Proposed UK File-Sharing Laws May Be Illegal, ISPs Upset

mindbrane writes "Once in a while, a sidebar will throw a lot of light on a difficult problem. The BBC has a short piece on British ISPs' anger over proposed new laws governing file sharing in the UK. The new laws would include cutting repeat offenders off from the Internet. Early response suggests such tactics would fail: 'UK ISP Talk Talk said the recommendations were likely to "breach fundamental rights" and would not work. ... Virgin said that "persuasion not coercion" was key in the fight to crack down on the estimated six million file-sharers in the UK. ... Talk Talk's director of regulation Andrew Heaney told the BBC News the ISP was as keen as anyone to clamp down on illegal file-sharers. ... "This is best done by making sure there are legal alternatives and educating people, writing letters to alleged file-sharers and, if necessary, taking them to court."' The article also mentions a statement issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which 'proposes that internet service providers are obliged to take action against repeat infringers and suggests that the cost of tracking down persistent pirates be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rights holders.' Unsurprisingly, said rights holders are in favor of the idea."

Comments

1984!

[Anonymous Coward]

told you! my argument consists of a book title because i can't construct an actual argument. frt

Sith Mandelson

[duguk]

What's weird is the Digital Britain report said they should NOT cut people off, and European Parliament said it might be against human rights.

It's Sith Mandelson that's trying to introduce this. Strangely it was reported in some newspapers that he was caught having a meeting last week with some Record companies. Wonder if they bought him a iPod or something?

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Heed00]

It also propsed a £6 a year tax to upgrade the BB infrastructure. Apparently the tax along with the weaker proposed penalty (throttling connection) have been axed -- with throttling being replaced with disconnection and nothing to replace the tax.

I wonder if this is an attempt to make the tax and throttling more acceptable. i.e. "Okay, okay we hear you. We'll roll back the plan to the previous state (tax and throttling)." In the end, getting what they want with less opposition to push through.

Mandelson has no problem being seen as "the evil" in order to get policy through. It's not like his image could get much worse.

Re:Sith Mandelson

[commodore64_love]

>>>Wonder if they bought him a iPod or something?

My local GM dealer (now owned by the government) gave me a free MP4 player! Awesome. All I have to do is pay $29.99 in shipping costs. How generous of my government to do this for me. /end sarcasm

Re:Sith Mandelson

[damburger]

Why is an infrastructure tax anything to do with filesharers? Record companies better not get one penny of that tax if it is levied; it should all be going towards bringing us at least up to the standard of our European neighbours in terms of broadband connectivity. At the moment BT is using circuit-switching trained hamsters instead of routers.

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Heed00]

Why is an infrastructure tax anything to do with filesharers?

Nothing, other than it was also part of the Digital Britain report and was changed at the same time as the filesharing stuff. Although, they'll probably roll out the argument that filesharing acounts for X huge percent of all traffic and therefore is an impediment to the BB infrastructure's health.

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Heed00]

Bah, I'm having a bad day. I read that as "What has an infrastructure tax to do with filesharers?". Even when I quoted it. Doh is me.

Re:Sith Mandelson

[sexconker]

Who in the hell would trust a Sith??

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Anonymous Coward]

GM dealerships are franchises you moron. I'm not happy with all the bailouts either but at least get your fucking facts straight.

Now what did this have to do with file sharing in the UK?

Re:Sith Mandelson

[David Gerard]

Baron Mandelson, 679, of Transylvania, smiled for the cameras, only having to reconstitute himself twice when the flashes dissolved him into dust. "I only enter where I am invited," he said in sepulchral Eurocratic tones. "When I am called upon, I shall return."

Labour MPs rushed to greet the chief architect of New Labour, many carrying wooden stakes, garlic and crosses.

Mr Mandelson has had a chequered career in office. Previous Cabinet terms have ended with unfortunate resignations due to being beheaded by angry villagers, burnt at the stake, wrapped in chains and thrown to the bottom of the Volga and, in one case, nuked from orbit.

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Anonymous Coward]

He had lunch with David Geffen whilst on holiday in Corfu (staying at the Rothschild estate, on their yacht).

There's no way to type that sentence without sounding tin-foil, but it is actually the case!

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax was a good thing, it was a small amount and meant we might actually get reasonable speeds. This just seems so stupid, they are forcing the ISPs to focus on disconnecting pirates rather than improving their service.

Re:Sith Mandelson

[mdwh2]

An iPod? But don't they know that when you copy your legally bought CDs onto an mp3 player, you're stealing???

Re:Sith Mandelson

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! Someone got my joke!
DugUK

50:50 cost?

[sanosuke001]

Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP? Honestly, the idea of making ISPs liable is ridiculous. They should provide a service and be blind to anything on their networks.

Re:50:50 cost?

[DamonHD]

This sort of lopsided silliness (and the RIP Act) was why I walked away from being a ISP (one of the very first in the UK, with sensible notions of who owned the data passing over our wires).

So glad that I'm out of it, and still not really believing anyone makes money being an ISP.

Rgds

Damon

Re:50:50 cost?

[gnick]

They should provide a service and be blind to anything on their networks.

OK - take that argument into some other industries:

Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child?
Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?
Do you really think that the phone company should be immune if they allow a 6 year old child to call a fetish phone-sex line?
Do you really think that a gun-company should be immune if they manufacture a weapon and a child accidentally shoots his friend while showing it off?

Please think about what you're suggesting before just blurting it out. Prosecute them all, let the gods sort them out.

P.S. - The first mod that hits me with a Troll will get a mighty pounding from my Whoosh hammer.

Re:50:50 cost?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP?

Because ISPs have a sparkly magic wand that will simply make this dreadful internet business and its calamitous effects on the entertainment industry disappear in a puff in punitive smoke.

I mean, really. There was a time in this country when a 5 minute pop song meant something. It was a sacred institution, protected by copyright and ensuring the livelihoods of distributors across the land. Now any old miscreant feels he can whisk his songs backwards and forwards over those ghastly green tubes just like one sends emails or spreadsheets or power-point slides. Well you can't! Music is not supposed to be treated like that. There are proper channels for its distribution and the ISPs know they they aren't it!

It's clear that they're being malicious. I remember meeting their representative. Frightful man. He accosted me with technical clap-trap; data, broadband, packet inspection, encryption, legitimate uses, feasibility studies. I told him what I'm telling you now. If the Chinese government can block off their entire internet from the BBC, then surely you can stop young scruffs from downloading things they're not supposed to. And if you can't stop them then you should cut them off! He threw his hands up in the air and left, but I sensed defeat.

It's only a matter of time. We have petitioned the Her Majesty's Government, and they have responded favorably. Soon we will make these ISPs bring their customers to heel, and we will do it with the full force of the Law. Honestly, the attitudes and doomsdaying of some people on this never cease to amaze me. Just last week I was in conversation with a chap who felt too much restriction on the Internet was dangerous or some such rot.

As I said to him at the time: "My dear Norfolk, this isn't Iran. This is England."

Re:50:50 cost?

[girlintraining]

Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP?

Because they want to keeping getting the profits from raping people with their licensing agreements, but don't want to lose those profits in legal proceedings they are obligated to undertake in order to continue to have a valid claim on the copyrighted work. If they don't do something about this, a lot of copyrighted works could fall into the public domain because the derived income is less than the cost of legal proceedings to protect it. So all these manipulations of the copyright law will be for nothing. They've already increased penalties to the point of insanity, but the problem is the average file sharer can't compensate them for a fraction of even just the legal costs -- so it's a net loss for them.

So they've done the only thing left to them: Coerce other businesses. ISPs typically operate on narrow margins and don't have a lot of spare funds to combat these coersive attempts, and the Recording Industry is hoping for a few quick victories and the rest will fall into line -- and of course, it won't be long before they add in the disclaimer "We won't ask for the money as long as you install XYZZY Anti-Everything Appliance."

The Recording Industry has a tried and true formula for winning -- they pick on the weak, build legal precidents, and then go after larger targets where the real profits lay -- relying on previous legal precidents to force a settlement. They know they can't win in a full-on fight, but they make sure before they file it won't be in the other parties financial best interests to test them. Slimy, unethical, and it corrupts the entire justice system -- but it's very effective.

Re:50:50 cost?

[twidarkling]

Yeah, I do think they should all be immune. The PS shouldn't be "inspecting" my packages. They're private. They aren't paid to snoop. The bus service isn't paid to look in back packs and conduct background checks. The phone company isn't paid to check the ages of people on the handset. The gun company isn't paid to parent people's kids. You know who is? The police. In every single case it's the legal authorities who should be doing something (well, apart from parenting, that should be the parents). A private citizen could call them and say "hey, there's a package labelled "meth" that was just delivered to a kid," or "there's a guy wearing a sign saying 'I'm on my way to blow up kids and all I'm getting is entry to heaven'" or "Hey, there's this kid on a public phone talking dirty," or "There's a kid on the playground with a glock." So, yeah, private industries should be blind and immune to abuse of their services.

Re:50:50 cost?

[yincrash]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. - The first mod that hits me with a Troll will get a mighty pounding from my Whoosh hammer.

LOL - Congrats, you managed to dodge the Troll and landed a Flamebait. I will loan you my whoosh hammer. Sarcasm doesn't convert well to text.

I thought it was funny. =) Won't somebody think of the children???

Re:50:50 cost?

[dbet]

OK - take that argument into some other industries:

Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child?

Yes. Are you suggesting that the post office be held liable for something that could not have known about unless they opened and inspected EVERY package? Are you suggesting that the post office in fact DOES inspect every package?

Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?

Yes, they should be immune. Or again, should they inspect every backpack of every bus rider? Should every bus driver be an expert on detecting bombs?

The rest of your examples are equally invasive. You seem to want people to be responsible for things they can't possibly be responsible for without violating your rights and spending a lot to do it (which will increase your costs by a lot), lowering service, and treating every customer like a criminal. And in this case, for something that is difficult to put a value on, or know if it's even harmful to anyone.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Kjella]

*whooooooosh*

You were even clearly warned and missed the clue. Do we really need to bring back the <blink> in big red letters to warn people that the post may contain irony?

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

This anon coward will get modded troll, however,

The answer to all of those is, yes. In every single one of those instances it is not the delivery mechanism at fault but an external source.

Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child?

There are already laws against drug dealing. Prosecute the drug dealer (and possibly the middle-man who actually sent the package) rather than the mail service. The mail service did exactly what they are required to do. The package, in this instance, could have easily contained a tin of butter cookies made by the child's grandmother.

Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?

How do you propose the bus lines know a terrorist from a non-terrorist? It is simply the bus line's duty to transport passengers from one location to another. Many passengers on buses carry bags, purses or briefcases. Not only is it impractical (note: impossible) to search every single bag, it is a huge afront to civil liberties.

Do you really think that the phone company should be immune if they allow a 6 year old child to call a fetish phone-sex line?

In this case the parents need to have a little more direct supervision of that child. In no instance should the parents be allowing the child to call a fetish sex line, or even allowing the child to get into a situation where they could call such a line. The phone company is just a medium to move voice data from one location to another location.

Do you really think that a gun-company should be immune if they manufacture a weapon and a child accidentally shoots his friend while showing it off?

Yet again, the parents are responsible and should be storing the weapons correctly. If I have a firearm in my house (lets use the proper terms), it is my responsibily, not the gun manufacturer, to ensure proper storage of the firearm. This includes, removing the firing pin, removing all ammunition, locking the firearm in a secure location, and storing the firing pin and ammunition in seperate locations from the firearm (also under lock and key).

Every single one of your points are completely invalid as the company involved has (and should not have) any liability. I'm fairly certain there is case law in several countries stating the same.

Re:50:50 cost?

[dyingtolive]

Yes.

Re:50:50 cost?

[thisnamestoolong]

Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child?

Yes. Are you honestly suggesting that the postal service ought to be liable to search every package? They weren't liable for the fools shipping around anthrax, or for the unabomber. There is no realistic (or non-Orwellian) way for the postal service to be able to control the content of packages, so they should absolutely NOT be liable (and this has been held up in court on numerous occasions). They should, however, assist the authorities in tracking down the source of the methamphetamine, in the same manner than the ISPs already respond to subpoenas from law enforcement.

Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?

Yes. Again, are you really suggesting that the bus company ought to individually search every passenger getting on the bus? Not only would you never be able to get anywhere on time, but personal freedom and privacy would be completely out the window. Again, there is very good legal precedent for this. The bus company would be required to respond to any subpoenas from law enforcement as to assist the investigation, but they would have no liability as there is way they could have reasonably prevented the incident in question.

Do you really think that the phone company should be immune if they allow a 6 year old child to call a fetish phone-sex line?

Ok, now you are just getting ridiculous. This is stupid in too many ways for me to explain, so I will move on.

Do you really think that a gun-company should be immune if they manufacture a weapon and a child accidentally shoots his friend while showing it off?

Yes. They should be. And they are. This has (again) come up repeatedly in the American court systems and has been repeatedly shut down. The gun company has one responsibility -- they need to make sure that their products function properly and can be used safely by a responsible adult who so chooses. If you buy a gun, and it blows up in your face, the gun company is liable. If you use that gun to commit a murder, they are not.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

...a lot of copyrighted works could fall into the public domain because the derived income is less than the cost of legal proceedings to protect it.

That doesn't work for copyrights. You're thinking of trademarks. And, assuming that you win your case well enough, you can recover legal fees (and penalties) from the defendant who was tromping on your copyrighted material.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Demonantis]

I suspect your trolling, but your comment floored me. Also your analogies are silly. 1. The Postal Service is a Government agent and is held to a standard of holding public interest so they are expected to watch for the stuff. Your ISP is not a Government agent. 2. Most bus-lines check for those sorts of things to protect their own buses from attack. Even then they are not caring out the act. 3. The phone-sex line should be checking to stop children from calling. It would be impossible for the phone company to know it was happening. 4. Who gave made the gun available to the kid in the first place. Seriously your basically suggesting that the electrical company be at fault for people how toaster themselves in their bathtub. You hope that scare tactic and horrific examples will impress upon people your point. The person your quoting is suggesting a commonly discussed and rather valid business model for an industry. Why should ISP be expected to act as police, judge, and jury. Citizens simple do not have the resources to defend against corporations. The Government should be watching out for its people more anything else.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

And, assuming that you win your case well enough, you can recover legal fees (and penalties) from the defendant who was tromping on your copyrighted material.

Absolutely true, however, you can't reclaim lost wages fighting these things in court, nor can you reclaim the time wasted fighting these things in court.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, you had me until your P.S.

Well played good sir, well played.

Re:50:50 cost?

[mckinleyn]

Most epic WHOOOSH ever! Come ON! It's right there in italics! How hard IS this? XD

Re:50:50 cost?

[gnick]

I suspect your trolling, but your comment floored me.

What about my trolling? I think that the phrase, "The first mod that hits me with a Troll will get a mighty pounding from my Whoosh hammer," should have been your first clue that those weren't heart-felt. Don't know why I'm replying to you instead of the half-dozen other folks who completely missed the point - I think you just had the highest 'Duh' factor.

Also your analogies are silly.

No shit. Really? My completely over-the-top "Won't somebody think of the children?" parallels were silly? I hadn't noticed that - Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought that all of slashdot would support 100% postal package searches, pat-downs before boarding public transit, monitoring of 100% of phone traffic, and holding manufacturers of all tools responsible for irresponsible misuse.

P.S. In case it didn't come across, the above post may have contained sarcasm.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Rasperin]

I'm going to go ahead and take the whoosh hammer, but: Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child? -- Postal Services are required to check incoming packages, also often drug dogs are walked around shipping facilities. Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten? -- A bus operator has the right to refuse to pick up any passenger that may appear harmful. Do you really think that the phone company should be immune if they allow a 6 year old child to call a fetish phone-sex line? -- The phone service requires that you verify that you are not a minor (even a 17 year old could figure that one out). Do you really think that a gun-company should be immune if they manufacture a weapon and a child accidentally shoots his friend while showing it off? -- There are already laws in most states barring the sale of guns to minors. So the private industry already has some laws and some policies around fighting off these problems.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Shakrai]

This includes, removing the firing pin, removing all ammunition, locking the firearm in a secure location, and storing the firing pin and ammunition in seperate locations from the firearm (also under lock and key).

"Hang on a second Mr. Murderer, I need to retrieve my gun from the first safe, my firing pin from the second safe and get my ammo out of the third safe. Can you continue the attempt to kill me after I've finished with these tasks?"

Seriously, any one of the items you listed would be sufficient to secure a firearm. No need to get carried away. You should also educate your children on what to do if they encounter an unsecured firearm. Your scheme does nothing to protect them if they wind up at a friends house whose parents aren't as diligent as you are.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Shakrai]

and holding manufacturers of all tools responsible for irresponsible misuse

I think that's a fabulous idea. Let's start by suing CmdrTaco because of the GNAA and all the morons who responded to your post with indignation :)

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Postal Services are required to check incoming packages, also often drug dogs are walked around shipping facilities.

Don't know where you are, but that's not the case in the U.S. The DEA/FBI will occasionally walk dogs around, but the Post Office doesn't have to do much of anything except ask if you've got something banned in there. And I don't think the post office even has dogs.

A bus operator has the right to refuse to pick up any passenger that may appear harmful.

OK. But they're not checking the back-packs of every 'potential terrorist' that comes on. And if they refuse service to somebody who 'looks like a terrorist', they could be exposing the company to a racism suit and some bad PR.

The phone service requires that you verify that you are not a minor (even a 17 year old could figure that one out).

Really? Dial a 900 number and see if you talk to ANYONE from the phone company. The 900-number may say, 'Push 1 if you're at least 18' or employ an operator that asks, but that's about it. The phone company has nothing to do with it and the 900-number has a strong financial motivation to accept the 'Yes' answer even if it's a 13-year-old.

There are already laws in most states barring the sale of guns to minors.

Yes, but how many kids who accidentally shoot a friend actually OWNED the gun in question? It's typically just shitty parents who don't secure their weapons (not that it stops people from going after the gun companies any way.

So, now that I've pointed out that you're wrong on every point you attempted to make, where do we go from here?

Re:50:50 cost?

[gnick]

You should also educate your children on what to do if they encounter an unsecured firearm. Your scheme does nothing to protect them if they wind up at a friends house whose parents aren't as diligent as you are.

There's the number 1 point. Secure your firearm (or anything else harmful in the house including medication and your Internet connection) "well enough" and then educate your kids.

That said, my shotgun is on a high shelf in the closet with a chamber-lock and the barrel removed. The chamber-lock key is in a high drawer in the office. The shells are on a high shelf in the garage. If somebody breaks in while I'm in my bedroom, I'm going for the shotgun, but only because the barrel is a good blunt instrument.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Shakrai]

One of the nice things about handguns is they are small enough to store in an unobtrusive lock box. Most of them will allow you to keep the handgun in a ready state and can be opened in seconds. Handguns don't give you the stopping power of the shotgun but it's harder to keep the shotgun in a ready state if you have kids to worry about.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecute them all, let the gods sort them out.

