I can understand the idea of this and it is a good idea in theory (like socialism is a good idea in theory.) Seeing the discussions on this bill though it does seem some of the information used it skewed slightly. As yet I have not seen or found anywhere that states how the loss for the the music industry is calculated because it could be (and I suspect it is) grossly over exagerated. Back to the actual bill though, the question is really why? The public don't want it, the ISP's don't appear to want it and the only people who do is the music/film industry it seems. Which then asks the question of do we have such a weak government that bows down the problems of business segments. With the problems of illegal sharing being argueably being increased by the same market segment complaining.
Overall though, I sort of see the point but it is worthless as so many loop holes have already been found.
The figures where supplied by research conducted by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the very people who lobbied for this law. Obligatory Supporting Linky
Because the music and film industry have plowed millions into the personal coffers of MP's and political party election budgets in order to get this bill brought through parliament. They knew that it would never pass as was through parliament and was planned, from before the election was even announced, to be put through in the "wash up" period.
I don't. Pirates will not be even remotely effected by this legislation. As per when this happened in Sweden the bill will have a short term effect on file sharing - for Sweden it was 3 months - and then traffic will ressume but be encrypted. Pirates will simply establish a data tunnel to an off-shore proxy which is untraceable, services for this already exist.
Problems with the digital economy act:
It has the potential to completely destroy the multi-billion pound ecommerce industry in the UK if so much as a handful of companies in the sector use the badly thought out clauses against each other, leaving hundreds of thousands of people out of work.
A computer virus could be used to launch mass denial of service attacks by establishing uncloacked P2P file transfers causing potentially millions of people to loose their internet connection. The first virus relating to this bill is already in the wild.
The government now has more sensorship control over the internet enshrined in law than China, although not yet put into practice - under the law the government can close any website on the basis that it might one day potentially maybe infringe copyright. Sites which are now technically illegal include: Google; You Tube; Wikileaks; Political Party Websites showing recent political billboard adverts...
If I crack the wireless network, or rent an office adjacent to, an ecommerce rival and connect to their network, I can have them removed from the internet without trial. It takes approximately 15 minutes to crack most wireless password systems (some take longer but none are secure).
If an ecommerce rival has a blog that uses pictures and once makes the mistake of not posting who the photographer was, I can have their entire server shut down.
Whilst not yet implemented in practice the Digital Economy Act is in law capable of being used for so much harm that it staggers belief how it passed through parliament - except of course that it didnt... It was passed through in wash up (MP's had just a few hours to discuss the entire bill). The only defence against these powers being missused by government to sensor things they dont want us to see (ie: wikileaks) is the trust we have in our MP's... Incidentally, mine has a landscaped garden, duck pond and electric gates paid for out of my tax money - how trust worthy is your MP?
Most Labour MP's didnt understand it and voted in accordance with Labours 3 line whip. The Conservatives did a back room deal and also supported the bill. The Lib Dems didnt pay it much attention until the campaign to have it repealed picked up mommentum whereupon they pledged to repeal it and then re-examine the issues more closely. The Digital Economy Bill is alone responsible for the groundswell of support that was building for the Liberal Democrats before the first leaders debate as the two main parties continue to stand against and Murdoch controlled press continues not to mention it.
Working in eCommerce my own vote is of course entirely decided by my desire for job security, but even if my livelihood did not depend upon it I find the thought of a sensored web like China's "Golden Gate" (or as it's more commonly called, The Great Firewall) unpalletable.
Parties to have pledged to fight this Act are:
Liberal Democrats
The Green Party
The Pirate Party
Parties who fully support this Act are:
Labour
Conservative
Make your own decision.
EDIT: Also, the LFS Forum is in breach of the Digital Economy Act. Any uploaded images, or remotely linked images, need to be vetted prior to display because some of them may be from copyrighted sources. At this moment in time LFS is breaking UK law, thanks to this ridiculous act. Removing them is insufficient however, because the possibility exists for users to upload images in the future.
Don't think for one minute the other parties are holier-than-thou. LibDems would happily pass the law if it was written in Brussels, and the Green Party would happily bankrupt the country through mass nationalisation and increased spending. The increased support for LibDems is very much a naively placed hope.
Not saying Lab and Con are any better but the opposition to the bill is as much about political point scoring as really fighting for the people.
I agree with everything you say on the actual bill though. This is just typical dead industries looking for bailouts by the government whether it's through money or new law.
Oh I agree, Lib Dems wouldn't have pledge to fight the act if votes wheren't in it for them - although those LD MP's who did turn up for the vote did vote against it. On the whole, the entire parliament let us down with a megre turn out - because most of them did not understand what the bill was even about.
However, the fact that they are the only major party to think that government sensorship of the internet is a bad idea does appeal to my vote, and I really would like to stay in the UK and keep my current job, so I know who i'm voting.
