digital economy bill

[auschr]

does this matter to anyone else? it seems labour, tories and not sure who else are in favour of this bill even though it really hasn't been debated at all. does the riaa/mpaa run this country? it reminds me of all the committees in the usa that pretty much run the country.

 

[Husty]

is this the internet piracy one? take it from someone who has very little comparative knowledge about the industry that any ban will be a piece of piss to get around and thus a complete waste of time.

 

[beorhthelm]

does the riaa/mpaa run this country?

yep, or rather the UK versions do. they have a massivly disproportionate amount of power compared to other industries. you know why? because they know how to put on a good party and smoodge the right people. the irony of cause is this is the reason why they hemorrhage money and what most of the recording and cinema industry is really involved in, the PR, marketing and general back slapping of their own. nice work if you can get it. oh, and theres some artists along the way that actually create stuff, but they are fairly peripheral.

as for the debate, i think to be fair there has been and its alot better than it started, but underneath there is a typical power grab by the secretary of state. i've lost track of it tbh, i thought the disconnections were dropped but came back with a fairly strict criteria for the record companys to meet - no DCMA style one form filed and your considered guilty. hopefully it wont make it through the week, though Mandy likes it so maybe it will. Theres non copyright protection stuff in there thats worthwhile too.

 

[auschr]

it seems bizarre that the riaa or whatever puppet group they have here is going after the people that actually listen to their brand of music. with the internet and wide availability of all kinds of music, i imagine less people are really listening to pop music. targeting the ones that actually like their music, surely it isn't going to help their sales and just alienate themselves even more.

 

[auschr]

wow

 

[El Presidente]

yep, or rather the UK versions do. they have a massivly disproportionate amount of power compared to other industries. you know why? because they know how to put on a good party and smoodge the right people. the irony of cause is this is the reason why they hemorrhage money and what most of the recording and cinema industry is really involved in, the PR, marketing and general back slapping of their own. nice work if you can get it. oh, and theres some artists along the way that actually create stuff, but they are fairly peripheral.

as for the debate, i think to be fair there has been and its alot better than it started, but underneath there is a typical power grab by the secretary of state. i've lost track of it tbh, i thought the disconnections were dropped but came back with a fairly strict criteria for the record companys to meet - no DCMA style one form filed and your considered guilty. hopefully it wont make it through the week, though Mandy likes it so maybe it will. Theres non copyright protection stuff in there thats worthwhile too.

Back of the net

 

[drew]

it seems bizarre that the riaa or whatever puppet group they have here is going after the people that actually listen to their brand of music. with the internet and wide availability of all kinds of music, i imagine less people are really listening to pop music. targeting the ones that actually like their music, surely it isn't going to help their sales and just alienate themselves even more.

Why is it bizarre? They are going for the people that listen to the music but not actually paying for the right to listen to the music, or watch the film or play the game. Besides, the disconnection penalties are a last resort. Anyway, if you repeatedly break the law why should you not be punished, even if it affects others in your household. Somebody could be the only wage earner in the household. Are you suggesting that should be their get out of jail card irrespective of what crime they commit.

What other penalties would you suggest they impose?

 

[auschr]

i don't know. i would have liked a proper debate unlike the sham on display last night. labour and conservatives once again show their true colours.

 

[Husty]

so it is coming into law then? needed some serious consultation on this, any pc expert worth there money couldve told them they are wasting their time.

 

[Gwylan]

One of the worst Acts that I've seen passed in my lifetime - and there have been a few.

Shoddily thought out, hastily patched together and shamefully whisked through a near empty house. It's legislation opposed by virtually everyone in the IT/ISP industry and makes a mockery of Labour's promise to build a "digital Britain".

 

[beorhthelm]

Anyway, if you repeatedly break the law why should you not be punished, even if it affects others in your household.

its like banning everyone in a household from driving because the lad keeps joy riding. you'd support that too?

as i say earlier i lost track of the exact details of this bill and how and when the cut off can be applied. but the very fact it had so many alterations and new clauses and so long debated in the lords shows it needed proper scrutiny in the commons. its just been rushed through in whatever draft form was available Tuesday morning. thats poor legislation.

