×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Internet Filtering Bill Watered Down

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the still-siding-with-the-man dept.

The Courts 183

superapecommando writes in with news that in the UK, Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court. The previous version of the Bill had drawn instant criticism from some of the world's largest technology companies, including eBay, Google, and Yahoo, who signed an open letter against the filtering proposal. Blogger Glyn Moody summed up opposition to the Bill, stating that in its previous form, it was "utterly one-sided, where the only winners are a music recording industry too lazy to change, and the losers are everyone else."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

183 comments

Is the UK broken or something? (0, Troll)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492884)

What is wrong with the UK? All I ever see are stories about another stupid thing you guys are doing.
Not trolling. Think about it. Slashdot is like 7% stories about stupid privacy/internet stories from the UK.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (3, Insightful)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492902)

Then again, Slashdot has even more stories about stupid things the US is doing, so I guess we win.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (2, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493114)

The difference is, for every 4 stupid things the US introduces, 3 are fought and 2 are shot down. For that amount, UK introduces 2 stupid things and both pass with little or no opposition.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (2, Insightful)

kaptink (699820) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493220)

The difference is, for every 4 stupid things the US introduces, 3 are fought and 2 are shot down. For that amount, UK introduces 2 stupid things and both pass with little or no opposition.

You forget the shear volume of stupid bills put up for adoption in the US compared with the UK.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493320)

TWDMWYTID [merriam-webster.com]

PYMTWI? [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493552)

How did this turn into an US vs UK debate? The summary alone should have more than enough fodder to keep everyone on topic.

"But the Open Rights Group, which campaigns on digital rights and freedoms, said that the amendment would not solve deeper problems with the bill – which may be rushed into law with barely any debate in the Commons – and called for it to be abandoned.

Amendments tabled to the bill show that the Liberal Democrats now want to alter amendment 120A, which was shown last week to have been copied almost word-for-word from a lobbying paper prepared by the music industry, but which was also widely criticised as giving copyright holders too much power to close down sites on limited evidence."

This should scare the hell out of people. The fact that they 'softened' the amendment, which is still horrible, as it will allow a site to be shut down without any substantiative proof, and then still require them weeks or months of work in legal courts to recover. What kind of moron even considers such legislation?

Watered Down (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493944)

The difference is, for every 4 stupid things the US introduces, 3 are fought and 2 are shot down. For that amount, UK introduces 2 stupid things and both pass with little or no opposition.

Every time I hear the words "Bill Watered down", I am going to think of the Overton Window [wikipedia.org], a phrase that Fortunato_NC [slashdot.org] recently taught me (thanks!).

Propose some "extremely extreme law", and your going more likely to get the nice watered down ordinary old "extreme law" passed, the one that your sponsor(s) always wanted - while maintaining your political capital [wikipedia.org].
Only a matter of time before the internet start's hosting more living document's [wikipedia.org] aimed to help the layman select their vote, complete with these dirty little tricks + pictures of the top political offenders... can ram that political capital you know where Mr Politician.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31492930)

I thought about it,
and you're a moron.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492966)

Well, you *would* say that... Better to be thought of as a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt. ;-)

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (5, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492936)

What is wrong with the UK? All I ever see are stories about another stupid thing you guys are doing. Not trolling. Think about it. Slashdot is like 7% stories about stupid privacy/internet stories from the UK.

There are a number of reasons for that:

  1. The UK is an English-speaking country, which means that there are a large number of UK-based Slashdot readers and submitters.
  2. At the moment, the UK government has a hard-on for copyrights. The vast majority of the Slashdot stories you've seen are actually all talking about the same thing: the Digital Economy Bill, a piece of legislation that's been in the works for some time. It started back in 2008, when the Digital Britain report was commissioned. That report was delivered, there was some proposed legislation written up, a consultation was carried out, the consultation results were published, the Digital Economy Bill was introduced in the Queen's Speech, and then the Bill has been working its way through the many stages of the UK's parliamentary legislative process. Slashdot has been reporting on all of those different points in the same process.
  3. The UK has several highly Internet-aware groups campaigning against this process, and they've been doing their best to get as much media attention on the Bill -- and its multiple issues -- as possible. That naturally includes getting as much coverage as possible on sites like Slashdot, because Slashdot's target demographic is the same demographic that's likely to be sympathetic to their position!

There are plenty of other countries where privacy/Internet asshattery is going on (such as France), but Slashdot isn't quite such an appropriate forum.

Anyway, all of the above doesn't diminish the fact that the UK government really doesn't have a clue when it comes to the Internet, and doesn't rate privacy very highly on its list of priorities.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493452)

Internet Asshattery, I want to see that on one of your campaign posters, preferably Mandelson wearing some kind of mechanical arsehole on his noggin.

You brushed over the report there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493702)

You brushed over the report there. The report basically was ignored because it said that DRM and internet antipiracy efforts were worthless and unwarranted. So the government ignored them.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (1)

MrNemesis (587188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493788)

I'd say our current government rates privacy *very* highly - privacy for its citizens should be completely outlawed FOR THE CHILDREN, whilst the politicians themselves should be protected from the damned liberal media prying into their various directorships and subsidiary companies all the time.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493100)

Years of isolationism and treating the rest of the mankind like "worse kind" led to increased inbreeding, and cancerous growth of anti-evolutionary countermeasures.

Recently, I got a desk lamp from the UK. A small, flimsy lamp with a 30 watt bulb. The cord was three thick wires, including neutral. There was a wiring manual on the cord, for wiring with or without neutral. The plug contained a 13A fuse.

If current of 12A at 230V flowed through this lamp, it would melt...

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (1)

hcpxvi (773888) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493180)

Well duh. If it didn't have both live and neutral then it wouldn't light up. Maybe you are surprised by the presence of an earth (ground) wire? That is required in the UK for equipment that is metal on the outside, unless it meets stringent insulation regs. You might like to feel this live 230V wire to experience why this is a good idea.
As for the fuse, you are correct that it should have been a 3-amp fuse, not a 13-amp one. If the manufacturers put it there, they need a good slap. But you are wrong to imply that the fuse would fail to prevent the lamp from melting. Typical mains wiring will carry this sort of current for many seconds before melting. The fuse will blow in a fraction of a second if shorted, as I have demonstrated on various occasions.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (2, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493248)

including neutral.