Thanks for that post gnick - you have very cunningly tricked the fools who don't understand sarcasm and/or don't read posts properly to stick their heads up out of the trench.

I don't currently use any of the friend/foe/freak features of slashdot, but the other replies to your post provide a nice little list of people who are probably worth ignoring on this site, as they are essentially brain-dead.

Re:50:50 cost?

[twidarkling]

Actually, no woosh. I figured it was funny, since at the time he was rated 1: Flamebait. I figured a response was a better use of my time than using a mod point to really poke at him.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a new mod tag should be added, the Whoosh tag.
It would stop quite a bit of misuse of Troll for one.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is he being sarcastic? I can't even tell any more.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that you were so anxious to post your knee-jerk reaction that you didn't even get as far as reading the warning in the postscript. Seriously, wtf do you people need? I get it - sarcasm and irony can be difficult to detect sometimes, but the guy outright warned you. Unbelievable.

Re:50:50 cost?

[ae1294]

it's harder to keep the shotgun in a ready state if you have kids to worry about.

Just give it to your kids and let them shoot it a few times and then point it at them and tell them if they ever touch it again you will blow their fucking heads off...

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

where do we go from here?

we go whooooooosh!

Re:50:50 cost?

[malign]

You sir are batshi* insane.
Please never go in to politics.

Re:50:50 cost?

[adewolf]

Don't forget the "WOOSH" hammer... :-)

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are oblivious to even the most obvious of sarcasm.
Please never post without careful consideration.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Mex]

Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?

What happened to the airline that carried the terrorists that crashed into the towers on 9-11?

Re:50:50 cost?

[Dan541]

*jumping the bandwagon* (its a slow morning)

Yes jackass of course the postal service should be immune.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear fucking God I hope you're kidding. If you can read that post. And then all the replies. And still miss the sarcasm, you must be brain-damaged. "Of course the post office should be immune" was the point of the post.

Let me jump on the bandwagon and say *Whoosh*.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on being the slowest person on slashdot to STILL miss the Whoosh train.

Re:50:50 cost?

[metlin]

What do you have against kids? =)

Re:50:50 cost?

[techprophet]

You wouldn't believe the number of idiots on /. these days! Oh wait, you would. You sir, are not one of them, thank God!

Re:50:50 cost?

[techprophet]

I love your sense of humor/sarcasm!

Re:50:50 cost?

[techprophet]

That, my good friend, is the pathway to hell.

Good thing you're joking!

Re:50:50 cost?

[techprophet]

The rest of your examples are equally invasive. You seem to want people to be responsible for things they can't possibly be responsible for without violating your rights and spending a lot to do it (which will increase your costs by a lot), lowering service, and treating every customer like a criminal. And in this case, for something that is difficult to put a value on, or know if it's even harmful to anyone.

Truth. Most people are not criminals. By treating everyone like they are, you alienate them and drive prices up at the same time.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Tubal-Cain]

Hey, all that matters is that he got a +5.

Re:50:50 cost?

[AceofSpades19]

And as always, England Prevails!

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not like their wires and cables are going to be used to strangle someone... and whatever is inside the wire/cable doesn't make any difference, right?

Re:50:50 cost?

[mdwh2]

On the contrary - if you were intentionally posting arguments you didn't believe in in order to start some argument, then that's precisely the situation that "troll" is appropriate.

If you genuinely believed what you wrote, then as much as we might have disagreed, that doesn't make you a troll.

So there's no "wooosh" for anyone modding you troll - on the contrary, they'd be well aware of your actual intent.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious, declared sarcasm != Troll

I mean, he actually POINTED OUT that he was trying to make a point rather than Troll for angry responses.

Dumb ass.

Re:50:50 cost?

[gnick]

if you were intentionally posting arguments you didn't believe in in order to start some argument, then that's precisely the situation that "troll" is appropriate.

Agreed. But if you can read that post and not pick up the sarcasm (especially with the footer), then you might be brain damaged. I wasn't trying to "start some argument", I was supporting the parent poster with some pretty blatant 'Think of the children' ludicrously exaggerated parallels. I just overestimated the comprehension level of some slashdot posters. I even included a disclaimer at the bottom declaring sarcasm for people that still thought that I was somehow supporting those idiotic notions or trying to start some kind of dispute over them.

I'll reference you here. If you'd posted earlier, I would have awarded you the "No fucking shit" award, but I gave it away too early.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Cederic]

Forgive my sheltered lifestyle, but I've never met a murderer. Let alone been attacked by one.

Where do you live, a village in Afghanistan?

Re:50:50 cost?

[Shakrai]

*shrug*, it doesn't have to be a murderer. It could be your average robber or rapist as well. In any case I was only trying to point out the absurdity of his ideas for securing firearms. There's no reason to get carried away. Simply locking the assembled firearm in a safe is enough to keep your kids from getting access to it unless your kids have mad safe-cracking skills or access to teleportation technology.

A better idea is to educate your kids on the safe handling of firearms and what to do if they come across an unsecured one. You could store your firearms off-site in a safety deposit box but that isn't going to protect your kids when they wind up at a friends house whose parents aren't as diligent as you.

To borrow the sentiment from my new favorite sig: If you spend your whole life trying to child-proof the world you won't have anytime left to world-proof your child.

Re:50:50 cost?

[Jimmy_Slimmy]

Do you really think that a gun-company should be immune if they manufacture a weapon and a child accidentally shoots his friend while showing it off?

Yes. They should be. And they are. This has (again) come up repeatedly in the American court systems and has been repeatedly shut down. The gun company has one responsibility -- they need to make sure that their products function properly and can be used safely by a responsible adult who so chooses. If you buy a gun, and it blows up in your face, the gun company is liable. If you use that gun to commit a murder, they are not.

I must say I am not as sanguine as you about the gun companies. Rather like their buddies the cigarette makers, they want to profit from selling a dangerous product, and are quite willing to sell it to irresponsible minors and adults, in any quantity. Bus companies are not in the business of transporting bombers, but gun companies are to a very large degree in the business of selling power, and turning their backs on the use of that power.

How about I sell you some enriched uranium? You are a responsible adult, right? It has peaceful uses, right? I will smile all the way to the bank, right?

See, I don't think the gun companies do what you want. In such a case, every gun would come with a trigger lock, or proof of possession of a trigger lock. And the person not using the trigger lock would be responsible. But that would cut into FREEDOM, and PROFIT.

The gap between politicians and reality

[damburger]

Lord Mandelson of Sith went to dinner with a corporate interest, and came back with a policy that suited that interest without regard to either citizens rights or even practicality.

How do you stop illegal torrents without crippling the UK Internet? I mean, more than BT has managed to do?

Re:The gap between politicians and reality

[commodore64_love]

>>>Lord Mandelson of Sith

I'm waiting for the trumpets of the Grand Republic to start playing. Ahhh... here comes Chancellor Palpatine now.

Re:The gap between politicians and reality

[damburger]

Well, there is precedent... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG23bVpw65o

Re:The gap between politicians and reality

[commodore64_love]

This just in.....

The Welsh military has been issued a copyright violation notice by FOX Studios. They are expected to pay $1000 per second of song played without FOX's permission.

Re:The gap between politicians and reality

[VJ42]

This just in.....

The Welsh military has been issued a copyright violation notice by FOX Studios. They are expected to pay $1000 per second of song played without FOX's permission.

That'd be great; **AA lawyers against this. Personally I'm putting my money on the longbowmen. In fact, is there anyone on /. who doesn't want to see **AA lawyers cut down by a shower of arrows? I'd certainly pay for the privilege.

Re:The gap between politicians and reality

[Tubal-Cain]

How does that line from the anti-spam checklist go? Oh, yeah: Killing them that way isn't slow and painful enough.

Meddling Mandy

[segedunum]

Once again we've got a totally unelected, dictatorial government 'minister' who starts rattling his saber over file sharing, *conincidentally* after meeting with David Geffen and being wined and dined, and then lies barface to us - again - that this unprecendented personal poking of his nose in policy that has nothing to do with him wasn't connected to that in any way.

Re:Meddling Mandy

[pbhj]

Who does Mandelson have dirt on he seems to have been running the shop off and on since Blair got in; I wouldn't trust him to wash my car never mind giving him power over the countries affairs.

Why are the UK government getting into this?

[JustNiz]

This is entirely a problem for the music and movie industry. Why are the government acting as their bitches against the will an freedom of the people who elected them?

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[pjt33]

Your big mistake here is assuming that the government was elected. In particular, the minister moving this is Lord Mandelson - and he's a Baron because that was the easiest way to get him into government without the pesky election business.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[Rawjava]

Because the industries pay better.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[TheRaven64]

He was elected several times: in 1992, 1997 and 2001. He resigned from parliament to take a job in the UK's European Commissioner, and was made a lord in 2008 to bring him back into the UK government. Given the number of scandals he was involved with from 1992-2001 it's surprising that he was reelected, and especially that he was reelected twice. Given the lack of judgement shown by the Labour government, it's not surprising he was brought back. There is, apparently, no truth to rumours that he is a vampire.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[Rogerborg]

There is, apparently, no truth to rumours that he is a vampire.

He likes to suck on young virgins. That's a vampire, surely?

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[Pig Hogger]

He likes to suck on young virgins.

Who doesn’t?

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[commodore64_love]

Who cares if they're virgins, so long as they are young with firm boobies and tiny butts.

Uh oh...something's come up.

