Slashdot Mirror


Digital Economy Bill Passed In the UK

Grey Loki writes "The UK government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading – which means it will get royal assent and become law – after just two hours of debate in the Commons."

384 comments

  1. Yup by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yup, the UK is fucked.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Yup by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They seriously need to stop trying to be like America...it's hazardous to their well-being :/

    2. Re:Yup by Inda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'll get abused like the DCMA.

      And I honestly can't see Virgin Media cutting off my internet because that'll mean they'll have to cut off the phone, cable TV (two boxes, DVR, HD, Sky Sports), mobile phone, case of wine once a year and everything else Branson might like to sell me for the next 50 years.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess this is the end of Linux on the desktop. Sorry, folks!

      No prob. I've got Linux on my phone.

    4. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One more proof that government doesn't represent the interests of the masses, but those of the few, rich and powerful people.

    5. Re:Yup by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      They will never be like America until the food preparation technology and process improves. Except for the tea and biscuits at 4PM.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    6. Re:Yup by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They seriously need to stop trying to be like America...it's hazardous to their well-being :/

      Yeah because Europe has been such a copyright utopia. Oh wait... Everyone complains about the copyright extension act that was passed in the US a few years back but the European one was far more heinous. Unlike the US version, the European one actually revived already-dead copyrights so that they could be extended as well. Oh and you remember the Berne Convention which requires world-wide recognition of copyrights of all signatory parties? Yeah that came out from European countries.

      Oh and lest we forget our history about the DMCA. The DMCA was borne out of a treaties signed via WIPO and pushed by European countries. And you know who formed WIPO? Yeah that's right, European countries. So let's not pretend that European countries aren't just as complicit in all this copyright madness as the US is since Europe has been the driving force of much of it.

    7. Re:Yup by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      So basically the same way government has worked since the beginning of governments?

    8. Re:Yup by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Troll

      They seriously need to stop trying to be like America...it's hazardous to their well-being :/

      It's the other way around. American should stop trying to be like Britain, with a crippling welfare state and a political system with fewer checks and balances in the government.

      BTW, why is this being laid at the feet of the Tories in the article summary? Isn't Labour the ruling party right now? If they don't want it, then this doesn't pass.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    9. Re:Yup by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BTW, why is this being laid at the feet of the Tories in the article summary? Isn't Labour the ruling party right now? If they don't want it, then this doesn't pass.

      It's not. The summary is only mentioning that this bill had huge support from the Tories and that the Tories helped to get the bill passed. What is wrong about pointing out that fact?

    10. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem for the politicians is that it doesn't really matter what laws they pass. They'll never find a way now to completely prevent me gaining internet access and downloading or accessing whatever I want.

      Christ, even people in our jails keep managing to find their way online with smuggled smartphones and stuff.

      This news really sucks, but ultimately it's just another battle the content industry thinks they've won, but have completely and utterly lost. Each time this happens I decrease the amount of content like DVDs I buy, and simply to make a point, I'm now decreasing it to none, and shall download all the content I'd otherwise consume instead. If the political process is this far fucked (I actually watched the stich up last night) then, well, fuck the political process.

      Really, they wonder why so many people don't vote, and so many vote for extremists whilst completely and utterly ignoring reasoned debate, peaceful political activisim such as writing your MPs en-masse, providing evidence that demonstrates why the laws are unquestionably flawed and so forth? If you leave people with the choice of apathy towards politics or supporting extremism to get their voice heard then it's no wonder people who want their voice heard flock to the growing far right. The rise of the far right in the UK is squarely on Labour and the Tories shoulders, they are entirely without question to blame for the situation the UK is in right.

      They should be utterly ashamed of themselves that despite being caught en-masse as being completely and utterly corrupt this past couple of years stealing from the public coffer, despite seeing a massive rise in support of the far right (UKIP and the BNP), they still haven't learnt their lesson in the slightest. They're still pursuing a path of ignoring the populace, taking bribes, focussing entirely on self interest and so forth. Honestly, the death penalty wouldn't even be good enough for politicians so utterly willing to sell out their country and it's citizens and causing so much misery in the process for their own personal gain.

      As much as I dislike the DEB being passed, I could care less about it because it has zero actual effect on me, and will only harm innocent people- hopefully enough to make them start caring and actually fight back. What fucks me off is the blatant and rampant corruption amongst British politicians, and the way the British political landscape is so utterly fucked, that for many, the far right is the only way to make themselves heard and even that's still not enough for many politicians. It's utterly wrong, people should be heard without having to support extremism, or themselves being rich enough to find money to bribe politicians.

      I don't advocate voting BNP or UKIP for one minute, they're the scum of the earth, but christ, I'm beginning to see now why so many people resort to them nowadays with the feeling of helplessness and lack of voice the British political system leaves people with.

    11. Re:Yup by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      And nothing of value was lost.

    12. Re:Yup by PeterBrett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't advocate voting BNP or UKIP for one minute, they're the scum of the earth, but christ, I'm beginning to see now why so many people resort to them nowadays with the feeling of helplessness and lack of voice the British political system leaves people with.

      Have you considered voting Pirate?

    13. Re:Yup by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      They seriously need to stop trying to be like America...it's hazardous to their well-being :/

      US DMCA: 1998

      UK: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act: 1988

      Hush now, grown ups are talking. You still have a lot to learn about oppressing your populace.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:Yup by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing is technically wrong with it, but the reading of the summary gives the impression that this was somehow caused by the Tories, because you see their party named in the summary and not Labour at all. Its just sort of weird that when talking about a law that was created, pushed through and ultimately passed by Labour that you don't even see the word "Labour" in the summary about it.

    15. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bastards.

      I hope they come canvassing, I really do.

      (CAPTCHA is 'obscene', hah!)

    16. Re:Yup by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Name one food that the US manages to do better than the UK in. Just one.

    17. Re:Yup by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Name one food that the US manages to do better than the UK in. Just one.

      Carne Adovada, right here in New Mexico. (Sorry to bring out the big guns like that. Even all the rest of US is humbled by NM food, so it seems like it's unfair to use NM food as an example, but hey, we are part of the US.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    18. Re:Yup by bangwhistle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tater tots.

    19. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're not generally an option for me, and even if they were running in my constituency it wouldn't matter, being probably one of, if not the safest Labour seats in the country. I don't really have a vote because of our first past the post system, I get to turn up put my little slip in the ballot box, but it's not really a vote, it doesn't really actually matter, it's just something to pacify me as a mere citizen of the state.

      At least if we had a PR system I might be able to vote, but as it stands, I'm effectively not entitled to a real vote because I do not and will not vote Labour.

      It's one of the disadvantages of living in a nice rural area, that unfortunately has a few miles away from it a bunch of ex-mining villages filled with complete and utter ignorance and an interest merely in which party will give them the best benefits (Labour) and which party was most vocal against Thatcher 25 years ago (Labour), apparently those things are more important than actually, you know, voting for a party that will run the country competently.

    20. Re:Yup by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's probably seen as somewhat redundant to mention it, since, as you say, they're the ruling party.

    21. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only get to list stuff that is actually done in both countries

    22. Re:Yup by drsquare · · Score: 4, Funny

      They will never be like America until the food preparation technology and process improves.

      Yeah, despite the best efforts, Britain is still quite a way behind on horrific industrial farming and junk food provision. We have a long way to go before we have a Smithfield of our own. Only animal welfare regulation, and working tastebuds, hold us back from achieving the dream.

    23. Re:Yup by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Likewise - "it was going to be you, until you let he Digital Economy Bill through"

      --
      FGD 135
    24. Re:Yup by internewt · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike the DEB being passed, I could care less about it because it has zero actual effect on me,

      Why do you care, when it has no bearing on you? Oh, you actually mean you couldn't care less.

      People sound fucking retarded when they fuck that phrase up.

      --
      Car analogies break down.
    25. Re:Yup by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Labour being in power, their support for their legislation is assumed. The conservatives are in opposition, but quite possibly about to take power, so drawing attention to their support could become quite relevant (if they later try to disown it as a mistake of the previous government, for example).

    26. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup,

      RIAA - American
      MPAA - American

      Definitely most of the bad behaviour has been from Europe.

      Not.

    27. Re:Yup by FonzCam · · Score: 1

      It mentions the Conservatives because they could have blocked it. With an election coming up any bill that does not pass before today would have to be re-introduced from scratch in the next parliament.

      There's a phase called the 'wash-up' where bills are rushed through with little debate to beat the deadline before an election. If the Conservatives had wanted to they could have kicked up a stink and sunk this bill and campaigned for a better replacement but instead they decided to support it and so it was rushed through at the last minute.

    28. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Bar food. Hispanic food/Tex-Mex and California-Mex. Thai. Anything fried.
      Fruit - Apples, Oranges, Grapes.
      Wine.
      Beer - yea I said it, American regional and microbrews smack down the UK. Hell, I'll take a Molson Canadian over English beers. Bodington's is my favorite from the UK but I'd take a Black Butte Porter or a Widmer Drop Top over it.

      Beef, American beef is maybe second to some Japanese super pricey beef but we have bison here too.

      Pizza - deep dish, New York style

      Bacon. I've had bacon in 8 different countries, midwestern US bacon is the best, second best would be in northern BC and the Yukon

      And finally, grains. American breads are superior to anything in the UK. More grains grown here and superior varieties.

    29. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]Unlike the US version, the European one actually revived already-dead copyrights so that they could be extended as well.[/quote]
      The US act did the same thing actually, but the courts didn't like it.

    30. Re:Yup by DamonHD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you have to try. If you don't make the small effort to put your slip in the ballot box then I think you also throw away your moral right to complain about who gets in. Unless you are confined to bed with a serious illness then it is sheer idleness not to try. Post a spoiled ballot if you must: they provide amusement to the tellers and returning officers.

      I rarely get to see the candidate that I want elected, and nearly always have to vote tactically. However, it seems that the UK electorate is sophisticated enough to overcome many of the superficial problems of the first-past-the-post system, by voting to stop the least-wanted candidate getting in.

      I always vote the best way I can whenever I have the opportunity.

      I've even spent some time as an election observer.

      I think it's important to support the system that gives you the right to vote.

      And I think that the major parties see the elections as a set of polls that really matters. Suppose we have a hung parliament or one where no side has a large majority, but a lot of people for example voted Pirate, do you think that the parties wouldn't bend their policies at all?

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    31. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 1

      When people use that phrase, they're simply being sarcastic, saying they could care less, when they mean that no, really, they couldn't.

      It'll hopefully be slightly less annoying for you in future now you know the tone in which people intend that phrase be read.

    32. Re:Yup by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Beer - yea I said it, American regional and microbrews smack down the UK. Hell, I'll take a Molson Canadian over English beers. Bodington's is my favorite from the UK

      Boddingtons? So, you like Miller then too? As far as I can tell, Boddingtons isn't actually a beer but is in fact some sort of industrial cleaning product left over from washing out hop tubs.

      Beef, American beef is maybe second to some Japanese super pricey beef but we have bison here too.

      I guess if you like bland, greasy beef then American beef may be acceptable. There's a reason why they're called "Aberdeen Angus" cattle.

      Pizza - deep dish, New York style

      Tried it, didn't like it. Dull, soggy bread. Crap sauce. Good cheese though. Maybe you should go to a city with a decent Italian population.

      Bacon. I've had bacon in 8 different countries, midwestern US bacon is the best, second best would be in northern BC and the Yukon

      I must admit, I haven't tried American bacon. All bacon is good, so it's not really worth comparing.

      And finally, grains. American breads are superior to anything in the UK. More grains grown here and superior varieties.

      And one day, you'll figure out what to do with them.

    33. Re:Yup by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Tex Mex.

      There isn't a decent Tex Mex restaurant in the UK.

    34. Re:Yup by xaxa · · Score: 1

      "They seriously need to stop trying to be like America...it's hazardous to their well-being :/"
      "They will never be like America until the food preparation technology and process improves."

      I think it was a joke, suggesting that to be like the USA the UK would need more American food tech (highly processed stuff, HFCS etc). Probably not much more though. The UK is surely a world leader in microwave meals.

      Beer - yea I said it, American regional and microbrews smack down the UK. Hell, I'll take a Molson Canadian over English beers. Bodington's is my favorite from the UK but I'd take a Black Butte Porter or a Widmer Drop Top over it.

      The UK has regional and microbreweries too, but Boddington's is brewed by InBev, "the largest global brewer". I don't drink beer/ale though, so I might be wrong.

      It's a long time since I ate American food and I'd be biased anyway, but American ingredients presumably can be very good quality (you have a whole continent's climate to choose from!), but it's a shame that so much food America is famous for (and that most Americans seem to eat much of the time?) is bland, very unhealthy, or both. I'm sure it's mostly a question of price anyway -- home-grown tomatoes taste far better than the normal supermarket ones, but only slightly better than the luxury/organic/whatever supermarket ones (which cost two-three times as much). Decent food still costs more than fish and chips (or McDonald's).

      (I do remember that regular American bacon had way too much fat in it, but that's just the cut. Compare.)

    35. Re:Yup by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      Bodington's is my favorite from the UK

      Seriously, if Bodingtons is your favourite beer from the UK your taste in beer sucks. Or you haven't tasted any others.

      And while I'm here, we have Bison in the UK too.

      Also, your just plain wrong, of course, bacon is better in the UK, bread is better in the UK, pizza - well I don't care about pizza so you can have that if you like, but the rest is better in the UK.

    36. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "Tried it, didn't like it. Dull, soggy bread. Crap sauce. Good cheese though. Maybe you should go to a city with a decent Italian population."

      You mean like New York or Chicago? Because I've been to both and had the pizza. Lebanese and Greeks make a better pizza than alot of Italians and its better in the States than UK.

    37. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Sorry that my taste in English beer isn't up to snuff. From a quick look at a beer list, 35-40 beers of the UK. I'll take American like Black Butte Porter or anything by Widmer or German beers like Becks or Spatan over anything British.

    38. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Nope, don't like Miller, we just had a conversation about it last night actually. Maybe a High Life once in a blue moon, but not a regular Miller, Budweiser or Coors drinker.

      If you think all American beef is bland or greasy then you are ignorant of it. Really nothing better than raising your own beef, calling in the mobile slaughter, shooting said cow and a few days later having a freezer full of wonderful lean beef.

    39. Re:Yup by manicb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you watch the debate and look at the votes... They didn't even turn up!

      There were 189 votes for and 47 against. 184 of the votes "for" came from the Labour party. The 9 conservatives and a handful of minority parties who showed up split more or less evenly, and 16 Liberal Democrats showed up to vote against. Pathetic, this isn't making anyone look good.

    40. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, Labour have a majority of around 14,000 here.

      Even if my entire village voted for the next closest candidate, it still wouldn't matter, because he has the mining villages for life.

      I do vote still, but I feel it's pointless, because my vote is no different to having no vote whatsoever.

      I'm very pro-EU because as the EU is based on PR, despite the fact my vote in the European elections is diluted amongst a few hundred thousand people that's still a vote that actually has some value.

      It's sad that I can affect UK policy slightly through European elections, but not in the slightest through our very own national elections. The Conservative, UKIP and BNP's position on Europe seems quite laughable to me in this respect, because they talk of removing power from Brussels back to the UK, but ironically, this would actually give me LESS of a say in my own country. How fucked up is that, that I have to rely on Brussels for any say whatsoever in my own country? and how sad is it that the nationalist ideology behind bringing power back from Brussels actually just means more power for politicians, and less for citizens stuck in areas where they don't support the winning candidate (safe seats) - i.e. the majority of the population, 67% last election in fact.

    41. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already pretty quick to cut you off for a multitude of reasons, actually.

    42. Re:Yup by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget things like the Berne Convention that dates back to the 1880s which the US wasn't a signatory of for years.

    43. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It feels weird saying this, but the Lib Dems are a more realistic option. All the opposition in last night's debate was from Backbench labour and Lib Dem. Admittedly not many of them, and it was disgusting when all the absent MPs trotted in for the Division. However, Lib Dems fought this one to the end. Voting pirate is totally wa

    44. Re:Yup by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Really nothing better than raising your own beef, calling in the mobile slaughter, shooting said cow and a few days later having a freezer full of wonderful lean beef.

      Strongly agree. That's what we do, and it's a hell of a lot better than supermarket-bought meat. Sheep too, if you like lamb. In fact, you've just put me in the mood for some lamb chops...

    45. Re:Yup by jabithew · · Score: 1

      From a list?! What are you doing, judging by name? "Hmm, Black Sheep sounds unpleasant, will give that a miss".

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    46. Re:Yup by jabithew · · Score: 1

      At the moment, we're just winding up Parliament before it is dissolved in a few days time. Any bill that pasts has to have the support of all three main parties, or it could easily be blocked in that time. Also it's a convention not to rush into law something which the next government will immediately chuck out, not least because it'll make the party that does it rather more unpopular.