In the UK, our electrons need to go round in a circle of life rather than rising up to Heaven once they've completed their task (yes, yes, I know, conventional current, flow the other way, etc.). This is one of the negatives (ba dum tss) of living in a mostly atheist state.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (2, Funny)

x2A (858210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493688)

Fine, but electrons DIDN'T evolve from monkitrons, they've been the way they are since the beginning of time.

"...in a mostly atheist state"

If only that were true... we're not very religious, but we're not really very atheist either. We have lots of people who "believe" in god "just in case", and of course, jedi.

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493354)

Yeah and the other 93% is stupid privacy/internet stories from the US.

That's Slashdot's focus. It illuminates little else than the biases of the Slashdot editors. But hey, those biases are shared by enough of the readers to make this a hugely successful site. They're not going to change now for the sake of something abstract like balance and integrity.

A few other things to bear in mind:

1. This story is related to the ongoing debate in parliament about the legislation. No decision is made yet, so it's premature to call "stupid" on the results
2. If the US does something stupid, you USians blame your government. If the UK does something stupid, you USians blame our people. Slight double-standard, no?
3. Er, this legislation is based on US legislation. I agree, high time we stop copying every bad idea that comes out of the US.

Did you have a point to make or anything?

Re:Is the UK broken or something? (3, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493360)

You'll probably notice that most of these are posted by kdawson or timmeh, who have some really deep-seated issues with the UK. I'm surprised that the "newspaper" article referenced here is from the Grauniad - normally they take an article from the ultra-right tabloids like the Daily Mail and then publish some breathless piece about how awful the UK is, without checking any facts.

Story already out-of-date (5, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492894)

Unfortunately, this story is already out-of-date. The Government denied the Liberal Democrat peers the ability to amend the amendment, saying that they'd sort it out themselves during "washing-up", the period just before the General Election when ministers and last-term backbenchers rush through last-minute legislation with minimal debate while the majority of MPs return to their constituencies to campaign.

See this Guardian article [guardian.co.uk] for more information.

It wouldn't work anyway (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493102)

Who can afford the lawyers? Now if they really wanted to make this work (don't forget that all parties in england have to pacify the media/content owners. Do you want to upset the content producers and then be ridiculed forever in every piece of content? Go ahead, suggest the BBC should be privatized, see how long your public image survives. Yesterday the BBC aired an entirely self serving copyright program that showed only the content owners point of view. How suprising)

If this was to work, then the content owners should setup a fund from which lawsuits against them could be funded, they should be rate limited to the amount they could spend on lawyers and be stopped from endlessly appealing. The damages should be high enough that it is a serious detterent against endless false claims and for any succesful claim, the pot for making claims against them is doubled.

Else it is just a hollow shell. Nobody can afford to sue the media companies. Don't let the lib-dems fool you.

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (5, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493174)

Who can afford the lawyers? Now if they really wanted to make this work (don't forget that all parties in england have to pacify the media/content owners. Do you want to upset the content producers and then be ridiculed forever in every piece of content? Go ahead, suggest the BBC should be privatized, see how long your public image survives. Yesterday the BBC aired an entirely self serving copyright program that showed only the content owners point of view. How suprising)

Well, we upset the content producers by our very existence, but we still seem to be getting some media coverage -- indeed, several media organisations have contacted us in the last few hours asking for statements!

We've published a press release [pirateparty.org.uk] about last night's Panorama programme:

The Pirate Party UK has come out as highly critical of the BBC's recent Panorama programme for its disappointing coverage of the Digital Economy Bill.

Although Panorama attempted to give a fair hearing to both sides of the controversy surrounding the bill, it was ultimately considered inadequate. In particular, the BBC was criticised for its failure to get informed commentary from organisations opposed to the bill, such as the Open Rights Group, Coadec and the Pirate Party, meaning that the arguments both for and against the Digital Economy Bill were incomplete, largely misrepresented and often factually inaccurate.

...

Panorama: Separating Fact from Fiction [pirateparty.org.uk]

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (4, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493352)

It's not a suprise. Panorama is probably one of the few things I hate the BBC for. Panorama is basically the BBC's answer to the Daily Mail.

Panorama is frequently wrong, and the BBC frequently has to publish apologies, but these apologies are always hidden away, or non-obvious, and occur long after the BBC has already shown said episode of Panorama anyway. It was Panorama for example that started the BBC's push about Wifi being dangerous and giving teachers headaches, even though all of this was entirely unproven by them. It was later found that the BBC was indeed out of line, but the apology was merely published online and the damage was already done- countless schools around the country were adamant that Wifi was dangerous and started removing it from all the classrooms. I was working in Education IT at the time, and it was hard work trying to make the schools realise Panorama was wrong, even after they had issued the apology.

Panorama has similarly done shock stories full of inaccuracies on things like children using the internet too.

It's just a bad, bad TV series, and the BBC should be embarassed for even allowing it to continue. It's really a horrible stain on their otherwise generally good reputation.

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493474)

It's really sad that some of the best current affairs programmes on the BBC are the likes of "Mock the Week" and "Have I Got News for You". Panorama's nonsense, Question Time's become an irrelevant circus, especially after that Griffin debacle. You get more sense and balance out of Richard Hammonds "Should I worry about" show.

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493490)

Oh, and Newswipe, how could I forget Newswipe. Using the media's own techniques to mock them. Delicious Irony.

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (4, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493532)

Yeah, I don't know why the BBC struggles with serious current affairs programs so much. Particularly when you look at programs like Horizon and series like Planet Earth, and Life which are generally nothing short of outstanding. They clearly can do serious programs well, they can clearly do comedy current affairs programs well, it's not as if their news site and the current affairs stuff on there isn't generally excellent either. They just can't seem to mix it all together to provide serious TV based current affairs shows without ending up in an epic fail.

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493362)

This might be slightly off topic, but it's a question that's been on my mind none-the-less and this wishy-washy twaddle from the Lib Dems just pushes it to the front again.
I've always been a bit of a liberal, but the Lib Dem's lack of cohesive leadership recently has totally shattered any chance I'll be voting for them.
I certainly don't want to vote Conservative - being a Scot I'd be practically thrown out :) - and Dark Lord Mandelson and his internet hating ways have put me against falling back on Labour.
Is there a list of constituencies where you guys are standing in the GE?
If you're not standing in my constituency, which of the other parties or independents have the most similar stance to the UKPP on the technology front?

