Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, a Plan To Criminalize Illegal Downloaders
krou writes "It looks like the launch of the UK Pirate Party came not a moment too soon. The Independent reports that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson is going to take a hard-line stance to preserve copyright after intense lobbying by the music and film industry. 'Under the proposed laws, Ofcom, the industry regulator, would be given powers to require Internet service providers to collect information on those who downloaded pirate material. The data would be anonymous, but serious repeat infringers would be tracked down through their computer ID numbers.' Prospective punishments included restricting internet access, either slowing down an offender's broadband or disconnecting them altogether, and fines up to £50,000. The Pirate Party came out against the scheme, calling it a gross invasion of civil liberties, while Tom Watson, the former minister for digital engagement, spoke out against the move, saying that the government should stop trying criminalize downloaders just so as to 'restore 20th-century incumbents to their position of power,' but should instead be 'coming up with interventions that will nurture 21st-century creative talent.'"
Lord Mandelson. It *is* a villainous name. He's a slimy horrible member of the undead. He just keeps coming back...
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
The data would be anonymous, but serious repeat infringers would be tracked down through their computer ID numbers.
This must be some definition of the word 'anonymous' that I was not previously aware of.
If they are downloading something illegally, aren't they already criminals?
I thought criminalising something was where you took something that wasn't illegal ( but a significant amount of people do ) and making it illegal?
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
Copying is stealing.
The very fact that we're willing to accept that sentence for discussion shows how far things have come. Stop and think about it, taken out of context. How Orwellian it sounds!
Now that every uninformed member of society believes that copying is a criminal act, well of course it should be criminalised. That only makes sense.
I do believe that artists and creators need to be rewarded. But more and more I'm coming around to the notion that we should scrap the whole bloody slab of law that covers IP, and start again with something sensible.
That won't happen of course. It seems that preserving industry and building capital is the single only motivation for existence in this brave new Labour world.
What ever happened to the notion that money is not valuable in and of itself, but only as a means to the ends we choose?
Illegal != Criminal. There are whole swathes of law which are not "criminal law".
Meta will eat itself
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=folder&screenid=2984 and think about what these high profile artists want, not what the pressure groups from the record labels want!
...for games and music that we *wouldn't have bought anyway*.
Remember folks, home taping is killing music.
The Reg covered it yesterday and noted that Mandelson denied this report -- given they're due for an election in less than a year I can't believe they'd go out of their way to alienate voters.
Offtopic, British lords are so hilarious. There's a secretary of transport called Lord Adonis. Had to chuckle at that.
Go somewhere random
Despite what Darth Mandelson says, it is a little odd that these plans have come out just after he attended a dinner with David Geffen, who is a massive critic of file sharing: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6797844.ece
So, lord Mandy, a total media wonk (and highly manipulative individual) has gotten together with other wonks in the media to agree to 'crack down' on piracy. How nice.
This is easy to beat folks; deprive them of money and mandy will slime away, like most modern politicians he's totally besotted with influence and power. Take away the music industries money and they loose that influence, and Mandy will sleeze away from them looking for the next big thing.
Media types need to understand Economics 101, you used to be able to charge 20 euros for an album and I'd pay because it was the only way I could get the music in hi-quality for listening wto whenever I wanted. Ok.
But now it is worth a 10 cents or less to me. This is an economic problem and trying to use the law to distort the market is anti-capitalistic.
Do what I do, and totally stop paying for media. Not by piracy, but just by sticking only to free stuff. Plenty of original music gets delivered straight to my ears, completely legally, without the 'music industry' profiteering at all.
I pay for my internet connection because that is a physical service, and I'll accept a moderate amount of advertising with my media, but that is all..
I choose to get it direct from the artists (and through portals like magnatunes etc..); and if I am not allowed to download music from a site created or controlled directly by the artists, full quality, free in both senses of the word, then I simply move along. I support artists directly with concert attendance and buying merchandise. But again, I check to see how deeply the 'music industry' is involved in the process and avoid venues/merchandising that they control.