      So the Tories, and indeed the Liberal Democrats, bear some responsibility for allowing this bill to pass, unlike the rest of the year when there'd be nothing they could do to stop it.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    47. Re:Yup by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I did. However, the fact that you guys endorse bullying cunts like Eric turned me, and plenty of other people, off. So, fuck you. If you were running in my constituency, I wouldn't vote for you. I'm voting Lib Dem.

      I still support the global Pirate Party movement, but the PPUK is run by a bunch of assholes. It's a shame, but I don't consider it representative of the pirate movement.

      You, Peter, are one of the guys I hold responsible. If you gave a shit about new people's views not being shouted down and considered character assassinations a relatively negative thing, you'd have been calling for the expulsion of scum like Eric from the party. So screw you, too.

    48. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      List was to remember what'd I'd had. Memory needs jogging like that, recovering from a stroke ;)

    49. Re:Yup by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      From a quick look at a beer list, 35-40 beers of the UK

      Well, that is a rather limited selection as there are over 7000 beers brewed in the UK.

      Unfortunately I wont live long enough to try them all.

    50. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And most Europeans would think the US has three breweries.

      Budweiser, Miller and Coors.

    51. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? They've not cut me off, or even so much as sent me a slightly strongly worded letter, and I've been with them over ten years, torrent like a bitch and run various internet facing services (including an FTP server) over it. No ToS violations and nothing for them to be concerned about.

    52. Re:Yup by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mining villages can be persuaded to vote for a party other than Labour. See Blenau Gwent for example.

    53. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically the same way government has worked since the beginning of governments?

      Yep. It functions according to specifications. The bugs found once in a while that result in liberty leaks for the masses are fixed rather fast.

    54. Re:Yup by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      I've only ever seen that phrase online, nobody has ever said it in real life. Are you sure the internet just didn't make it up.

    55. Re:Yup by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Turnout is usually low enough even in general elections that if all the people that currently can't be bothered actually voted they could have ANY candidate they like. They could vote in nearly a full house of Greens or whoever.

      Rgds

      Damon

      PS. Anyway, I'm glad that you are voting, whoever it is for. I 'saved' a vote for the BNP in the London Mayoral elections even though I can't stand them since I'd rather that people voted than not for example...

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    56. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, the UK is fucked.

      This was introduced by a guy who thinks that the IP in TCP/IP stands for Intellectual Property.

    57. Re:Yup by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if you read that Act you'll see that only items made available for SALE or HIRE are unlawful, that's what prompted the new law. We were quite happy with the CDPA which saw a distinction between commercial counterfeiting and personal sharing.

    58. Re:Yup by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should go to a city with a decent Italian population.

      You mean like NYC? Anyway, deep dish isn't NYC pizza, its Chicago style pizza. NY style is a thin crust. I'm wondering if you're had either in the US.

    59. Re:Yup by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Working tastebuds? I thought the general consensis was that UK food is appallingly bad compared to pretty much any other European country. France, Italy, Greece, even Germany... but I don't think I've heard anyone rave of the UKs food.

      Anyway... working tastebuds? Then please explain haggas.

    60. Re:Yup by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to publicly discuss the reasons for or lack thereof your personal level of extreme butthurt, Jez.

    61. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't you the one that got pissed at Welsh people, for wanting to speak Welsh?
      Weren't you the person that wanted to have control over the IRC channel used for a lot of th party discussions, and said that the party officers shouldn't even have ops?
      And aren't you the one that ran for a position (Campaigns officer I believe) and lost? And only THEN were you against it.

      I think you're upset, and this is a stamp of your childish foot. On an equal playing field, you lost a vote, didn't get a position, and you can't understand WHY people didn't want you; I think this comment of yours says VOLUMES.

    62. Re:Yup by losfromla · · Score: 1

      That does seem unfair, more so since it's more a Mexican dish that stayed when the border got shifted
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexican_cuisine

      from the wikipedia link:
      "New Mexican cuisine is a type of regional cuisine found in New Mexico, which originated there while it was still a part of Mexico."

      So, I'd submit that this entry is outside the spirit of the challenge. Try something more American, maybe pizza?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    63. Re:Yup by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Beef, American beef is maybe second to some Japanese super pricey beef but we have bison here too.

      So factory produced, grain fattened (thus the stomach ulcers), standing in shit all day, stressed out (more ulcers) beef is good for you? Or maybe you were referring to the rare (but harder to find) delicious grass fed beef that loves its life up until the day it becomes lean and tasty steaks?

      And finally, grains. American breads are superior to anything in the UK. More grains grown here and superior varieties.

      hmm, gotta love that GMO grain. Really? Grains? Grains are one of our more shameful products, good only for producing fuel ethanol.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    64. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pussy ;-)

    65. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or chili. Or Barbecue ( no matter which Church of Barbecue you were raised in. They are all yummy.)

      The running joke I was raised with, never to be contradicted by the handful of Brits I have met over the years, is the true purpose of the British Empire's growth was to find some decent recipes. Explains all the curry shops.

    66. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Having raised cattle and grain, I thank you for the sweeping over-generalization and ignorance.

      Its outstanding!

      No, grain production in the US isn't "one of our more shameful products" and its not all GMO. World would be alot better with more widespread GM grains to boost yields, but neo-luddites will keep fighting it tooth and nail.

    67. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 1

      Might depend where you are I guess, I've certainly heard it used here in the UK down the pub and such a fair bit.

    68. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 1

      Even here in Yorkshire?

      I'll be impressed when I see it happen here! I'm not originally from here, but the mentality in these villages near where I live now stinks, they're all still voting Labour because they think they're still rebelling against Thatcher which is, well, madness. That was all so long ago, it's irrelevant now and even then they could vote Lib Dem, Greens or whatever to make the same point but they don't.

      This constituency has been held by Labour without skipping a single election since 1918, so it's not just that I guess, it seems like it's just kind of brainwashed into them to vote Labour from birth.

    69. Re:Yup by damburger · · Score: 1

      You know nothing of British food

      Gastropub food > your bar food (yes, I've had it)

      Fruit - ours is more strictly regulated by the EU, can't put so much toxic crap on it

      Beer - You are comparing Boddingtons with microbrew? Idiot. Traditional English ale, hand pulled, rules the roost.

      Beef - two words for you: 'aberdeen angus'

      Pizza - You can accurately simulate american pizza by deep frying a real pizza in HFCS

      Bacon - Yeah, you probably do kick our arses at bacon. Thats why we import ours from Denmark. And then we have the one true sauce to have on it.

      Bread - the bread I've had in America, its not especially nice.

      You sound like someone who has never visited the UK, and is just making shit up from the Internet.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    70. Re:Yup by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Carne Adovada, right here in New Mexico.

      Isn't "carne adovada" Spanish for "marinated meat"? If I understand correctly from the Wikipedia article it's mostly an American dish by virtue of the Mexican-American War and continuing Mexican cultural influence.

      If in this food contest the British got to claim any random dish from territory their conquered over the years, I'm sure they would have a lot more to draw from (e.g. all Indian food).

    71. Re:Yup by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I did make the exception for grass-fed. If you were feeding your cows grain, even if non-GMO, then you were feeding them outside of their evolved-for anatomical requirements. Ruminant stomachs are not for ruminating on grain, they're for grasses and the incidental seeds.

      Labeling me a luddite for opposing your views does not a good argument make, so I'll not try to counter that slick logical maneuver. Maybe it's not all GMO, but a vast majority (>90% is), do you have better figures/sources than I do? GM grains boost yields at the expense of health, it's not all about yields, its about maintaining the health of the soil. I argue the world would be a better place without any grains, with the population being held at a lower stable number by natural resource (food) constraints.

      You're saying that all the grain in the US (world?) should be GMO? Despite there having been no studies done on its effects on the victims that consume it? Or, can you cite any studies performed on its long term consumption?

      Incidentally, do you work for ADM, Hi-Bred, or Monsanto now that you're no longer farming?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    72. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No, I don't work in the Ag Industry. I'm in public education.

      On my farm we grew Wheat (Durum, Hard Red Spring, Hard Red Winter, Soft Red Winter). There currently is no GM Wheat being grown and since the US grows about 56 million metric tons, I doubt your 90% of all grain is GMO. Maize is over 80%, but other grains, not nearly as widespread.

      Yes, GM fine, the licensing and patent issues are bad, but as a whole, making the grains better with science are good.

      There are alot of studies on the long term consumption of maize. Too much of it seems to make people gain weight.

      There are no studies done on new breeds, new hybrids either.

    73. Re:Yup by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you reveal who you really are? Yet another hallmark of the moronic leaders of the worthelss PPUK - cowardice.

    74. Re:Yup by damburger · · Score: 1

      Does who that AC is have any bearing on whether what he is saying is true or not?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    75. Re:Yup by retro83 · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, the general consensus is that Lady Gaga is a musical talent. Sunday Roast > *

    76. Re:Yup by losfromla · · Score: 1

      hmm, I was not referring to long term studies regarding eating of cultivated grains, I specifically was referring to GM grains. Know of any studies? I don't, please cite if you have any, otherwise I'll assume you agree there are none. Over 80% does not disprove my 90% claim, rather agrees with it.

      Licensing and patent issues with GMOs are only a sliver of the issue. One of the big problems is that farmers aren't allowed to sue (and generally don't have the resources to sue) the Ag/Chem industrial companies when their crops become tainted with GM seeds. The main problem, for non-farmers is that no one has done studies. Who would want to anyway, the chemical/Ag industry has nothing to gain and everything to lose from any such study.

      I'm glad to hear there is no GM Wheat being grown, unfortunately, it probably won't stay that way.

      Making the grains better with science? Better by injecting them with foreign DNA? Then not testing longitudinally for deleterious effects? Just because the (corporate-financed) FDA gave them a pass as GRAS does not mean that they are good. It means that no one bothered to look since they were all happy with the campaign donations being received from the Ag industry.

      Breeds and hybrids are different from a GMO, a GMO is an entirely different beast. A GMO is something that would never* occur in nature, no matter the pressure. You're in public education, as a teacher? Or as a paid lobbyist? If you are a professor, do you do paid(sponsored) research for the Chem/Ag industry?

      *never say never- still, very rare

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    77. Re:Yup by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Also "makes". Y'all one of those consumers? Some of us like to produce software.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    78. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't advocate voting BNP or UKIP for one minute, they're the scum of the earth, but christ, I'm beginning to see now why so many people resort to them nowadays with the feeling of helplessness and lack of voice the British political system leaves people with.

      Have you considered voting Pirate?

      Sadly, not running in my constituency else I definitly would

    79. Re:Yup by socz · · Score: 1

      We take "marinated" to mean more like soaked in, the "adobada" as a rub on the meat. Carne al pastor is an excellent example of this.

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    80. Re:Yup by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      You claimed 90% of all grain produced in the US is GM, that just isn't true.

      I'm not going to list every grain, but will hit the top - Maize, Wheat, Barley, Rice, Millet

      Maize - 332 MT - 80% GM
      Rice - 4 MT - 0% GM
      Wheat - 56 MT - 0% GM
      Barley - 4.6 MT - 0% GM
      Millet - 4 MT - 0% GM

      Total - 400 MT - 66% GM

      As for the suing. Seriously, when some seeds from a neighboring field "taint" your field and "volunteer crops" grow, farmers don't sue their neighbors or the seed companies. So why is GM different?

      Yes, make crops better with DNA. Science is a good thing.

      I'm in public education - distance education. If I were a paid lobbyist I'd make alot more money.

      I don't get a red cent from anyone in Chem or Ag. Again, if I did I'd make more money.

    81. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean there's a UK version of Al Gore?!

      Geez, you have my sympathy.

    82. Re:Yup by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Name one food that the US manages to do better than the UK in. Just one.

      High fructose corn syrup.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    83. Re:Yup by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Those little cheesy goldfish. Everything else, the UK wins hands down, but Goldfish are proof that even Americans can't be wrong all the time.

    84. Re:Yup by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      As much as I dislike the DEB being passed ...

      Don't worry. Just use apt-get purge stupid-law and you're good to go.

      Trust me, it works! Really!

      (or, alternatively, apt-get ignore stupid-law seems to work okay as a hackish work-around)

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    85. Re:Yup by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Cheese? Stilton (blue or white), (good) Cheddar, Cheshire, Red Leicester, Wensleydale, all excellent cheeses and all from the UK.
      Puddings? Before wartime rationing and modern diet-conciousness, British puddings were long considered the best in the world, even by Frenchmen.
      Lamb? Welsh lamb is very good.
      Breakfast? The traditional Victorian country-house breakfast is famous (or infamous, if you're a dietician) throughout the world.
      Baked goods? crumpets, muffins, teacakes, scones and cakes of all sorts.

      British food done well is as good as anywhere, especially since the cuisine, like the language, has formed by stealing anything good from anyone else, and hacking it into a coherent whole along with a load of original aspects. It is just that it is relatively easy to execute terribly, by, for example, overcooking everything.

      As for haggis, what can you expect from the Scots? They get whisky right, so I suppose they don't need to care about anything else :)

    86. Re:Yup by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Yup, the UK is fucked.

      Not only that, but 2 hours in the Commons? That must have been one hell of a mass debate.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    87. Re:Yup by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      PR has problems too, since you don;t have your "own" MP, local issues tend to get less attention. Of course,t hat reduces porkbarreling, but it means that no-one risks losing their seat for doing things which are bad for one area, but neutral for most of the country (like letting parks be sold off for housing, for example). IMO, the House of Commons should use the same system as the Tasmanian House of Assembly: each electorate returns 3 members, the top 3 after votes have been distributed using the Hare-Clarke instant runoff system. This way, you still get local members, minor candidates have a chance of getting seats (because there is less need for tactical voting), but also it provides some protection to people's issues when they are in your situation, since Labour would probably get 2 candidate, but you would get one (of course, the constituencies need to be larger unless you are going to triple the size of the House, but the principle is the same).

      There is still room for gerrymandering, but you can do that in any electorate-based system with flexible boundaries, but having fixed boundaries is what enabled the situation before the Reform Acts, so that isn't a good answer either.

    88. Re:Yup by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 1

      Quick question if you are still reading responses to this topic - where is Luke Leighton's constituency? It says 'south west surrey' on your website. I live in Kingston, which is in south west surrey, but i'm not sure if that means he'll be on my ballot or not since it is usually referred to as it's own location. Cheers.

      --
      "If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
    89. Re:Yup by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Quick question if you are still reading responses to this topic - where is Luke Leighton's constituency? It says 'south west surrey' on your website. I live in Kingston, which is in south west surrey, but i'm not sure if that means he'll be on my ballot or not since it is usually referred to as it's own location. Cheers.

      To work out which constituency you're in and who the candidates are, the best thing at the moment seems to be to go to http://www.yournextmp.com/ and punch in your postcode. Hope that helps!

    90. Re:Yup by Xest · · Score: 1

      "PR has problems too, since you don;t have your "own" MP, local issues tend to get less attention."

      So what? My MP has demonstrated he has no interest anyway. He disagrees with me on most things and votes that way, he's pro-ID card, pro-DEB, anti-equal rights and so forth. I couldn't give a toss if I didn't have a local representative because they only serve the minority of the country (33% of the population under the current government) that voted them in.

      You might as well have national MPs you can contact that are at least interested in your issues and will hence bring them up and vote the way you would like, than local MPs that aren't interested and vote against your interests.

      I'd rather have a vote, than no vote at all and hence get lumped with a representative who doesn't represent me whatsoever.

      You don't even have to do PR in a centralised manner, you can still make it so that MPs pulled in through proportional vote must be distributed sensibly across regions (i.e. in proportion to population) meaning you still have representatives from the Midlands, Yorkshire, and so forth- it doesn't really need to be subdivided less than that in most the country, Yorkshire's issues for example are pretty uniform across it, but importantly people in Yorkshire could always then almost certainly at least find an MP who is interested in each of their issues.

      The point is, even though PR isn't perfect, it's a damn sight more fair for everyone- at least everyone's on an equal footing in terms of vote and representation then. This is how it works in Europe, where countries have representatives allocated in proportion to their population. It doesn't mean people in each country don't have representatives who share their interests which they can contact though. You can still get in touch with the euro MP who best suits your needs in your region, rather than be left with a choice of only one who doesn't represent you at all.

    91. Re:Yup by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Vote LibDem or meet your doom.

      I don't like 'em either - but Labour is gone and it's never coming back.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    92. Re:Yup by dedwards60 · · Score: 1

      Yup, the Pirate party is the way to go in the UK as far as i'm concerned. They are totally against this big business, self interested, fuck you Joe Public attitude that pervades UK politics without the disgusting undertone of outright racism.

    93. Re:Yup by plord75 · · Score: 1

      sites that have been, are being or are likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright. = Blocked = Censorship Who decides? at the moment that would be Lord Mandy (he's the one working the puppets at yesterdays press conference)

    94. Re:Yup by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > Have you considered voting Pirate?

      Or Green ?

    95. Re:Yup by Leynos · · Score: 1

      You get a lot of bad haggis in Scotland, but good haggis is a delight.

      --
      "Did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
    96. Re:Yup by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Name one food that the US manages to do better than the UK in. Just one.

