Digital Economy Bill

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh, and let's not forget this lovely forum. Say... format shifting (which frex Calibre enables) is technically a breach of copyright, remember. Sure, you can't be prosecuted for personal use, but it's still a breach and under this law...

If this was my website I would be more worried about all the downloadable ebooks that are still in copyright in the UK.

[DawnFalcon]

Well that too, but I already made the P.Guttenburg point before.

(Remember, fair use is a defence which can be exerted in court, and does not need to be taken into account by this bill...)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It was moved to Clause 8:
“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”

Like, umm... google.com?

Gonna ban searches for [title authorname ebook] or [songtitle mp3]?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Well that too, but I already made the P.Guttenburg point before.

(Remember, fair use is a defence which can be exerted in court, and does not need to be taken into account by this bill...)

I don't mean to be impolite, but I think that a certain amount of paranoia is being exhibited here. This law is clearly NOT intended to be used to block access to sites some of whose contents merely happen not to be in the UK public domain. You know that; I know that; everybody knows that. So why try to pretend that it is? It's there for use to block access to so-called "pirate" sites. If we're going to discuss this, let's do so in a sensible manner.

[DawnFalcon]

Yes, let's stick the law as-written.

If you're really as naive as that statement makes us out to be, it does explain a lot about why politicians can get away with this sort of nonsense. The law's wording is quite clear, and big media will work to get it enforced as-written.

I certainly don't "know" that having some content which /is/ PD in the UK will be any protection whatsoever if there are items which are not. Because the law says nothing of the sort.

And don't put your words into my mouth, I "know" nothing of the sort, and it's disgusting that you're trying to push Big Media's "it'll be okay, trust us" line through me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I certainly don't "know" that having some content which /is/ PD in the UK will be any protection whatsoever if there are items which are not, don't put your words into my mouth. Because the law says nothing of the sort.

If you genuinely believe that this law will be used to block "legit" sites, would you care to put your money where your mouth is (as the saying goes) and place a small wager with me on that? Because I am absolutely, 100% certain that it will NOT be used in any such way.

[DawnFalcon]

No, because I'd feel guilty taking a sucker bet against you.

The DMCA wasn't going to be abuse either, remember?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't mean to be impolite, but I think that a certain amount of paranoia is being exhibited here. This law is clearly NOT intended to be used to block access to sites some of whose contents merely happen not to be in the UK public domain. You know that; I know that; everybody knows that. So why try to pretend that it is? It's there for use to block access to so-called "pirate" sites. If we're going to discuss this, let's do so in a sensible manner.

Harry T, I hesitate to comment on a law that is not in my country, but how do you distinguish what is a pirate site and what isn't? It seems to me that it isn't a cut and dried yes or no. There is an endless shades of grey involved, depending on the law, it's enforcement, and it's international reach....

Canada is currently being cited as one of the prime "Pirate" nations, partially due to the Life + 50 instead of Life +70 of many other countries, yet the Berne Convention only requires Life + 50, any longer is strictly voluntary...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, because I'd feel guilty taking a sucker bet against you.

The DMCA wasn't going to be abuse either, remember?

Tell you what then. Let's return to this thread in a year's time and see which of us in correct. I've put an appointment in my PDA to remind me to do so. Until then, let's just wait and see. But I'm afraid that I really, REALLY think that you are worrying unnecessarily here. I honestly do.

[DawnFalcon]

*covers his eyes and sighs*

[HarryT]

Time will tell which of us is correct .

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't mean to be impolite, but I think that a certain amount of paranoia is being exhibited here. This law is clearly NOT intended to be used to block access to sites some of whose contents merely happen not to be in the UK public domain. You know that; I know that; everybody knows that. So why try to pretend that it is? It's there for use to block access to so-called "pirate" sites. If we're going to discuss this, let's do so in a sensible manner.

What it's *intended* to block is not the issue. The question is what it'll be used to block--and what it *can* be used to block.

Can the Mitchell estate use it to try to take down sites that host Gone With The Wind? Can they demand download info, in order to go after US residents who download it Gutenberg Australia? from Can France's government use it to go after Google, for hosting books that are copyrighted in France? Can Disney use it to shut down Warner Brothers' forums where pictures of Disney characters are sometimes show in macros?

Can it be used to shut down YouTube entirely?

By removing the requirement of conviction in a court of law, it becomes a tool for whoever has the best C&D-writing lawyers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What it's *intended* to block is not the issue. The question is what it'll be used to block--and what it *can* be used to block.

Can the Mitchell estate use it to try to take down sites that host Gone With The Wind? Can they demand download info, in order to go after US residents who download it Gutenberg Australia? from Can France's government use it to go after Google, for hosting books that are copyrighted in France? Can Disney use it to shut down Warner Brothers' forums where pictures of Disney characters are sometimes show in macros?

Can it be used to shut down YouTube entirely?

By removing the requirement of conviction in a court of law, it becomes a tool for whoever has the best C&D-writing lawyers.

I think you may perhaps have misunderstood the purpose of this. This is not about "taking down" sites; it's about requiring UK ISPs to block access to them for their customers.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you genuinely believe that this law will be used to block "legit" sites, would you care to put your money where your mouth is (as the saying goes) and place a small wager with me on that? Because I am absolutely, 100% certain that it will NOT be used in any such way.

I don't think it's completely crazy an idea. There are quite a few examples of ISPs and websites removing perfectly legal files due to overzelous takedown notices. With pressure from copyright holders and the threat of the law, some ISPs may cave in and make stupid decisions.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't mean to be impolite, but I think that a certain amount of paranoia is being exhibited here. This law is clearly NOT intended to be used to block access to sites some of whose contents merely happen not to be in the UK public domain. You know that; I know that; everybody knows that. So why try to pretend that it is? It's there for use to block access to so-called "pirate" sites. If we're going to discuss this, let's do so in a sensible manner.

It doesn't really matter what the intended purpose of a law is, it is how it is written that counts. That is why new laws are supposed to be debated properly before they are passed, so that they can't be misused in the future. The way this one is worded will make misuse very easy.

BTW, as a side note, did you know that laws intended to combat terrorism are being used to stop people from taking photographs in public, and going on legitimate demonstrations? And that local councils are using surveilance powers given to them by the anti terror laws so that they can catch people dropping litter?