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (1)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493720)

Is there a list of constituencies where you guys are standing in the GE?

Watch this space... we'll be announcing our first few PPCs very soon now!

If you're not standing in my constituency, which of the other parties or independents have the most similar stance to the UKPP on the technology front?

Despite the frankly bizarre activities of the Liberal Democrat Lords, the Lib Dems are actually the closest of the "mainstream" parties to our position -- albeit still being ever-so-far away.

Don't forget that even if we're not standing a candidate in your area you can still help us by joining the Party, volunteering to help PPUK candidates in constituencies near your, or donating!

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493402)

I wasn't aware you could get "informed commentary" from the so-called Pirate "Party".

BTW, while you're here, what's your policy on healthcare and education?

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493560)

what's your policy on healthcare and education?

The manifesto is still being voted on, but in brief: We want to abolish drug patents to make health care cheaper, & we want to shift the focus of IT education from learning how to use MSOffice to understanding how computers work. Here's the manifesto proposal: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Drafts:Manifesto_Proposal [pirateparty.org.uk]

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493658)

Back when I was in school we did ample learning of how computers worked. Our teacher however was not very good at it, she had a hard time explaining what RAM did.
I'm of the opinion that, for subjects that change frequently (ICT in particular) should have to sit and pass the exam (or a special teacher-only version) they are going to teach once every 5 years or so, or whenever a major change occurs in the syllabus to ensure they understand what it is they are teaching and aren't just spouting out rote.
For those who say that ICT doesn't change fast enough, let's put it this way. When I went into Secondary School in 1997 they were using BBC Micro's and Acorn Electron's, when I left in 2003 we had gone through Windows 98 in 2nd year, MacOS 8 in Standard Grade, up to Windows 2000 by my Higher year.
Incidently, my Higher year was the last year they taught 6502 Assembler. Mainly because they'd gotten rid of all the Micro's. We even had to use an emulator.
My Advanced Higher year was mostly Programming, with about 1/3 of it being hardware-based learning (Mostly networking fundamentals and other data transfer methods)

Then again, I don't know how they teach ICT in England

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493614)

Here it is [wikipedia.org].

See also: The Green Party (environment), The British National Party (immigration), etc

The healthcare and education policies are the same for all parties:

Healthcare: pork barrel IT projects at the expense of the taxpayer in medical need

Education: Systematic corruption of free thinking individuals. Product: mindlessly obedient worker bees content with the illusion of choice known as "free elections"*

* - you can only choose a list of people preselected by us.

Don't blame me ... I voted for Kodos!

Re:It wouldn't work anyway (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493428)

You need to grow up little boy.
the copyright industry employs hundreds of thousands of people in the UK alone.
Ignorant children like you better go out and take some courses in bricklaying if you want to pay the bills in a future when ignorant retards such as yourself kill of the whole idea of intellectual property.
Thank god politicians are not as fucking stupid as you. I suggest getting a job, then you mgiht have some fucking perspective.

"The pirate party"

Fucking grow up.

What bullshit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31492918)

Thios story is typical pro-piracy slashdot spin.
Th industry too lazy to change? Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?

laughable.

And ncie to see that the businesses that benefit the most from priacy, which is search engines and ISPs, are cheerleading any attempt to water down enforcement of the law. Google loves piracy, and so do the ISP's, because they do not produce fuck all intellectual property.

Businesses and people who actually fucking create stuff for a living rather than just hyperlinking to it are rightfully behind this bill.

Re:What bullshit (3, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492954)

Businesses and people who actually fucking create stuff

But that's the whole crux of the argument isn't it ? A long time ago, LPs and Singles had to be physically made in huge machines, tapes had to be created, CD's had to be pressed.

Despite the fact that CD's were supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Vinyl, they still milked the fuck out of it and the consumer got zero benefit.

And now, when duplication and transmission costs are essentially zero (no more physical product, no transportation costs, no distribution costs), they STILL want to charge the same gross markup they did in 1971 ?

All other businesses have to adapt or die ... why should the media companies get a free pass to continue screwing with their customers ?

If it's a case of paying 20 bucks for something, knowing that the actual artist will get 10 cents if he's lucky, then fuck them.

If it's a case of paying a *reasonable* price direct to the artist, I'll gladly pay.

There's a difference between leechers who just want a free ride (and unfortunately always will), and those of us that can actually see the wrong in a situation and stand by our principles to effect some kind of change.

If the law is in the pockets of big business, then it's people power all the way. What other choice is there ?

Re:What bullshit (0, Flamebait)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493038)

If it's a case of paying a *reasonable* price direct to the artist, I'll gladly pay.

There's a difference between leechers who just want a free ride (and unfortunately always will), and those of us that can actually see the wrong in a situation and stand by our principles to effect some kind of change.

Since we can just copy some culture, nurturing the minds of all people, virtually for free, it seems just plain wrong not to. And how else, but with a bit of socialism, could we ensure the starving artists (or others starving) don't starve.

Just make sure everyone gets food, shelter and clothing (and perhaps internet by the water pump or equivalent, at least) and set culture free as in freedom and free as in beer.

Most people would still want to sell their time for added luxury. And capitalism could do its thing. Why should the market enable some people to bathe in luxury while others starve, though? There would still be plenty of room between starvation and ecological disaster for capitalists to play their game. They would just have a little less luxuries to bathe in.

Yeah, that's a bit longsighted and not easy to accomplish, but its also the proper thing to do, as I see it and any small steps that could be identified as leading in that general direction from here, should be taken, in my opinion.

Re:What bullshit (2, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493184)

I always amazes what bullshit some people come out with in order to justify their continued use of BitTorrent.

My friend, stop with the politics because it's actually very simple - if it's too expensive, don't buy it. Then grow a backbone and don't copy it either.

When you start hitting these mega-corporations in their wallets, then they will start to listen to you.

Re:What bullshit (4, Insightful)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493226)

My friend, stop with the politics because it's actually very simple - if it's too expensive, don't buy it. Then grow a backbone and don't copy it either.