      Never been to Peter Luger, I take it?

      There may be a few countries in the world that can do a rich, juicy, thick, dry-aged porterhouse like the US, but none of those countries are in Europe.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    97. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what I'd really like to know is WTH is up with bread here in the UK? For one thing, all the supermarkets seem to have are different colors of toast. I'd like some bread that I can chuck at someone, and when I don't miss, they *stay* down, OK? Not some bloody cotton wool or whatever. But even outside of that, why o why can't I be able to get bread that has a sell-by date beyond the day after I buy it? Jeez, sell-by for bread should be measured in *weeks*, not days! Haven't you people heard of preservatives? Also seriously missing my trekmix here, yo. So I'll say old chap, if you could kindly direct me to real food here in Britain, that'd be mighty swell indeed.

    98. Re:Yup by suzanof · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the US Senate to me!

    99. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be great Jez, if I was a leader in the PPUK. You're about 3500 miles and 18 months off though. Yet again, Jez speaks, and is WRONG.

      Really, get some counselling, deal with your issues. and move on.

    100. Re:Yup by manicb · · Score: 1

      I'm unconvinced. Sarcasm is usually associated with exaggeration or an extreme position, for maximum effect. "I could care less" => "I'm not as dismissive as I could be" => "I do care about it but I'm not going to say how much". It's quite a broad position to take, to the point of being meaningless... If one was being sarcastic, one might say "Oh, I really care about this!" or "clearly this of life-and-death importance!"

  2. It was a farce... by kazade84 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone that watched the debate last night was pretty horrified at how broken the "wash up" process was, and how obviously this bill was pushed through by the front benches without the support of the backbench MPs present. Labour were responsible for 97% of the MPs that gave a yes vote, because those Labour MPs that didn't would have faced severe consequences, perhaps even eviction from the party. Some rebel Labour MPs did vote against, Tom Watson leading them, this guy deserves serious respect for standing up for what he believes despite the pressure.

    The election is coming and we need to take away power from these corrupt parties (the other two major parties are hardly blameless, although the Liberal Democrats did at least vote against). Support the Open Rights Group and also support the Pirate Party UK who are currently raising money to field candidates. You can donate to the Pirate Party here if you are so inclined: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/party/donate/

    My MP voted for the bill, so I'm going to vote against in the next election, I'd urge people to do the same, find out if your MP voted and which way by going here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/32.htm#hddr_2

    1. Re:It was a farce... by PeterBrett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can also read our manifesto and see a list of our PPCs -- maybe we're running a candidate in your area?

    2. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the ever so slightly bright side, there is still some question if the provisions to disconnect users purely on the basis of an accusation (which is essentially all that is required, given the poor standards of "evidence" required) would stand up to scrutiny in the European courts.

    3. Re:It was a farce... by PeterBrett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the ever so slightly bright side, there is still some question if the provisions to disconnect users purely on the basis of an accusation (which is essentially all that is required, given the poor standards of "evidence" required) would stand up to scrutiny in the European courts.

      Of course, the UK government has a track record of completely ignoring the ECHR, so don't count your chickens.

    4. Re:It was a farce... by kazade84 · · Score: 4, Informative
    5. Re:It was a farce... by mejogid · · Score: 1

      Your last link didn't work for me, any idea why not? I'm absolutely sickened by how illegitimate and utterly out of touch with the voting populace this government is. It's been nothing but scandal followed by absurd legislation marred with gross incompetence for years now.

    6. Re:It was a farce... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The authoritarian/self-interested always win because the liberal/idealistic always factionalise. Those who believe they're taking the moral high ground will break away over minor details, while anyone who cares only about number one is prepared to compromise while there's strength in numbers.

      So, why don't you take a leaf from the successful and lobby the Liberal Democrats? They're already far closer to you than Lab/Con.

    7. Re:It was a farce... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I do not agree with the whole 'legalise non-commercial sharing' aspect, so the Pirate Party remains one I cannot support.

    8. Re:It was a farce... by c-reus · · Score: 1

      How many UK citizens have enough money to even reach European courts after being disconnected?

    9. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      My MP voted for it, but he's a complete waste of space. He almost never votes against the party whip and never on a matter of any importance to his constituents. Every letter I've written to him has been forwarded to the relevant department. They've replied with something that doesn't even come close to addressing my points and he has just forwarded this to me without challenging it. I am not surprised that his voted for it, but I am disappointed that only one of the three Plaid Cymru candidates bothered to vote at all (at least the one that did voted against).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:It was a farce... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Sorry but your idea of turning me into your slave because I am a programmer doesn't exactly appeal to me.

    11. Re:It was a farce... by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many UK citizens have enough money to even reach European courts after being disconnected?

      More than you might expect, due to Legal Aid.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    12. Re:It was a farce... by tdobson · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a PPUK PPC, I'm more than happy to answer any questions Slashdotters have about PPUK, our policies or how much The Digital Economy Bill sucks...

      Here's a bit about me:
      http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/04/08/pirate-party-uk/
      http://www.tdobson.net/node/409

    13. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, they have no such idea.

    14. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill rushed through Congress (er... Commons)... Only partisan support... hm, sounds familiar.

    15. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More importantly, the Liberal Democrats are heavily pushing electoral reform, and have been for several decades. Now the two major parties are looking like they will accept it after the next election too. In my constituency, labour won the last election by about 10% of the popular vote. Their old candidate is standing down and they are dropping in someone who just lost his seat and was one of the worst offenders in the expenses scandal, so it seems pretty unlikely that they will win next time. Conservatives only got 16% last time, but the Lib Dems look like they've got a chance, and I only mildly disagree with them.

      I agree much more with Plaid Cymru and the Green Party, but between them they only got 8.7% of the votes last time. Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be wasted. Meanwhile, Plaid has around a quarter of the Welsh EU parliament and Welsh Assembly seats. With a proportional representation system, a vote for them would be worthwhile. With an STV or AV system, I could vote for them first and Lib Dems second.

      I don't especially want to vote for the Lib Dems, but I do want to vote against Labour and the Conservatives. Hopefully this time we can get a hung parliament and the Lib Dems can push through some electoral reforms. Then I can vote for a party that I actually want next time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:It was a farce... by uncledrax · · Score: 1

      PPCs? If you have Particle Projection Cannons, why not just march your BattleMechs into Parliament and show them who is boss?

      OOohh ok.. For the UK-Politics Impaired, like me, PPCs are Prospective Parliamentary Candidates. I guess that makes more sense.. but I like my idea more.

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    17. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they are voted out, the damage is done, and it will take that much more strain and bribes to get something that is only slightly less worse.

      Democracy is broken. Better find something else.

    18. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not running a candidate in my area, but you would not get my vote if you were (and if we had an electoral system where voting for you wasn't a complete waste of time) because of this point:

      A new right to share files (which provides free advertising that is essential for less-well-known artists).

      Less well-known artists are already free to license their music under a CC-NC license and permit this if they think it benefits them. It is no more the government's job to enforce good business models than it is to prop up failed ones. The effects of this right would be destabilising the current system without proposing anything to replace it.

      If you changed this to require compulsory licensing for copyrighted material at a fair and nondiscriminatory rate then I'd agree. Setting this rate at 0, as this policy does, makes you seem like you have absolutely no clue about economics, and we've just seen what happens when we elect politicians who don't understand economics.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:It was a farce... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The pirate parties usually don't see themselves on the political axis. They just call for sane laws. This is (this should) be non-partisan. Pirate parties exist only because none of the regular parties accepts internet and its new freedom for speech and sharing as an opportunity.

      This is not about left vs right, this is about technical sound laws vs impossible laws that will make everyone waste valuable time.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    20. Re:It was a farce... by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately I do not agree with the whole 'legalise non-commercial sharing' aspect, so the Pirate Party remains one I cannot support.

      Then go take a lesson in economics from the Grateful Dead, which were among the top-grossing bands in North America for many years -- inspite of the RIAA and ClearChannel strangle hold on the radio market. It's all about business model. If your business model is to shovel shit, then of course artificial scarcity is needed, along with a monopoly on delivery channels and prevention of SMS'ing or tweeting bad reviews.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    21. Re:It was a farce... by mrsmiggs · · Score: 1

      The Conserative party seem to have en masse abstained only 9 of their members even thought it was important enough to actually vote, with 4 for and 5 against. This is blantant electioneering on their part, it is now difficult to tell their position on the subject and shows complete contempt for one of the most important issues presented to parliament in the 'washout' and the people they represent. My MP David Davis voted against and this leaves my confounded, although he has a good grasp of the issues around liberty and freedom of speech in the UK he will vote in to government a party that clearly does not have the grasp on the political issues or is even willing to actually represent their constituents opinions in parliament.

    22. Re:It was a farce... by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree much more with Plaid Cymru and the Green Party, but between them they only got 8.7% of the votes last time. Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be wasted.

      As someone who resides in a country where the vast majority of voters think there are only two options, that statement makes me cry. It wounds me deeply.

      I'll say to you the same thing I tell everyone else here in America: A vote is only wasted if you don't actually like who you're voting for.

      How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people who share their values if the citizens won't vote for them "because they can't win?"

    23. Re:It was a farce... by PriyanPhoenix · · Score: 1

      This puts me in a difficult position and represents my least favourite aspect of the UK electoral system (and a party political system in general, I suppose). I absolutely want to get rid of the Labour Government, but locally I am most inclined to re-elect the Labour candidate. She argued (and voted) against the Bill, responded to my letter on the subject in an intelligent and reasoned manner and is routinely willing to go against the party line.

      --
      "Yes, Virginia, there is a Great Cthulhu..."
    24. Re:It was a farce... by turgid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people who share their values if the citizens won't vote for them "because they can't win?"

      Hear, hear.

      Put more plainly, although other parties may not have a chance of winning outright this time around (or even next time etc.) by their very existence and presence they let alternative views get aired.

      A vote for these parties is not wasted.

      A vote for either of the major two parties is a vote for the status quo and therefore stagnation.

      The mainstream policies of today were considered "loony" 50 years ago, radical 30 years ago and progressive 20 years ago. 10 years ago they looked fresh and exciting and "a real possible alternative."

      Political change is slow, but voting for the more progressive less popular parties lets these ideas get out into the mainstream sooner.

    25. Re:It was a farce... by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Factionalisation is only a problem in the UK electoral system because it's not truly democratic (read: not using proportional representation).

      In any real Democracy with a proportional system where all votes count the same, many smallish parties together can be as powerful as one big party as long as the total of votes they recieved is more than the votes that the big party got.

      In the UK, a party can get a parlimentary absolute majority (more than half the seats) with only 35% of the vote: How Democratic is it when the voice of a third of the people is more important than that of the other 2 thirds ...

      So the issue is not one of liberal/idealistic ideologies being prone to defeat due to their own nature but one of uneveness of the playing field.

      That said, at the moment the Liberal Democrat leadership dresses, talks and moves in the same circles as the Tory and Labour ones - they copied the style of the top parties, cultivate the same circle of influnces and do not represent a "break with the past", more of a "same shit, new flies".

    26. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>My MP voted for the bill, so I'm going to vote against in the next election, I'd urge people to do the same, find out if your MP voted and which way by going here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/32.htm#hddr_2 [parliament.uk]

      The link doesn't seem to work - any other navigation instructions to get to the right page?
      Thanks

    27. Re:It was a farce... by rwiggers · · Score: 1

      A vote can be wasted by voting in someone you actually like in some scenarios. Maybe you fail to see them because of the two-parties problem.
      This seems to be one such scenario. If you have parties A, B, C and D and you like D the most, C is reasonable and A and B are crap but lead the election by a small margin over C, you may waste your vote by voting on D, since a vote on C may give them a lead over A or B.

    28. Re:It was a farce... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      So, why don't you take a leaf from the successful and lobby the Liberal Democrats?

      Splitters!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    29. Re:It was a farce... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people who share their values if the citizens won't vote for them "because they can't win?"

      They're not. Apply a little basic game theory to the US election system, and you'll see that a two-party system will always emerge. It's the only stable result.

      You'd need to change the rules under which the US government is selected and operated before 3rd parties could become viable. Instant runoff voting would be a good start, for example.

    30. Re:It was a farce... by arcsimm · · Score: 1

      "Hi, My name is Stephen Amaris, and I'm the Pirate Party candidate in your district!"

    31. Re:It was a farce... by FourthAge · · Score: 1

      How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people who share their values if the citizens won't vote for them "because they can't win?"

      How indeed. Popular anti-government movements do seem to get going, but they end up being hijacked by weirdos and discredited in the media. Like those Tea Party people (teabaggers, lol) or Ron Paul supporters (paultards, lolololol). If the Pirate Party ever becomes a really big movement, it will end up in a similar place.

      And meanwhile control is passed from one bunch of authoritarian statists to another. It's just the same here in the UK; both major parties offering the same thing. No wonder half the country has stopped voting.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    32. Re:It was a farce... by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Plaid MPs who did not vote may well be paired with ministers who were absent on Government business and therefore unable to vote. The pairing system exists to avoid the Government being disadvantaged in votes because of their need to actually govern. Why it would be relevant in this instance though I have no idea.

    33. Re:It was a farce... by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Sorry but your idea of turning me into your slave because I am a programmer doesn't exactly appeal to me.

      Would you care to elaborate upon your ridiculous assertion?

    34. Re:It was a farce... by dwandy · · Score: 1

      It is no more the government's job to enforce good business models than it is to prop up failed ones.

      You state this as though the existence of copyright is not the government propping up a business model.

      The effects of this right would be destabilising the current system without proposing anything to replace it.

      I thought you just said the government had no place in business models. Based on what you've stated you should be happy that no alternate has been proposed. That's a nice no-win situation you've established there.

      makes you seem like you have absolutely no clue about economics

      Your entire post presupposes that copyright is necessary, and the economics doesn't seem to support that, so I take issue with your undeserved attack on the level of economic understanding of others.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    35. Re:It was a farce... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      The result of a minor Party under many voting systems is just to ensure that supporters of that Party get no legislative voice, by reducing the number of votes which might otherwise go to a viable stronger Party.

      In this case, everyone who ends up supporting PP instead of LD is strengthening the Lab/Con position on "piracy".

      A little re-cap for those who think that being part of a political Party is about pushing a single issue and enjoying the celebrity status which comes with it: no, it isn't. It's about getting seats in Parliament which turn into the voice to debate and the ability to vote yay/nay on laws.

      If you want to push a single issue, group up and lobby the Party or Parties most aligned with your views. Also, lobby for electoral reform. But don't improve the welfare of the very Parties you object to by voting for a minor single issue Party. IOW, do what everyone with strong political influence does, from Murdoch to the Unions (feel free to be open and honest about what you're doing, of course).

    36. Re:It was a farce... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      IRV (and Condorcet) confuses "regular" people. Approval voting is where it's at. Anyone can understand approval voting. You just add up everyone's votes, and the one with the most, wins.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    37. Re:It was a farce... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      I agree much more with Plaid Cymru and the Green Party, but between them they only got 8.7% of the votes last time. Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be wasted.

      I had this debate with a political studies student at university in 1997. How can voting for the party which best represents your views be a wasted vote? They may not get into power in the next government, but increasing vote percentage will make the main parties take notice and tailor their policies to the voters of those smaller parties and so the main parties will better represent your views..

      If you only ever vote for Conservative/Labour because those are the only 2 parties likely to get power in the next government (at any given election, not just this one), is it any wonder you can bearly squeeze a cigarette paper between their policies as they both fight for where they all think the voters want the policies to be (i.e. halfway between the 2 parties that get votes). It's a feedback loop.

      The only reason I can see for voting with one party over a different party which better reflect your views is if you want to ensure the current party are kicked out - as happened in 1997 when labour was expected to win the previous election but the conservatives got in by the skin of their teeth, in the 97 election there was a massive swing to labour as everyone wanted to make sure the Cons didn't get in again.

      I suppose the question is, are you trying to vote to reflect your views, or are you voting to get the incumbant party out? note: those aren't necessarily exclusive aims

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    38. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the UK, a party can get a parlimentary absolute majority (more than half the seats) with only 35% of the vote: How Democratic is it when the voice of a third of the people is more important than that of the other 2 thirds ...

      It's actually much lower than that. To get a majority, you need 50% of the seats plus one, which works out at 50.15% of the seats. Each of these seats is contested on a first-past-the-post basis, meaning that you only need to get more votes than anyone else. This means that, if only two parties stand, you could get a majority with only 25.8% of the vote. Typically, however, you get five or six candidates, with the top two getting around 30-40%, the second place getting 20% and the rest of the vote being split among others. This means that you can generally win a seat with only about 35% of the vote, giving you 17.5% of the overall popular vote.

      Note, however, that voter turnout is only around 65% in a general election, so you can win a majority in Parliament if only a little over 10% of the eligible electorate vote for you, as long as it's the right 10%. Some votes are more equal than others.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    39. Re:It was a farce... by AGMW · · Score: 1

      How many UK citizens have enough money to even reach European courts after being disconnected?

