Slashdot Mirror

And, just to add a shameless plug in there, sign the DigitalWrong letter!. You write what you want to say to Mandelson they get it printed up on some big paper with everyone else's and go and try to give it to him. More effective than writing a letter and you don't even have to pay for a stamp.

But will anything really happen or will this just be another excuse for yet more surveillance of home computer usage?

The track record of the House of Lords hasn't been so good over the long run has it?

I would bet that if Lucas gains any traction great pressure will be brought to shut him up one way or another.

Unfortunately it's heading in the other direction. The statement was made in the context of a debate on the Digital Economy Bill, which is designed to make it easier to punish "copyright violators" (although, as numerous Lords have pointed out, they're actually just people accused of copyright violation), by making it easier to get information from ISPs and allowing copyright holders to have a user's internet connection shut off if they refuse to stop downloading (i.e. if the record company still has "evidence" after they have written to the user and threatened them). All in all, an absolutely disastrous bill.

*Shameless plug* If you agree and want to try to get answers from Mandelson, sign the DigitalWrong letter. This is going to be printed up on huge bits of card with all the messages people have left and presented to Lord Mandelson, since he doesn't bother replying to individual letters.

But will anything really happen or will this just be another excuse for yet more surveillance of home computer usage?

The track record of the House of Lords hasn't been so good over the long run has it?

I would bet that if Lucas gains any traction great pressure will be brought to shut him up one way or another.

Unfortunately it's heading in the other direction. The statement was made in the context of a debate on the Digital Economy Bill, which is designed to make it easier to punish "copyright violators" (although, as numerous Lords have pointed out, they're actually just people accused of copyright violation), by making it easier to get information from ISPs and allowing copyright holders to have a user's internet connection shut off if they refuse to stop downloading (i.e. if the record company still has "evidence" after they have written to the user and threatened them). All in all, an absolutely disastrous bill.

*Shameless plug* If you agree and want to try to get answers from Mandelson, sign the DigitalWrong letter. This is going to be printed up on huge bits of card with all the messages people have left and presented to Lord Mandelson, since he doesn't bother replying to individual letters.

I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).

Absolutely - there's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been estimated to cost £500m ($800m), or approximately £25 ($40) per user, a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer. I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...

The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar; among other provisions, they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of copyright infringement, which over here has lead to the brilliant question in the House of Lords: If someone's child downloads a film while waiting around in Parliament, does Parliament get its internet access shut off?

I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).

Absolutely - there's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been estimated to cost £500m ($800m), or approximately £25 ($40) per user, a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer. I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...

The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar; among other provisions, they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of copyright infringement, which over here has lead to the brilliant question in the House of Lords: If someone's child downloads a film while waiting around in Parliament, does Parliament get its internet access shut off?

As soon as this happens, I'll stop paying for the Internet, it's free in a lot of places already so there isn't any real need on my part to have it in the house.

Don't let it get that far. The bill is not law. It is going to enter committee stage in about a week - this is our best chance to get it changed to be fair for consumers before it gets to the House of Commons and gets even more politicised than it is now. Write to your MP, write to a Lord and explain to them why this is a terrible and unfair bill. Information on the disconnection clauses in the bill and some Lords to write to are available at http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page_id=28 - I've taken over the site and I'll have information on the rest of the bill plus other Lords and letters/replies as soon as possible.

Please, don't give up on this - it's important. Join the campaign, sign the petition, write to your Lord and help stop this before it becomes a law. And above all - tell your friends and family what it means. I'll have a non-technical breakdown up tomorrow for you to show people why this is such a bad bill.

(Oh, and if you drop me a line, either at my email address shown here or on the site, I would be happy to put your letter on the site. Putting the letters in one place makes the opposition to the bill more obvious)

Forgive the spirited response to what may not have been a serious comment, but this is a serious issue and I want to make sure everyone knows that there is something we can do about it as long as we work together.

Thank you!

The internet tends to encourage knee-jerk, poorly thought-out responses, and that makes it much easier for politicians to dismiss the objections to their copyright bills as the delusions of immature online pirates. The discussion of the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Lords over here has been dominated by reference to the "online reaction" - specifically the 23 pages of comments on the original BBC report, characterised by the idea that all media should be free to download and the media companies "aren't losing any money anyway". This has lead some well-intentioned members of the House to believe that the objection is not based on an objection to the law itself, but rather on selfishness and greed, which undermines the argument against the law.