Very good advice indeed, and not only is that my approach, but I recommend it to everyone else as well. Check out sites like Jamendo. Also, donate to support those artists and corporations who have a 21st-Century approach to distribution.

When you start hitting these mega-corporations in their wallets, then they will start to listen to you.

This just isn't true. If you stop pirating, and buy their media, they decide that their increased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) are working, so they work to get more of them. On the other hand, if you stop pirating, and don't buy their media, they decide that their decreased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) aren't working, so they work to get more of them.

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

I -- and the Pirate Party -- have absolutely no intention of "[stopping] with the politics." The erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights being pushed for by the international media cartel are totally disproportionate to the actual damage they are suffering (minimal), and are fundamentally unjust, and deserve to be fought against.

Re:What bullshit (0)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493470)

Very good advice indeed, and not only is that my approach, but I recommend it to everyone else as well. Check out sites like Jamendo. Also, donate to support those artists and corporations who have a 21st-Century approach to distribution.

Thanks for the advice but if you don't mind, I'll choose what music I listen to and how I'll buy it...

You know, that's the problem these days - everyone's far too busy poking in their big fat noses as to "how" something was done, rather than just deciding on the quality of the end product.

Sure, investigate into it if there's human rights issues in the production of something, or if people are on unfair wages - but quite frankly, for music, it's irrelevant. "Did I enjoy it?" and "Was it value for money?" are all that matters...

This just isn't true. If you stop pirating, and buy their media, they decide that their increased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) are working, so they work to get more of them. On the other hand, if you stop pirating, and don't buy their media, they decide that their decreased income is because the anti-pirate measures (DRM, horrific legislation, etc) aren't working, so they work to get more of them.

So don't buy the stuff with DRM on it - finito.

I bought a DRMed CD once in HMV that wouldn't play in my car. I took it back, asked the sales assistant for a refund, he refused. I got him to get his manager, argued with him for 15 minutes, then got a refund. Get balls and a backbone...

I -- and the Pirate Party -- have absolutely no intention of "[stopping] with the politics." The erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights being pushed for by the international media cartel are totally disproportionate to the actual damage they are suffering (minimal), and are fundamentally unjust, and deserve to be fought against.

Nice speech, but get an MP elected in Parliament, then I might start taking you seriously - until then, don't call yourself a "Party"...

Re:What bullshit (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493528)

If the BNP can call themselves a Party, the UKPP can too.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493714)

Not that my political allegiances are any of your business but I've never voted BNP nor do I think I ever will.

However, they do have some elected representation (in the European Parliament I seem to recall) and can probably justify referring to themselves as a party.

Again, let's not talk semantics - any bunch of loonies can gather together and call themselves what they like and (within reason) say what they like. It doesn't automatically follow that anyone's listening to them or that they wield any form of power.

Re:What bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493710)

So the Green Party in the US is not a party because they have no Federal representation (or do they? I really don't know for sure)?

You are a narrow-minded piece of shit that is probably paid by the assholes ruining the world of "intellectual" property.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493830)

So the Green Party in the US is not a party because they have no Federal representation (or do they? I really don't know for sure)?

I'm in the UK, I have no great interest in US politics - as I believe is also the case the other way round.

Nope, if they don't have representation in government, they're not a party - and the Greens are a prime example of an organised bunch of tree-hugging loonies.

You are a narrow-minded piece of shit that is probably paid by the assholes ruining the world of "intellectual" property.

And you must be telepathic or highly empathic to make that assumption about me purely on what I have revealed to be my views on music buying.

Actually, I'm nothing more than a person that enjoys good music - and I'm willing to reward someone who makes something that I enjoy.

You also probably need to go read some of my historical posts also - from them you'll see that anyone who throws abuse at me automatically loses the argument; because if you need to resort to abuse, you've nothing more intelligent to say to me.

So thanks for another victory and "Have A Great Day"!

Re:What bullshit (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493232)

Net result for the company and artist if you don't copy = 0.
Net result for the company and artist if you copy = 0.

If people don't buy it, they *are* hitting the mega-corps in their wallets. Copying or not is irrelevant.

Re:What bullshit (4, Insightful)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493454)

There is another aspect to that:

If you dont copy:
- net result for company and artist = 0
- net result for you = 0

If you do copy:
- net result for company and artist = 0
- net result for you = +1 (you 'enjoy' the art without compensating the artist/company)

Hence why copying is NOT the way to make a stand, you are just a freeloader.

Better idea:
Buy from independants via web sites:
- Megacorps net income = 0
- Artists tied to Megacorps net income = 0
- Independant artist = +1 (possibly more money than going via Megacorp per sale)
- your net result = +1

Re:What bullshit (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493848)

Nice in theory, but you missed out one important aspect, given the context of the situation

If you do copy:
- net result for you = +1 song that you want

If you buy from independents
- net result for you = +1 song that isn't the one that you want

Have to take the industry stranglehold into account

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493798)

If nobody buys it, then it wouldn't be released in the first place because there would be no profit to be made.

And copying something that does not exist is impossible - well, with the exception of Microsoft.

Re:What bullshit (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493288)

I always amazes what bullshit some people come out with in order to justify their continued use of BitTorrent.

What are you talking about? I download software with bittorrent. You seem to be confusing the protocol with the content.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493424)

Please don't try to confuse the argument with semantics - it's clear by implication that I meant "BitTorrent when used for the purposes of music downloads". If you're too inane to work that out for yourself, that's not my problem.

Re:What bullshit (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493572)

Sadly, the government and megacorps don't see it this way, and seek to get ISPs to deep packet inspect all torrent traffic in an attempt to find infringers, slowing down legitimate torrenters (Like software downloads, updates, game patches and I believe Spotify uses BitTorrent - I know it uses some form of P2P, if it's BT or some other form of streaming, I don't know) as collateral damage.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493756)

Agreed, they probably won't.

But then my argument is that if they're not given the "Piracy" justification to do it in the first place, then they just look like a government infringing on personal liberties - in which case we can just kick the bastards out.

Re:What bullshit (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493856)

I suspect MichaelSmith isn't, but we know that some of our politicians and media bosses are. And as they're the ones making the policy decisions, it rather is your problem if you contribute to the "protocol = content" association.

