the basis on which copyright owners can send out warning letters.

 

When these guidelines are ready, broadband subscribers across Britain should start receiving missives. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, expects this to start happening by the end of the year. At this point, Cable may encounter a surge of complaints from Middle Britain, channelled through the popular press. Killock says: "Suddenly lots of people will be receiving letters saying they are under surveillance. People will be shocked that internet connections are being monitored."

 

Ofcom has also been given the job of monitoring traffic to see if the warning letters deter illegal downloading. If downloading doesn’t decline, Cable will be forced to define the legal basis on which disconnections can begin. Against a backdrop of complaints about surveillance and groundless harassment, this won’t be easy.

 

In parallel, of course, Cable will need to deal with the Act’s declared intention to "block" web sites that "make available" illegal downloads. Here, too, there’s unfinished business. The Act suggests that Cable may need to decide how copyright holders approach the courts for a blocking injunction. Along the way, Cable could also be forced to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and other laws.

 

None of this will be easy. But repealing the offending clauses of the Digital Economy Act won’t be easy, either. Everyone knows what Nick Clegg appeared to promise. Yet Geoff Taylor, the chief executive of the BPI, the music industry’s trade body, doesn’t sound worried. This week, he told the Billboard that the music industry has "very good support from all main parties".

 

The Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour, he argued, "understand both the need for the peer-to-peer provisions and the non peer-to-peer [web-blocking] provisions [in the Digital Economy Act]."

 

At one point during the BBC’s coverage of David Cameron’s arrival at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday, Michael Heseltine reminded us that political parties, in themselves, are coalitions. Today, the Conservative Party is a coalition within a coalition. For anyone who would like to see the Digital Economy Bill repealed, this isn’t particularly good news. Already, the Queen’s speech -- due for reading on 25 May -- resembles a Ford Transit carrying the load of an articulated lorry. It will need to stop at many destinations before its drivers even think of popping in for a cup of tea with the pro-repeal activists. Long before then, David Cameron and Nick Clegg may run out of petrol.

 

Perhaps they already have. At the Department of Culture, Media & Sport, Jeremy Hunt is signalling that the Olympics will be his main focus. Speculation is rampant that the Tories’ drive to restructure the BBC has faltered. Like those plans for the BBC, the Digital Economy Act is controversial. The Act straddles a faultline between Conservative support for business and liberal support for individual rights.

 

The prime minister and deputy prime minister appear to disagree. Even as Nick Clegg seemed to demand repeal, David Cameron argued against changing the legislation when asked about it on the campaign trail. Even if the Lib Dems do argue strenuously for repeal, the Tories will ask themselves the obvious counterfactual question: what will happen if we do nothing?

 

The possible answers are many and various, but here are a few. Leaving the Act untouched for will cause problems for the most popular Lib Dem in Cabinet. It will please the entertainment industry. In time, someone else, or something else, may intervene to render the Act unworkable. Candidates for this job include European legislation and the courts here in the UK.

 

The Conservatives might also ask themselves about whether the Act will harm public perceptions of the coalition. The answer, I suspect, is probably not. When the music labels start taking grannies from Skegness to court on a weekly basis, it will be easy enough to blame a poorly-drafted law rammed through Parliament by Labour.

 

There’s another strong argument for letting this controversy run along the trajectory planned by Lord Mandelson. For the best part of a decade, the online copyright/piracy debate has been the preserve of wonks, geeks and lobbyists. Collectively, this inner circle has reached stalemate again and again. It’s time for the question to be opened up to a much wider audience. The public needs to start participating in the obscure debates about privacy and intellectual property that are being conducted in its name, without its knowledge.

 

Injunctions and take-down notices will crystallise opinions. Does public sentiment lean toward the entertainment industry, with its ironclad view of copyright? Or does it incline toward the activists, whose fundamental argument remains that the industry has failed to develop services that people will pay to use? Opinion polls can only tell us so much. The public doesn’t understand the issues. Politicians don’t understand the public’s mood. A high-profile crisis would force sentiment in one direction or another. To get some, or all, of the offending clauses of the Digital Economy Act repealed, the Lib Dems will need to fight their corner -- and quickly.

 

The Tories, by contrast, might decide that they want to leave a bad law on the statute book. The case for repeal is far from open and shut.

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-05/13/what-does-con-lib-mean-for-the-digital-economy-act

It's totally a mercantilist bill and it should get repealed asap.

 

It's tantamount to outlawing cars because the buggy/whip business might lose money. There are alternative ways artists can make money. It won't be the outrageous amount of money they've made in the past, but it will still be substantially more than the average worker.