Digital Economy Bill

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Um. Oops? Seems I got this one mixed up in my head with other pending legislation.

There's still the issue of shutting off access without proof--and the requirement to notify copyright owners of infringements seems ridiculously broad.

And I found this part fascinating:

If it appears to Her Majesty that the law of a country fails to give adequate protection to British works to which this section applies, or to one or more classes of such works, Her Majesty may make provision by Order in Council in accordance with this section restricting the rights conferred by this Part in relation to works of authors connected with that country.

So... a nice way to say, "if the US won't enforce British copyright, we won't enforce US copyright?" Potentially, "any site that allows downloading of Peter Pan can be blocked?"

I'm probably just rambling. I'm amazed at the number of attempted changes to copyright enforcement laws, all of which seem like trying to swat flies with machine guns. They seem likely to cause a lot more collateral damage than effective prevention.

[vaughnmr]

And other news, the US gov finally admits that all the industry bluster about piracy was most likely false info:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-are-bogus.ars

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

And other news, the US gov finally admits that all the industry bluster about piracy was most likely false info:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-are-bogus.ars

Well they could have told our lot a couple of days ago!

Hah, reading Table 1 of the actual GAO report cited, and assuming I read it correctly, as far as the overall U.S. economy goes all efforts should be directed toward ending infringement and counterfeiting pf clothing and accessories; especially footwear. The digital economy can wait.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And I found this part fascinating:So... a nice way to say, "if the US won't enforce British copyright, we won't enforce US copyright?" Potentially, "any site that allows downloading of Peter Pan can be blocked?"

The "perpetual copyright" of Peter Pan only applies in the UK; it is in the public domain in many other parts of the world, and hence can be perfectly legitimately hosted.

[Sparrow]

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 is difficult to guess how far some legislation is taken, and the UK government does have form on misuse - who'd have predicted they'd use anti-terrorist legislation against Iceland?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It is difficult to guess how far some legislation is taken, and the UK government does have form on misuse - who'd have predicted they'd use anti-terrorist legislation against Iceland?

When a law CAN be misused, it WILL be misused. (Ploppy's Law).

[vaughnmr]

I guess the item no one wants to discuss is why are these people lying about the data, and why did everyone buy into the falsehoods without any check. It took a lone US gov head, who was charged with enforcement, to say "give me the data that backs up your statements", and no one wanted to reply. Is this where we are now with our governments and our laws (or ACTA, what do you call that)? Are we at the point where we just lay down and let them do whatever they want to do?

If you are like HarryT, and believe that the written law will be interpreted as such, I would invite you to the US, to see in one example alone, where fundamentalists local DA's are applying child pronography laws to teens texting each other. I'm talking about teens in bras sending images to boyfriends, and being labeled as child pronographers. In my country, there exists many examples of lawyers distorting the law for their own purpose.

If there is any question at all of the intent of a law, take the time to make it clear. And make sure creation of the law is vetted properly.

[HarryT]

For the sake of accuracy, by the way, now that this bill has become law, it should be referred to as the "Digital Economy Act".

[mr ploppy]

Known colloquially as the BPI Act because of its birth on a billionaire music producer's yacht, and the BPI's help in drafting it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I guess the item no one wants to discuss is why are these people lying about the data, .

The same reason they play down (or outright deny) the positive impacts file sharing has on the economy, and try to link it with stealing a car or terrorism.

[Sparrow]

I reckon it's one last act of spite by a government that's about to be booted out of power.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I reckon it's one last act of spite by a government that's about to be booted out of power.

The act is supported by all 3 major parties; it would not have got through parliamentary "wash-up" without cross-party support.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The act is supported by all 3 major parties; it would not have got through parliamentary "wash-up" without cross-party support.

Yes, but it's Mandleson's baby, and his backers aren't short of a bob or two.

And elections are expensive.

Added:
Ooops, maybe my last two remarks were a bit intemperate - apologies.

DEB got through after a period of negotiation with opposition parties who got some concessions and favours in return. But it was the government that was the prime mover and bears full responsibility imho.

[BookCat]

For some reason this reminds me of the Dangerous Dogs Act: another badly thought through law which was impossible to apply fairly. And what happened to the fox-hunting ban? Those 'orrible people in red coats are still ripping them apart. Another badly drawn up act.
Seems to me that this is the same. Surely the IPS would be shooting itself in the foot by cutting off its customers, so will be loathe to impliment the law...if they have any choice.

On the other hand; I foresee so much opposition to this that it'll become another Poll Tax; you remember, that thing which brought down Thatcher. Perhaps this is some "cunning plan" by the outgoing Labour Party to land the next government in