Re:What bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493680)

It does not, however, amaze me to see that complete and utter shit morons still inhabit Slashdot.

There are plenty of good reasons to copy what we want from Copyright holders. They have spent the last 100+ years eroding our rights. It's completely and utterly fair to erode theirs in turn.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493734)

But I'm the "shit moron" that buys stuff legally that allows you to freeload off the back of me - does that make you a "shit moron hag" then?

You carry on with your little "Robin Hood" crusade of justifying your personal greed, and I'll keep subsidising your music collection for you.

Re:What bullshit (1)

riperrin (1310447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493058)

>they STILL want to charge the same gross markup they did in 1971
Gross price remains the same, the markup will actually be more.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493070)

Despite the fact that CD's were supposed to be a cheaper alternative to Vinyl, they still milked the fuck out of it and the consumer got zero benefit.

Wrong. The consumer got a format that was much less susceptible to damage, that didn't deteriorate in quality the more times you played it, and you didn't need an ultra-expensive hi-fi system to get pretty good audio sound from it.

Also, please don't forget that a single vinyl LP was limited to about 20 minutes of music on each side (40 minutes total) whereas a CD holds almost twice that amount - I agree it's taken the music industry a while to realise that fact but I'm certainly very pleased with what they're doing by remastering a whole load of classic albums and putting extra tracks on the CDs.

And now, when duplication and transmission costs are essentially zero (no more physical product, no transportation costs, no distribution costs), they STILL want to charge the same gross markup they did in 1971 ?

That only affects someone who is lame enough to buy lossy, compressed digital downloads. Personally, £10 for a music CD that I have possibly enjoyed time-and-time again over the space of 30-odd years is pretty good value for money, even if during that time I've rebought it once as a remastered edition with more content.

And please don't respond with the usual "but there's only ever two good tracks on a CD" nonsense. If an artist or group cannot maintain quality over the space of a complete album then they shouldn't be making albums - it's that simple.

If it's a case of paying 20 bucks for something, knowing that the actual artist will get 10 cents if he's lucky, then fuck them.

I doubt very much that any artist cares about whether you or I got a payrise this year - so what does it matter what they got paid? All that matters is that you get a product that you consider to be value for money, the musicians can go negotiate their own contracts.

There's a difference between leechers who just want a free ride (and unfortunately always will), and those of us that can actually see the wrong in a situation and stand by our principles to effect some kind of change.

I agree 100% with you on this. If you don't like the price of something then don't buy it, and don't copy it. Get a backbone instead.

Re:What bullshit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493164)

> Wrong. The consumer got a format that was much less susceptible to damage, that didn't deteriorate in quality the more times you played it, and you didn't need

> an ultra-expensive hi-fi system to get pretty good audio sound from it.

Nope. I remember all too well when CDs came out. We were told they were virtually indestructible, would play covered in jam & hairs and would be much cheaper than vinyl. At the time, they were around 10GBP in the UK compared to 5-6GBP for a vinyl album. We were told within a couple of years they would be cheaper than vinyl. Ten years later they were 15GBP+

>Also, please don't forget that a single vinyl LP was limited to about 20 minutes of music on each side

Yep(ish) but you did get double LPs with glorious artwork, liner notes etc.

>then they shouldn't be making albums - it's that simple.

That's a whole other agument. Back in the day, the A&R department might let a band put out 3-4 albums while they found themselves. Many now great bands had some dreadful early works - if we followed your rules we'd never have the good stuff. That was always the equation, the handful of uber successful groups funded the up and coming ones.

Re:What bullshit (4, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493258)

Nope. I remember all too well when CDs came out. We were told they were virtually indestructible, would play covered in jam & hairs and would be much cheaper than vinyl. At the time, they were around 10GBP in the UK compared to 5-6GBP for a vinyl album. We were told within a couple of years they would be cheaper than vinyl. Ten years later they were 15GBP+

The chances are that if I get jam or hairs on a CD, I can wipe it clean and it will play as it did before - unlike a vinyl LP. Besides which, if you get jam and hairs on CDs and fall for marketing hype then you probably need to be put in a cage in a zoo with a label "Greater Idiot" on it.

As for £15 CD prices - get real. Maybe if you buy everything in HMV in the high street - in which case you go in the cage also. I buy around 5 or 6 music CDs a month, I don't remember the last time I paid more than £10 for one; plus I buy a lot of remasters meaning they've got the extra tracks on them making them twice as long as a vinyl LP anyway.

Yep(ish) but you did get double LPs with glorious artwork, liner notes etc.

Yes, agreed, a lot of the great artwork hasn't survived well being knocked down to CD size, although many do have good liner notes - especially, again, on a lot of the remastered stuff. I always thought it was a missed opportunity to not put some of the old artwork and photos on the music CD as well.

That's a whole other agument. Back in the day, the A&R department might let a band put out 3-4 albums while they found themselves. Many now great bands had some dreadful early works - if we followed your rules we'd never have the good stuff. That was always the equation, the handful of uber successful groups funded the up and coming ones.

Yes, I think part of your statement is true, even to this day. I've certainly read somewhere that the Britney Spears of the world selling their trash by the millions helps to finance smaller artists - but then surely that's an advantage a record company has over a small artist trying to market themselves?

As to the first part of the statement, I'll talk about what I know. I mainly listen to classic rock & blues music from the late 60s to the present, and many artists that have been active pretty much throughout all of that period - e.g. Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin (and their solo projects), Nazareth, many others...

In pretty much all of those cases, the artists served "apprenticeships" on the pub and club circuits before making it anywhere near super-stardom. In turn this meant that many of the songs which would end up on albums had probably been played in front of live audiences for some time before, so I think this helped many bands put out very high quality initial albums.

In many ways that's changed today because artists are, in many but not all cases, are catapulted to fame instantly, just because the record companies market artists as fashionable and see a chance to make quick bucks. That's why, in my opinion, the general quality of music has dropped now.

Re:What bullshit (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493290)

I'm certainly very pleased with what they're doing by remastering a whole load of classic albums and putting extra tracks on the CDs.

I, for one, am extremely unpleased with the quality of many remasters, as well as most new releases. Why? THE LOUDNESS WAR [wikipedia.org] means they are doing it without concern for sound quality or the limitations of the medium.