Basically, I am using capitalism to solve the problem. Any objections from the 'industry' to that?
Video is more of a problem, I still go to cinemas, and there is a lot of entertaining free video out there, but I still watch TV for my sci-fi, and pay for that because I have decided it is worth it.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Like those companies which abuse the GPL and release media STB but not the source code for them? Oh, like Humax for their Foxsat-HDR box as (and I directly quote them) "the consumer can't update the firmware so there is no need to release the source code we use".
Thats just as much a breach of copyright as someone downloading a TV show off a torrent site.
So will Mandelson remove their net connection
In Britain if you're caught speeding, you pay 60 pounds and get 3 points on your license. Get 12 points within 3 years (or something like that) and you lose your license.
It deprives us from works becoming public property long after they cease to be economically feasible, being held hostage by the 'rights owners' who refuse to let them go into PD and be renewed, to serve as a foundation for new work, new art, as it has been so many times before. We are deprived from the same rights that authors and musicians during the times enjoyed, to look at what was, rethink it, rephrase it and wrap it in new clothes. Think of all the plays and movies that are based on the basic idea of Romeo and Juliet (and I'm not talking about cheezy works like the one movie with Leonardo), something that could not be done if Shakespeare lived and worked today.
How many songs have been written that used classic tunes and parts thereof as their base, rearranged and reworked to fit the tastes of today? Have you ever heard Vanessa Mae play Toccata and Fuge? If Bach lived today he could demand that his work is to be played with organs only and we would never hear this goosebump-creating work of violin again. Ever.
You see how easily that argument is turned around? Why shouldn't we spin "copyright is stealing" in return?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The aggressive anti-piracy clip on pretty much every DVD release in the UK really, really pisses me off. It horribly misinforms and outright lies to the public in an effort to FUD us into compliance. For those who don't know it, it goes something like this:
Quite apart from the conflation of downloading a film with stealing someone's car, the statement that "PIRACY IS THEFT" is down-right false!. Even if we accept the use of the confused term "piracy", the fact is that Theft is a clearly defined criminal act, and copyright-infringement is an entirely separately defined act. I couldn't even tell you for sure if infringing copyright is a criminal act in the UK (could someone enlighten me please).
They are both illegal, and covered by entirely different legislation. Lying to Joe Public to convince him otherwise is horribly immoral, and unfortunately - as the parent post says - seems to have worked. Most people in the UK would now find it difficult to understand the notion that they are not the same thing.
Meta will eat itself
whatever happens in Airstrip One will probably follow here in Oceania
So we have more camera surveillance than anywhere else.
We have more regulations than most places. And now we are going to help out the big money companies by criminalizing use of the internet.
Why are we helping a business model that doesn't work and is being flogged to death. UK industry used to be innovative and groundbreaking. Now instead of encouraging evolution of business, we are actively saying we will help you keep your outdated methods and kick the people who innovate.
We should be telling the record/movie industry to move with the times and only help when they have proven they have made changes that are compatible with the customers of the day.
Yes I know about iTunes and other services. but the pricing models applied to them are often the same (or worse) than physical media. And with all the DRM pain when the industry failed again to move forward, these methods have a bad name.
Things are changing and people *are* still buying music and movies. the losses the industry report assume that the downloaded tracks would have been bought (which is rarely the case) only a small preparation of downloaded music would have ever been bought. the rest would have been borrowed (taped/copied) from physical media as has been going on for many years. I don't ever remember a lawsuit over the sale of a dual tape deck that could copy between two tapes.
More interestingly, downloaded music can lead to more sales as bands that are not mainstream are discovered and shared.
I don't condone illegal music downloads. I do condone the use of laws to fund outdated industries that have big enough pockets to buy politicians.
Get a law passed that criminalizes The leakage of private information by Govt or its supreme "Yes, Minister" servants.
That way, the next time some MP or minister or a civil servant loses a hard disk containing private information, he/she faces hard time in a Federal Prison: for 10 years or more.
Why doesn't someone get the stupid ministers to pass a law like this?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
According to the article, this is "a practice engaged in by one in 12 of the population".
