Slashdot Mirror
UK's Anti-File-Sharing Bill Could "Breach Human Rights"
Grumbleduke writes "The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has recently reported on the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which seeks to restrict the connections of anyone accused of infringing copyright using the Internet. According to the BBC, the committee noted the lack of details in the Bill as it stands, asking for 'further information' from the government on several issues. They also raised concerns that some punishments under the bill could be 'applied in a disproportionate manner' and said that the powers the bill granted to the Secretary of State (i.e. Lord Mandelson) were 'overly broad.' These echo the concerns raised in recent months by the Open Rights Group, a consortium of web companies including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and eBay, as well as the UK's Pirate Party. The Bill is currently being scrutinized by the House of Lords, and if it passes there, will likely be forced through the Commons quickly, despite the opposition from the public, industry and members of parliament. The committee's full report can be found on the parliament website."
I can't believe governments are spending so much time and effort going after file sharing. The types of punishment being proposed are also completely out of proportion. Why not spend this much effort going after other widespread crimes such as rape and human trafficking? Also, shouldn't the government be spending a lot more time worrying about environmental damage and climate change? Our futures are at stake, yet the biggest problem seems to be people exchanging bits on the Internet.
That Mandelson is a real crafty cocker. He wants power, and more power, and the more he gets, the more he wants. He can't be satisfied.
Doesnt that mean that one could accuse each and every single person inside these copyright agencies, I suppose in this case the only way to fight them is to make them hate there own ways.
... if this bill pass as it is right now. Then the UK Pirate Party would get some more voters love!
Doesn't it seem like no matter what country we're talking about, when it comes to governments passing these types of restrictive laws, we're seeing this more and more?
Bark less. Wag more.
You want rights? Alright - the day we defeat Eastasia, we'll start thinking about rights. Ooops, my mistake - Eastasia is our ally this month, it's Eurasia we have to defeat!
Buncha whiney sissies, who needs rights anyway?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Many people complain about the US system (&Japan) where individual candidates raise their own campaign funds. And would like to limit them. But at least these systems produce independant legislators.
It was a spectacle when Tony Blair thrice put down backbencher revolts over UK involvement in Iraq (quite reasonably, labor platforms & supporters have always been dovish and somewhat antiUS). This convinced me that the UK (&other parlementary systems) are really elected dictatorships. Diktat is to be expected.
Lordy Mandy is one of the more infamous characters of our Labour government. Several times he's been fired/forced to resign over corruption (taking bribes) and effectively fraudulent behaviour. Each time, he keeps getting hired back by the government when they think most people will have forgotten.
He's shown himself to out only for his own personal profit, with flagrant disregard for the public, though a side effect is he also feathers the beds of his political allies in his bargains.
Much of what Labour have brought in during their 12 years in power has been something the governmental organisations in Orwell's 1984 would have been proud of.
Still, every election, they bleat about "beware the Tories because they're evil". No real evidence, just their usual "it's that way because we say it is".
The political system bugs the hell out of me. On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs. However a lot of their social track record (though John Major, the last tory PM was a big change on that) is not so hot. They make the hard decisions.
Labour, on the other hand, are the real "protect the underdog", to the extend of actually oppressing the majority to achieve this end.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is the sweet spot, though the 'middle of the road' party we have isn't balanced by the extremes, but seems to try to muddle along without actually making any hard decisions one way or the other.
The hard decision in this one is "how do we best benefit society to allow ourselves the flexibility to foster creativity at a fundamental level so we can compete globally in the future?".
Hint. It's not to chase file sharers. It's probably more along the lines of reorganising the copyright system from the ground up to fit what we need to achieve as a society, not to prop up the business models of huge corporations. The upcoming economies that will in a generation or so surpass the existing economic powers will, while they're growing fast, play fast and loose with this. If the existing powers remain inflexible, and try to hide behind the old rules, they'll fall. History is full of things like this (Agincourt, American War of Independance etc.). Rules of engagement change, yet the 'old powers' try to hold onto them. They fail eventually and are superseded by a more flexible structure (until that structure ossifies under the pressure of internal greed).
One day, we'll have organisational structures that strike the proper balance over extended periods, but I think that's a long way off. We're a primitive species still trying to struggle with its own success. A lot of this can be marked down to the pains of growing up. Doesn't mean we should be complacent. There are many structures that can govern, and many of them unpleasant.
Come back the old "democracy" where at the end of the year, you voted on someone to exile for the year. HAve them living in penury and social isolation. That, methinks, could serve as a useful tool for those in the limelight.. Let them know there are consequences to actions..
...is a violation of human rights.
Circumcision is child abuse.
who do you think the politicians are anyway?
good upstanding people
heck no
look at all the people on rehab in hollywood and tell me there isnt something wrong when that block a shit gets to make our laws
If corporations have the privilege to use the right to free speech thru election financing, I choose to communicate thru playing and sharing music as to how I am feeling. I use recorded music as a way to express myself. Therefore its a first amendment right to share music with my friends. Really.. I am only expressing myself! - JW
Too true. First-past the post, safe seats, and the boundary commission all collude to ensure that nothing substantially changes when an election happens. The entire structure is set up to give all the appearances of democracy with none of the reality of it.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Government increases its own power, without limit, until stopped by some other force. It's inherent in the word "govern" - which means to control. Government was, is, and always will be the control of the many by the few - that's what the word means.