I must go.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[Shagg]

Because the music and movie industry lines their pocket with more cash than the people do.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[rich_r]

Everyone seems to forget that Mandy's batting for the other side. The butts will be firm, yes, but the boobies will not be what you were after...

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[pjt33]

Mandelson was not elected to the current Parliament, though, which is my point. He isn't accountable to any electorate.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was the Labour candidate for Hartlepool. You could pin a Labour rosette on Myra Hindley and they'd still get the win there.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[Dan541]

Because the UK is not a democracy.

There are more files sharers than there are content producers, there for in a true democracy file sharing would be legalised.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[westlake]

This is entirely a problem for the music and movie industry. Why are the government acting as their bitches against the will an freedom of the people who elected them?

The geek is convinced that he speaks for everyone.

The James Bond and Harry Potter films have earned ten billion dollars, unadjusted for inflation. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, three billion.

You could quite plausibly double or quadruple these numbers when you total up the return on book sales, home video and other merchandising.

The numbers are not without meaning to the finance minister.

Their value of these films as British cultural exports is incalculable.

You won't find a government anywhere that isn't trying to find a counterweight to the American media culture.

The media industry is skilled labor, labor intensive, high-tech and green. That is a winning combination for any politician.

Re:Why are the UK government getting into this?

[mdwh2]

Indeed, they seem to love the "But downloading costs billions of dollars to the economy" line.

It's just a shame that this country is run by people who seem to lack even basic understanding of economics, and fall victim to the broken window fallacy.

(And in what way does the LOTR help the British film industry?)

Sith Lord Mandelson

[hattig]

This evil man, who somehow reappears in UK politics despite having been thrown out twice for being scum, has now become a Lord (!!!) and basically cares only for himself and his rich friends. He recently had chats with media companies, and suddenly he is espousing this hard line response. Coincidence ... hmm ...

I don't think that many people will be sad to see Labour lose in the next election. We might not be too happy with who will come in though.

Anyway, if 1 in 10 people is doing the same illegal thing, then what needs assessing? Surely the law itself!

Re:Sith Lord Mandelson

[hughk]

It was the only way that they could get Mandy a role as minister when he hadn't been elected. The conservatives have used the same technique before to bring in some industrialist to help them out in the Department of Trade and Industry, but at least he had some real experience. Mandy's is limited to being something to do with the media. This is why he takes the side of media management so quickly.

Why have a special provision?

[smallfries]

If somebody sharing a file on a network is breaking the law then why not pursue them within the law? For any other crime the approach would be to obtain evidence, and then prosecute them. I can't see why the "special status" of file-sharing means that the law should be circumvented in this case to allow punishment (disconnection) without any sort of due process.

Re:Why have a special provision?

[Volante3192]

Because following due process requires money. The media companies have no money because people keep downloading their stuff illegally.

Re:Why have a special provision?

[Shagg]

Because following due process requires money.

Not to mention evidence. It's more difficult to conduct a reign of terror if you actually have to start proving things.

Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[redelm]

Traditionally, the UK Parlement has had primacy and complete authority without any overarching controls such as the US Constitution serves in the American system. Whatever they pass becomes new law, and old law is automatically modified/voided.

Now, with the EU, Parlement might face some laws being invalidated by EU courts. A bigger question is whether the UK Courts can or will respect EU findings. It may be that UK citizens will have to petition EU courts, but UK courts might not enforce the rulings.

It is going to be fun to watch.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Kell Bengal]

I don't think 'Primacy of Parliament' means what you think it means (and it's certainly not how you spell it). To start with the monarch technically retains executive authority, delegated to ministers. While it's true that there is no supra-legal constitution equivalent in the UK (the Human Rights Act is legislated), the ammendability of the US constitution makes them both mutable in practice. That said, the real-politik of the situation is that you can't just go rewriting the HRA or constitution willy-nilly.

Of course, the UK works on a negative-rights system, and it's quite possible that they can legislate rights out of existence to appease US interests and that may very well bring them into conflict with EU rulings. It'll be interesting to watch!

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[TheRaven64]

Not really. The government is required to either abide by international treaties or withdraw from them. European courts have had UK laws overturned in the past, and no doubt will again. If the government really wants to push the law through, it can withdraw from the Treaty of European Union, but I suspect a lot of companies would object to suddenly being charged import duties moving goods to and from the EU and not getting any more EU subsidy money.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[commodore64_love]

>>>A bigger question is whether the UK Courts can or will respect EU findings.

Well during the early years of the United States, many state governments simply ignored the rulings of the Federal or Supreme Courts. I suspect we'll see something similar within the European Union where states like the UK or France simply ignore the rulings.

In the U.S. the solution was to keep a standing army such that States were afraid to challenge the authority of the U.S. Perhaps the EU will follow a similar tactic, surrounding the UK Parliament and saying, "Comply or else."

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[JasterBobaMereel]

We don't have a written Constitution like the US, which can be amended as the government wants if it can get a majority ... what we do have is the body of law, which the government can modify as it wants if it can get a majority .... ... it has also international treaties (including EU treaties) it has signed up to that may invalidate some laws, just like the US ...

    It's simple the law governs Parlement and Parlement makes the laws (including international treaties) just like in the US ....

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Shakrai]

While it's true that there is no supra-legal constitution equivalent in the UK (the Human Rights Act is legislated), the ammendability of the US constitution makes them both mutable in practice. That said, the real-politik of the situation is that you can't just go rewriting the HRA or constitution willy-nilly.

Umm, it's a bit harder to pass an amendment to the US Constitution than it is to pass an Act of Parliament.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Shakrai]

surrounding the UK Parliament and saying, "Comply or else."

Or else what?

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Shakrai]

We don't have a written Constitution like the US, which can be amended as the government wants if it can get a supermajority in Congress and supermajority of the States

Fixed that for you.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Kell Bengal]

Both can be changed, but neither easily. It would be political suicide to try to curtail the HRA; it effectively serves the same purpose as the constitution even if it's framed differently. There was much debate in Australia at one point, as well, as to whether we needed a bill of rights; in the end it was said that a bill of rights was superfluous and unnecessary since existing legislation did all that in practice (conspiracy theory: they wanted the power to remove our rights and enumerating them would make that harder!)

So far as file-sharing goes, I don't think either of them are expressly covered by either the constitution or the HRA. I think both governments could craft laws that would void file-sharing as a 'right' without making changes to any existing doctrine. It's not hard to imagine how it could be affected.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Shakrai]

It would be political suicide to try to curtail the HRA

Given the number of other rights willingly surrendered by the good people of the British Isles I'm not sure that I believe it would be political suicide to go after the HRA. They've willingly surrendered the right to remain silent, the right against self incrimination and the right to keep and bear arms. Why is the HRA sacrosanct if those rights aren't?

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Kell Bengal]

I disagree because... uhm... er... well... You make a good point there.

I guess there is a spectrum of sacrifices people will make; most people don't value privacy and liberty as much as they value life or food. Makes you wonder how far people would be prepared to go? People trade liberty for safety; would people give up the right to education if it meant guaranteed employment? And then would they trade self-determination for guaranteed food?

And then would they in anyway distinguishable from slaves?

*suddenly paranoid*

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

European courts have had UK laws overturned in the past, and no doubt will again.

Which is why all those innocent people whose DNA was being held on the national database have had their records deleted, in line with the recent court ruling.

Oh, wait, they haven't. The government is still planning to hold those DNA records for several years, and longer if the (not even charged, never mind prosecuted) offence involved was in certain categories.

If the government really wants to push the law through, it can withdraw from the Treaty of European Union, but I suspect a lot of companies would object to ... not getting any more EU subsidy money.

You do realise that those of us on this side of the channel are some of the biggest net contributors to EU coffers, right?

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[PeterBrett]

surrounding the UK Parliament and saying, "Comply or else."

Or else what?

"I fart in your general direction!"

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

Given the number of other rights willingly surrendered by the good people of the British Isles

We havn't all given them up, Some of us are fighting to retain the rights we have and get back others. We now even have an political party to vote for. And even if the Pirates don't win a seat, there is another major political party committed to passing a bill to reclaim our freedom. Even the TFA is about people standing up against government committing to free ideals, even if out of selfish motives. The cause of Freedom is nowhere near lost in the UK.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

If the government really wants to push the law through, it can withdraw from the Treaty of European Union, but I suspect a lot of companies would object to ... not getting any more EU subsidy money.

You do realise that those of us on this side of the channel are some of the biggest net contributors to EU coffers, right?

You're right, but so was the GP about companies complaining, just for the wrong reasons. If we withdrew from the EU, UK companies would lose not only free access to the worlds largest trading block, but also the large pool of reasonably cheap labour from Eastern Europe that goes with it. Indeed, it's not just companies; all those Polish plumbers and Bulgarian builders would have to go home, the supermarkets couldn't import cheap European goods and prices for you and me would rise; suddenly the eurosceptic middle classes would europhiles when they see what the effect was on their wallets. As much as we love to bash the EU in this country, IMO it has a net positive effect. And if you remain eurosceptic, there's one more reason we should remain within it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIXH3-A8zMI ... Isn't yes Minister like a documentary at times?

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[hughk]

The Eurosceptics believe that the UK could withdraw from the EU and join the EEA to retain access to EU markets. A nice theory for them but in practice it forces the countries to comply with many EU policies without any representation in the decision making.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

The Eurosceptics believe that the UK could withdraw from the EU and join the EEA to retain access to EU markets. A nice theory for them but in practice it forces the countries to comply with many EU policies without any representation in the decision making.