      I can see it now, the 'phone message saying "if you're having trouble getting through to the European Court of Human Rights please try using our website ..."

      Every time my Virgin broadband dies and I call 'em up I have to sit through a message like that and you have no idea how annoying it is! "Right, let's get you some help" ... oh please make it stop!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    40. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The Grateful Dead permitted bootlegs of the concerts, but did not encourage sharing of their recordings. And they chose to encourage sharing of bootlegged recordings (which are generally lower quality than the official ones, which are tied directly into the band's microphones), it was not something that was forced upon them by the government.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    41. Re:It was a farce... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      How are other parties supposed to rise up and represent the people...?

      They're not.

    42. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Vote for people, not parties. If your MP is intelligent and competent, vote for him. If he wins, write him a letter after the election congratulating him and reminding him that you voted for him, not for his party, and that you would support him in the next election as an independent if he finds himself coming into conflict with the party.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    43. Re:It was a farce... by jockeys · · Score: 1

      Bravo!

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    44. Re:It was a farce... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So now we're not voting for representatives in Parliament, but voting tactically in the hope that MPs will vote over the following four years not according to their manifesto but according to the views of people who didn't vote for them in the previous election?

      IOW, you want a democracy where MPs do what will get them votes at the next election, rather than do what they promised?

    45. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      As I just said to someone above with the same comment about the conservatives, the people are more important than the party. If your MP wins, write to her after the election and tell her that you voted for her (even if you didn't) specifically because she was willing to work for her constituents against her party. Tell her that you'd support her as an independent if the party chose to deselect her at the next election, and suggest that she shows your letter to the party whip the next time she and the party disagree.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    46. Re:It was a farce... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be wasted.

      That's both a fallacy and a self-fulfilling prophesy. If nobody votes for a candidate because they think he'll lose, even though they think he's the best candidate, he'll lose. Meanwhile you're voting against your own self-interest.

      In the US, a pot smoker who votes for a Republican or a Democrat is the one wasting his vote; he's voting for a candidate who wants him in prison.

    47. Re:It was a farce... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The Grateful Dead allowed fans to tape their live shows and share those recordings - not official productions or albums. Sorry but your example falls flat on its face.

      As for your assertion that the RIAA et al control restriction of bad reviews, I would love to know what you are smoking.

      Again, I assert that I do not believe in the so called 'non-commercial sharing' right.

    48. Re:It was a farce... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      eh? if voting for the party/standing MP that best represents your views is tactical voting, then yes.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    49. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it *already* work like that?

      They don't try to keep their promises, and you have to roast their balls with public opinion instead.

    50. Re:It was a farce... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      If your hope is that, say, Lab will win the seat _but_ that Lab will take notice that you voted PP and act in Parliament accordingly (instead of according to his manifesto), then you're voting tactically. For you actually want Lab to represent you, yet you're voting PP.

    51. Re:It was a farce... by Intrinsic · · Score: 1

      You forget that there are groups that actively try and discredit opposing organizations. "The revolution will not be televised" is a great example of that.

    52. Re:It was a farce... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The effects of this right would be destabilising the current system without proposing anything to replace it.

      Since I think the current system is an abomination, destabilizing that abomination would be a GOOD thing. Copyright is not about controling your work, it's about getting you to create it in the first place.

    53. Re:It was a farce... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      "legalise use of copyright works where no money changes hands"

      So anyone who wants to can use my work as long as they don't pay each other for it.

    54. Re:It was a farce... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In the USA, you only have two parties so it's a different situation. Here, however, there are three that have a decent chance of winning. If everyone who wants to vote for Plaid Cymru or the Green Party does so in my constituency, then the winner will probably be Labour, because neither party controls enough of the popular vote to win. If, however, they vote for the Liberal Democrat, then they will get in. I would rather have a LibDem MP than a Labour one, so voting for Plaid or Green would be likely to result in an MP that I was less happy with.

      Voting LibDem this time also, as I said, has the effect that they want to bring in proportional representation. In a PR system, voting for minority parties does matter, as we've seen in the assembly and euro elections.

      You seem to be working under the belief that, if everybody who agreed with a party voted for the candidate, then they would get in. This is not the case. If you look at the Welsh MEP elections (which use PR), only about 25% of the population voted for Plaid, and you need about 30-35% of the popular vote to win. Voting for a candidate with whom only 25% of the voting electorate agree is a wasted vote in a FPTP system. It doesn't matter if they get that 25% of the vote; the winner will be the one who gets 35% and the second place will get 30%. If you vote for the person in second place, then you can change the outcome of the election. If the person in second place wants to change the electoral system, then voting for them is an even better idea.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    55. Re:It was a farce... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      To an extent. When you hold elections like it's a 4 year representative democracy but expect MPs to respond like Big Brother contestants, you get neither democracy nor entertainment. But which do you /want/?

    56. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fringe parties will only ever be worth voting for under an electoral system like MMP, like the Dutch or New Zealand systems.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation

    57. Re:It was a farce... by daveryan · · Score: 1

      ...those Labour MPs that didn't would have faced severe consequences, perhaps even eviction from the party...

      Either they really believed that or they didn't.

      If they're did, then they're too thick to even be MPs. Labour are already looking at either being the opposition to the conservatives, or looking to be the opposition to a Conservative+Liberal alliance. They need every labour MP onside that they can get. Any 'severe' consequences would be tantamount to throwing in the towel come the election.

      If they didn't believe that, they voted for this because they wanted to. And are too corrupt to be MPs.

    58. Re:It was a farce... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Today, I have emailed my conservative MP to ask a) why he didn't vote and b) which way he would have voted if he had been bothered to turn up.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    59. Re:It was a farce... by spacepigninja · · Score: 0

      My letter to my MP Dear Dr Alan Whitehead, I would like to inform you of my intentions to vote for the liberal democrats in the upcoming election primarily because of your support for the digital economy bill recently passed in the commons. I had been, and still am a labour supporter but cannot vote for a party, and an MP that is not prepared to object to a bill that is clearly ill thought out and counter productive. Whilst I accept that piracy is a huge problem for British industry, a person cannot be made responsible for their internet connection when it is nearly impossible - and beyond the average user - to properly secure. People may even be encouraged by this bill to use others WiFi around them rather than their own, creating further problems and encouraging illegal activities. Yours sincerely, SpacePigNinja (used my actual name) Everyone should do the same! (feel free to copy!) See that Mandelson? that's called sharing!

    60. Re:It was a farce... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Bands don't make money for themselves from record sales, they make the money from touring and merchandizing.

      I saw the Dead four times in the 1980s, but never bought any of their records, so my money went in to their pockets for the most part.

    61. Re:It was a farce... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The effects of this right would be destabilising the current system without proposing anything to replace it.

      Well, it does propose something to replace it. It's of less immediate economic value to the copyright holders, but it would be people sharing works alongside whatever authors and their publishers are doing (some people would buy copies rather than get free ones, for various reasons; look at how many public domain books there are in any decent bookstore).

      If you changed this to require compulsory licensing for copyrighted material at a fair and nondiscriminatory rate then I'd agree.

      Hm. Do you think that authors should get a cut whenever you lend, rent, or sell a used book? If you quote a line from Star Wars when you're hanging out with your friends, should you be required to put a few cents in the collection jar for authors, or face civil or criminal penalties?

      Merely because it involves a creative work, or even money changing hands in conjunction with that work, that does not mean that copyright holders are entitled to a cut. Copyrights only make sense when they are as great an incentive as possible to authors to create and publish works that they otherwise would not, where the restrictions on the public are as minimal as possible in scope and duration, all in order to provide the greatest public benefit at the least public cost.

      So long as the public would be better off, accounting for both the increase in freedom as to being able to engage in otherwise infringing behavior, and the possible decrease in the number of works created and published, such a change would be worth implementing.

      Plus, legalizing file sharing -- if kept strictly non commercial, meaning no money changing hands, no advertising on sites engaged in sharing or anything related to it (e.g. trackers), no file sharing ratios of any sort, no donations or tip jars, etc. -- would bring the law into line with what are apparently our social norms of behavior. The law should generally reflect these, lest laws be seen as oppressive or unjust, not worth following or respecting. Bad laws engender disrespect not only for themselves, but for good laws as well. See the example of Prohibition in the US, where most people agreed at the outset that it would be good for society to ban alcohol, but the law was widely flouted, giving rise to massive amounts of official corruption, organized crime, violence, murder, etc. Sometimes laws that go against social norms are justified, e.g. the government breaking down segregation in the US against the wishes of much of the white majority in the South, but only if the issue is of pressing importance. I don't think that banning non-commercial file sharing by natural persons is more like desegregation than it is like Prohibition. Your opinion may differ.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    62. Re:It was a farce... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Everyone that watched the debate last night was pretty horrified at how broken the "wash up" process was,

      Really? Everyone? How terribly precise you polling must be.

      Support the Open Rights Group and also support the Pirate Party UK who are currently raising money to field candidates. You can donate to the Pirate Party here if you are so inclined:

      Or, alternatively, fold your ballot paper and shove it up your arse. It's cheaper, and the overall effect will be precisely the same.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    63. Re:It was a farce... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In the USA, you only have two parties so it's a different situation.

      Actually that's a misconception the corporate media want you to think. In reality there are hundreds of parties, and five were on the ballot in the last Presidential election in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, if those candidates could have gotten their views aired.

    64. Re:It was a farce... by spitzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that for many people, there are two big parties, one they HATE, and the other which they just feel is incompetent or they only disagree with on a few points. Voting for a third party may mean they have thrown away their ability to try to stop the party they HATE from getting office.

      I think this is cutting the voting for third parties by a far greater factor than people deciding not to vote.

      What is needed is approval voting. Then you could vote for both the third parties you like and for the less-hideous of the main parties.

    65. Re:It was a farce... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Neither stands a chance of getting in this time, so a vote for them would be
      > wasted.

      That line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that there is no point in voting at all in any election which is unlikely to be decided by a single vote since your vote cannot alter the outcome.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    66. Re:It was a farce... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Approval voting also does not require the voting machines to be altered (for the common ink-dot ones).

    67. Re:It was a farce... by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Yes up until 5 minutes ago I was ready to vote Labour if only to stop the Tory animals getting in. The biggest problem is not splintered liberal parties but the medieval outdated voting system. The idea that voting is done on a single tier and you do not even get a second choice means parties are often voted in purely to stop others succeeding. Even shows like those horrible talent(less?) contests have a slightly more modern tiered voting system.

    68. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Sweden, it's likely that the pirate party won't get into the riksdag at all in the upcoming election, but pretty soon after they got 7% in the EU election the government announced they wouldn't implement the EU data retention directive this term. And just a few days ago, two of the opposition parties announced that they won't vote for it at all.

      More importantly, a lot of people probably voted for the Swedish Moderate Party because they seemed to be the most pirate-friendly party but after the election they were the ones to introduce both IPRED and a very unpopular wiretapping law (FRA). I don't know who the UK's Liberal Democrats are, but no matter what they say now and how you may want them to, I'm pretty sure they're going to see a bad result for the PP as a confirmation that no one cares about these issues and screw everyone who votes for them over.

      So I really think that the best thing you can do if there is a PP in your country is to vote for them.

    69. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to vote to reflect my views, but I can't, because our broken electoral system means it would be a wasted vote. So this makes the most important issue, to me, election reform. If we have something saner like IRV or approval voting, I might be able to vote for who I actually want in power.

      Since I don't really care very much between Labour, the authoritarian populist party, and Conservatives, the authoritarian populist party, I'm free to tactically vote in favour of electoral reform. And the Lib Dems are without question the strongest option on that issue. They won't win, but they might be able to form a coalition and press their partner into accepting reform. And even if they don't win, at least my vote will increment their bar on the popular vote graph just a little bit, and maybe the people will realise that, yes, there is a viable third party - you just have to vote for them.

    70. Re:It was a farce... by jez9999 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't vote for the UK Pirate Party. They're run by arrogant assholes, and they are more than happy to have bullying self-important pricks in the party, like a guy called Eric Priezkalns. You don't want to meet him. Ever.

      Vote Lib Dem this coming election. They may actually get some seats, and are a far better party. They even have a manifesto that covers something a bit wider than 3 core policies!

    71. Re:It was a farce... by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Exactly this.

      I'm in Hammersmith, a notional marginal Labour/Conservative seat. I would rather have a Lib Dem MP, but they haven't a chance of winning, so I'll probably vote Tory because I'd rather have a Tory government than a Labour one. If we had STV I could codify this vote by voting Lib Dem, Tory, Labour*, or with PR I could vote Lib Dem knowing my vote would be counted. At the moment, voting Lib Dem means my vote has no impact on the governance of the country.

      *I'd rather have Labour than UKIP, the BNP, the Greens, the English Democrats etc.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    72. Re:It was a farce... by jabithew · · Score: 1

      The problem with PR is that it tends to come with party lists. Representatives become even more slavish to the party line than MPs are now, and independents don't stand a chance (particularly if you have a threshold). In principle, MPs are supposed to represent their constituents over the party.

      I always admire the German Bundestagswahl system, with aspects of both. I believe the Scots use it in their parliament. I think the London Assembley operates on the same principle too.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    73. Re:It was a farce... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Why does your party embrace an atmosphere of hate, bullying, and shouting down of newbies to the forum? Why have you not expelled Eric Priezkalns, an utter prick who I know has personally put many people off being part of PPUK?

    74. Re:It was a farce... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you just rub people up the wrong way. You and your party. Ever stop to think about that for a picosecond?

    75. Re:It was a farce... by Shimbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, the UK government has a track record of completely ignoring the ECHR.

      Sigh. The UK government has never ignored a ECHR ruling. Not once. It can be a little slow getting round to enforcing a judgement that it doesn't like; that is sadly common, in that the court lacks effective ways of enforcing it itself. Not unique to the UK though.

    76. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't vote for a person. Vote for a party.
       
      Don't vote because they won't "win" (won't run your country). Vote so that party will seat a stronger member in your constituency next time around, so those who do vote for people will vote for them.

    77. Re:It was a farce... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      So only the very poor and the very rich can afford justice. I guess most Slashdotters are in the in-between classes that get shafted at every opportunity.

    78. Re:It was a farce... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Approval voting is indeed a very solid option for a presidential election, but for a parliamentarian one? Especially if you have multi-seat districts and no winner-takes-all policies, then approval voting is not really an improvement, but of-course you need multi-seat districts first and get rid of the corrupt winner-takes-all systems.

    79. Re:It was a farce... by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Maybe just maybe, this year there's enough outrage at the two main parties that a vote for the LibDems won't be wasted. Don't second guess everyone else, vote in what you believe.

    80. Re:It was a farce... by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is the short sighted view... all too commonly shared among the majorities. Real change takes much longer than the next election cycle.

    81. Re:It was a farce... by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      But in your case, you still like C. You may like D more, but C's alright too. I don't have a huge problem with that. That's not a wasted vote in my mind.

      If A, B, & C are D-bags, but C you're voting for C because A and B are DD-Bags, then you're wasting your vote.

    82. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the problem with that is the two parties only emanate topical ideals to which NEITHER adheres in practice. It's a sham, and entirely worth unseating both the Dems and Repubs in the U.S.

      Please try to think and vote responsibly. Approval voting outside of "none of the above" would go down like the California proposition system in less than a year. We can either clean the houses or suck it up and quit whining about how the government never works for the people.

    83. Re:It was a farce... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Which makes you a slave how exactly? You aren't forced to do any work, which is fundamental to slavery.

      Not getting something you feel you deserve does not count as slavery, sorry.

    84. Re:It was a farce... by jabithew · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy to second-guess; the Liberal Democrats haven't even bothered to campaign. I've had four letters and a leaflet from the Tories and a letter and a leaflet from Labour, but nothing from the LDs.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    85. Re:It was a farce... by makomk · · Score: 1

      The major parties always push for electoral reform after the next election.

    86. Re:It was a farce... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why do you think you have the right to use my programs without my consent immediately after I release them?

    87. Re:It was a farce... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      What is funny and/or sad is that your website has the following on it "All content on this site copyright © Peter Brett 2000 - 2009 (unless otherwise specified). All rights reserved."

      Why is that?

    88. Re:It was a farce... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Did I say I did? However, a case could be made that why should you have a right to restrict it? We have these restrictions to encourage production of creative works. It's a pragmatic thing, not a moral one.

      Either way, failing to control someone else's use of a piece of software does not make you a slave. Not even if you wrote it. Now, if someone pointed a gun at your head and said "write some software to do X for me"...

    89. Re:It was a farce... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    90. Re:It was a farce... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Do you or do you not support making it legal for people to pass around copy-written materials totally legally? What I can't wrap my head around is why you and those like you think they have the right to use that which isn't theirs in the first place.

    91. Re:It was a farce... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Isn't theirs? Why should it be anyone's? You can do what you like with your copy of the software - my use of it doesn't affect you in any way. You're assigning ownership not to an object, but to an idea, which is a different kettle of fish.