If you're in the UK, can I encourage you to write to your MP and a Lord to explain this? If not - or even if you are - if you could throw me a link to http://digitalwrong.org/ I'm taking over the running of the site from now(ish) onwards and hope to explain what the bill really is and that there is a reasonable objection to it.

This is why the big issue isn't censorship of torrent site but the ability to punish users without any trial or judicial oversight, as is planned in the UK.

Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored. It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.

I think you're absolutely right to be worried. I'm going to talk about the UK situation since that's what I know about, but the situation EU-wide is largely as you describe: governments are caving to copyright owners.

Before saying anything else, it's worth making clear that the "3 strikes" legislation contains nothing to do with three strikes. It is totally silent on the specifics of the chances that have to be given to internet users before they can be cut off and leaves the question entirely to a "code" that has not yet been written and so cannot be reviewed before the bill becomes law. You can read more about this at the link I gave above. The "new" bill pays lip-service to the Government's "commitment to human rights", and seems to be relying on this "code" to avoid the criticism of the EU. However, as the link above makes clear, it gives the Secretary of State a get-out clause to get past the code if he wants to, with little to no oversight or controls.

There's a lot of confusion, even on Slashdot, about the content of the bill. To break down the sections on Copyright infringement (taken from http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page_id=6), the new process in case of alleged infringement is:

1. The rightsholder for example a record company determines that the user is infringing. The bill does not set out how this is to be done; the company is in effect free to determine guilt any way they see fit. As has been shown by the cases that have gone to court, this determination is often made on the back of weak or non-existant evidence.
2. The rightsholder sends a letter to your ISP
3. Your ISP sends you a warning letter. This will contain information of the time of the infringement and the IP address of the computer that committed it. It will also contain information on securing your network.
4. If the rights holder judges that infringement has continued after a period of time (not defined in the bill) they may require your ISP to throttle your connection, prevent you from accessing certain resources, or disconnect you completely.
5. If you believe this was done in error, you can appeal. This appeal would not go to a court, but to a First-Tier tribunal. This would be your first chance to deny the accusations, and could come after the punitive measures had been taken.

This goes absolutely against the presumption of innocence that is such an important part of a modern democracy.

If this all sounds a bit worrying, there is some good news. The bill is entering its committee stage on the 6th of January, and this is the best chance to change it before it reaches the House of Commons, at which point its progress will be faster and more subject to the party whip. So please, write to a Lord and explain to them why the measure is bad, either morally or because - as has even been admitted by the impact assessment - network security means the wrong people will be punished, and what they can do to change it - i.e. go to the open committee session starting on the 6th and change the bill.

Things are advancing very quickly, and I appreciate that not everyone has time to read the 300+ pages of the bill, the debates, the notes and the impact assessment, so if anyone has any questions on their contents please ask and I will answer them. Otherwise, please write in before it's too late, and spread the word - either online or offline - about the travesty that is the Digital Economy Bill.

Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored. It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.

I think you're absolutely right to be worried. I'm going to talk about the UK situation since that's what I know about, but the situation EU-wide is largely as you describe: governments are caving to copyright owners.

Before saying anything else, it's worth making clear that the "3 strikes" legislation contains nothing to do with three strikes. It is totally silent on the specifics of the chances that have to be given to internet users before they can be cut off and leaves the question entirely to a "code" that has not yet been written and so cannot be reviewed before the bill becomes law. You can read more about this at the link I gave above. The "new" bill pays lip-service to the Government's "commitment to human rights", and seems to be relying on this "code" to avoid the criticism of the EU. However, as the link above makes clear, it gives the Secretary of State a get-out clause to get past the code if he wants to, with little to no oversight or controls.

There's a lot of confusion, even on Slashdot, about the content of the bill. To break down the sections on Copyright infringement (taken from http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page_id=6), the new process in case of alleged infringement is:

1. The rightsholder for example a record company determines that the user is infringing. The bill does not set out how this is to be done; the company is in effect free to determine guilt any way they see fit. As has been shown by the cases that have gone to court, this determination is often made on the back of weak or non-existant evidence.
2. The rightsholder sends a letter to your ISP
3. Your ISP sends you a warning letter. This will contain information of the time of the infringement and the IP address of the computer that committed it. It will also contain information on securing your network.
4. If the rights holder judges that infringement has continued after a period of time (not defined in the bill) they may require your ISP to throttle your connection, prevent you from accessing certain resources, or disconnect you completely.
5. If you believe this was done in error, you can appeal. This appeal would not go to a court, but to a First-Tier tribunal. This would be your first chance to deny the accusations, and could come after the punitive measures had been taken.