I know. It's funny watching their reactions when you mention that Norway and the Swiss have to implement 70-80% of EU directives to stay in the EEA, but don't get a seat at the table when they're made... "So you'd like to give us even less power over our trade laws then Mr UKIP man?" ;p

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[commodore64_love]

What are you going to do? Nuke your own Parliament in order to kill the EU Army surrounding it?

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Shakrai]

You had me until the pirate party bit. I'm talking about fundamental freedoms and you are linking to a party whose main goal is to legalize copyright infringement? I'll take my right to keep and bear arms and right against self incrimination over my "right" to share the latest Nickelback CD with thousands of people I've never met......

The pirate party may have some laudable goals (reducing the length of copyright) but their primary goal is laughable on the face.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The thing is, since decisions made in the EU are typically completely undemocratic anyway, I have no problem with being stuck with only 70–80% of them if the alternative is 100%. Frankly, we have a lot of money and skilled labour, which puts us in a strong position to make bilateral or collective deals for mutual benefit anyway.

I'm sick of being told that my own government, which presently has a dubious enough mandate itself for multiple reasons, can't do things that are clearly wanted by the population of my own country, because they claim they have to comply with such-and-such a European rule. It's remarkable how often unelected busybodies pushed out to Europe by our own government (Mandy, anyone?) manage to get such rules made, yet how powerless they always seem to be when it comes to changing them in ways the Powers That Be do not like. It's also remarkable how long it takes our government to comply with European Court rulings that it doesn't like.

Moreover, to the other poster who commented on the cheap supply of Eastern European labour, it's only cheap when much of it is illegal. Otherwise, unskilled manual labour pays the same minimum wage it pays to people from our own country, and skilled workers manage to charge just as much whether they are from here or elsewhere. Meanwhile, we have huge problems because of the sheer number of immigrants from those same countries: basic services like health and education can't cope in several areas; there aren't enough houses; our transport infrastructure is insufficient; and even people who come over to do honest, legal work often bring their whole family with them, which drains our resources even further. And of course, we're also screwing the native countries of these people, because those who are able to come and work in the UK are typically among the more skilled and qualified, or at least those with dedication and a good work ethic, and those are precisely the people that those countries need themselves in order to improve their own economic prosperity and catch up with the more developed nations in the Union.

We managed just fine before the EU, when Europe simply had useful trade agreements for mutual benefit. One of the few other good things to come out of Europe is the European Convention on Human Rights, but as someone usually points out in these discussions, that also did not come from the European Union, but from the much older Council of Europe (not to be mistaken for any EU bodies with a similar name).

What the EU adds on top is trying to tie our nations' economies and workforces together, which is never going to work as long as member nations have such dramatically different economic power at home. And then there is the whole undemocratic cash sink that is the EU administration, which is an abomination no-one would tolerate, if only they could actually vote out the people responsible.

In short, I (and many more people) am not Euro-sceptic in general, but I am hostile to the European Union.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Shakrai]

One would hope that the British Army would be smart enough to defeat the EU army before it had Westminster surrounded ;)

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[mdwh2]

We can always hope they forget to notify the EU, and then in 25 years' time it'll be legal again...

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

THe UK Pirate party has 3 core aims, Copyright and patent reform (which you alluded to) but also to combat the surveillance state and to extend freedom of expression. I fail to see why they are not my collegues in taking a stand againt erosion of fundimental freedoms in the UK.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

completely undemocratic anyway

Why do people keep peddling this myth? Both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are elected bodies; it's true that the commission is made up of appointees, but they are appointed by elected member governments - a bit like the house of lords, except that commissioners don't get life terms. All in all it's just as, if not more (due to PR) democratic than our system here in the UK

If you really think that it's in Britain's interest to remove itself from direct access to and the decision making process of the world's largest free trade block, it's your prerogative. However, you'll excuse me if I choose to exercise my freedom of movement and move to another EU member state if UKIP ever look like forming a government. I want to leave before the inevitable economic crash that'll make the 'credit crunch' look like a walk in the park.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are elected bodies; it's true that the commission is made up of appointees, but they are appointed by elected member governments - a bit like the house of lords, except that commissioners don't get life terms. All in all it's just as, if not more (due to PR) democratic than our system here in the UK

No, it's not.

Firstly, the Commissioners are the ones with real power. The directly elected groups are so impotent in practice as to be effectively irrelevant; such powers as they nominally do possess have been ineffective at influencing the Commission to any significant degree.

Secondly, it's bad enough that our government is determined through an average of averages and that we don't directly elect the executive independent of the legislature, but anyone we send to be a Commissioner is one level further removed still. Even then we send only one Commissioner, with all the others provided by other nations without our having any say at all, and we don't get to choose which portfolio each Commissioner gets.

If you really think that it's in Britain's interest to remove itself from direct access to and the decision making process of the world's largest free trade block, it's your prerogative.

Once again, you imply a false dichotomy, as if a nation is either "in" Europe or "out" of it. As I noted in my previous post, the two major benefits to European integration — the trade agreements and the human rights agreements — were both working, and working pretty well actually, long before the European Union came along. It's all the expensive, unaccountable crap that has been added since Maastricht that I object to.

And if you think I'm the only one, or that my country is the only place where the people would prefer the simpler, more transparently useful agreements of old, take a look at the results in every country that actually allowed its people to have a say on the Lisbon Treaty, and notice how many governments had to cut their people out of that decision-making process entirely because they knew damn well what the result of any referendum would be. Tell me again how Europe is democratic, would you please?

However, you'll excuse me if I choose to exercise my freedom of movement and move to another EU member state if UKIP ever look like forming a government. I want to leave before the inevitable economic crash that'll make the 'credit crunch' look like a walk in the park.

Why do you think that reverting to transparent bilateral or multilateral free trade agreements within the equivalent of the old EEA would somehow leave us in a worse position than we are in now, when the EU has expanded far faster than was sensible and mandated uniform agreements for everyone that leave both the leading and the less developed economies suffering as a result? In economic terms, one-size-fits-all agreements are rarely effective unless all parties have similar power and balancing needs. That is clearly not even close to true across the entire EU today.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

No, it's not.

Firstly, the Commissioners are the ones with real power. The directly elected groups are so impotent in practice as to be effectively irrelevant; such powers as they nominally do possess have been ineffective at influencing the Commission to any significant degree.

I'd say that the council of Ministers is at least as, if not more important than the Commission myself, after all it contains executive officers from all the member states, who will have to get directives through their respective countries legislatures. Secondly, the parliament did a good job of blocking Software patents recently. It has more power than you think.

Secondly, it's bad enough that our government is determined through an average of averages and that we don't directly elect the executive independent of the legislature, but anyone we send to be a Commissioner is one level further removed still.

That's a Westminster problem, we could have an elected executive as in the USA, even so the Commissioners are no more removed than the Lords, and are easier to replace. Indeed, incoming governments usually replace our commissioner with "one of their own" at the earliest opportunity.

Even then we send only one Commissioner, with all the others provided by other nations without our having any say at all and we don't get to choose which portfolio each Commissioner gets.

You mean they represent constituencies? Only the people of Sedgefield voted for Tony Blair, I don't remember people saying it was undemocratic that he was Prime Minister, or people complaining that because only the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath voted for Gordon Brown he should been Chancellor, the same goes for all UK cabinet portfolios. I don't get a say about who's the next home secretary, I don't see the outcry about how that's undemocratic. Sure there was some hoo-haa about Gordon Brown becoming PM, but whilst I would never vote for him, the people complaining just showed that they didn't know how the UK constitution worked.

Once again, you imply a false dichotomy, as if a nation is either "in" Europe or "out" of it.

Note the words "decision making process" in my reply. The only way to remain in the EEA decision making process is in the EU, just ask Norway and the Swiss if they have any say over the 70-80% of directives they have implement to stay in the EEA

As I noted in my previous post, the two major benefits to European integration — the trade agreements and the human rights agreements — were both working, and working pretty well actually, long before the European Union came along. It's all the expensive, unaccountable crap that has been added since Maastricht that I object to.

What part of Masstricht exactly do you oppose? IIRC it actually seeded less sovereignty than the Single European act prior to it, whilst building on the same principles. It's only really remembered because of the political climate it was passed in.

And if you think I'm the only one,

An appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy.

or that my country

I also live in the UK, it's my country as well.

is the only place where the people would prefer the simpler, more transparently useful agreements of old, take a look at the results in every country that actually allowed its people to have a say on the Lisbon Treaty, and notice how many governments had to cut their people out of that decision-making process entirely because they knew damn well what the result of any referendum would be. Tell me again how Europe is democratic, would you please?

Straw Man, the EU has no say over whether member states give their people referenda on international treaties; indeed the Germans constitution bans them from doing it, whilst the Irish one makes them. No EU involved. Personally I'm ag

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[hughk]

The funny thing is that "European rule" is being used as an excuse. Germany (and others) has decided to limit the influx of labour from the new EU countries and is being allowed to. Why complain anyway about dominance by unelected official when you have Lord Mandy around and (lots of) minimally supervised quangos creating and implementing policy. The British government prefers to blame EUrope rather than looking to its own areas. They would gladly blame the pound on the ECB if tey could.

I do remember time before the UK was in the EU. Well it sure kept a lot of people employed managing all those imports and exports to the closest neighbours. Lots oif local standards that meant having to get multiple approvals for exports.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[hughk]

However, you'll excuse me if I choose to exercise my freedom of movement and move to another EU member state if UKIP ever look like forming a government.