      If I come up with a piece of software, or an artwork, or a scientific or engineering innovation, do I have the automatic right to dictate how other people use that idea? I don't think so. I deserve some reward, but not to restrict the rights of others.

      As it happens, no I don't think copyright violation should be legal, as it would damage an important incentive for production of ideas. But nor should it be treated in the heavy handed way beloved of our politicians and big businesses. And to hell with this idea of claiming ownership of ideas - if there was some other way of fairly rewarding people I would not support copyright.

      But even if you were not rewarded for your effort, you're still not a slave, as you were never forced to work to produce it in the first place.

    92. Re:It was a farce... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You don't want to use the idea, you want to use my implementation of said idea.

      You want all the rewards with none of the effort to put it simply.

      You are right no one is forcing me.  But then again no one is forcing you to be a thief seeing as how there is so much free stuff available.  Why not use it instead?

    93. Re:It was a farce... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Again, with the accusations of "thief". What have I stolen, exactly? You still have everything you started with. If I were to use the free stuff, it will have exactly the same effect on you as if I use "your" stuff without paying - either way you get no money. The enthusiastic anti-pirates typically claim that piracy costs them money, but if the pirate would use a free alternative if they were unable to pirate then it doesn't.

      Ignoring for a moment that I don't actually use any pirated software, that you've written or otherwise.

    94. Re:It was a farce... by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Australia manages fine with IRV for the lower houses (I have a few problems with the PR system used in the senate, but the South Australian Legislative Council implementation lacks the main bug). You simply number the (usually 10) candidates in order of preference, and in the better variants, if you stop numbering, they use your ballot paper as long as it is valid, then ignore it thereafter. Only a complete retard would have problems with understanding it, especially since it is so simple it is commonly used for club elections and the like, so a lot of people will have been a RO or scrutineer in an election using IRV, so they will have seen it in action.

      You get a few donkey votes, where people number all the boxes in order down the paper, but you'll get idiot votes in any system, all you can do is randomise the candidates on the paper and hope there aren't too many of them.

    95. Re:It was a farce... by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      that which isn't theirs

      It is only yours because the law says so, there is no natural right to IP like there is in real property. Even if you claimed that you expected to make money into the future when you made the works, if the reforms only affected new works in this way, and old works were released into the PD on the date they would have when they were first produced, no-one would lose anything they have a legitimate reason to expect, not even their potential future income, except from the competition with new works.

      You can still release your work using an NDA and a contract requiring the recipient to only use the software on a certain number of computers, you just can't impose those terms using a click-through or shrink-wrap licence or anything like that, since they would have to receive some consideration (the software) in exchange for agreeing to those terms.

    96. Re:It was a farce... by 16Chapel · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's not fair to claim that file sharing is 'free advertising' - rehearsing, recording, editing, producing and mastering a track is not free. Unfortunately everyone involved in the process of making a record gets paid a salary, except for the musicians, who have to hope the track sells in order to make back their costs.

      This is a bad bill, the result of lobbying by shady music industry bosses, but it worries me that the main force of the case against it seems to offer only one option: make your work available to download for free in the hope that people will go on to pay for it. That may work for artists that also have access to mainstream distribution, but it doesn't work for those that don't.

      My suggestion would be to enforce copyright laws but restrict them to 5 or 10 years, or cap their related earnings so that the current bias towards already-rich artists is removed.

    97. Re:It was a farce... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      The problem with PR is that it tends to come with party lists.

      Only if you believe those against PR. I like the Single transferable vote system, which avoids this problem.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    98. Re:It was a farce... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I do not agree with the whole 'legalise non-commercial sharing' aspect, so the Pirate Party remains one I cannot support.

      That's your choice, if you watched the DE Bill debate, some of the MPs taking part actually voiced support for that policy (though I doubt they knew it was a PPUK one).

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    99. Re:It was a farce... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Why does your party embrace an atmosphere of hate, bullying, and shouting down of newbies to the forum?

      As a PPUK member, this isn't something I've noticed; an example please?

      Why have you not expelled Eric Priezkalns, an utter prick who I know has personally put many people off being part of PPUK?

      Some evidence for this claim would be nice.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    100. Re:It was a farce... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Don't vote for the UK Pirate Party. They're run by arrogant assholes, and they are more than happy to have bullying self-important pricks in the party, like a guy called Eric Priezkalns. You don't want to meet him. Ever.

      Vote Lib Dem this coming election. They may actually get some seats, and are a far better party. They even have a manifesto that covers something a bit wider than 3 core policies!

      Ah, I see you weren't asking a genuine question in your other post; just trolling.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    101. Re:It was a farce... by TK2216UKG · · Score: 0

      "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

      "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

      "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

      "I did," said ford. "It is."

      "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

      "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

      "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

      "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

      "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

      "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

      --

      - Jonathan :)

      No tuna is safe.

    102. Re:It was a farce... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      That was very interesting, and it points out mathematical problems with approval voting which I was unaware of. I thought it was actually pretty good. However apparently IRV is even worse as well as having the technical problem of having to remember the exact contents of every ballot, rather than just some totals. I think it would be safe to go to a real concordant (sp?) system and let people rank their preferences.

  3. Great news for solicitors! by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a whole new market to be claimed in no-win-no-fee IP chasers spitting out takedown notices like machinegun bullets.

    Time to vote for the pirate party guys.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Great news for solicitors! by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They will just add the Pirate Party to that list of blocked websites, along with Wikileaks. Can't have the Pirate party interfering with business interests of those in power, can we?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Great news for solicitors! by mhelander · · Score: 1

      I would encourage you to vote for Pirate Party even if their web site were to be blocked. Perhaps especially then.

    3. Re:Great news for solicitors! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      They will just add the Pirate Party to that list of blocked websites

      Hopefully.

      I support the global Pirate Party movement, but tragically the UK Pirate Party is made up of bullies and arrogant assholes who treat you with contempt if you try and debate forcefully on their forum or chatroom. They are an utterly undemocratic party who have turned quite a few people who I know OFF the party, and I certainly shan't be voting for them or renewing my membership. Good riddance to their website.

      Good luck, global Pirate Party movement. Rot in hell, UK Pirate Party.

    4. Re:Great news for solicitors! by damburger · · Score: 1

      What is 'forceful' debate? To me, that sounds like someone being arrogant and bullying.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    5. Re:Great news for solicitors! by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      I'm not involved with the PPUK, but ISTM that you are the only person in this thread saying anything of the sort (or at least the only person with a karma bonus or upmods), so do you have links to forum threads or IRC logs which demonstrate this behaviour. If you are correct, it is something we ought to see and which PPUK need to sort out, but as it is it there is a strong whiff of sour grapes.

    6. Re:Great news for solicitors! by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      I'm not involved with the PPUK, but ISTM that you are the only person in this thread saying anything of the sort (or at least the only person with a karma bonus or upmods), so do you have links to forum threads or IRC logs which demonstrate this behaviour. If you are correct, it is something we ought to see and which PPUK need to sort out, but as it is it there is a strong whiff of sour grapes.

      I'm a member of the PPUK, I debated against the detail of current policy (IMO 5+5 is too short amongst other things); I've never encountered the behaviour he describes. In the end each of the policies in the manifesto went to a separate vote of the membership (find me another party that does that), so even if he was correct people would have had the chance to vote down the policies. As it stands I don't know what he's complaining about.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    7. Re:Great news for solicitors! by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Elsewhere in this discussion someone has said that jez had a difference of opinion about some of is posts on their forums: what he called robust debate everyone else called flaming; and he got into a major argument about who should have control of their main IRC channel (him, or the party officials). I was hoping he would show some evidence to support his position, because he was whining a lot, but it seems he has none, so I'm inclined to ignore him.

  4. Just look at this bloody room... by RadioElectric · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:Just look at this bloody room... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the other "FAIL"s on that page was a guy taking a pic of himself with a dildo on his night stand in the background...

    2. Re:Just look at this bloody room... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is something I don't get about the way our political systems work (it's the same everywhere.) How is it a representative democracy if my representative isn't present to represent me during a vote which impacts me ? There should be a 90% attendance quorum for votes or better yet pay parliamentarians the median salary of the country and then dock their pay for each vote they missed.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    3. Re:Just look at this bloody room... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that the Commons chamber is just a bit of theatre, really, and for most bills the debate and vote is just a formality, since the ruling party usually has an absolute majority and that party's MPs are effectively obliged to vote for the party line. If the ministers want a bill passed, it will pass.

      So, if necessary, the ruling party just pages all its MPs and they can push through anything. There is horse trading and gentlemen's agreements to ensure that MPs don't have to turn up to vote on a done deal.

      Where there is sufficient dissent within the ruling party's back benches for significant numbers of their MPs to vote against the party line, raising the possibility of the government being defeated, then you'll see the chamber packed to the rafters and MPs being pushed in on wheelchairs...

      If your MP is a good representitive, he'll bend the ear of the ministers writing the bill or the comittees refining the details. Althouigh, quite honestly, in recent years our unelected Lords have been doing a better job of looking out for the rights of Joe Public than the MPs.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:Just look at this bloody room... by mpe · · Score: 1

      How is it a representative democracy if my representative isn't present to represent me during a vote which impacts me ?

      Even worst if they are the person promoting the legislation

      There should be a 90% attendance quorum for votes or better yet pay parliamentarians the median salary of the country and then dock their pay for each vote they missed.

      Why not do both? Linking their pay to median income means that it's actually in their interests to improve the economy of the country. (Also needs a proper expenses system though.)

    5. Re:Just look at this bloody room... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did attend the vote - they just didn't listen to the debate first, as they knew if they didn't vote as the leaders of their parties dictated they would find they couldn't stand in the general election a few weeks away, and as such knowing what they were voting on wouldn't change how they had to vote.

    6. Re:Just look at this bloody room... by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      The very fact that they are unelected is part of their strength, since they don't need the support of the party machine, can do what's right rather than what's popular, and (before 1999) mostly didn't owe their positions to anyone and were often too rich to bribe. Since most Lords can probably make more money or have more fun doing whatever it is they do when they're not in the house, those who don't care about the good of the country for the most part don't turn up, so they are likely to actually think through what it is they are voting on and make sure they understand it. OTOH, in the Commons, people are generally there for their careers, and since advancement usually comes from the party, members have far less freedom or even interest in good government, especially thse in safe seats or where the issue doesn't affect their constituents.

      Life peers mean that you can have experts like Lord Cherwell (who was a Cabinet member during WWII, acting as scientific advisor), but unfortunately it also means that people like Darth Mandelson can be brought in.

  5. This isn't good... by KClaisse · · Score: 1

    Wow, that sucks. Stay strong UK peoples.

  6. Hmm by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    It was carried by "189 votes to 47".

    There are currently 646 MPs in the house of commons. Not that I'm cynical or anything but was this bill brought through the house at the beginning of a general election campaign for a reason?

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm cynical or anything but was this bill brought through the house at the beginning of a general election campaign for a reason?

      It was rushed through because the current government wanted to make sure it passed before they were booted out next month.

      I'm sure given the entertainment industry's money and influence that they could easily get whoever wins to pass a similar bill but that
      might have took a year or two to grease the appropriate wheels.

    2. Re:Hmm by Diss+Champ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So does Parliment not have the equivalent of a quorum call? Many institutions require at least half the voting members to be present to pass something, if any of the voting members present asks for a quorum check.

    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can someone explain this to us unfamiliar with British law & politics: out of all 646 MPs, only 189 + 47 == 236 of them voted Y/N? That's only 36.5% of them. What about the rest? All abstained from voting?

      How on earth is this supposed to be a working and legitimate democracy, when a bill can be passed with over 63% of voters not fucking care?

    4. Re:Hmm by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      No, not as far as I know.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    5. Re:Hmm by mike2R · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd never wondered that, so I checked. According to the BBC, the quorum requirement is 40 MPs (out of 600+!) including the speaker. This is just when a division (vote) is called. Those 40 MPs don't need to waste their time and attend the actual debate.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    6. Re:Hmm by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Not that I'm cynical or anything but was this bill brought through the house at the beginning of a general election campaign for a reason?"

      Yes, it's nearly summer and Peter Mandelson needed to make sure he fulfilled his obligations to the music industry in time to ensure he could go on another all expenses paid holiday on a yacht in Corfu again over the summer period.

    7. Re:Hmm by corbettw · · Score: 1

      if any of the voting members present asks for a quorum check

      That seems to be the rub. If no one really cares to ask, doesn't really matter, does it?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:Hmm by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In short, no, no quorum call.

      In reality, irrelevant; the voting last night was organised by party whips: MPs with the role of ensuring that party members vote on the party line.

      The whips will track very carefully whether enough MPs are going to vote through the legislation they want or not, and if it looks like they might lose they merely encourage more MPs to vote.

      Had a quorum been required, instead of 240 (or whatever it was) MPs voting, 340 would've been told to vote instead. The bill would still have passed.

      The party whip system is one of the most broken aspects of the British parliamentary process.

  7. can somebody explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what this means what have I missed here whats the big problem? I've not been keeping up with any of this!!

    1. Re:can somebody explain by ZombieWomble · · Score: 5, Informative
      It contains many internet-unfriendly provisions. The two biggies though:

      A "Three-strikes"-equivalent law for filesharers is still in (without trial), and the text of the bill can be ready to imply that it will be ISPs responsible for ensuring that their networks aren't used to infringe copyright - effectively mandating monitoring of all internet traffic at a much greater level than is currently done.

      There is also a provision which allows the Secretary of State (with the approval of a court, to allow a tiny bit of balance) to require the blocking of any websites which are involved in the infringement of copyright. Or, indeed, may be used in infringement of copyright. When asked if this would include sites such as Wikileaks, ministers said yes, it would, as the material they leak is copyrighted by its original owners. They were quick to point out that they wouldn't use it to infringe on freedom of speech though.

      Yep, I feel real safe with that reassurance.

      Other aspects of the bill are actually reasonable, there's just a handful of provisions that are really quite shockingly draconian.

    2. Re:can somebody explain by andyh-rayleigh · · Score: 1

      One other section of the Bill enables the "Analogue Radio" switch-off - all the main stations will have to broadcast on DAB only.
      So a well known multinational will get some £10 per new radio in patent and other IP licences.

      And note that is DAB, not DAB+

    3. Re:can somebody explain by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      That tears it, I am moving back home. You are welcome to join me, Norway is still free (nothing like this could EVER happen, the voice of the people is strong and does not stand for stuff like this). And our air is cleaner (and our women prettier ;p ).

    4. Re:can somebody explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there was also some provision that basically permits big corporations to use any photos they find online for their own purposes - such as advertising, without having to spend any time and money finding the copyright holder and paying for a license. it's up to the copyright holder to discover and fight for compensation regarding their flickr 2005 vacation photos being used in Disney brochures mass mailed out to people in Peru.

    5. Re:can somebody explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming pointed out in the Commons debate that the website-blocking law could be used to stop UK citizens from being able to view freedom-of-information sites such as Wikileaks. He raised the example of the US Air Force video published by Wikileaks on the weekend, which appeared to show the US military killing unarmed Iraqi civilians.

      "Copyright exists with the US government, who under the bill could -- and would want to -- apply to ban Wikileaks from the UK," Hemming said. "That provision is clearly in the bill." He also noted that websites reporting on freedom of information requests could be banned, as the answers extracted from local authorities through such requests are usually copyrighted.

      The website-blocking regulations will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they can be enforced -- a measure known as the 'super-affirmative procedure'.
      from http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/04/08/mps-pass-digital-economy-bill-with-few-changes-40088563/
      -----------
      So basically they will compile a list of sites that they deem not in the public interest and block them in the same fashion as they did this bill, in an underhanded manner whether the public like it or not. See the image linked in RadioElectrics post above http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1611746&cid=31775082
      -----------

      Jim Killock, chief of the Open Rights Group, said the passing of the bill showed that politicians were out of touch. "This is an utter disgrace. This is an attack on everyone's right to communicate, work and gain an education," said Killock in a statement.

    6. Re:can somebody explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were quick to point out that they wouldn't use it to infringe on freedom of speech though.

      Just like they'd never dream of abusing anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of Icesave Landsbanki.

    7. Re:can somebody explain by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >When asked if this would include sites such as Wikileaks, ministers said yes, it would, as the material they leak is copyrighted by its original owners. They were quick to point out that they wouldn't use it to infringe on freedom of speech though.

      That's worthless rhetoric - the US gov hold the copyright and it will be illegal in the UK fo the gov to prevent the US gov from having Wikileaks cut off from UK access. Unless they change the law.

      On an unrelated point: I'm wondering when Mandelson is taking receipt of his new private island and lear jet courtesy of the record companies.

    8. Re:can somebody explain by didroe84 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is the same kind of "reassurance" we were given about terrorism legislation which has been used to detain dog walkers and screw over Iceland.

  8. FYI: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Peter Mandelson is evil incarcerated.

    1. Re:FYI: by Apatharch · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, we just wish he was incarcerated.

      PS. I think the word you were actually looking for is "incarnate", but nice Freudian slip.