Re:What bullshit (5, Informative)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492964)

Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate [sic] the fact that people are takuing [sic] your output for free and not paying a single penny

Except you're a troll, because:

  1. The music industry has seen record profits despite the recession, according to their own figures [guardian.co.uk].
  2. People who download media illicitly are the exactly the same people who spend the most money on media, as has been shown repeatedly by studies.

Some good changes that the industry could make would be to, firstly, stop lying, and secondly, to stop trying to criminalise their own best customers

Re:What bullshit (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493318)

People who download media illicitly are the exactly the same people who spend the most money on media, as has been shown repeatedly by studies.

Lies, I tell you, lies! I've been doing my best to torrent all I want and not pay for any of it. Come on, people, do your part to bring the big media down! DO NOT BUY!!!

Re:What bullshit (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493672)

Point #2, I know it's illegal to upload but is it also illegal to download copyrighted stuff in the UK?

Re:What bullshit (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31492974)

If you had a clue about the way information is processed (not just movies and music, information) you would understand that it is impossible to legislate filtering to block the sharing of files.

The best you can hope to do is block the way they are shared now, and possibly tomorrow. If you don't like it, then shut the internet down, and all which goes with it.

And BTW, try typing slower. Your text will be more readable but I doubt it will make any more sense.

Re:What bullshit (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493140)

It truly amazes me how so many people like you only see "black" or "white" in discussions on this or related subjects.

Firstly, if you happen to be a big music fan like me, you want to be able to continue to buy & listen to good quality music that you consider to be a fair price. Personally, I consider £10 to be more than a fair price for a music CD I may have enjoyed for 30 years or more. Plus I may want the artist to continue producing music of a similar quality, therefore to encourage that he/she should be paid for his work.

Secondly, I object to freeloaders. People who copy music, games or movies can only do so because enough honest people like me go out and buy the stuff in the first place - or likewise don't buy it (or copy it) if it's not worth the money.

Thirdly, I don't want mine or anyone else's Internet traffic filtered or monitored. But the fact is our governments are in the pockets of big corporations who have no desire other than to screw more and more money out of all of us - and file sharing just helps in giving them the justifications they need to cause that to happen, which in turn makes it bad for honest people like me as well, who have to put up with crap like DRM even though we're honest people.

So please don't just assume that being anti-piracy also means your anti-privacy.

Re:What bullshit (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493244)

I didn't discuss my privacy. I discussed the technical feasibility of stopping file sharing. I reckon I could sit down right now and invent 100 totally unique ways of exchanging files across the internet. Is British legislation going to anticipate all of those and allow for them to be stopped?

Its not possible. Forget about it. Unless (as I said) you largely shut down the internet and turn it into a way of delivering television programmes, then lock up anybody who tries to recreate it.

Do you want to do that? Most the the business we rely on would cease to function. Are you ready for that?

Re:What bullshit (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493338)

I reckon I could sit down right now and invent 100 totally unique ways of exchanging files across the internet.

Forget the Internet. For about 50p you could post a USB memory stick. It would take about a day to get to the recipient if you sent it first-class.

How long would it take to download 4GB of data? How much would it cost? Posting a 4GB USB stick would be comparable, once you've bought the (reusable) memory stick.

Re:What bullshit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493436)

I know a photographer that puts CF cards on to homing pigeons. They can carry two at once, around 32GB of data with today's tech. They can take a couple hours to a day or so. She has only ever lost one CF card, but she does back everything to a RAID hard drive on the set. It's far quicker than mail or Internet.

Re:What bullshit (4, Insightful)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493078)

No one cries for horse buggy makers or tanners or typewriter makers. Some times, technology makes your business model completely obsolete. The best thing is to come up with a new one, either in a totally new industry or maybe adapt to the conditions the new technology has made. Trying to legislate against the new technology is bad for everyone as it holds up progress.

Re:What bullshit (0)

xelah (176252) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493496)

Erm....horse carriage and typewriter makers have mostly disappeared because people don't want them any more. People still want recordings. Besides, recordings are non-rival whereas your other examples are not. They really are totally different cases.

Re:What bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493670)

Ehm...you mean the fact that NOBODY walks around with a portable CD player any more. People LOVE their mp3 players, they are just not allowed tot put music on them. I have a very simple reason for downloading the cd's I already have, it takes longer to rip the CD than to download it. Besides the fact that ripping a CD is just as illegal as downloading it.
So not giving the people what they want and "moving heaven and earth" to brand them criminals is capitalism now, sounds more like communist Russia.

Re:What bullshit (1)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493750)

well people still want personal transport and they still want typed words, its just that the technology of how these desires are reached has changed.

Also while people do want recordings, what the industry is trying to get us to buy is physical copies of the recordings. Technology has resulted in the physical copies being no longer needed and in some cases no longer wanted.

Re:What bullshit (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493118)

Th industry too lazy to change? Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?

That's up to them. Maybe their business model is no longer viable. Nobody is forcing them to create content.

The marketplace has changed. People want free content and have the ability to get it. It's a lot easier to change a business model than human nature. Complaining at us for not changing isn;t going to change us. Personally I like getting stuff for free.

Re:What bullshit (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493234)

How am I supposed to make any money from buggy whip manufacture now that these infernal combustion engines are everywhere!!!

Re:What bullshit (2, Insightful)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493292)

Th industry too lazy to change?

Yes, as evidenced by your very next line:

Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny?

"We haven't done any of our own thinking on the issue -- give us an answer."

Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?

laughable.

What makes you think that you are entitled to make a living from making music at all? Was the fletcher entitled to making a living from producing arrows? Or the blacksmith entitled to making a living for making horse shoes? Surely we need legislation to resurrect those industries who have suffered far longer than any perceived suffering the music industry claims. What about the baker? He's seen the mom and pop version of his industry assailed by supermarkets for years. We surely need to help those mom and pop bakers out first as their plight has been ongoing long before we even had the internet. The same can be said for the mom and pop butcher.

It is laughable, I'll give you that. It's laughable that an industry feels it's entitled to survive no matter what may come. The level of entitlement displayed and articulated borders on delusional. Music might be culturally significant and of value, but it doesn't need an industry to remain so. This is the origin of the delusion -- confusing the value of the industry with the cultural value of the artistic output -- they are not equivalent nor necessarily linked.