Already, the sillier policies coming out of the UK have already forced me out. I come back from time to time and wonder why the idiots in both of the main parties haven't been dumped.

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[hughk]

Apparently this has been called "rule by fax", however resented, the benefits of EEA membership outweigh this major disadvantage. Eventually EU membership has the real advantage, but the Lisbon process is needed to make it more practical.

The other advantage is something that came out of the reasoniung behing the original coal and steel treaties and that is that other than the occasional Football match or Eurovision Song Contest, Europe is probably the most peaceful than it has been for the last 1000 years. That is if we can ignore the rather mangy bear sulking in the corner (Under Yeltsin there was talk of eventual EU membership for Russia, but that has now gone).

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm not sure it's productive to reply to every point you made individually, but please let me address some of the main ones.

I'd say that the council of Ministers is at least as, if not more important than the Commission myself, after all it contains executive officers from all the member states, who will have to get directives through their respective countries legislatures. Secondly, the parliament did a good job of blocking Software patents recently. It has more power than you think.

Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree here. To me, it seems that almost everything major that gets dumped on us out of the EU originates with a Commissioner of some sort. Lack of software patents was perhaps an exception, but a rare and possibly temporary one. (Guess who was the EU Trade Commissioner, whose portfolio includes intellectual property issues, at the time that proposal started floating around?)

That's a Westminster problem, we could have an elected executive as in the USA, even so the Commissioners are no more removed than the Lords [...] Only the people of Sedgefield voted for Tony Blair, I don't remember people saying it was undemocratic that he was Prime Minister, or people complaining that because only the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath voted for Gordon Brown he should been Chancellor, the same goes for all UK cabinet portfolios.

Well, I can't speak for others, but I certainly think it's undemocratic that our Prime Minister (and, by extension, the entire executive administration) is not directly elected. This is how we wind up with policies being implemented that are not supported even by a Parliament where the executive's political party has a majority.

As a personal preference, I would like to try a system where any government organisation that has any kind of legislative/regulatory authority or that is allocated a significant budget funded by the taxpayer must also have directly elected leadership. For one thing, it would be impractical to continue having the vast numbers of such organisations that we have today, so such a change would force government to consolidate, with each department having a clear mandate, and less opportunity to hide things or pass the buck. For another, it would be the end of the kind of abuses we've been talking about here, whether our own executive, the Lords or the EU Commissioners.

What part of Masstricht exactly do you oppose?

It's not Maastricht as such, it's Maastricht and the stream of follow-up agreements that created what we know today as the EU. In place of useful trade agreements and co-operation on human rights, which we already had anyway, we now have a body that costs us billions every year (though it is, apparently, incapable of ever producing any audited accounts to justify that) and that has undemocratic legislative/regulatory powers.

An appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy.

In logic, yes, but we're talking about representative democracy. There is no way to determine an absolute right and wrong, so we use an appeal to the majority as our best guess. If you can't convince a majority of the people to respect your position and values, you're not supposed to wield power on behalf of the people.

Personally I'm against referenda of any kind, except major constitutional change. I don't have time to read the Treaty of Lisbon, that's what I elected my MP and pay her to do

If you had read the Treaty of Lisbon, you might see the contradiction in your position here.

Is not the major benefit of a constitution that it creates a basic framework of rights and responsibilities, understandable by anyone and agreed by all, within which any delegated representatives must act? It is beneficial precisely because it is a safe

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[VJ42]

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree here, I do however wish to address one single point that you made, because I believe it's potentially dangerous

An appeal to the majority is a logical fallacy.

In logic, yes, but we're talking about representative democracy. There is no way to determine an absolute right and wrong, so we use an appeal to the majority as our best guess. If you can't convince a majority of the people to respect your position and values, you're not supposed to wield power on behalf of the people.

Even in a representative democracy, sometimes leaders need to lead, and not follow popular opinion. The abolition of slavery and the end of the death penalty (to name but two) were brought about by parliament against the wishes of the population of the day. Since those acts popular opinion has followed. The same has been true of many causes throughout history.

Parliament, whilst there to represent the wishes of the people is also there to guard against mob rule. I believe it was Churchill who said that "the best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with your average voter". He had a point, I don't have time to inform myself on every issue from cucumber regulation to fox hunting. I may have a general moral opinion, but (in theory) our MPs are paid to study the issues and base a conclusion on all the facts, not just the press feeds us. You shouldn't make law based on what's printed in the Sun and the Mail...

Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Even in a representative democracy, sometimes leaders need to lead, and not follow popular opinion.

On that, and indeed the rest of your post here, we agree entirely. However, in this context, don't you lead by convincing the general population that you are right?

Slavery wasn't really abolished because a few people in authority dictated that it should be. It was abolished because a few thoughtful people believed it should be, those people argued strongly to justify their position, and ultimately those people brought others around to their point of view. Were this not the case, any abolition could have been temporary, as a future administration would be more likely to be elected if it agreed with the majority view among the people.

So it goes with just about any major change. As you say, no-one has time to be fully informed on every topic. We elect representatives who can, at least in theory, dedicate their time to learning about a subject of interest in enough detail to form sensible judgements. But the idea is still that those people would form the same sort of opinion as those they represent, had those other people the time to consider the subject in similar detail.

As a counterpoint to your Churchill quotation, I leave you with one of my own favourites, by Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

You know what is next..

[Pvt_Ryan]

Car and Gun manufacturers being held responsible when their products are used in a crime..

Buying favour

[Wowsers]

An internet provider should no more be police for content than the postal services, who don't open and read every letter or packet to see if there's something incriminating in it. Besides which, how much volume of information is flowing around per hour on the internet, and you're somehow going to police that for who owns copyright on the files?! Idiots.

These schemes are always thought up by politicians who have NO qualifications in engineering, information technology or ANYTHING remotely relevant. All we have is a bunch of self serving politicians who studied politics, law, history, art, English, Latin or any other completely worthless subject. And that's why our countries are in the state that they're in.

However, this is big business we're talking about, and the slime-ball UNELECTED politician in question who's pushing this internet cut off accepts freebie holidays from rich "friends", and decides government policy on the hoof... or rather, after meeting up with other rich "friends".

Maybe the debate for the masses should be re-written from "cut off internet" to "you are barred from having a phone", because for a lot of people, they are one and the same thing. You are not allowed to have contact with anyone on order from some pr1ck in the film / music business. A lot of government contact is going online, making the internet even more indispensable than before.

Re:Buying favour

[value_added]

An internet provider should no more be police for content than the postal services, who don't open and read every letter or packet to see if there's something incriminating in it.

Dunno about the UK, but in the US, the post office does have an inspection service that does just that. Not routinely (I'd hope), but they routinely cooperate with other branches of law enforcement, and IIRC, are authorised to carry guns and make arrests, and regularly do so.

Put another way, if you want to advocate ISP neutrality, I'd suggest something other than a metaphor that elicits the image of an armed BOFH.

Help! I'm in BT/Virgin Media/Comcast Jail! ;-)

file sharing

[girlintraining]

You know, I keep hearing the phrase "illegal file-sharers" -- but in truth, what's left to share that's still legal? Upload it to a website and they now likely own the copyright via some license you didn't read. Transfer it over the internet, and the ISP can claim it has certain rights to it. It seems like almost anything that can be made digital is now controlled by some corporation rather than the original creator of the work -- and anything introduced into almost any distribution medium is gobbled up by those corporations via a network of complex laws. The only network left that doesn't have this insanity is sneaker-net.

Re:file sharing

[The Moof]

ISO images of free operating systems.

Re:file sharing

[Bakkster]

As well as any other open source, public domain, creative commons work, or anything that the rights-holder decides to distribute for free.

Why transmit it through file sharing? Easy: bandwidth. The file can reach millions of people for a fraction of the bandwidth, meaning for a fraction of the cost.

Re:file sharing

[pjt33]

NASA distributes vast quantities of imagery to the public over bittorrent.

Re:file sharing

[Cederic]

I subscribe to an online games service. They offer over 300 games to download with the rights holders blessing (and recompense).

Sky TV offer film and TV show downloads. They use p2p technologies to minimise server costs.

I download films from time to time by independent and low-budget film makers that want to share their work. They own the copyright to their own films but can't afford the bandwidth to distribute them, so they use p2p.

There's a lot of material out there using bandwidth that is legal to share.

I don't share files.

[Amphetam1ne]

I just leech them off usenet and the free filehosts.

What annoys me most about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that this has been proposed by Peter Mandelson - who is an unelected Lord, who has twice resigned from government positions after being accused of corruption, and who continues to be frequently accused of conflict of interests since his hobbies include holidaying with businessmen on various yachts, and then making trade deals which benefit said businessmen.

No one gets to vote for Lord Mandelson, and yet he gets to be in charge of the UK when Gordon Brown's on holiday. Scary stuff.

As a result people often have to resort to desperate measures to get their point across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agDKAAsloxo

Guilty without trial by jury.

[commodore64_love]

That's basically what this boils down to. You are punished without a trial, or a chance to convince a jury of your peers that you don't deserve to be punished. Yes it's efficient but it's also tyrannical... like living under the old monarchy where punishment was swift but arbitrary.

Re:Guilty without trial by jury.

[schon]

Exactly.. note the wording...

internet service providers are obliged to take action against repeat infringers

The problem is that they want service providers to take action against alleged repeat infringers.

If the media providers want the ISPs to cut off people while they're in prison for copyright infringement, that's not so unreasonable. Unfortunately, this likely isn't what they meant.

Re:Guilty without trial by jury.