    2. Re:FYI: by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wish he was incinerated.

    3. Re:FYI: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, we just wish he was incarcerated.

      PS. I think the word you were actually looking for is "incarnate", but nice Freudian slip.

      I think you mean Faustian slip.

    4. Re:FYI: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you bothered making this correction, you might be excited to learn that the correct grammar would be "[...] wish he were incarcerated." Subjunctivitis, woo!

  9. I would love to check out the MP list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However it may have been removed, today freedom dies a little more.

    Also to stress - this was passed by a minority of MPs in haste during a time when people are not likely to notice due to dissolution of parliament. The process is very clever as they get together and decide how many it takes to get it passed, they then tell those in precarious constituencies to not show up so as not to be on record as voting either way.

    Brought to you by the same individuals who voted for a less transparent government.
    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/policy.php?id=996&display=motions

  10. Can the MP's be accused? by VShael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And their families, their friends, their secretaries, their PA's?

    They need to feel the pinch of this insane law. And fast.

    1. Re:Can the MP's be accused? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Go one step further and claim "someone" in Buckingham Palace has been stealing your music or whatever. Watch hilarity ensue.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Can the MP's be accused? by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy peasy ... pull up outside their houses and crack their wireless before downloading Britney's latest single ... then dob 'em in to the Internet Police!
      Job done!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    3. Re:Can the MP's be accused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This line of thought occurs often on /.

      However, it fails to take into account that there really are different rules for those with money and power. That a piece of paper claims otherwise is completely irrelevant.

  11. Erm... by DeathToBill · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dear dear, you believed something you read in the Guardian. Shame on you.

    Actually the law has not passed, it still has to go to the Lords tonight. Not saying it won't pass there - it almost certainly will - just that the story is hopelessly wrong.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Erm... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Lords hasn't had the power to block legislation for a about a hundred years. The most that they can do is delay it. A shame, because they're generally more rational that the House of think-of-the-children-and-terrorists-OMG-ponies Commons.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Erm... by DevonBorn · · Score: 1

      However if they do delay it then it won't be looked at again in the Commons until after the election when there may be some different MPs who don't support Lord Mandy and his schemes quite to much

      --
      Just think: 50% of all people are below average.
    3. Re:Erm... by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm intrigued, what media outlet would you recommend as more trustworthy than The Guardian?

      The Mail? The Telegraph? The Register? The Sun?

      The Guardian is hardly perfect, but compared to the alternatives? It at least tries to publish news, rather than just outright lies and propaganda as with the above 4.

    4. Re:Erm... by AGMW · · Score: 1

      The Lords hasn't had the power to block legislation for a about a hundred years. The most that they can do is delay it. A shame, because they're generally more rational that the House of think-of-the-children-and-terrorists-OMG-ponies Commons.

      Indeed. Historically the Lords have a very different view on The World than those in the commons because they tended to be wealthy landed gentry. I won't say they didn't have their problems but it tended to be more difficult to buy them off 'cos they already had more money than they knew what to do with.

      Labour have been trying to change this, and on the face of it an "unelected house" does seem rather odd in this day and age, but if they were elected wouldn't they just be a carbon copy of the commons, and therefore not such a good check or balance on what the muppets in the commons are up to!

      The old adage of "If it ain't broke don't fix it springs to mind!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:Erm... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      This is similar to how the US Senate was supposed to be.

      The Senators were to be appointed for six year terms by the state they represented, not by popular election. That was changed in the early 20th century to election by the voters, however if a Senator is deathly ill, dies or is elected to another office or appointed (Dan Quayle, Barak Obama, Al Gore are three recent examples) somewhere else then the state replaces them, either the Governor of the state appoints someone, which is what happened to Obama's seat and caused the downfall of the Governor there, or there is a special election, like what happened to Ted Kennedy's seat in Mass.

      The reasoning was to give the state's equal say in the national Congress and even though Senators are elected now, the US Senate remains more traditional and less prone to snap decisions. The US House voted to impeach Clinton, the US Senate had the trial and found him not guilty.

    6. Re:Erm... by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It depends what you are reading. The Gardian is a left leaning rag so tends to be biased towards Labour and socialist policies. The Telegraph is often referred to as the Torygraph because it is biased towards the Tories. The Mail is a very right wing rag who's sympathies tend to be closest to the BNP. The Sun supports whoever Rupert Murdoch tells it to support. The Tories at present, but it was Labour in the past. The Independent is most popular amoungst Liberal Democrat supporters.

    7. Re:Erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elected might be better than a house stuffed with government appointees, though.

      Personally I'd return it to an entirely hereditary house, maybe allow something like three successive parliaments to appoint new members. Maybe institute a minimal wealth level for membership, and scrutinise the peers very very carefully for bribery - they have no reason to be taking campaign donations.

      The very quality that would make them hard to bribe would make them be perceived as out of touch and undemocratic, though. People don't seem to recognise that a body unaccountable to popular opinion or party funding, able to vote entirely by conscience, could be very useful in stopping bills like this and the terrorism acts passing. Everything has to be democratic! The majority must have tyranny!

    8. Re:Erm... by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      Hear hear. I get my news, discussions and opinion pieces from a wide variety of sources and leanings and the Grauniad does seem to be the most level headed of the lot.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  12. Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by Coopjust · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The law is so brokenly bad that I have sympathy for everyone in Britain right now.

    Essentially, from what I read (correct me if something changed in the final bill), a copyright holder can accuse you of pirating anything without evidence, and your provider must throttle/disconnect you. If you want to counter, you have to take me to court, at your cost, with real evidence that you didn't.

    This is so mind bogglingly dumb I can't begin to fathom how they plan to enforce this without mass disconnections. Huge numbers of people with open APs or just kids in the house are going to find themselves without internet access. Antipiracy firms will make mistakes about IPs, but hey- it doesn't matter when you require no evidence.

    Still, I was discussing it with many people last night who were "thankful that they were not British". Stuff like this is closer than we think with ACTA being pushed behind closed doors.

    1. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by whencanistop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Essentially, from what I read (correct me if something changed in the final bill), a copyright holder can accuse you of pirating anything without evidence, and your provider must throttle/disconnect you. If you want to counter, you have to take me to court, at your cost, with real evidence that you didn't.

      I'm not convinced this is true. My understanding of it was that they would have to catch you actually doing it (although I'm sure you could claim entrapment on that) and give you a warning through your ISP. Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.

      Not that I want to get into a debate about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal or not. Given that it is, this seems to be a fairly sensible way of policing it. It may appear that they are being heavy handed with the threats (to satisfy those who think it is a problem), they can also get away with minimal policing and catching the biggest offenders.

      Citation: Section 124A, section 3c of the bill

    2. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by teh+kurisu · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't read through all the explanatory notes that cover the bill so I can't comment on the requirements when it comes to throttling/disconnection. But the copyright holder is required to provide evidence of 'apparent infringement' even at the stage where only letters are being sent.

      From the Digital Economy Bill explanatory notes, note 47 (emphasis mine):

      The notification from the ISP must inform the subscriber that the account appears to have been used to infringe copyright, give the name of the copyright owner who has provided the report, provide evidence of the apparent infringement, direct the consumer towards legal sources of content, include information about subscriber appeals and the grounds on which they may be made, and provide other information. It also requires ISPs to make available advice on protecting internet access services from unauthorised use, taking into account that different protection will be suitable for different subscribers such as, for example, domestic subscribers, libraries, and small and medium business. The code may require the notification to include other material as well, such as a statement that information about the apparent infringement may be kept and disclosed to the copyright owner in certain circumstances. Further apparent infringements using the subscriber’s account may result in additional notifications.

      What concerns me is that this part of the law seems to be very much written for Bittorrent. Copyright holders are expected to acquire the IP addresses of infringers by connecting to a tracker. This means that when piracy deserts Bittorrent in favour of another method of distribution, the copyright lobbies will be back asking for broader powers to snoop online.

    3. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      People should group together and chip in for high-speed connections, then share them among their houses. If that connection gets disconnected, a new connection is immediately put up in the name of another person in the group. And so on, and so forth, until the whole UK has been disconnected, which should take at least a few years.

      The problem is that if someone in the group downloads loli or does black hat stuff, the person holding the connection contract could get in serious trouble.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.

      It was widely touted that there would be 3 strikes - 3 warnings breached and then you're cut off, or at least the location of your alleged infringement is cut-off along with anyone at that location. However, the law itself said something like "a number", so "zero is a number" is likely to be the call of the rights holders against anyone using P2P ports for any purposes.

    5. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by mpe · · Score: 1

      Essentially, from what I read (correct me if something changed in the final bill), a copyright holder can accuse you of pirating anything without evidence, and your provider must throttle/disconnect you.

      Given that with current copyright laws it would be easier to list non copyright holders things might get quite interesting quite quickly. e.g. every MP who voted for this gets such an accusation :)

    6. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      It would probably be better to sue the copyright holder for libel. Then they have to prove that their libelous statement was true.

    7. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by Alsee · · Score: 1

      He said:
      a copyright holder can accuse you of pirating anything without evidence

      You said:
      My understanding of it was that they would have to catch you actually doing it

      Note that those two statements are, in practical effect, equivalent. And not in a good way.

      A while ago an antipiracy-for-hire company mailed legal accusations against three networked lasers printers for supposedly infringing the copyright on an Indiana Jones movie. Needless to say there was in fact no copyright infringement being committed by these networked printers, nor by anyone connected to these printers. The anti-piracy outfit was engaging in wildly careless internet scanning for "apparently" infringing IP addresses, and they weren't spending any time or effort to check whether any infringement was actually being committed.

      As I said, his statement and your statement are effectively equivalent, and not in a good way. They DID make accusations of infringement without any reliable evidence. And they kinda-sorta HAD "caught the printers actually doing it".... where "actually" is based upon the most reckless level of carelessness and the superficial level of appearances... where "actually" is often completely false.

      The entire issue here is that these allegations does not involve police, they do not involve courts, they does not involve any standard of evidence. It works just as he had described. Private individuals or private outfits accuse you of infringement, presumably because they have some belief you infringed. There is zero standard of evidence, zero standard for care, zero standard for judgment, zero standard for credibility. Any idiot can carelessly or recklessly or even maliciously file file thousands of allegations of infringement based on unreliable or worthless "evidence" to "catch" thousands of people, both innocent and guilty. And after one or more allegations the ISP is legally required to cut your connection. YOU are generally given the option to drag THEM into court, and the burden is placed you to prove yourself innocent in order prevent or reverse the penalty.

      And yes, just to use proper care I did double check your link before replying. The exact text of law at your link is " if it appears to a copyright owner ". Which is in short, amounts to exctly what I said above.

      Anyone one can file allegations based upon their personal wildly unreasonable and wildly careless wildly aggressive search for an "appearance" of infringement. This sort of law turns the entire legal system on it's head. This is a guilt upon accusation law. Some private individual or private enterprise makes an allegation and the presumption in law is that you are guilty, and the law mandates a penalty be applied. And if I may use a touch of sarcasm, the law oh-so-generously has a clause permitting you to initiate a court case and permitting you to present evidence and permitting you to attempt to prove yourself innocent.

      If out of the blue your ISP notifies you that someone has filed one or more an infringement allegations against you, and you're innocent, what possible evidence-of-innocence are you supposed to present!? How the hell are you supposed to prove yourself innocent?

      It's insane. It's guilty until proven innocent.

      It is guilt upon accusation.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by whencanistop · · Score: 1

      A “copyright infringement report” is a report that— (a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright; (b) includes a description of the apparent infringement; (c) includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered; and (d) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.

      I think the section that says they need to provide evidence of the infringement will mean that your average ISP will throw out any report. Remember that the ISPs are commercial organisations who make money based on subscribers to their service, not from downloads and the last thing want to be doing is cutting off half their customer base because some infringement lawyer is bombarding them with notices.

      If you want to think about it in another way, if someone thought you'd stolen a car, the police would laugh in their face if they pitched up and accused 400 people of being in the vicinity at the time. Even if they could pin point you specifically unless they could prove with evidence that it was you, the police would never make an arrest.

      (Un)fortunately I suspect the people they will catch will be the ones who are doing the equivalent of standing over the dead body, bloody knife in their hand, 13 witnesses and shouting "I'm glad I killed the bastard."

    9. Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it by Alsee · · Score: 1

      ISPs generally don't like threatening or losing customers over copyright stuff, but for the most part they are far more concerned with getting legally threatened by copyright holders. A single legal fight, even if they win in court, can cost them thousands times more than the yearly profit from a customer. Even under the best of circumstances they are constantly threatened and constantly fighting a lobbying war over new legislation to avoid copyright liability and new legislative copyright policing mandates. Most of them are terrified that if they decline to assist copyright holders that some court will view them as being complicit in infringement, and/or that it will make them look bad to legislators considering laws on the subject.

      It's far cheaper and far safer to just throw customers under the bus to avoid even the threat that they might get dragged into the middle of a court case.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. Last chance to hang in there? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know the Digital Economy Bill has some really far-reaching restrictions that could be imposed, but I can't say I'm surprised.

    When you think about it, the US, the UK and most of Europe are 100% dependent on intellectual property now for their economic survival. Almost nothing at the consumer level is manufactured in these countries. All we produce is software, music, movies, video games and hardware designs. Protecting copyright when viewed through this lens makes a lot more sense now. It gives IP-related companies an advantage, but I'd say that's better than turning the entire country into an unemployed wasteland because companies don't want to produce material that's just going to get stolen.

    Personally, I'd love it if someone woke up and realized that all of our eggs are in one basket, and took steps to diversify the economy...but I doubt that's gonig to happen. I'm for just enough of an import tarriff to balance things out and make manufacturing in this country make sense. Not everyone can be a "knowlege worker," the service sector is a crappy place to work, and we need manufacturing jobs for those who don't fit the office mold.

    I honestly think free trade isn't a good idea when you have 300 million people with a grossly outsized standard of living competing with billions of others who live on way less. No one is going to give up their standard of living, so without some controls, we're totally screwed in the long run.

    1. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ever heard of cars, bikes, trucks, vans? Ever heard of the service sector, something that has always been a major part of the economy since we shipped clothing and dodad factories over seas in the 70s.

    2. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you think about it, the US, the UK and most of Europe are 100% dependent on intellectual property now for their economic survival

      Not true. We are dependent on the existence of an economic framework that makes the creation of non-physical goods cost effective. We are not dependent on a specific abstraction. Most software companies in the UK, for example, create software for specific customers on commission. This does not require the existence of copyright - their customer generally receives all of the rights to the code at the completion of the contract.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by dcollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It gives IP-related companies an advantage, but I'd say that's better than turning the entire country into an unemployed wasteland because companies don't want to produce material that's just going to get stolen."

      What fraction of the population are employed in IP content work? Very few. It's not like health care, education, food delivery, construction, etc. An IP economy concentrates great wealth in a very small number of hands, a feudal-like oligarchy; we've seen this as a fact over several decades now. If IP businesses were taxed at 80% and redistributed in a Marxist-like system, then maybe there would be a connection between IP and overall employment, but not as it stands today.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you think about it, the US, the UK and most of Europe are 100% dependent on intellectual property now for their economic survival. Almost nothing at the consumer level is manufactured in these countries. All we produce is software, music, movies, video games and hardware designs.

      Citation needed. Germany, as an example, produces more automobiles and pharmaceuticals than you can readily fathom.

    5. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by elohel · · Score: 1

      This is exactly true, and exactly the problem. This is what I've always considered to be the "global" economy balancing itself. It is true that countries like the US, the UK, and some of Europe are highly dependent on intellectual property for profits - and, like you've stated, I too wish "someone woke up and realized that all of our eggs are in one basket, and took steps to diversify the economy." One day, while I was very young, I asked my parents how they made money. My mother stated "I handle business operations for a company, I help them run their business". My father stated "I own a business and I make sandwiches for people". Ever since then I saw no "real" value for service level positions. There are those that "have" and those that "don't have". Service level positions exist mainly in high level economies but when a country has become so "advanced" they have an almost entirely service level economy they have not thought it through. Countries like China who have large amounts of people willing to work very cheaply will soon overtake you. They will steal your intellectual property, because they just don't give a damn, and why should they? Do you think the people who came here to this country or the pirates that helped keep this country safe gave a damn about "intellectual property"? Hell no they didn't, and that's the American heritage. We keep scrambling to tighten control over these "ideas" when we're losing control over what's "real". Nuts, bolts, toothbrushes, combs, steel, batteries, PCB's, etc. We don't own anything anymore and one day we'll wake up and realize we'll owe China everything because we will have NOTHING to offer them anymore.

    6. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Beyond stupid though.

      so, what if china, indonesia, and other southeast asia countries ramp up prices of their consumer goods in response to this digital 'rights' enforcement crap the west is trying to push down the throat of entire world ?

      these countries can increase prices of their goods a lot, and still can make it impossible for west to reengage in manufacturing due to low price range.

      result will be increased cost of living, a lot of problems and unrest in the west.

      and if west imposes tariffs and taxes, east will do so as well. calculating that the eastern countries have more than 3 billion of world's population, the ~1.5 billion market the west constitutes cant compete with that. western economies would slowly come crashing down.

      the west in this post signifies us, uk, canada, unfortunately. these are the pioneers of all this shit.

