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."
Yup, the UK is fucked.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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?
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.
Pirate Party UK
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.
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.
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'!"
Democracy is such a farse.
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
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
Stick Men
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.
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.
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?
It has to get through the House of Lords now, and there is a good chance that they will throw it out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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