(however I live in a conservative safe seat, and owing to the complete lack of democracy in this country my vote will actually count for 0. Meenwhile some constituencies are reporting one in four registered voters are postal votes, so Labour already have around 25% of the vote from dead people, and because our voting boundaries have been steadily moved into Labours favour over the last 3 terms, they only need 34% of the vote to maintain a majority).
The LibDem supports a European centrally controlled economy... and history tells us quite clearly that isn't good for anyone. The Tories have made a booboo on this. It's such a shame because fundamentally speaking they should be opposed to this sort of thing but they lost their fundamentals years ago because it's not electable material.
The Torries took us into Europe in the first place . I won't vote Tory anyway because Daddy didnt give me a £4m trustfund, therefor none of their manifesto is of service to me.
Personally i'm not against a central European economy. I'm very much against the existing "democratic" structure of Europe though, the whole thing is such a disgraceful sham. The concept is fine, the implementation is the result of politicians *bangs head against wall*.
It's bye the bye though. I'd like to keep my job and i'd like a free internet. Therefor my vote is secured. All other issues are secondary next to my livelihood. Although on policy I agree with more of the Lib Dem manifesto than either the Tory or Labour one. On corruption I am inclined not to vote Labour or Tory, and on issues of Democracy i'm inclined not to vote Tory or Labour. *shrug* That's all the main points for me.
Your vote won't secure your livelihood... that's one thing I'm sure of.
btw central european economy? More control and power to ONE organisation? Are you mad Becky? lol Just look at the net... no central planning... no central 'thing'... and grew faster and with more freedom because of it. If you think centralisation helps anyone ... think again
With the Digital Economy Act the internet is sensored and the ecommerce industry in Britain will potentially be under siege.
Without it i'm just another employee in recession stricken Britain who's job isn't under threat from a ridiculous law.
Actually my vote will count for 0 because I live in a Conservative safe seat and the British system of government is a long way removed from Democracy.
Whilst i'm sure every one on this forum will disagree with all three of the main parties on a number of issues, I don't think anyone here would seriously advocate the Digital Economy Act. If anyone does, they're a grade 1 idiot and/or a manager at a BPI company.
You need to realise, for anyone working in ecommerce - which I do - this Act has the very real potential to destroy the entire industry in the UK.
I already have stock, pricing and turnover data for my rivals delivered daily, and they get the same data for my firm too. You can bet your last untaxxed penny that with the Digital Economy Act in effect companies in ecommerce will use it to attack each other, it's simply a case of who blinks first. It's like having nuclear weapons - we've all this power to cause harm and the only thing stopping us using it is the fear of retaliation, except with the Digital Economy Act, the fear of retaliation is gone... Some of the ways to attack each other can even be automated.
The best solution I can see is to move the entire technical infrastructure of the industry out of the UK.
It's that serious.
The Digital Economy Act, or rather, the Back to the Stone-Age Economy Act as it should be known, has to go. Period.
There's no point arguing that i'll be better off under Tory or Labour, I won't be. If the act isn't repealed i'll be retraining and moving to another industry sector within 2 years and you will have a sensored internet.
No. Nick Clegg is a member of a party. I was talking about a party. ... Vote policies not personalities (as all politicians personaliies are hidden behind layers of slime).
LD stated intention is to repeal the act and study the issues more closely, this is a better deal than Labour and Tory who both think the only web sites you should see are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The fight against ACTA is still a way off before it gets any real mommentum, but if you are worrie about net sensorshio then google it. Labour and Tory are both looking to extend the reach of the Diital Economy Act, and courtesy of the existing act you may well only know about it if they want you too.
The Act has a number of institutionally threatning aspects to it:
the concept of guilty until proven innocent with pennance served without trial
the concept of restricted access to non-government controlled content
Both of these things are distinctly un-British. Our judicial system is founded on innocent until proven guilty and our way of life encourages freedom of speach and expression. The DE Act is the first step in overturning thes values, as both Tory and Labour seek to extend the reach of the act with ACTA, which is likely to include such things as searhing your iPod/phone on border controlls, confiscation of hardware, and installation of phone home spyware becoming mandatory.
Like I said before, I know who I'm voting for... The best bet to fight against this stuff, the one the Murdoch press are calling names.
I am in full agreement with this point. The bill is a disgrace! However that is, I assume, you are voting for LD, then you'll be getting the exact same result. LD is a party that fully supports the EU which, like this bill, comes up with a ton of new laws and regulations that have the same affects on various industries - devastation. Doesn't matter who you vote for really in essence. You understand the naivety in believing your vote has any real value. These types of ill-thought out Bills have been predicted to come or years...