If that large a portion of the population think that something should not be illegal (and it's reasonable to assume that most people consider behaviour they indulge in should not be illegal), then perhaps their views should be considered rather than having them declared criminals. Perhaps though, Labour really wants to lose the next election. At least they consider losing 8.3% of the vote acceptable losses.
You Brits have a minister devoted to digital entertainment? Is finger-fucking covered by his portfolio?
He's the man to call if you get hiccups... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10207-ig-nobel-prizes-hail-digital-rectal-massage.html
Although as a member of the current administration he'd go for putting the whole fist in, without lube.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
Wait, what number is that? I haven't IDd my computers. Maybe they mean MACs or something. But that only identifies a network interface and not a computer, let alone a user.
May the source be with you.
How can they possibly write this law in a way that will clearly delineate what a legal download is from an illegal download? Is it the responsibility of the consumer to know whether or not the distributor has acquired the legal rights to allow you to download a file in the first place. Does paying for something automatically indemnify you from charges of illegal downloading if you're not sure of the legality? If netflix offers a promotion to allow me to watch 3 movies for free without signing up for their service, is that legal? What about a site that streams the movie to me, inserts commercials, but doesn't have a license with the movie studios. Am I charged for illegal downloading or are they charged with illegal distribution, or both? What exactly is an illegal download when the distributor (even a pirate distributor) is willfully giving you content without charging for it?
First we'd need them to invent Federal prisons in a UK context - but I like the way you're thinking. Maybe instead just use Broadmoor, Parkhurst or Strangeways
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
"The law is made by the rich and powerful in order to make sure they stay that way". Piers Paul Reed, (but he may have been quoting somebody else, and from memory so may not be exact).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Not with this particular minister, no.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
1) Anyone is allowed to share any infinitely-reproducible item which they are able to reproduce, for any price.
2) After any such distribution, the copyright holder has a length of time equal to the term of their copyright to request a share of the gross price charged.
3) Everyone making a claim gets an equal portion of the gross price. If three people make a claim, the gross price will be divided evenly four ways (one part to each making a claim, and one part to the distributor), etc. If someone makes a claim later, they will receive their share from all people involved. (equivalent to everyone putting what they've received from the item into a pot and re-dividing it equally)
4) No one has any inherent right to control the destiny of copies of their created works. You cannot deny anyone the right to distribute a copy of something.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
We do have a constitution. Parliament is the supreme power in the nation though, so effectively the constitution can be changed with a simple majority vote in the Commons.
It probably isn't unconstitutional, because if Parliament passes a law to sanction it (which it probably will in our elected dictatorship) then it becomes part of the constitution.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
How about the London Tower? unheated in winter and with the Ghost of Anne running around, it may just be wonderful for those chaps. Isn't it?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Get a law passed that criminalizes The leakage of private information by Govt or its supreme "Yes, Minister" servants.
That way, the next time some MP or minister or a civil servant loses a hard disk containing private information, he/she faces hard time in a Federal Prison: for 10 years or more.
Why doesn't someone get the stupid ministers to pass a law like this?
There already is such a law - the Data Protection Act forces organisations to keep data secure and a major mortgage company were fined for losing a laptop which had a whole lot of personal information on it. (They later announced that they'd pass this fine on to customers because they "didn't think it was fair" to pass it onto the executives, and nobody raised a stink. Go figure.)
There is the minor issue that AFAICT the only thing they can do is fine an organisation - and of course there's only one place government can get money from to pay such a fine...