[Hal The Computer]

I'm sorry, you want what? A trial by jury before they can disconnect your internet? I don't agree with this proposed law, but you're still way off base. Since we're talking about the UK, I'm going to quote from the Magna Carta:

No freeman shall be taken captive or imprisoned, or deprived of his lands, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go with force against him nor send forces against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

You'll note that it doesn't say no punishment without a jury trial. Juries are important. But you don't get one anytime you feel that people are being mean to you.

In other words...

[The Excluded Middle]

In other words, ISPs are upset at the idea that they will lose paying customers. Isn't it funny what happens when a major coprorate interest butts heads against another? This has nothing to do with the rights of their cusotmers, that's for sure.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says they're paying, or customers? Steal someone's wireless today!

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only will they lose paying customers, they also get to pay half of the bill for bringing some one to justice.

Our Government are inept, laughable and willing to be any ones bitch, even for very little reward.

Brown isn't fit to lead a country and Mandy can't be trusted with any kind of power, the sooner they find themselves in the history books the better.

Coming soon

[VoiceInTheDesert]

Laws to make gun shop owners, alcohol retailers and car dealers responsible for all illegal activity conducted with their products

Re:Coming soon

[The Moof]

..alcohol retailers...

Actually, there is a little known liability with bars and DUI's where you can actually pursue claims against the bar for not cutting you off. I didn't believe it myself when I first heard about it, but I feel the source, a bar owner, was reputable.

UK on a Nanny Binge Today :: Plastic Beer Glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-government-to-ban-glasses-in-pubs.html

And you guys are worried about what? The internet? Pfff.

PRIORITIES!!

Who's to blame here? I wanna blame somebody. Somebody. Anybody.

As long as I don't have to do anything myself and there is absolutely no risk either.

Otherwise count me in.

check riaaradar.com

[Dan667]

Guess who is trying to get these laws passed. When you buy music, make sure to check http://riaaradar.com/ to see if the album is from a company that funds the RIAA. If they do, don't buy it and stick it to them a couple dollars of lost earnings at a time.

Re:check riaaradar.com

[Pentium100]

But if all albums of a band I like are there, then I can only:

1. Record the songs off the radio or TV assuming they are still played (requires a lot of time).
2. Buy it second-hand (does not change the fact that I bought it).
3. Download it (free, but illegal).
4. Borrow it from a friend and copy it (illegal, and the friend had to do [1-4]).
5. Do not listen to the band (but I like it and want to listen to it!).

Of course most of the time I end up doing #3, like everybody I know personally.

Vote 'em Out

[whisper_jeff]

Members of parliament need to be reminded that they work for us, not Big Media Corp. They need to be reminded that their job security depends heavily on our support, not the support of a corporate lobby group - especially a FOREIGN lobby group. Members of parliament need to become aware that serving the interests of the people whom they represent is their number one priority and serving the interests of lobby groups can come somewhere much further down on that list. They need to be reminded in the simplest and best way possible - they need to be informed that, if they fail to represent the best interests of the people, the people will replace them with someone who understands their role better. They need to be reminded that Big Media Corp might be represented by a large and powerful lobby group but "the population at large" is a much large, much more powerful lobby group and we, as the population at large", are willing to flex our muscles if we aren't being represented properly.

Write to your member of parliament. Vote smart.

Re:Vote 'em Out

[jimicus]

Write to your member of parliament. Vote smart.

Yep, done this. Several times, in fact.

My MP is a member of the labour party, and a very loyal one at that. Chances of her rebelling against any measure the government propose is somewhere close to zero.

Re:Vote 'em Out

[Andy_R]

The major UK parties are well known for making policy swerves to chase votes. While the Pirate Party UK realistically stands no chance of winning seats in the next general election, we will do our best to offer voters a chance to demonstrate that technology issues are important.

Re:Vote 'em Out

[hughk]

Lord Mandleson was never elected. He was called to the Lords as the only way to give him a rank of Minister of the Government without him being elected. Essentially he has always been considered as knowledgeable but unelectable but his ability to manage the media that made him an excelleent manager of spin for Blair.

Britain on the edge

[hyades1]

Too bad the Labour Party has been taken over by a bunch of neo-conservative autocrats. The people of the UK now really have no choice except that between far right and even further right. Personal rights and due process are becoming a thing of the past, surveillance cameras proliferate like rats on Viagra, and the state is pushing its way into every area of one's private life...all in the name of security.

I'm entirely unsurprised that this latest assault on individual freedom and dignity is gaining currency with the UK government. Who cares whether the person whose connection is cut was actually responsible for the alleged piracy? Who cares whether they were even breaking the law? And how much more efficient it will be when the notoriously greedy and dishonest entertainment industry can inflict its will on average people without even having to prove its case in court!

All the fascists we fought during WWII would be laughing their asses off, because the current pack of neocon thugs are bringing about everything they wanted with the stroke of a pen. This latest offense against due process and the rule of law is just the cherry on an excrement sundae.

Re:Britain on the edge

[JasterBobaMereel]

Labour are now neo-conservative are they?, they may be in US terms, but even our Conservative party only has a few people we would consider neocons and Labour are still (just) to the left of the majority of Conservatives ....

You forget that totalitarian regimes come in both left and right flavours and they both use the same tactics ....

Re:Britain on the edge

[FourthAge]

In terms of social policy, Labour are very left-wing; always have been. So are the Conservatives now.

But as you very rightly say, it's irrelevant from the perspective of the ordinary person. The extreme left and the extreme right are equally harmful to individual liberty.

Re:Britain on the edge

[Dan541]

The Nazi "ideals" live on.

Re:Britain on the edge

[jez9999]

For all those in the UK who are concerned about these issues, I ask you to join the UK Pirate Party. We are committed to fighting against just these issues in a political context, and trying to get MPs and more realistically) MEPs elected, so the Pirate Party can get its viewed not just heard, but gain some real power in implementing. We could use your support, so come and join us!

What annoys me is business...

[ibsteve2u]

What annoys me is that business chronically shrieks that the consumer should be ever more regulated and that the penalties for breaking those regulations should be ever harsher.

But when it comes to their own behavior, what I hear from Business is that they should be ever less regulated and the penalties for their noncompliance should range from weak to non-existent!

Now that kid over at the university who swiped 10 songs is costing me little or nothing...pennies, at most. But, at least here in America, the Businesses who have so successfully bought deregulation have cost my country, me, and my children trillions of dollars.

The system is whacked!

Re:What annoys me is business...

[krou]

It reminds me of when Adam Smith rallied against the mercantile system: "It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it." (Chapter VIII, Book IV, The Wealth of Nations)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Forego Copyrighted Material

[Bob9113]

If a copyrighted work doesn't come with a fair license, don't consume it.

Simple fact is, as long as we keep feeding these trolls, they will keep biting our hands. It's not hard to give it up, particularly if you allow yourself the occasional dalliance. Prior to the Metallica/Napster debacle, I had built up a collection of more than 1,000 CDs. Since then, I have bought maybe two dozen CDs and one downloaded album. I think all the CDs were used.

Meanwhile I have more than 30 gigs of podcasts on my iPod, and another 30 gigs on my hard drive. All downloaded perfectly legally, and most of it is an excellent replacement for the lackluster material coming from the gated cloisters.

As an added advantage, I'm spending a helluva lot more time listening to educational material about hobbies I am interested in, and a lot less time sucking on candy-media.

Give 'em what they want. They don't want us to use their media the way we want to use it? Fuck 'em.

Re:Forego Copyrighted Material

[Pig Hogger]

If a copyrighted work doesn't come with a fair license, don't consume it.

Pirate it. When everyone will have bled the content distributors to death, they will not harm people anymore.

Re:Forego Copyrighted Material

[jimicus]

Even that doesn't work very well.

In order for it to work well, you'd need to cut the money off suddenly and more-or-less entirely. In other words, almost everyone on the planet starts a boycott simultaneously while loudly explaining exactly what they are doing and why. This would force them to re-think their business pretty well.

Unfortunately, what's happening is a few people here and there are starting a boycott and the industry doesn't know what's happening - all they know is they're making fewer sales. They've been blaming this on piracy for years, what makes you think they'll stop now?

Re:Forego Copyrighted Material

[Bob9113]

I agree we need a more pervasive boycott, and we need it to spread more rapidly.

That is why I posted a call to boycott. Spread the word. :)

Re:Forego Copyrighted Material

[ijakings]

You really are preaching to the choir here, most peole on /. already hold those views and if they dont they probably arent going to change them because one random person makes a post that has been done before ad nauseum. In order to make a difference you have to explain to everyone around you offline the situation and try and change their minds, and if you have already done that youve done your part, unless you want to take to the streets or something. Us telling each other the same good idea over and over again, and patting ourselves on the back with insightful moderations is only going to get us as far as its gotten us so far. Nearly nowhere.

Re:Forego Copyrighted Material

[Bob9113]

I say it every time the subject comes up, online or off. It is not about whether you fall down, it is about whether you get back up. Keep pushing until we win. Even if that means going to my grave 40 years from now still pushing, and not yet having won. Never give up. Never surrender. Never sit in silence.

Re:Forego Copyrighted Material

[pbhj]

almost everyone on the planet starts a boycott simultaneously while loudly explaining exactly what they are doing and why.

I'm in!

Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal

[Runaway1956]

Of course it's illegal. It has always been illegal for a special interest group to attempt to run the country. That's true in every society that makes any claim to be "democratic". The question is not whether these attempts to control society are legal or not. The question is, when are people going to get pissed off enough to tell the government that these attempts will no longer be tolerated?

All of the lobbyists should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. When that's finished, go back and grab the paid off politicians for the same treatment.