Re:What bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493386)

Businesses and people who actually fucking create stuff for a living rather than just hyperlinking to it are rightfully behind this bill.

I create stuff for a living and I'm against it. Maybe I don't count because I use a welder and other tools to create rather than a computer or musical instrument. I only get paid once. Here's a tip though: if your product can be infinitely reproduced at near zero marginal cost the true market price of each copy is close to zero except that you can place legal restrictions on your "customers". If steel products can ever be copied in such a way, I'll find something else to do rather than restrict and impoverish society through artificial scarcity. If the recording, movie and proprietary software industries were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't miss them. I'm certainly not willing to suffer abusive laws to prop them up.

Re:What bullshit (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493482)

Maybe you can inform us of how you 'change' to accomodate the fact that people are takuing your output for free and not paying a single penny? Perhaps all of the very experienced business owners here at slashdot could emerge from moms basement and explain how you make a living that way with music?

I’ll bite, even if it looks like trolling.

First we clarify the actual physics:

  1. Music, Films, Book, etc, are Information. Their physical container is a separate thing.
  2. Information is not a object of “meatspace”. You can’t touch it. It’s a object of “bitspace”. Data.
  3. Bitspace has other rules as meatspace:
    1. Information can only be copied. Moving can only be simulated trough copying plus deletion. Which often is impossible (e.g. in the human mind).
    2. Information that can not be copied, can not be proven to exist at all. Because that involves copying it. Only copying a sample only proves the existence of that part.
  4. Information, when copied to someone else, is now under control of both parties. And there is nothing any party can ever do about it. As long as you let it out in a form that the destination can process, this processing can involve giving it away to someone else. That is a simple physical fact.
  5. Hence information — which is not a physical good — can not be owned by anyone. There is no such thing as “intellectual property”. It’s a physically impossible and absurd concept.

So the obvious consequence is, that if that information has some worth for you, and you don’t want to give it away for nothing, you have to demand something in return right at the first completely simultaneous release to x “clients”.
After that, you have just shared the information with x people. Who can not be stopped from doing to it, whatever they please. If you’re not happy, tough shit, cause it’s too late! Go ahead, and fight basic physics. Next up: Gravity! ;)

Now we must clarify something else: The production and marketing industry, the media reproduction industry and the musician industry, are three distinct things! The first two are usually combined into the “music industry”. The reproduction industry obviously lost its purpose and struggles with inevitable death. The music industry as a whole on the other hand...
The illusion is, that they would be for the musicians. Ask musicians. They will tell you, that they get around 3.5% of the whole profits. While the stupid producer gets 60!!! Plus they still have to pay the studio time from that! And as if this were not bad enough, the MI fights, to get the 3.5% even lower!
Now add the typical extortion contracts of the MI to it, and you get a mix that screams “the music industry is the enemy of the musician industry!”. Why do you think so many artist run away from than at their first chance to get out?
The same is true for every likewise industry. Films, games, books, you name it.

Finally to the basis of your arguments: The business model of the media industry.
Their fault was, that they handled information like a product. A good. Because when they started it, it always came in a container that could be a product. That was what they knew, so they ran with it. To the painful end.
All the problem are based on that single misunderstanding of basic physics of bitspace/information.
And now they are treating the artist like crap, treating the clients like crap... in a struggle to continue their delusion they walk over dead bodies (ACTA vs constitutional rights).

This all has nothing to do with taking any rightful compensation away from the artists. (The MI is working hard on that one anyway!) If the artists wanted something, they should have asked for it when they first passed it on. Now we have it, and it’? too late.
It has to do with the delusion. The wrong business model. And a dying industry that nobody needs, wants, or cares about anymore. A industry that always was a bunch of drug taking, hooker buying, criminals. (Yes, I worked very close to a guy who was the contact to all music industry managers in our company. So I know this first and second hand.)

Did you know that small labels had a boom because of file sharing and small Internet radios? And many artist like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Moby, and tons of others of the musician industry that are too many to list, already do very successfully without the music industry. I don’t know what a CD costs in your country. But calculate 3.5% of that, any you know what artist have to earn, to get more than with the MI. Besides, if you look at where musicians get their money from, you see that the lion’s share of that comes from concerts, gigs, merchandising, etc. Not from CDs.

So what you, in your MAFIAA-generated delusion, see as “takuing [sic] your output for free and not paying a single penny”, is actually a great thing for everyone, except the media reproduction and artist extortion industry.

Before you get too excited (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493024)

The UK legal system operates on a "loser pays" basis, so unless there's something explicitly written into the law which puts such cases in the Small Claims Court (where there is a limit to the expenses that can be claimed by either side), you can guarantee anyone threatening to sue these people will be met with a nastygram saying "If you continue in taking us to court, we will demand costs. We're up to £20,000 now, and it's rising with every letter we write."

The people who are most likely to be cowed by such a threat are exactly the people who are most likely to get such a threat in the first place - I'm thinking particularly those who can't afford a solicitor and where the parents in the household don't really understand what the kids get up to on the Internet.

Re:Before you get too excited (4, Insightful)

nosferatu1001 (264446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493238)

Then sue for an amount less than £5000, where it is *automatically* Small Claims Court. Even magistrates court is "cheap"

Oh, and "loser pays" is not always the case - if you are found to have unwarranted costs (for example, retaining a QC to handle a simple copyright matter) then you may find you are told to pay them yourself, even if you win.

In essence *both* sides have a duty to mitigate costs, and any failure to do so is looked down on, usually from a great height...

Re:Before you get too excited (2, Interesting)

xelah (176252) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493568)

You often don't get all your costs back. 80%-ish is more normal, I believe, and I'm not sure you can claim for everything anyway. If you run out of money before the end then you lose, so rich opponents can make you go through all the hoops in the hope of making that happen. IIRC, it's also possible to ask a court to refuse to let you continue a case on the grounds that you won't be able to pay the defendant's costs if you lose.

Re:Before you get too excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493726)

The system is worse than you think.

In the past, defendants could run up large costs defending themselves, win the case, then find that the complainant didn't have the money to pay their costs.