I read this a while ago and also found it on wikipedia. It was said by Jean-Paul Gaster who happens to be the drummer for the band Clutch. "As a musician, I think it is irrelevant to me. It exists and it is out there and no matter what I try and do about it, it will always be there. I don't mind kids trading tapes, that's totally cool. Videos are cool too. They only add to the live show. A kid might show that to some of their friends and they might think that we are cool and might come out and see us next time. The reality is that an artist has to have a record go gold, before they are even going to see a dime. Bands put out 3 or 4 records on a label and never see a dime from record sales. So, it is not like people who are downloading would be putting a dollar in my pocket if they would have bought the record. The industry is set up so that the record company will immediately get paid from record sales. So...download all you want!!! I think that the internet has changed the record industry and will continue to do so. The record labels will find some way to make money. I think that the artists main concern is to concentrate on their live performance and be the best artist that they can". I don't know how much of this actual fact but this is coming from someone who has been making music for a very long time and is in a relatively well known band. So basically this will most likely come to pass considering all the lobbying from the music and film industry. Personally it does not affect me since I don't download music or films illegally (used to a few years back) but what does concern me is the privacy issues. I don't want someone keeping track of all my internet activity because I doubt that only illegal downloaders would be monitored.
Isn't it redundant to "criminalize" something that is already illegal? Isn't that sort of the definition of "illegal?"
Funny, I thought they were synonymous.
@1: this seems to be typical of most of northern Europe,as far as I can tell from Wikipedia (yes, that most reliable of sources).
@2: this comes from the idea that you would fill up the basin first, then use the water in the basin, a practice which originates in using a jug and washstand. I think this is considered by some to e the "proper" or more "classy" way to do it, and so they buy this sort of basin to make it look like that is what they do.
@3,4: yes I don't like this either, but there are a lot of votes from these people, and there isn't a party with the balls to cut off thier income, unless they could get away with disenfranchising them (but there is still the risk that someone will re-enfranchise them and keep their votes for decades, so that isn't an option either). It's hardly a UK-only problem, more's the pity.
Troll much?
First, you have some serious issues about cleanliness if "just a bath" or "just a shower" is insufficient for you. If you think that you somehow magically gain "hygiene" by washing your bum or nadgers in a seperate appliance, then feel free. But the world has done without bidets for much of its life, and for the majority of its citizens in first-world countries. If you think it makes a difference to your overall cleanliness, I believe you're mistaken. I think you just have a complex about certain parts of your body being "dirty". What would you do on a hiking trip where you're lucky to get water that's sanitary?
Hot tap. Cold tap. Marked appropriately, because one is heated, the other unheated. The world seems to have grasped and adopted this principle with ease. Either... SHOCK, HORROR, run them both to create warm water (WOW!), buy a mixer tap (which does the same thing but "easier" for the dumb-of-hand) or install a temperature-controlled water system to your house (something which I've never seen installed anywhere because, you know, people cope quite easily with this). I've never found anyone else who's ever had a problem with this. And if your hot water is THAT hot, you must have a very old boiler that isn't temperature controlled seperately from the heating, or you're pissing away energy all the time for water that's too hot for you anyway. Or maybe that's a hygiene thing again, that you think that "hot water is better" somehow (not really, not in those temperature ranges)?
Number 3, I have to agree with, though. And number 4 to an extent, but being subject to abuse doesn't mean it fails to serve those in need too. It does an amazingly good job at that, I feel... in fact... TOO good.
Despite those problems, I agree with your sentiments on copyright. And it's hard to offend a British person. We just denigrate you for being different and then ignore you, mostly.
Im pretty intrigued by all that the UK citizen that seems to put up with this. CCTV at their jobs, parks, roads and even pointing right into their very private homes. Laws demanding handing over encryption keys encriminating themselves, survalliance and secret prisons etc. For being able to monitor illegal downloads they will save ALL traffic that people sends and receives on their computers, not just movies and music but everything at all lika chat etc.
Are people in the UK just fine with this or are the press just ignoring it? Myself i have a hard time understanding how people would just sheeply comply with their overlords and bend over without a fuss. Especially when the powers that be tends to classify more and more about themselves the more they pry into about ther underlings. Things like theese makes the KGB/Stasi etc look pretty lame and innocent.
HTTP/1.1 400
Firstly, this sounds like a Daily Mail [wikipedia.org] article, but nevertheless.....