 

[KneeOn]

Being totally and brutually honest, as some one who wants to go in to Computing as a career. Why teh f*** are you lot who pay taxes still in here? Italy, a national f***ing government, banned Piratebay.org. Y'know what happened? There were new sites, that got around the block, and an IP scrambler i think. It won't work. Its not worth it. Waste of time money and effort and wont' act as a deterrant, because you can be sure that if this is the end of Bit Torrent and LimeWire in teh UK, there will be another protocol, another way of distributing somthing new, that will take over.

 

[auschr]

a good article Skeptobot: The Digital Economy Bill passed: The internet watched live as a handful of MPs ignored democracy in their attempts to control that they dont understand.

 

[Jim D]

its like banning everyone in a household from driving because the lad keeps joy riding. you'd support that too?.....

What about charging the parents when their child attacks a teacher at school? I'd support that and it might stop them from letting their kids run around wild.

 

[Gwylan]

"The public is right to think we're (MPs) pretty pointless"

Fiona McTaggart MP

This is a brilliant speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLsBD30jKis

I'd rather treat my balls with an industrial sander than vote Labour but I'd consider voting for her.

 

[Tomnorthi]

People will now either find a way to disguise their IP address so they can not be tracked, or use someone else's wireless network and let them get the blame. Most ridiculous law I have ever seen.

 

[Storer68]

One of the worst Acts that I've seen passed in my lifetime - and there have been a few.

Shoddily thought out, hastily patched together and shamefully whisked through a near empty house. It's legislation opposed by virtually everyone in the IT/ISP industry and makes a mockery of Labour's promise to build a "digital Britain".

So how do ensure that creative artists can make a living from their art, if everyone can access it without paying for it?

If you continue down the road of free access, soon there will be no art and music being rpoduced because the costs of producing it outweigh the rewards of providing it

It's a n age old question. 100 years ago you could buy a Van Gogh painting for the price of a meal. Now, they go for millions at auction.

 

[Husty]

People will now either find a way to disguise their IP address so they can not be tracked, or use someone else's wireless network and let them get the blame. Most ridiculous law I have ever seen.

Thats what im worried about, I may well just stop using wifi in my house, as these things are so trivial to hack into.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's a n age old question. 100 years ago you could buy a Van Gogh painting for the price of a meal. Now, they go for millions at auction.

kinda irrelevent and incorrect comparison, i can copy a Van Gogh painting legally as any copyright has expired. and the art world isnt effected at all by digital reproduction.

im not a fan of the freetard revolution, but the idea all creativity will end is (and has been shown to be) rubbish. this sort of legislation is not about protecting the artists, its about protecting the monolithic recording and cinema industries that rely on an antiquated business model. A great many music artists have embraced and worked with downloads, the money is in the live shows anyway. meanwhile cinema is dominated by an uncreative group of studios that constantly rehash old films, or rely on special effects, then blame piracy for low box office and DVD sales.

 

[Gwylan]

kinda irrelevent and incorrect comparison, i can copy a Van Gogh painting legally as any copyright has expired. and the art world isnt effected at all by digital reproduction.

im not a fan of the freetard revolution, but the idea all creativity will end is (and has been shown to be) rubbish. this sort of legislation is not about protecting the artists, its about protecting the monolithic recording and cinema industries that rely on an antiquated business model. A great many music artists have embraced and worked with downloads, the money is in the live shows anyway. meanwhile cinema is dominated by an uncreative group of studios that constantly rehash old films, or rely on special effects, then blame piracy for low box office and DVD sales.

Spot on.

This guff about ensuring creative artists get a living is exactly the weaselly rubbish that Labour was coming out with. It's not about protecting creative people at all (I was a signatory on an open letter to Labour minister Sion Simon protesting this and the overwhelming majority of the signatories were "creative people").

This is, as beorhthelm says, about protected an antiquated distribution system. Because the recording industry is not swift nor clever enough to use the Internet and other technologies creatively, it's resorted to lawyers and lobbyists to bully and cajole people into following its path.

Talk of Van Gogh is irrelevant: he was working more than 100 years ago. If he were alive today, he might be working in video or in another medium, he might not be starving hungry in France but selling his work via the Internet. Or working on mashups with Gauguin in Tahiti - who knows.

In the past week or so, we've seen Murdoch introduce paywalls to protect content and the DEb passed; they're both ways of desperately holding back the incoming wave. It's a futile effort, Sion Simon, Ben Bradshaw, Peter Mandelson and Rupert Murdoch can rush along, sticking their fingers in dykes - but sooner or later, they're going to run out of fingers.