    7. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by khallow · · Score: 1

      calculating that the eastern countries have more than 3 billion of world's population, the ~1.5 billion market the west constitutes cant compete with that. western economies would slowly come crashing down.

      How did the western economies get to where they currently are? Economies are not just measured by population.

    8. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by Pennidren · · Score: 1

      Dammit, but I like sandwiches. Maybe we just need to export our cultural love of sandwiches to China. That way we will still have something to offer them.

    9. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      they came there by huge manufacturing industries in between 1750-1950.

      also, they were heavily exploiting the global markets in a one way fashion, through colonies, or priviledged deals or by just overpowering the fledgling markets through their output.

      in some countries like turkey, they were even supporting governments that would create laws to curb railroad building for road building to create demand and sell ford cars exclusively through locally manufacturing plants.

      end of colonialism, and recovery of the war thorn markets, and small markets standing up with their own production killed western economies starting 1950.

    10. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by bahdohday · · Score: 1

      This death of manufacturing industries is something you hear about a lot in the UK press (and presumably elsewhere). But it isn't really true. The US is the largest manufacturer in the world in terms of USD value, the UK comes sixth:

      http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/10/13/data-on-the-largest-manufacturing-countries-in-2008/

      Manufacturing still makes up more than 15% of the UKs economic output:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_Kingdom

      While the sector has shrunk since the 1960s, the value of manufacturing has actually grown in real terms. At least in the UK, the economy is significantly more diverse than many people realise.

    11. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a totally naive analysis.

      The customer will want to ensure you don't turn around and sell the same code to their competitors at a knock-down price, after they've paid for its specification & development.

      This is why they will insist you hand copyright over to them at the end of the project - they rely on that copyright to exploit the competitive value they've paid for in the software.

      Your argument would have weight if the norm was for the developer to retain the rights, but that is not the norm - you just didn't understand why until now.

    12. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The customer will want to ensure you don't turn around and sell the same code to their competitors at a knock-down price, after they've paid for its specification & development.

      This can be enforced in the contract, if it's required. Most customers, however, want to spend as little as possible and so are very happy with code reuse. They don't pay for the things other people needed in the past, your next customer doesn't pay for stuff that was developed as part of this contract.

      This is why they will insist you hand copyright over to them at the end of the project - they rely on that copyright to exploit the competitive value they've paid for in the software.

      It is very rare to hand over the copyright to the customer. You will generally give them a permissive right to the code, but you retain the copyright.

      Your argument would have weight if the norm was for the developer to retain the rights, but that is not the norm - you just didn't understand why until now.

      It has been the norm for every contracting company that I have worked with. This is why a lot of the small ones are so keen on open source - they get paid for adding the features that the customer needs, but don't have to pay for the original code. The customer doesn't want code, he wants a business problem solved. He only wants enough rights to the code to make sure that you don't screw him on support.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you think about it, the US, the UK and most of Europe are 100% dependent on intellectual property now for their economic survival. Almost nothing at the consumer level is manufactured in these countries. All we produce is software, music, movies, video games and hardware designs.

      Citation needed. Just because "everybody knows" that we don't do any of our own manufacturing anymore does not make it so, no matter how many times Snow Crash gets referenced. You're also failing to account for agriculture and consumer services.

    14. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by improfane · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe to have found a soul with the exactly same perspectve as me!

      We're a shop keepers nation who have very little to offer the world but services. So many businesses outsource or close factories to open them in Europe or elsewhere. Cadburies is not even British anymore which is ridiculous.

      Programming is a service!

      I really do fear for the future of the UK. What do you think we can do about it?

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    15. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by selven · · Score: 1

      If IP businesses were taxed at 80% and redistributed in a Marxist-like system, then maybe there would be a connection between IP and overall employment, but not as it stands today.

      I like Stallman's idea regarding this:

      But the state should not distribute it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other artists. I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or something similar. With linear proportion, superstar A with 1000 times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1000 times as much money as B. With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as B. Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this support. This system will use our tax money efficiently to support the arts.

    16. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      ISTR a proposed but never adopted EU scheme to apply a harsh import tax to any goods not produced in line with EU rules regarding CO2 emissions. If such rules were generalised, so that, for example, companies had to demonstrate that their employees received no less then the minimum wage in the lowest-paying member state, and had similar protections in terms of plant safely, working hours, and the like at all stages of the supply chain, or pay punitive tariffs, and similar rules were used for pollution and other laws, it would greatly reduce the attractiveness of off-shoring.

      The taxes would have to be increased gradually, otherwise there would be significant opposition in the implementing countries, but in the long run it would probably be popular. It would also probably be the only practical way to force the PRC to do its part in fighting climate change.

    17. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by khallow · · Score: 1

      In other words, population wasn't the sole reason that they got where they were. Incidentally, if immigration to the US continues as is for the next few centuries (which is a tough thing to do, but possible), then the US will probably have a larger population than China. That's something to think about here.

    18. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by elohel · · Score: 1

      There's nothing we can do. Necessity is the mother of innovation, or in this case, change in general. Nothing will ever be "done". Words will be exchanged and thoughts will be traded but no real change will ever happen until people lose enough. Like I've always said: nothing sparks change like not being able to eat. Or in the words of Zach from Rage Against the Machine: Hungry people don't stay hungry for long. What is "theft" to someone who has nothing? What is "theft" to a nation who has less than you? What is "theft" to people who aren't held accountable for their actions (See Chinese hackers). This is why the UK, US, whoever else needs to get their heads out of the sand and become self-sufficient once again. Ownership of ideas isn't ownership at all. It's temporary, fleeting. Mark Twain once said to buy land, because they're not making it anymore. I see, in the end, only two solutions. Either everyone on this speck in space learns to play along and follow the same principles for humanity (will never happen). OR the nations who stand (or who used to stand) for freedom and democracy get back into line and start standing for freedom and democracy. Stop taking bribes, stop bowing down to the highest bidder, stop walking over the people they're supposed to lead and represent. There's no more transparency, no more accountability. People say what they want and get away with what they want. It's become a game to those who have power and I'm sick of it. The honor and integrity of men has failed and all the good people have sat by and done nothing about it. We should all just blame ourselves.

    19. Re:Last chance to hang in there? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      population and exploited markets were two reasons. u.s. had huge population, hug einternal market (in 19th century standards) so basically propelled its economy by manufacturing for internal market) then expansion overseas began.

      in the next few centuries, china and india will have gone 'beyond' what any level of immigration can do for united s.

  14. *facepalm* by dintech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Democracy is such a farse.

    1. Re:*facepalm* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your spelling is a *farce* as well.

    2. Re:*facepalm* by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      I'd say get wealthy, start a political party that wants to revert back all laws to where it started and get elected. That is democracy!

      --
      Here be signatures
    3. Re:*facepalm* by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Democracy is such a farse.

      No, the UK is such a farce and apparently not much of a democracy.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    4. Re:*facepalm* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Democracy is such a farse.
      >>Your spelling is a *farce* as well.

      Nope, he's just more current than you.

    5. Re:*facepalm* by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      No, I think he spelled it right, and he didn't meant "farce" at all. It's just like (quoting Terry Pratchett's books) the word "wizard" originated from the ancient "wyz-ars", meaning "someone who, at bottom, is very smart." So, as it seems, "farse" is just some obscure obscenity.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  15. Broadband tax by Andy+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    The broadband tax was scrapped though. This was a proposed tax of 50p on every household with a landline, intended to raise around £170m per year to fund the development of a super-fast broadband network.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8606639.stm

    1. Re:Broadband tax by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      if that's what the money ended up being used for, I'd be quite happy to pay for it. Better than many other things they do with tax money.

    2. Re:Broadband tax by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      50p on every household with a landline, intended to raise around £170m per year to fund the development of a super-fast broadband network

      So the legislature successfully removed the one useful bit of the new law before passing it. In the US we're always careful to remove everything positive from our laws as well.

    3. Re:Broadband tax by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I wondered if that proposal was backed by Virgin Media. I don't have a landline, I get my Internet via cable and make calls from my mobile and via SIP, so I wouldn't have had to pay. BT's refusal to allow naked ADSL, however, means that the tax would have increased the cost of ADSL by 50p/month, while keeping Virgin Media Internet the same price.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. It ain't over yet? by mrg17 · · Score: 3, Informative
  17. Yeesh... by PurpleCarrot · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that at the least, clause 43 got taken out before the bill got shoved through Westminster. Registration needs to be better for copyrighted works (more like automobile registrations); "orphan works" laws aren't the way to go. http://www.stop43.org.uk/

  18. Assault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is simply the latest in what seems to be a coordinated effort to lock-down anything that even tangentially resembles content. How is it that copyright lobbyists have so much influence? Dissenting opinions are not heard only the "money is lost, jobs are lost" is heard even when it is bullshit lies. This is a war of the middle-man against everyone else. The middle-man wants to forever remain a gatekeeper skimming the profits of anything which by law is forced to pass through their hands. The round-about way to fight them is to support Open. Copyleft retains the protections of copyright but greatly reduces the profit the middle-men are motivated by. Use open things, like software. Find open things like CC licensed music. Spread it and promote it: break the seal between your lips and the nipple of the content industry middle-men.

  19. Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained. by evilandi · · Score: 4, Informative

    AC wrote:
    >Can someone explain this to us unfamiliar with British law & politics:
    >out of all 646 MPs, only 189 + 47 == 236 of them voted Y/N?
    >That's only 36.5% of them. What about the rest? All abstained from voting?"

    Correct. Almost all 193 Conservative MPs abstained (in the UK parliament, didn't turn up == abstained).

    Of the Conservatives that did vote, more voted against (5) than for (4).

    Not that it would have made any difference, since Labour have a majority (this month).

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  20. Please mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People need to see what a farcical system would allow people to be represented in this way.

  21. Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by NoNeeeed · · Score: 4, Informative

    See this list for who voted and how.

    To contact details for them go to WriteToThem.

    If they voted against, let them know that you appreciate it. My MP is Don Foster, who voted against. I've emailed him to thank him for doing so.

    If your MP voted in favour, berate them for their obvious contempt for you, not just in passing this bill, but the manner of its passing.

    If they didn't vote at all, ask them why they are such a spineless contemptible worm (in the nicest possible way) and ask them why you should vote for a person or party that has so much contempt for you that they couldn't be bothered to debate and vote on such a bill, and could allow it to be passed in this way. Point out that not voting in this case was tacit support for the bill and the manner in which it was passed.

    Keep it clean and polite (nut-job rants will be ignored), but make it clear what you think of them and their kind.

    As I pointed out to Don Foster, whatever the merits of this bill, the idea that it could be passed in this fashion just goes to show just how much contempt many politicians have for the electorate (as if we needed any more evidence).

    And for christ sake, VOTE. I'm bored of people telling me they are not voting because "they are all the same". If you don't want to vote for one of the main parties, vote for an independent or a smaller party. If you don't vote at all then they don't care about you, it doesn't work as a protest.

    "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Tocqueville/Hunter S Thompson (and various others, take your pick).

    1. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1
      My MP voted for the bill (he is Labour). I wrote him a stern letter. Fucking prick. How does this sound:

      Dear Doug Naysmith, I am writing to say I am shocked and appalled at your vote in favour of the Digital Economy Bill. In a city as liberal and free thinking as ours, I had hoped you would see how over-authoritarian and privacy invading this bill is. In these times when our rights diminish by the day, the last thing we needed was more Big Brother tactics, more surveillance, more invasion of privacy. I ask you, Dr. Naysmith, how will you be able to tell whether someone in my house is guilty of copyright infringement, or whether someone else is using my connection without my permission? I can only assume that you would ignore evidence and simply proceed with punishment. No trial, no investigation, guilty by association without chance of proving innocent. Perhaps you did not think much over it. Perhaps you are just doing the bidding of your party. To that I can only shake my head in disapproval and disappointment. If you are too spineless to stand up to tyranny then you do not belong in government. I assure you, you have lost the vote of me and everyone in my household as a result. I am also considering leaving the country for good, before it destroys itself with more politics like this. If we do not stand up to tyranny, it will take over. It has happened before and it will happen again. If/when it does, know that you are partially to blame. Yours sincerely, [my name]

    2. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      And for christ sake, VOTE.

      Vote for who, exactly? Every party in the UK has policies which are the exact opposite of what I want.

    3. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by jimicus · · Score: 1

      It sounds borderline nutjob and it's almost entirely irrelevant anyway. The Labour party has remained in power for the last 13 years precisely because those that are still there are fiercely loyal to the party line, up to and including ignoring the electorate where necessary.

      My own MP has never once voted against the party line, and she's not the only one by any means.

      There is absolutely no point in writing to these people when that's their attitude. You might just as well ask a computer program to think outside the box. Better to just vote the buggers out.

    4. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by HopefulIntern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or leave the country, which is what I have decided to do. I just thought I would do my part, so at least I am not to blame for my own apathy.

    5. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, even John Hemming (BPI, Performing Right Society and the Musicians Union) seems to think this bill needs proper scrutiny: Commons Hansard

    6. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by NoNeeeed · · Score: 1

      Really, all of them? I'm curious what your political views are (seriously). Are you just looking at the big three? There are other parties out there, from the Communists to the BNP, and of course the like of the Greens. Most constituencies have independents standing. I know that voting for a small party, or an independent can seem like a wasted vote, but it's better than not voting at all. It takes time for small parties to build support.

    7. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by NoNeeeed · · Score: 1

      I know, it's shocking when a bill passes despite even the people pushing it think it shouldn't (yet).

    8. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I'd love to vote against my Labour MP, except he's not standing as he was caught up in the expenses scandal.

    9. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do. My MP, a complete waste of space, is retiring at this election so is now in his completely unaccountable phase (which probably explains why he hasn't bothered doing anything useful this entire term). His party's replacement candidate was right at the top of the list on the expenses scandal, so doesn't stand much chance anyway. Still, only one month to go and we can kick these idiots out (and get a completely new crop of idiots...)

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is a Pirate Party candidate in your constituency, vote for them. If there isn't, then join the Pirate Party and offer to stand as a canditate.

    11. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cracking idea!!!

      Just done it... My MP (Hugh Bayley- York) voted with the bill. Kindly explained it was time for a more competent representative of the people.

    12. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by Olix · · Score: 1

      He is my MP too. He seems to be a pretty good guy, his voting patterns in the past have generally agreed with my view on things. I was thinking about voting Conservative (really, I wanted to vote "not labour") but after this Bill, I will vote for Don.

    13. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I would suggest Liberal Democrat. 3 reasons:

      1. Although they supported most of the bill, at least they insisted that it should have much more debate and be left until after the election. That is honourable.
      2. They actually stand a chance of getting a decent number of seats under the current electoral system.
      3. They are the only ones who will actually try to push through proper electoral reform, resulting in an STV proportional representation. In turn, that will allow parties to get seats who REALLY DO oppose this stuff. It's a means to an end.

    14. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by jez9999 · · Score: 0

      No. Vote Lib Dem. Whilst I support the global Pirate movement, the UK Pirate Party are run by some very unpleasant, selfish, mean, and holier-than-thou people. Don't touch them with a bargepole. I'd sooner vote BNP than UK Pirate Party.

    15. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by damburger · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, the unpleasantness between Jez and the PPUK was largely Jez's fault.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    16. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      You understand the kool-aid that you've been fed by the mean-spirited idiots in charge of the party. I'm glad to have rid myself of them, and I'd like to avoid as many others as possible falling into the same trap.

    17. Re:Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE by damburger · · Score: 1

      Comparing the PPUK to Jonestown because they wouldn't give you all the power you wanted? Congrats on not sounding like a nut there pal.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  22. UK corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck? Vote PP.

  23. One more step to censorship. by irreverant · · Score: 1

    The internet has changed so much, i remember when you had to worry about too much information crowding the web. Now it's not enough or let's block it. What happened to the exchange of information and knowledge, sounds to me like "minority report", let's arrest you on crimes you haven't committed yet. Cause WE know you WILL commit them eventually.

    --
    Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:One more step to censorship. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Funny

      What happened to the exchange of information and knowledge

      Dangerous and unnecessary, citizen! You can learn everything you need to know at a university or trade school, and get all your news from any one of the fine media outlets. Now have a nice day, maybe visit the mall. :)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:One more step to censorship. by irreverant · · Score: 1

      Visit the mall? I thought I already did that when I opened my browser?!

      --
      Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
  24. Labour just lost my vote by jabjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My number one priory has been keeping the Tories out, so I normally vote Labour, but now I won't. It will probably be LibDem now, or Green.

    The UK's darknet communities will be getting a whole lot bigger now. Forcing things underground is not a good thing. If it's cheap enough and the service is good people will pay! If you know the money is going to those doing the work, not middlemen, people will pay.