How do the government propose than ISPs determine whether content being downloaded is pirated or not? What is the difference between your browser downloading a copyrighted image on [insert name of favourite photo library site] for viewing and downloading an MP3 file? You and I may both download [copyrightedsong.mp3] but I may have permission from the publisher and you may not. How will the ISPs determine this? What if our connections were encrypted, encoded or used IPv6?
I could go on. And on. And on......
The fact is that apart from monitoring visits to [downloadyourillegalaudiofilesandfilmshere.com], there's absolutely sod all that anybody can do which is even remotely effective.
Now, on the other hand, if the government were brave enough to stand up to the music/film groups and come up with some sensible laws which benefit both the citizens and the music/film groups.... well, if that happend, I'd be living in cloud-cookoo land.
We do have a constitution. Parliament is the supreme power in the nation though, so effectively the constitution can be changed with a simple majority vote in the Commons.
How well does that system work at protecting your right against self-incrimination, right to remain silent or right to keep and bear arms?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And it's hard to offend a British person. We just denigrate you for being different and then ignore you, mostly.
And people wonder where us Americans get it from ;) Yet another thing we can thank the mother country for :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How well does that system work at protecting your right against self-incrimination, right to remain silent or right to keep and bear arms?
I don't know if you're be facetious, but there is no right to keep and bear arms. Except maybe for a few lords and knights, the crown hasn't wanted an armed populace for a while.
PS Captcha jaundice! Has slashcode absorbed the evil AI from nethack?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
So does that mean they have non-criminal acts in the UK which are also illegal? 'Course in the Queen's English they'd "criminalise" it, but y'all know what I mean.
Reminds me of idiots trying to "ban illegal guns". If it was illegal, it would already be banned!
I couldn't help reading that as "fear to fear".
Squirrel!
Time to switch to OneSwarm
For anyone who is interested, there is also a Pirate Party of the United States. It appears to be based on similar ideas as other pirate parties.
Seven million Britons face having their internet connection cut off and fines of up to GBP50,000 as Digital Britain is implemented.
Lord Carter, the report's author, has now left the Government for consultancies unknown. Lord Mandelson, who has taken over responsibility for digital policy, has been persuaded of the need for a tougher approach after entreaties from starving music mogul David Geffen, who was introduced to him by the Rothschild family. "He warned me in 2001 that these 'MP3 players' would lead to the downfall of civilisation. I understand iPods were popular in the City just before the Great Recession, you know."
Internet piracy is estimated by the movie and music industries to cost them around GBP1.4 squillion zillion a year, ripped untimely from their generous artist-supporting pockets.
Critics have compared the proposals to King Canute, failing to turn back the tide. "So it's up to the Government to supply the sandbags. We have an industry to defend!"
Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, will require Internet providers to record users downloading illegal content. The magical copyright detector, which the music industry just knows the ISPs are being obstructive in not enabling immediately, will be used to send a massive voltage up through serious repeat offenders' Internet connections and into their chairs. Labour backbencher Tom Watson said the sanctions would attach an "unbearable burden" on an emerging technology with the power to transform society. "Sounds just fine to me," said Lord Mandelson.
Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, will be in charge of the partyâ(TM)s Internet campaigning ahead of the general election. "Voters will increasingly be searching the web to find out what we think about the issues. If we haven't cut them off."
In other news, the Pirate Party UK, launched earlier in the week, has been increasing its size at 100 new members per hour.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Lord Peter Mandelson has become deputy prime minister in the latest cabinet reshuffle, one of the highest positions held by an unelected politician in recent times. Joining him is Sir Alan Sugar, to become Lord Sugar, as enterprise secretary.
"Elections are so passe," said Lord Mandelson, "don't you think? Look at the EU vote. They couldn't think of any proper parties to vote for, so the few who showed up and could, you know, work a pencil voted in the Nazis and those UKIP idiots.
"Clearly, elections are an idea whose time has passed. We need to get back to a monarchy with a solid system of courtiers. Thus, only the unelected can join the cabinet and, in due course, become Prime Minister. Or Grand Vizier, as I prefer to call the role."