This will change only when we stop accepting that we and our fellow human beings need to be controlled - to be "govern"ed - by some external force, and we each consciously take on our individual responsibility to contribute to society and create a new form of social organization.
The increasing power of government is exactly like the increasing pain of an untreated disease - its purpose is to do whatever is necessary to get the organism to wake up and respond. As long as the organism ignores the symptom, the only chance for healing is for the disease to increase the pain. The symptom is never the problem. Ignoring the symptom is the problem. The symptom is the call to heal.
So from a holistic or systemic view we can see the increase in the power (and abuses) of government is actually humanity's way of trying to call attention to our real illness: the unresponsiveness, and most accurately the unconsciousness, of the rest of the body politic - i.e., each of us.
Our only choice is whether we hear the call and respond.
I guess I won't be able to attach a file to an e-mail now.
That's file sharing, right?
Or use the internet at all for that matter... web pages are comprised of lots of files.
You can sign here :
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/dontdisconnectus/
to make your voice heard on the matter.
The entire bill needs a complete rethink, to be redrafted and actual IT professionals be involved in the consultation process.
Instead of some "Johnny come lately" Politicians that think they know it all drafting something because they got a back hander from the movie studios and record companies.
Enough said.
I believe being a working politician in the USA means and possibly even requires that every politician ignore and/or bypass copyright legislation in order to do their job. Considering the diverse uncontrolled information sources it would be a miracle if one wasn't.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
The UK government is once again, acting like a collective bunch of dim wits when it comes to the internet and information technology. Once again, they are loading a gun, aiming squarely at their feet, crying out "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN" and pulling the trigger. A while later, they cry out, and to their utter astonishment, find that somehow, they have been wounded and are now suffering. Not to be discouraged, dissuaded or embarrassed by the situation, they reload the weapon, place one bandaged but still bleeding foot beside the other healthy foot, aim carefully, cry out "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN", and pull the trigger. Once again, astonishment, agony, determination, and resolve! There are four more rounds. A dying business model is no reason to once again be on the wrong side of history. Stand up for luddites everywhere! And if you can be draconian at the same time, so much the better! Its the British way!
Qui buono?
it's cui bono http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
Or refuse paying taxes.
Because of prevailing harm to societies it is necessary not to limit, but to abolish the copyrights completely.
at least these systems produce independant legislators.
Independent, apart from being beholden to their financiers...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Tell the lawmakers that someone's rights are bound to be infringed. Ask those lawmakers in open forums (news shows, interviews, press conferences) if it is worse for a multimillion dollar corporation to lose some sales or for the entire populace to lose their rights as citizens.
Wait for squirming. If they try to dodge the question, ask it again.
Sure, getting kicked off the internet is pretty bad from a rights perspective and all, but what gets me is the fines they're still able to levy in court for these things. The UK's fines are way out there, though not so much as the $2 million or so the US has fined in the past.
From this blog post, here's a list of seven crimes which, in the US, will cost you less than downloading pirated music:
1. Child abduction: the fine is only like $25000.
2. Stealing the actual CD: the fine is $2,500
3. Rob your neighbor: the fine is $375,000
4. Burn a house down: The fine is just over $375,000
5. Stalk someone: The fine is $175,000
6. Start a dogfighting ring: the fine is $50,000
7. Murder someone: The maximum penalty [for second-degree murder] is only $25,000 and 15 years in jail, and depending on your yearly salary, would probably be far slighter a penalty than $2 million.
What's going on here? Are the judges (worldwide!) just crazy? Do they get a cut?
How can anyone think these fines are reasonable, to say nothing of the further abuses discussed in the article?
> File sharing is also only one step away from human sharing, or human trafficking as you name it.
Note, for those who don't know: Human Trafficking is modern-day slavery. In the US alone, several hundred thousand teens are at high risk for being trafficked each year. (Sources: Polaris Project; National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Qui buono? Who benefits? The people? Or copyright holders? This one is obviously the latter.
The vast majority of copyright holders are unlikely to benefit, in the same way that they havn't benefitted from other recent changes to copyright law.
How do they get such favors? Through some obscure mechanism to earn support. Most likely party funding.
Many people complain about the US system (&Japan) where individual candidates raise their own campaign funds. And would like to limit them. But at least these systems produce independant legislators.
How many independent congressmen and senators are there right now?
I wrote to my local MP, who happens to be George Osborne, the Tory shadow chancellor, twice protesting the Digital Economy bill that this article refers to. He didn't respond.
However, the copyright combines _will_ benefit. Why such association of monopolists is tolerated is beyond me. While not operative in the UK, the US Sherman and Clayton Acts do not ban monopolies. They ban the _extention_ and expansion of monopolies. Copyright is a govt granted monopoly, it should not get special exemption.
Certainly many US Sens & Reps "are there". But it takes buying or otherwise having delivered 51 of the former and 220 of the latter. Much harder work than buying ONE party (a few key brokers). Small wonder there are many more lobbyists and pols spend all their time "fundraising". These negotiations are delicate and time-consuming.