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."

81 of 384 comments (clear)

  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 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.

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

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

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. Re:Yup by bangwhistle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tater tots.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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/
    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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.
  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 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.

    6. 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'!"
    7. 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

    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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?"

    13. 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.

    14. 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".

    15. 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.

    16. 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
    17. 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?

    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

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

  6. 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 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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
  12. *facepalm* by dintech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Democracy is such a farse.

  13. 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

  14. It ain't over yet? by mrg17 · · Score: 3, Informative
  15. 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
  16. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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!
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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