Lord Mandelson reassured everyone that Gordon Brown had seen off the latest round of attackers with knives for his back and that Mr Brown was safe in his position for at least another week. "But should he take ill or otherwise be unavoidably detained, in a dungeon or tower or similar, you will be comforted to know that strictly temporary succession plans are firmly in place and he has a deputy ready to do the job pro tempore. Just in case it should prove unfortunately necessary. The moves to allow life peers to relinquish their peerage and, say, re-enter Parliament via a safe seat, are entirely coincidental, though we may sadly have to employ them, say, next year. Purely hypothetically."
Lord Mandelson also reassured everyone that Lord Sugar was not merely waiting for the right moment to break the news to Mr Brown. "Or the cameras."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The land of Liberty, Equality and File-sharing ... oh, hang on a second.
Sure you do, except for all the little get-outs they keep trying to introduce, like making it only two points for slight speeding, or letting you take a "speed awareness" course to get out of some of the penalty.
These measures conveniently mean that they can fine incidental speeders more often before taking them off the road.
Now, either slightly speeding is inherently dangerous, or it is not. If it is, then those dangerous drivers should be taken off the road quickly, to keep everyone else safe. If it is not, then there is no excuse for penalising people who accidentally exceed the limit at the wrong moment and get caught. But saying that it's serious enough to merit significant financial penalties, yet safe enough to leave the offenders on the road (and paying all the associated taxes, of course) is just hypocrisy.
The real solution, of course, is to do away with the artificial limits, look at each case on its merits, and if someone was actually driving dangerously or inconsiderately, punish them accordingly. But that requires actual police officers, court time, and due process. It's much easier to create a technical offence and automate enforcement without troubling over those other little details.
Oh, sorry, we were talking about copyright law not speeding, weren't we? I wonder how I mixed up the two areas, they're not at all alike.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Thank you for that; I almost bit the troll myself but you did it for me. I've been trying to not feed the trolls for a long time now, but sometimes it's hard, especially with a well crafted troll such as the one you bit.
As to number four, eighteen months is as rediculously short as the current seemingly infinite copyright terms are rediculously long. I'd push for a twenty year term, I could accept thirty. But a year and a half for copyright seems absurd to me. For a printed book I don't see how a publisher could recoup his costs in such a short time for anything but best sellers. It was over ten years before Isaac Asimov ever saw any money from his Foundation series; Gnome Press had to sell the license they had from Asimov to Doubleday before Asimov ever saw a penny.
Free Martian Whores!
the Data Protection Act forces organisations to keep data secure
Sadly, it appears that you are mistaken.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
We have lotsa concrete and an iron mine that extends to the horizon when you view it. Not a problem...
Mods, please look up the definition of the word Troll before modding me so.
No matter how uncomfortable my arguments may make you feel, they are not designed to gain a reaction.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Wait, what number is that? I haven't IDd my computers. Maybe they mean MACs or something. But that only identifies a network interface and not a computer, let alone a user.
You're probably under the impression that you'll actually have a real chance to fight this in front of a jury. This will probably be handled by the ISP up till the point that they're fed up and ready to either bankrupt or jail you.
At that point you may get a trial, but what limitations on evidence will there be? If all the jury is allowed to hear is that you've already been caught red-handed by the ISP and sanctioned on multiple occasions, and you're prevented from bringing in more "evidence" to the contrary than what was presented to your ISP, (which made their decision in private with little or no notice as stated in most ISP TOS's so you actually didn't know you were in legal jeopardy to even think about *needing* any evidence or presenting it anywhere) then you're chances for a jury to find in your favor are slim.
If you think that couldn't happen just look at most versions of the infamous "three strikes laws" that have been pushed lately, thank goodness with limited success so far. Most of these have been proposed with no real recourse for the accused to fight them.
I swear, every day the West is getting more police-state and the East is becoming more free. Pity for those of us who may have to live through the time in the middle where there's no place to be relatively left alone by government either in the East OR the West.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
And I'm not being Orwellian at all. It's plain fact. Copyright gives other people power to dictate how I may or may not use my own private property. If I buy a book written by Orwell, the estate of Orwell has legal power over what I may and may not do with that book--my own property. This a a gross violation of the most important right that underpins social progress: the right to private property. Ergo, Copyright is Stealing.
