UK P2P Fight Brewing

forunder writes "Zeropaid has been covering a very hot topic going on in the UK right now. The government, prodded by entertainment lobbyists, has gotten six UK ISPs to agree to help police piracy on their networks. A leaked government letter says they are looking to cut internet piracy by 80%. In the same week Microsoft released a study which found that some 54% of UK file sharers are between 11-16. The UK's Green Party has already spoken up, calling the new policies an 'Attack on Civil Liberties.'"

Comments

Re:Pointless

[Goffee71]

I look forward to the debate hitting the House of Lords: Leader of the House: "Next motion - changes in copyright law to proscribe peer-to-peer file sharing."

Lord Knob: "Hold on one moment, we're the peers! We share files all the time. Law rejected!"

Lady Felch: "I've got a file! And a drill, in the garage next to my Range Rover, do you want to borrow it?"

House: "Murmur, murmur, mumble, Agreed!"

Re:Unfortunately

[segedunum]

given that THE ARTICLE HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Hmmmm, there is more than one article quoted here to give some background on this whole anti-piracy thing, so I'll give you the link here (actually given above):

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9652/Leaked+British+Government+Letter+-+P2P+Will+be+Cut+by+80%25

Now, a leaked letter dated just two days before the major revelation has surfaced and shows that the British government is just as adamant over the idea of ISPs being copyright police as the major copyright industry - if not, more so......the British government has secretly set a goal of reducing file-sharing by 80% over the course of the next three years. The letter was signed by Baroness Vadera, the business minister.

Reading the whole article text usually helps. There you go. This is pretty much British government policy. You got modded insightful for not actually reading.

But please, don't let this stop your plans for a generalized semi-conspiratorial anti-government, to say nothing of anti-USA rant. Becaause clearly this is what qualifies as "insightful" here.

Fuck. You've been modded up to insightful because you believe that that comment was an anti-USA rant - which it wasn't in any way, because it describes the situation as-is from the point of view of someone who, presumably, actually, you know, lives in the UK? It certainly rings true with me and the article proves it.

The irony seems to go like this:

1. Attack a comment for something you believe it says, but actually doesn't.
2. Fail miserably to read the context around the article, or even the links, and say that it has nothing to do with something when in fact it does.
3. Add in a sarcastic comment about what passes as 'insightful' around here.
4. As a result of 3, get the mods second guessing themselves.
5. Get a stupid comment modded as insightful.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't diss the Lords. They have consistently stood in the way of every privacy breaking, ID introducing, DNA logging policy from the Commons for the past 5 years. Ironically, I find myself supporting their decisions far more than those of the party I voted in.

Re:UK Citizens

[houghi]

Have you actually spoken to the artists? I have. They know they don't get any money from the copyrights. In fact they seldom own the copyrights.

It is the copyright holders who are to blame and look who that is. Most of the time this is some company.

Re:Pointless

[TheRaven64]

After visiting Parliament and watching debates in both houses, I was fully in favour of abolition of the House of Commons. It's really worrying how much higher the standard of debate and understanding of the issues is in the Lords than the Commons. They're meant to serve as a brake on populist policies, but they seem at the moment[1] to be serving as a brake on monumentally stupid (and unpopular) policies from a government that is completely out of touch with reality.

[1] And, by 'at the moment' I mean 'for the last decade or two, maybe longer.'