    I'm angry about this. Labour are no longer a left party. I want the UK to move towards a European/German style model, not American.

    1. Re:Labour just lost my vote by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

      New Labour have been to the right of the Conservative Party since they were elected in 1997. The minimum wage is about the only even vaguely socialist policy that they have enacted in 13 "Glorious" years.

  25. Time to download I2P by Burz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rather popular in France and Germany, and growing a lot in the USA and elsewhere:

    I2P is a general-purpose network anonymizer with built in web, email and bittorrent. You can download other apps for it, too, like a chat messenger and a distributed filing system. There is also a version of eMule available for it called iMule.

    I2P was made to host data services in-network, so it is something of a darknet. It shares some of the concept behind TOR, but outproxies are the exception and it is quicker (though not nearly as quick as direct Internet access). If you have some patience and can live with 25KBytes/sec then it should fit the bill for you and provide peace of mind.

  26. Not quite by rpjs · · Score: 3, Informative

    In this case, if the Lords do block it, which is possible but relatively unlikely, AND there's no time left for the Commons to overturn the Lords' vote, which is possible and fairly likely as the Mandybill is the last of the wash-up bills to be debated in the Lords, then it will fail, as the current Parliament will be dissolved. Unfinished bills can be carried from one annual session of a Parliament to the next, but can't be carried from one Parliament to another. If the above, admittedly not likely, scenario takes place, then even if Labour do get re-elected with a Commons majority, they'd have to re-introduce the Mandybill from scratch.

    Also, not applying to this bill I beleive, but generally any bill that begins in the House of Lords can be thrown out by the Lords and the Commons can't override this. That's why if the government has any sense they always start likely to be controversial bills in the Commons.

    1. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure about that?

      These are the people we're dealing with here:

      http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

    2. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's already been through two reading in the Lords. All it needs now is royal approval, which it will automatically get.

    3. Re:Not quite by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1
      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  27. A dark day by walkoff · · Score: 1

    A very dark day indeed, I am an ex-pat and wasn't going to reregister to vote this election as i've been out of the country for a while but i'm off to get my overseas voter registation form witnessed as soon as i finish writing this comment.

  28. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pathetic.

    Hope for a minority government like we have in Canada currently (or as you guys call it, a hung parliament). At least then you'll get your MPs to fricking show up for important votes. How in hell could the "government in waiting" (i.e. the opposition) not show up to at least voice their opposition?

  29. Your vote isn't wasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Liberals, for example, were to be 3% behind and 8.7% voted Green/PirateParty then wooing those voters (especially PP because they are a one-issue party), they could easily find themselves winning.

    Your vote for a "waste" party is only lost if the winner wins by a massive margin. In which case, even PR won't help: you can't have half an MP.

  30. Time to get an Always-On VPN Service by mattsday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My employer offers a home VPN service whereby I am always connected to our VPN and egress at various points around Europe. They don't particularly monitor this traffic and even provide on-net mirrors to most GNU/Linux distributions and run internal bittorrent trackers for legitimate internal filesharing.

    I think I'm going to use that.

    It's becoming quite sad when I'll trust my employer more than I will my ISP to keep me safe. Years gone by the idea of letting my connection filter through the corporation was horrifying. Now it's almost liberating.

    It's a sad day for the UK.

    --
    Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
  31. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by mwadams · · Score: 1

    Which leads you to wonder why the headline contains the phrase "with the aid of the Conservative Party".

  32. Re:Wikipedia? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

    Do you have a wikipedia link to backup this claim? What countries was involved?

  33. Somalia by fragmatic43 · · Score: 1

    How do you feel about the pirates off of Somalia? What if they give back the ships unharmed after just borrowing them for a bit? Is it only digital property that you feel should be freed from the constraints of ownership?

  34. Mine voted for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for listening to the voice of the electorate......

    Bastard.

  35. Re:Wikipedia? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

    I could write a Wiki article about it if you want, but would that prove anything? It's a useful site, but shouldn't be treated as a one-stop shop for fact verification.

  36. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by FourthAge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's obviously not an issue that the Conservatives feel strongly about, otherwise all of them would have been told to turn up and vote in a particular way.

    Therefore, the Conservative leadership did help this bill to pass, by doing nothing to block it. The headline is accurate.

    That reminds me of something. Let me think. Oh yes, it's the Conservative voting record, where they supported every nasty little illberal and authoritarian thing that Labour wanted during the last decade. Some "opposition" they are.

    --
    The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  37. GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can this law be used to open source's advantage? e.g. Can it force people to release code?

  38. Is the new law retroactive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need to know, as I am downloading everything I can think of right now to get in under the wire, and give me a few years' worth of stuff to watch. You just have to love Isohunt.

    And as for the General Election, (where is Benny Hill when you need him?), or local council elections, or European Parliament elections I've always either voted for the Liberal Democrats or the Greens. Since I live in an area so Conservative that the taxis are painted blue, this means I always have the opportunity to say "Well, I didn't vote for them" with a clear conscience.

  39. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Hope for a minority government like we have in Canada currently (or as you guys call it, a hung parliament

    A hung parliament is not the same thing as a minority government. A minority government is a government that is formed by a single party, which does not have a majority. This is a possible outcome from a hung parliament, which is the state that occurs when no party wins more than 50% of the seats.

    It is also, theoretically, possible to have a minority government without a hung parliament. If, for example, 34 Labour MPs decided that they thought that a Conservative government would do a better job, they could call a vote of no confidence, win, and then ask the Queen to invite David Cameron to form a government. He would then be Prime Minister, but would only directly control 198 seats. To actually pass anything, he'd have to persuade 125 MPs from other parties to vote with him. I don't think this has happened ever (well, not for a few hundred years - all sorts of insane things have happened in parliamentary history) and it is very unlikely to happen in the future.

    A minority government is not the only outcome of a hung parliament. In 1974, for example, the hung parliament resulted in a vote of no confidence in the government and another election - I think 1974 is the only year in which there have ever been two general elections in the UK.

    The third - and most likely - alternative in a hung parliament is a coalition government. This is what happened in the Welsh Assembly in 2007. The current Welsh Assembly Government is a Labour-Plaid coalition, meaning that the ministerial posts are held by members of both parties. The government has a majority of the seats, but is not made from a single party.

    Note that a hung parliament is not the same as a hanged parliament, which is probably a more useful outcome.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  40. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Because the conservatives have enough seats that, given the attendance rate for the debate, they could have blocked it. They chose to not bother turning up, so it got through. Apparently running the country is a very low priority activity for Conservative MPs, which probably isn't the message that they want to be sending out just before an election...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION IS TERMINATED OR RESTRICTED BY ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THIS LEGISLATION, YOU MUST TAKE THE OFFENDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBLE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
    BE IT AN ISP, THE GOVERNMENT OR ANYONE.

    EU law which has already passed says that cutting off or restricting Internet connections is illegal. That means that the digital economy bill is illegal.

    UK users are now living in fear of using the Internet and how is that representing our interests? It is not.

    F U all the politicians responsible for making such an idiotic and irresponsible law come into force.
    Shame on you, you bunch of gutless imbeciles.

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Dixie Chix by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Try and get air time. You can't. That's control of the delivery channels. When Prince broke with the labels, he disappeared, no air time. The labels need a monopoly on the delivery channels to prevent real music. The way the media shutdown Dixie Chix over politics is a lesson in both the level of control and of the political nature of today's media.

    A new paragraph or sentence would make clear that the RIAA / MPAA whine about reviews is a separate item.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Dixie Chix by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Ok, how is any of this going to free the delivery channels? It isn't - the Pirate Parties manifesto will not bring anything to the table that an artist cannot do voluntarily anyway. They aren't going to force the media companies to air your own favourite small time band, and that band can allow non-commercial sharing already but obviously its not that successful...

      So what has your little rant added at all, other than voiced your opinion about the media companies?

  45. Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! - Facism is here in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that due process has been abolished, we have a true corporate dictatorship, complete with the associated One Party government (New Labour/Tory).

  46. Brits - DON'T contact your MP and DON'T VOTE by commonearth · · Score: 1

    "it doesn't work as a protest"

    It absolutely works as a protest. The reason governments are able to govern in so-called democracies is because of a thing called mandate ("an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative" - The Free Dictionary).

    If you vote, no matter who you vote for, you are giving the elected government a mandate. If you withold your vote, you deny the government a greater mandate. At some point (don't ask me at what point that would be), when the turnout for an election is so low, the elected government loses legitimacy - only then will we stand a chance of seeing some real change and real democracy.

  47. Not a law yet, The Grawn's a special one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I just missed it in the chaff, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it's not yet law. The Guardian is busy doing something other than remembering wtf is going on and decided it was passed, but it's actually back to the Lords for another go. If they change it, Commons will have to deal with it again. This is the last day for it, though the "day" could go on past all reasonable definitions of the word.

    See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybill_last_day/

  48. Not quite by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It has to get through the House of Lords now, and there is a good chance that they will throw it out.

  49. Re:It was a farce...(broken link) by jas203 · · Score: 0

    At least for me the link to the page to find out which way your MP voted didn't work.

    Try this one:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0032.htm#1004088001556

  50. -1, misinformed? by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    First of all, this is more about control of the people than about copyright. Copyright is used to exert certain control over people.

    Second, what makes you think that disconnection from the internet is not the ultimate goal? Political activists (or other non-desirables) can now be disconnected based on imaginary or planted evidence.

    Coupled with country-wide internet site filtering that's coming soon to every nation, such laws are about ultimate control of the population and restriction of information flow (though the laws are under the guise of protecting something different).

    Look at how the Federal Reserve act was rammed through on Christmas when most of the members were absent. This act was for a clear, distinct cause (though masked).

    Just by looking at how few MPs were present for the passage of this bill, you know it's about a lot more than enforcing intellectual copyright.

    One would be too naive to take this at face value.

  51. Ooooh by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    No, we just wish he was incarcerated.

    PS. I think the word you were actually looking for is "incarnate", but nice Freudian slip.

    I think you mean Faustian slip.

    Going straight to hell for that joke!

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  52. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by TomV · · Score: 1

    It's Wash-up. Parliament is prorogued for the election at the end of today's proceedings. At this point the only things that can get through are those where the opposition agrees to let them through without spending time debating them. The Tories could have stopped this dead simply by insisting on debating any part of it, instead of just letting it through.

    This way they get a bill they might have liked, with the side-benefit of being able to blame the other side when anybody objects to it.

  53. Big business is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

    /. quote at the end of this page when I opened it.

  54. Remember This by webheaded · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember this the next time ICANN comes up again. Remember this when you go to ask "why can't the United States give up control?" This. This is exactly why. We may not be perfect, but free speech is paramount in this country.

    Would they be sued into oblivion and possibly forced to take down their servers in the process? Absolutely. Would the US set up their own blocking mechanisms? No. This is ridiculous. Blocking "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright" ? Seriously? I mean our government is pretty retarded sometimes but even they wouldn't get away with THAT. Remember countries like Australia, China, and the UK are part of the UN. Remember that when you think of handing them control. They all have a say. I'm not one of those "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" type people, but this is one of those times where I truly believe something is done best here.

    The first amendment is the first one for a reason. We may not always do it in the best way but honestly? We still do it better than most other countries. The keys to the internet should be held by the country least likely to censor the shit out of it. I do not trust the UN or any other body to do that and I do actually believe in the UN for other things. This is one of those things though that cannot be compromised on. The internet must stay free. If the US ever were to threaten that, THEN I would be 100% for giving control over to whoever will mess it up less.

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
  55. UKIP and BNP are not the scum of the earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BNP will never attain power because before they get that far, many of those who voted for them in protest will put their cross somewhere else, but in the meantime one or two BNP MPs might be a good kick in the pants for the parties which are in power.

    Don't have your thoughts controlled by peer pressure manipulation. If you want to vote BNP (or conservative, or Labour, or Liberal, or Green...) then go do it. Nobody else has a right to tell you how to vote or how to think.

    Same goes for UKIP.

    In my opinion, in the UK, a vote for the Pirate Party will be a good joke, but achieve nothing... but do it if that's what you want to do.

  56. They don't even know what an IP address is! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Please share this link with everyone you can find who cares about the Digital Economy Bill, because it is just too funny.

    (Short version: In a written reply to another MP, government minister and leading proponent of the DEB thinks the IP in "IP address" stands for "Intellectual Property".)

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  57. The UK.. by dos4who · · Score: 1

    ..is just beta territory for the New World Order....coming to a U.S. state near you!

    --
    "Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
  58. Two Hours! by Wintywasthere · · Score: 1

    After a mere two hours of debate, this farce has passed. I sense big media funding behind this one. Neither of the two main political parties in the UK will get my vote (and I was committed to one until now). They're both as bad as each other.

  59. Freedom of speech is not paramount here by Burz · · Score: 1

    ...because censorship is not a government-only phenomenon.

    Here in the USA, corporations are free to monopolize the things we rely on and they use those monopolies to exert social and economic control. If they need a method of control to look 'proper', they'll push legislation through using their bought-and-paid-for politicians. But much of their control doesn't need this window dressing because large multinational corps are defined as "private" which makes their censorship and other exploits A-OK and even non-existent to many of us.

    Censorship is often an abuse of power, but the power in this country resides mainly with corporate CEOs and boards of directors. It amounts to an inverted police state, where most functions of a repressive government (incl. voting, ever-expanding prisons, and even judiciary in the form of compulsory arbitration) are provided by the service sector. And with virtually everything else in our lives having been monetized by the service sector, private corps have become the ideal way for government (whether public servants or contractors) to spy on us.

    And I shouldn't have to remind you this is the land of the BSA, RIAA and MPAA, organizations that hire people to raid your home or business and break into your computers when they've written you down as a suspect. Now they are pushing other countries hard for a secret and draconian IP treaty called ACTA. These people are rank authoritarians who view Internet freedom as a threat to their profits and privilege which I might add are based on their ability to handle our private information and creatively interpret history and current events unchallenged.

    Intellectual Property enforcement has become the ultimate way to silence malcontents (and keep tabs on us) without the stain of totalitarian censorship and surveillance.

  60. Wonderful... by TiberiusMonkey · · Score: 1

    ...and I'm expected to vote for one of these parties in May.

  61. Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could somebody explain to me how this was 'forced through' please? I don't really understand much of this legal jargon :)

  62. Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could anybody explain to me how this was 'forced through' please? I don't understand much of this legal jargon, thanks :)

  63. Shit by MacDork · · Score: 1

    Beef, American beef is maybe second to some Japanese super pricey beef but we have bison here too.

    Are you aware American cattle are fed shit. Literally. Manure. You see, they don't completely digest the hay they are given, so on many farms, the cows are fed their own shit. Waste not, want not!

    Next, I want you to ask yourself, Where does e. coli come from? That's right! They're feeding you shit too. Fortunately for you, if the shit is cooked long enough, it won't make you sick. So eat that shit with a smile! Best shit in the world!! Think about that next time you order that burger from the dollar menu. :D

    How did the shit get there you ask? You've never set foot on a modern day American farm, have you? You should see the barns with the inclined floors. They don't shovel shit, they flush the floors with wastewater. Imagine standing on the beach, having the water rush by your legs, half way up your calves, splashing all over you. Now imagine you're a cow, and the water is filled with shit. Get the picture?

    That is just too funny... ROFL. "Best beef in the world." You made my day! ;D

    1. Re:Shit by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Japanese have better beef, which I said.

      I've been on modern farms and ranches, in fact I will hazard a guess I've spent more time on farms and ranches than 99.9% of /.ers.

    2. Re:Shit by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Japanese have better beef, which I said.

      I've been on modern farms and ranches, in fact I will hazard a guess I've spent more time on farms and ranches than 99.9% of /.ers.

      Probably more time than I have. I didn't mean to sound like such a jack ass and I wrongly assumed that with a 4 digit id you never left the cube (^_^) I'm simply pointing out that beef in general is just filthy. I don't place any trust in current regulations regarding its production. Even if the US had the best in the world, that wouldn't necessarily mean it is good.

    3. Re:Shit by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I'm from a farming and ranching region of the US, for vacation I go back and farm. I was FFA, 4-H and all that good stuff.

      Also flew spray planes putting chemicals on all that yummy wheat, corn, oats, millet and rape seed.

  64. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

    (in the UK parliament, didn't turn up == abstained)

    This is true, but I wish members would abstain properly (go through both doors in a division) if they don't have an opinion. Not turning up is IMO a sign of them not doing their jobs properly at all.

  65. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would have made a difference, if almost all the Conservatives abstained then there were more than enough abstaining to block this bill. Count how many voted for, how many against and how many Conservatives abstained.

  66. Re: Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained by VJ42 · · Score: 1

    How in hell could the "government in waiting" (i.e. the opposition) not show up to at least voice their opposition?

    Because their front bench also supported the bill for one; only the back benches opposed the bill & they were whipped.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  67. xenu.net by k2r · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it will take until Scientology starts to disconnect its critics for supposed downloading of copyrighted material.
    I mean "disconnect" from the internet...