People keep saying 'illegal downloading'
Please, someone show me where it says that downloading is illegal.
Here's the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020025_en_1
Perhaps I'm missing it, but I can't find where it says that I, as a private individual, am committing an illegal act by obtaining an unlicensed copy of a movie
Business yes, distributing yes, merely posessing? No
'Baths is unhygienic,' Granny declared. 'You know I've never agreed with baths. Sittin' around in your own dirt like that.'
'What do you do, then?' said Magrat.
'I just washes,' said Granny. 'All the bits. You know. As and when they becomes available.'
--Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad
May the Maths Be with you!
'Under the proposed laws, Ofcom, the industry regulator, would be given powers to require Internet service providers to collect information on those who downloaded pirate material.
I want to propose a law that states that the burden of expense should be placed on the phone companies every time a drug dealer makes a phone call that results in illegal trafficing of drugs.
I want a law that says the burden of expense should be placed on the tire manufacturers for failing to know if they're selling tires to drug smugglers who use their tires to commit their crimes.
Who else sees the crapshoot here?
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
The short answer is that it doesn't. Parliament can overturn those rights, as it already has done with the right to bear arms (though that is not as universal as the other two).
The long answer is that the European Union will defend those rights, and the Lords have a habit of knocking sense into the Commons before it gets that far. One of the greatest ironies is that the (unelected) Lords have done more to defend our liberties than the (elected) Commons.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Your Government doesn't regard your rights as inviolable.
For all that your post has been modded troll, this statement is correct.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
"after intense lobbying...."
More like after a dinner, champagne and some coke aboard a luxury yacht.
Talk about buying a politician and bending their thinking.
I probably should have said "Government doesn't regard your rights as inviolable", because it's hardly unique to the UK......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So you're basically better off shoplifting, stealing from the library, breaking into cars, stealing iPods, etc. Sorry the "crime" does not justify the "fine".
More and more law abiding citizens being driven to priacy ... arrrgggg - we loves it... some of em are even coders!
Well here is a short turorial when you need to transfer data from one box to another legally. It can also be used as you see fit; 1. A recent copy of uTorrent. 2. Your external IP address. You can use http://www.whatismyipaddress.com/ to find this. 3. Your listen port in uTorrent. You can find this in uTorrent's Options > Preferences > Connection > Port used for incoming connections. 4. You must be clever/connectable! This won't work if you don't have port forwarding correctly configured. Here's what you need to do. Open up uTorrent and go Options > Preferences > Advanced. Scroll down to find bt.enable_tracker and set it to True. Restart uTorrent for this to take effect. Now, create a new torrent. As usual, browse to find the file or folder you wish to share. For the tracker url, use the following information: http://your_ip_addressyour_listen_port/announce So, for example, if your IP address is 123.123.123.123 and your listen port is 54321 then you would put this as your tracker url: http://123.123.123.123:54321/announce Remember to tick 'Start Seeding'. Tick 'Private Torrent' to disable DHT and Peer Exchange for this torrent if you want to. Now press 'Create and save as..' and save the .torrent file somewhere. uTorrent should now connect (to itself) and the tracker status should be 'working'. You'll note it has a 10 minute announce interval.
All you need then is the .torrent file to start transfering content to another machine.
I have found this helpful in the past.
All cows eat grass!
Ever heard of the saying "You give an inch they take a mile"? If you give these people the power to criminalize people who may or may not be downloading files illegally, what rights are they going to take from you next? The main reason why I enjoy using the internet so much is because it's mostly open, free, and unrestricted (unlike the real world). It seems like every day the companies and governments around the world are trying to change that so the internet is barred and restricted. Ask yourself this question, Is it REALLY worth loosing your freedoms on the internet to protect the profits of a few companies? I really don't think so. This is OUR internet, this is OUR world. Don't let them take it from us.