To prevent this, the defendant can require costs before the trial. Even if the complainant's case is rock solid, they have to find the money before the trial to cover the defendants costs in case the defendant wins.

As a small businessman you can find yourself in the position where a large business has raped you for several million pounds by breaking a contract, but because you can't afford to pay their costs in advance you can't sue them. I know someone this happened to, though he was lucky enough to find a rich backer so he got his money in the end.

Guilty until proven innocent? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493190)

FTFS:

to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court.

This is still highly lopsided.

Why does a "wrongfully accused" have to sue? Shouldn't that be that this accused has been sued already or so?

If really this way it is still that the music company just can say "you're file sharing!" without having to have any firm proof, as most file sharers will not sue in the first place because of the huge costs involved just to start up a suit.

what are they doing proposing this at all? (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493206)

The Liberal Democrats are supposed to be the heirs of the liberal tradition in the UK, supporting individual rights against government power. Their official party platform is John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. I don't really see how this fits even remotely.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493266)

I don't know, but it's going to cost them my vote come election time. It goes against everything I thought they stood for.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (2, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493412)

But the problem is, who do you vote for instead?

As a Lib Dem voter, this disgust me too, but I'm still concerned that they're the best option, partly because it is Lib Dem Lords that have done this, rather than the parliamentary party for which you'd be voting, and partly because the Lib Dems goal of doing away with our horrendously undemocratic first past the post system is simply more important. I think this latter point is prominent, because first past the post is the reason we have these untouchable, unaccountable parties holding all the power in the first place. If we get rid of our stupid first past the post system, then it's at least the first step towards more sane government.

So yeah, it disgusts me too, but I'm not sure withdrawing your vote is the solution sadly. I would at very least however recommend you contact Nick Clegg to make your point heard, and to ensure the parliamentary party rather than the Lords don't follow this line at least.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493476)

Good advice, I'll probably be writing to my local lib dem instead, seeing as they're the one whose vote is in jeopardy. If I'm not voting Lib Dem it sure as hell isn't going to Labour or the Conservatives, though, don't worry about that.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493506)

Same here, but my only other choices are SNP, Green, Socialist or the Christian Party.

I really only have one choice out of those...

I wonder what the Christian Party's stance on this bill is?

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493764)

There's never been a better time to start our own party.

"Sick of those other arseholes? Join us!"

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493946)

You can always spoil your ballot paper. If there's nobody worth your vote the don't vote for anybody. Spoil it though so it will be counted.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (1)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493512)

In fairness to the Lib Dems this isn't an official policy. This is a group of their lords, and as you know, lords can pretty much do what they like with no recourse from the party that put them in the house.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493312)

I love the idea of the Liberal Democrats but I don't think they have any genuinely liberal principles any more. They seem to have been infected by the same "liberal" populist authoritarianism that's possessed the other two major parties over the last few decades, and now it is very hard to see how they offer anything different. "Liberal" in name only.

I think you can judge a party by its actions while in opposition, and in that regard, both the Cameron Conservatives and the Lib Dems have been so utterly useless and unprincipled that we might as well re-elect Labour.

Re:what are they doing proposing this at all? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493516)

Even hippies have to eat (and campaign). Let's check their donors list, and see how much the FACT-a-likes bunged them.

Sadly, they're not even honest politicians - by recanting a little, they showed that they won't even stay bought.

troolbkore (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493284)

is EFNet, and you it will be among NIGGER ASSOCIATION more. If you feel said. 'Screaming support GNAA, if you don't ggodbye...she had gave the BSD

what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493294)

to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court

ummm, i think this is just a nice way of rephrasing the same thing. i mean, sueing anybody *was* already allowed.

3-strikes law (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493438)

This bill contains 3-strikes and you are out law, which means that if someone is merely accused of copyright violation 3 times, their broadband connection is terminated.

I'll tell you what it looks like.

In the former USSR there was no Internet, but people listened to radio. There was no 3-strike law, you only needed to be caught once. You were not allowed to get information from the rest of the 'free' (what used to be free) world, if you tried, you were obviously an outlaw.

This is what it looks like to me, not precisely, but close enough. There is Internet, and then there is the 'free' Internet and the UK citizens are losing their free Internet.

It looks even worse than what happened in the USSR. There, they just tried to prevent people from listening to BBC by interfering with the radio waves, but they could not really know who was listening, who tried to listen.

Here they will know, they will know who is listening, who is trying. Even worse, if your connection is encrypted, I am sure that there will be in the future an assumption you are braking the law, so you will be presumed guilty for having an encrypted connection, unless it is to an approved bank or to an approved store I suppose. Which, by the way, if you think about it, is a perfect next step: eliminate bank and store competition, by only allowing encryption to a very select few. You think that won't happen?

This is worse than the USSR in terms of ability to listen and to make assumptions about who is doing what. This is still not as bad as the USSR, probably you won't go to a far away place in Siberia. Not yet. Not until UK contracts Russia out to handle its prisoners. You watch, that'll happen to: contracting brutal places out to handle your prisoners, especially prisoners that happen to be anti-policy, so they are anti-corporation, anti-government.

Shit, long time ago I though Britain could have been quite an interesting place to live for a while, now, I think I'll avoid that place just as much as I avoid the US, though I must admit, I like Florida's climate.

Liberal Democratic? (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493440)

Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill

It's just "Liberal Democrat", not "Liberal Democratic". There's nothing liberal or democratic about these people.

Still not good enough (1)

Karem Lore (649920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31493446)

The only thing that has changed is that I can sue the rights holder if I am cut off the internet without justification. Now correct me if I am wrong, but to go through the process of finding a lawyer, communicating with said lawyer, getting forms and doing all the other things you do during a court case would be SERIOUSLY hampered by not having access to the internet. What if I can't afford a lawyer and have to read up on law...can't spend my whole life down in London at the British Library sifting through law books, I would need access to the internet to be able to do research. Also, how the hell am I supposed to check IP addresses and other such online sites I am supposed to have downloaded copyright material from without access?

I wouldn't want to do this down my local internet café really...

Politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31493632)

Is it just me, or are all politicians born with a corporate cock up their asses.

It's 2010, people voted for these scum to be elected, yet I never here anything about them helping the individual citizen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...