This goes absolutely against the presumption of innocence that is such an important part of a modern democracy.

If this all sounds a bit worrying, there is some good news. The bill is entering its committee stage on the 6th of January, and this is the best chance to change it before it reaches the House of Commons, at which point its progress will be faster and more subject to the party whip. So please, write to a Lord and explain to them why the measure is bad, either morally or because - as has even been admitted by the impact assessment - network security means the wrong people will be punished, and what they can do to change it - i.e. go to the open committee session starting on the 6th and change the bill.

Things are advancing very quickly, and I appreciate that not everyone has time to read the 300+ pages of the bill, the debates, the notes and the impact assessment, so if anyone has any questions on their contents please ask and I will answer them. Otherwise, please write in before it's too late, and spread the word - either online or offline - about the travesty that is the Digital Economy Bill.

Since Lord Mandy went on holiday and "bumped into" into Mr Geffen - the recommendations of the digital communications report and the concerns of ISPs were completely ignored. It appears the "3-stikes" legislation is to go ahead after all.

I think you're absolutely right to be worried. I'm going to talk about the UK situation since that's what I know about, but the situation EU-wide is largely as you describe: governments are caving to copyright owners.

Before saying anything else, it's worth making clear that the "3 strikes" legislation contains nothing to do with three strikes. It is totally silent on the specifics of the chances that have to be given to internet users before they can be cut off and leaves the question entirely to a "code" that has not yet been written and so cannot be reviewed before the bill becomes law. You can read more about this at the link I gave above. The "new" bill pays lip-service to the Government's "commitment to human rights", and seems to be relying on this "code" to avoid the criticism of the EU. However, as the link above makes clear, it gives the Secretary of State a get-out clause to get past the code if he wants to, with little to no oversight or controls.

There's a lot of confusion, even on Slashdot, about the content of the bill. To break down the sections on Copyright infringement (taken from http://www.digitalwrong.org/?page_id=6), the new process in case of alleged infringement is:

1. The rightsholder for example a record company determines that the user is infringing. The bill does not set out how this is to be done; the company is in effect free to determine guilt any way they see fit. As has been shown by the cases that have gone to court, this determination is often made on the back of weak or non-existant evidence.
2. The rightsholder sends a letter to your ISP
3. Your ISP sends you a warning letter. This will contain information of the time of the infringement and the IP address of the computer that committed it. It will also contain information on securing your network.
4. If the rights holder judges that infringement has continued after a period of time (not defined in the bill) they may require your ISP to throttle your connection, prevent you from accessing certain resources, or disconnect you completely.
5. If you believe this was done in error, you can appeal. This appeal would not go to a court, but to a First-Tier tribunal. This would be your first chance to deny the accusations, and could come after the punitive measures had been taken.

This goes absolutely against the presumption of innocence that is such an important part of a modern democracy.

If this all sounds a bit worrying, there is some good news. The bill is entering its committee stage on the 6th of January, and this is the best chance to change it before it reaches the House of Commons, at which point its progress will be faster and more subject to the party whip. So please, write to a Lord and explain to them why the measure is bad, either morally or because - as has even been admitted by the impact assessment - network security means the wrong people will be punished, and what they can do to change it - i.e. go to the open committee session starting on the 6th and change the bill.

Things are advancing very quickly, and I appreciate that not everyone has time to read the 300+ pages of the bill, the debates, the notes and the impact assessment, so if anyone has any questions on their contents please ask and I will answer them. Otherwise, please write in before it's too late, and spread the word - either online or offline - about the travesty that is the Digital Economy Bill.

Unfortunately it appears that you're right on this one.

I couldn't find much information on what this bill actually means, so for anyone else in this situation, I've found a breakdown of what the bill means and what it doesn't here. They did have a load of posts on its passage through parliament etc but they seem to have disappeared - hopefully they'll get everything back up and running soon.