One round of that, and we'll see all lobbyists reconsidering their strategies.

Re:Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this is why France once massed produced guillotines...

Re:Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal

[Hurricane78]

Now think about why you only wrote "should" instead of "will" and actually doing it.
Long and hard. For at least a hour a day for a week.

Then you might come to the root of the problem. :)

Re:Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal

[Kjella]

Of course it's illegal. It has always been illegal for a special interest group to attempt to run the country. That's true in every society that makes any claim to be "democratic".

What kind of insane statement is that? Everything from the EFF and ACLU to RIAA and MPAA are special interest groups trying to "run the country", at least within their field of interest. Hell, even grass root organizations are lobbying groups as much as the astroturfers. Which is by the way another form of lobbying, trying to change the public opinion or at least our representatives' impression of it. Everyone that's ever written or talked to a representative or their staff have tired to be a lobbyist. Maybe you can manage to scope down some precise kind of backdoor lobbying bordering on corruption as illegal but your general statement makes absolutely no sense.

Re:Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal

[Runaway1956]

Lobbyists and people who write letters to their congressmen are entirely different creatures. I thank you for trying to attempt to muddy the water, though. For your edification, a lobbyist is generally either paid to go to the capital, or he has a high value personal interest in a bill, or set of bills. As opposed to the "little people" who are supposed to be represented by said congressman or senator. Democracy is the concept of "One citizen, one equal vote", contrasted against the concept of "The biggest campaign contribution wins".

Re:Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

It has always been illegal for a special interest group to attempt to run the country

Always?

You mean like political parties. Or the monarch. Or the barony. Right?

All of the lobbyists should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail

... some of which was done to people who opposed existing special interests' running of the country, interests like Richard I of England, or in what would become the USA, the enforcers and collectors of British law, customs and excises, or in the USA the tarrings and featherings done by the Know-Nothings (a special interest group wanting to run the country, and a strong group of lobbyists) against opponents.

One round of that, and we'll see all lobbyists reconsidering their strategies

I'm all for it as long as we treat your advocating this uncivil, unpeaceful, unlawful constraint on voluntary collective action as a form of lobbying.

You will look good in feathers.

It will work.

[aaandre]

It is simple, efficient, and the people oppressed by this approach are already painted as "criminals." Would YOU want to stand in defense of "criminals and thieves" ? Didn't think so.

Move along people, nothing to see, RIAA's boot has finally found it's way to your collective ass.

Re:It will work.

[techprophet]

Either you: a) forgot your [/sarcasm] tags, b) work for the RIAA, or c) are a complete idiot. The truth is, no matter how they are branded, most people don't see them as criminals. Since music was created people have been reproducing it. First by playing the song as heard from memory, then by copying tapes (not sure about records, they were before my time), and then CDs, and now by stripping DRM and creating torrents. It will not stop. Ever. Get over it, you lost.

Re:It will work.

[techprophet]

And here I forgot my /> tags

Re:It will work.

[aaandre]

I didn't think this needed sarcasm tags. Guess I was wrong.

Re:It will work.

[techprophet]

Get over it, you lost.

That wasn't directed at you. More of the general RIAA-prop direction.

ISPs pay for something irrelevant?

[improfane]

It is not the ISP's jurisdiction to protect the rights of content holders. This is ridiculous.

It's like a telephone company being legally responsible for checking if I am reading copyrighted material. They're just trying to reduce they're own costs.

Media companies need to get with the times and compete.

Re:ISPs pay for something irrelevant?

[improfane]

their

Why Don't They Cut Off the Botnets First?

[Mansing]

Start the the "users" that are already breaking the law ....

Hear ye!

[Tikkun]

Let it be known throughout the lands that anyone caught watching a movie without paying for it shall have their eyes taken from their heads!

Anyone caught listening to music that they haven't paid for shall have their ears ruptured and made deaf!

Anyone caught reading a book they did not pay for shall be forced to read twilight for the rest of their days.

Let us ban TVs that more than one person can see, so that all freeloaders will be forced to pay for the content they view! Let us regulate the sale of speakers so that people must use headphones if they wish to listen to music and prevent people from hearing music they haven't paid for! Let us burn down every library in the land so that authors can be paid for their efforts!

I live in Britain and I welcome this..

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a house and after hearing about U.S. file sharers getting fines of over a million dollars for downloading some music I've been nervous that if the same happened here I could lose my house. This way the worse case scenario is I get warned and then if I persist I lose my connection. My connection isn't worth £200,000+ to me.

Re:I live in Britain and I welcome this..

[Dan541]

Theft is only a slap on the wrist, hardly even an offence.

So in some ways it would be better to criminalise file-sharing.

File Sharing a Crime

[buggy_throwback]

In a bizarre twist the laws that say the new file sharing laws are illegal, are illegal. Maybe. What the hell is a law doing being illegal anyway? Where will it end?

Re:UK on a Nanny Binge Today :: Plastic Beer Glass

[xaxa]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-government-to-ban-glasses-in-pubs.html

And you guys are worried about what? The internet? Pfff.

PRIORITIES!!

Who's to blame here? I wanna blame somebody. Somebody. Anybody.

As long as I don't have to do anything myself and there is absolutely no risk either.

Otherwise count me in.

The blame eventually lies with the people hitting other people with broken glasses, since that's what this is targetted at.

Most places I drink at have had lookalike plastic glasses for years, but they're typically nightclubs where it's people accidentally (ish) dropping the glasses that's the problem.

It doesn't need legislation though -- picking up a cracked plastic glass is much easier than sweeping up glass shards. And there's plenty of choice, from shitty-looking to I-can't-believe-it's-not-glass-but-it-bounces.

Re:If it makes you feel better

[TheMuon]

After the bit about the post office I strongly suspected sarcasm. After the second line about the bus-lines I was certain this was sarcasm. By the time I got to "Woosh hammer" I thought this was such well written sarcasm making such a good point that your average sixth grader would fully comprehend this comment.

After reading the comments I realize I've either severely overestimated the reading comprehension of your average sixth grader or severely underestimated the reading comprehension of your average slashdot reader.

PS, that "or" is inclusive.

Mandelson fights back Internet pirate hordes

[David Gerard]

Seven million Britons face having their internet connection cut off and fines of up to GBP50,000 as Steampunk 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 million billion squillion 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 party'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, membership of the Pirate Party UK, launched earlier in the week, has been increasing at 100 new members per hour.

Re:Mandelson fights back Internet pirate hordes

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Lukket's Fark photoshop has had as many comebacks as Peter Mandelson!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

Re:If it makes you feel better

[gnick]

I'm as amazed and disappointed as you, but it's been interesting to watch. Over the last couple of hours I've watched that post bounce from my starting '2', down to a '0', up to a '5', and now back down to a '1' (lower than your current '2' lamenting the fact that so many people missed the point.) And I don't think I've ever seen so many 'Whoosh'es responding to people's comments to a single post. I've no idea whether I'm coming out karma positive or negative today, but I've enjoyed watching the "Shoot first and read the post later" haters crawl out of the wood-work.

Get the real story

[ciderVisor]

File-Share Crackdown 'Breaches Fundamental Right To Steal'

Wrong focus at the wrong time

[gilesjuk]

Today on the news there was a story about a 90 year old widow who was beaten and mugged on the way to a visit of her husbands grave to lay flowers.

Why on earth can such sick things happen and it doesn't get Police resources yet a media mogul can have a nice dinner party with Lord Mandy and all of a sudden resources are found to tackle online file sharing?

This world is seriously messed up when unauthorised non-commercial sharing of copyright media is more important than the safety of the public. Politicians need to focus on serving the public, not big businesses.

Re:If it makes you feel better

[ciderVisor]

underestimated the reading comprehension of your average slashdot reader.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Just stfu

[techprophet]

Just STFU and let us have our way already. Remember who pays your paycheck!

YouTube

[cyclomedia]

The same time the Darth Mandelson stories broke this week YouTube also announced that they were opening up the ad-revenue-sharing model to anyone who posts a video on the site (provided it's popular enough for there to be enough revenue to share) and THIS will hopefully prove another nail in the coffin of 20th Century Big Media - There's now nothing stopping anyone with talent and a video camera from making a professional "tv" show, airing it on YouTube and making some ad revenue. Video sharing sites might even compete to get the best rates for content creators and when TVs can interface with any youtube clone site just like channel hopping the broadcasters will be dead in the water. What this does is cut out all the middlemen who would have take said talented person's idea and rewrite it, retarget it, add characters, change it to a sitcom and retain the copyright. Boo Fucking Hoo for the middle men, who are all now out of a job thanks to the internet

Re:UK on a Nanny Binge Today :: Plastic Beer Glass

[mdwh2]

The blame eventually lies with the people hitting other people with broken glasses, since that's what this is targetted at.

The blame for people being hit lies with people who hit. The blame for passing stupid laws lies with the people who pass stupid laws - no matter who they cite as an excuse.

It doesn't need legislation though

Then we're all in agreement. I don't think anywhere is against using plastic glasses in venues where it seems sensible, the issue is using the law to require it (possibly even in pubs where there is no such trouble).

Re:UK on a Nanny Binge Today :: Plastic Beer Glass

[Cederic]

And vodka from plastic containers tastes shit compared to vodka from glass containers.

Student bars get away with it by being so bloody cheap. Nightclubs get away with it by being places people don't go to drink.

Personally I've never seen anybody hit anybody else with a broken glass, and I worked in a city centre pub for two years. How about the government just fuck off and leave us alone - on glasses and on downloading.