The elephant in the room is the country is broke, and fiat currencies are as unstable and dangerous as the Austrian Economists have always warned. Your vote won't save your job
The economy is foxtrotted whoever takes over, Labour have seen to that. Were currently being artificially propped up until the election, everything will start getting worse soon after when we begin to pay for the mistake of having an unelected leader who as chancellor screwed us over like a Tory in suspenders.
Europe is a bit irrellevent, and as I mentioned we disagree on it anyway.
The Torys won't save us from the Labour catastrophe, they'll do what rich people always do. They'll save themselves.
Not that I support the Tories (they've deviated way too far away from what they should be) the actual hardcore Tories (to the point of not being modern tories) are more 'for the people' than Labour or LibDem. But politicians (in all 3 major parties) are in it to be re-elected. extremely wealthy background
And Europe isn't irrelevant considering the amount of laws that come over from Brussels meaning the party you vote for is sub-servant to them anyway.
Tory policy is aimed directly at tax breaks for the wealthy.
Whilst I agree that we need to massively cut services in an effort to reduce expenditure I see no reason for the excessively wealthy to be rewarded for us doing so.
Their manifesto is an attack on anyone not having a trust fund from Daddy, and they're totally in the clouds about cutting taxation for the wealthy whilst simultaneously requiring requiring massive increases in taxation amongst the working classes (whoever you vote for, county councils are in major trouble and in the next couple of years taxes ARE going up, even with service cuts) to dig us out of our current situation.
Also, though this unlikely to matter to you it's something I certainly considered: The Conservatives own LGBT organisation has warned of widespread bigotry and "stuffyness" and advised its members to not vote Tory, appologised for previously promoting their party as a progressive party, and then disbanded itself a few weeks back. Who am I to argue with the Tories themselves?
It was both Labour and LibDems who supported the bank bailouts rewarding all the rich bankers for their failure (though it was actually central fiat currency banking that is the core issue and NOT the banks). It was the Tories (behind closed doors) who didn't support all these rich bankers getting tax payers money.
Fact is they are all as bad as each other. In terms of the economy the tories are the lesser of three evils, in terms of liberty the LibDems give with one hand and take with another, and Labour just suck!
Wow this thread went very general political and understandable really. Not to carry on the thread but more just to answer Becky.
Sorry, I should of been more specific. I was talking about the actual calculation. I have seen many people point to who calculated it but not the actual calculations done. I am sure though the full reports are probably downloadble somewhere (and probably downloadable illegally - oh the irony). Was the calculation simply the number of illegal downloads multiplied by the cost of the item (be it film, song, picture etc) or was it more in depth to possible find out if anyone who did download something illegally then went and bought it. How did they work out how many illegal downloads had taken place? Would it be counted double if someone downloaded the same thing twice? etc etc. If you know where to find this, can I have the link?
I am not niave enough not to already know this. I can understand the need to protect industry but my 'question' was more of a moan about politicians doing what they want and for the good of them not what 'the people' want or what is best for the country.
By sort of agreeing I mean that I understand the want to protect the copyrights laws. I know I wouldn't want any of my design work to be stolen and used by someone else. So I agree things need to change to bring the law more upto date, however I agree that this piece of crap bill is not the update needed. This does sound very holier than thou, though I don't mean it to be. I accept that I am very capable of breaching copyright by downloading something without caring too much.
To the best of my knowledge the BPI havnt released the details of the research company they claim is behind the figures, let alone the methodology.
Copyright started off as a 10 or 25 year government granted monopoly, it now extends to 75 years after artists death. I think we should be stripping some of the copyright laws rather than adding to them, and I say that as someone who has produced and sold copyrighted works. A computer game sells most of it's copies in the first 3-6 months, for instance.
The only reason to protect copyrights is to resell the same materials on new media formats as technology advances. I hate this, I consider that once I have purchased something then I have purchased it. I bought albums off iTunes that I lost when I lost my music folder - the originals where riddled with DRM and I cannot download new copies from iTunes - so i'm getting them via P2P. The music industry says this is "illegal filesharing", but it is well within my own moral compass - I don't believe i'm doing anything wrong by replacing those albums "illegaly".
On the whole I do very little file sharing, probably much less than the average internet savvy person. I still dont see the justification in making it illegal though. The result is i'm going to buy a proxy to bounce off so I can download and browse the net uncensored, and then I may aswell make it pay for itself by downloading lots more than I do now...
I've been plaguerised several times before, once some kid released one of my games by pretending his studio name was as per my studios name. Interestingly I didnt even spot the release myself - somebody else caught him out on it. There was apparently a book in Japan that featured over half a dozen of my indi games and that too got spotted and called out, I have never even been to Japan.
Copyright is like a legal form of the policing that people do for each other anyway. If someone released LFS on another forum and claimed it was theirs - how long do you think it would last?
As for getting the content of my works without paying for it, well good for you. Hope you enjoyed it or found it useful or whatever. I'm not interested unless you're making money out of my work - and that's where the above comes into play.
