Britain's new internet law. Fanflippingtastic.

Originally Posted by boingboing

Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).

But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.

What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators.

Lobby organisation The Open Rights Group is urging people to contact their MP to oppose the plans.
"This plan won't stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet - unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socialising," it said.

The government will also introduce age ratings on all boxed video games aimed at children aged 12 or over.

There is, however, little detail in the bill on how the government will stimulate broadband infrastructure.

Hooray for british government.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Somewhere, in the dark cruelty of the night, 100,000 music tech/art/photography/media students cry out to the skies as they realise they have to front £400+ for software that is vital to their course, but not coverable by student loans. As important as they are, music and other media are not the only things that are covered by this legislation.

"without proof or evidence or trial" I think is the scariest prospect here. Forget your fucking entitlement arguments. That sentence pretty much nullifies anything that was left from the tatters of our government that might indicate there was still true freedom in this country.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Lehah, where then, do you stand on musicians who have literally given the go-ahead to download their music for free? They have no political power; their decisions would not be taken into consideration. Neither would the decision of the person to download it. If the government felt so inclined at least.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Deni: I ask in view of a band who linked people to a P2P site for one of their tracks.

Lehah: They're valid types. But there are others who have made it big but refuse to allow filesharing to take place because they're afraid their fanbase won't pay money for their shitty, production-line music. And there are those who are working on a more personal interface between themselves and the fans of their music, where people can pay what they deem appropriate for the music they love.

Most amazing jew boots

Deni: what about hosting it on their site and on a P2P site, in full support of illegal downloading?

Lehah: First of all, the band I was referencing have no label to moderate such things. Secondly, I love that you associate me with people who fileshare. I have done such a thing maybe 3 times in the 9 years I have been online (and each of those times has resulted in a real life media purchase). I still agree with the consensus that filesharing is a good thing.

And it's wonderful that you've missed the fact that the government doesn't require proof to take you down. Okay, so on GFF filesharing is a huge issue. But that a government doesn't have to give a reason for punishing you criminally? Yeah, let's just let that blow on by.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Lehah: Not really; the band in question had a label, and removed themselves from it. Deni makes a far more educated point.

I'll agree with your second point. I'm no lawyer either. But I have read the law in question. The article was one that had been passed around, and though its delivery is rather lacking, it still makes a valid point. But I feel you've defeated yourself by saying that "the vague details can be interpreted by your government on a case by case basis". There is plenty of room for biased judgement to be made.

Deni: You, as you may have guessed, have made a very valid point as far as I'm concerned. It's a political move, and one that can potentially implicate people who support it. It's the online version of a protest I suppose. It gives people a chance to make a stand. The band doesn't force people into making a possibly illegal decision. Hence giving them the option to download P2P or on the website.

And thank you for your opinion of me. I've already stated that I myself don't download music. So your personal low-blow at me doesn't really feel justified.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

They take no rights, have abandoned them to the label they worked for. Their new work is the sole source of their income.

Okay, perhaps I've phrased that wrong. But there are enough reports on the specific points of the Digital Economy Bill to draw conclusions. In answer to earlier points, it does seem ridiculous to me that people who can only just afford an education can't have access to the internet. Most of the work we are set involves such a comprehensive view of the subject that a library wouldn't suffice. Mention of the homeless having internet is a pisspoor way to invite argument.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

So you're *entitled* to luxuries now?

Nevermind things like health care or food or clean housing or public schooling - the INTERNET is now a god-given, national right!

Not at all my sweet. My point being that people who require it for something they are paying for have limited access to it. You pay £1200 for a course and then say that, although pretty much required, the internet is a luxury.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I could bum libraries 'til the sun went down. But it's a sad fact that education has melded assignments into online activities. People take these courses with a view of getting something more out of life than their low-wage jobs, only to discover they need the internet to do such a thing. I'm on a course with people who aren't as fortunate as to have savings, such as I do, who find that parts of their coursework involve tasks that are specifically based on educational websites.

Most amazing jew boots

Aye, your first point is valid.

Your second, however... how is someone who isn't born of rich parents meant to pay for software that is vital to the course? I could mention a huge amount of music software that costs £300 a piece for some courses, but you get my point. Yes they still tax television. But your post makes you seem to assume that everyone *has* a television. Are you saying that education is only for the rich?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Lehah: My disagreement with the law that has been passed goes beyond education. But in relation to your post, take Starf**kers's post into account. There is bias towards people who can afford better equipment, and no kind of monetary aid to those who don't have that option. It's a skewed system, and they don't expect people to take advantage of file sharing because of it?

So people who are poor should stay poor because they can't afford something better? Yeah, I'm warming to you Lehah, really warming to you. How else are people meant to better themselves, move further in society, other than through education? It's the only feasible way to get a decent job these days. Those are some great first-world ethics you've got.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It's an undeniable fact over here. To hell with your accusations of my lack of real world experience; it's through my real world experiences I've come to this conclusion. I wouldn't be so pig-headed as to wave such opinions around without the aforementioned to back it up.

Yes, I've known people who have been in industries which allow them to move on to better and greater things without formal education. But there are certain jobs that don't allow for such proclivities. Education is the only way up in those circumstances, and there are too many variables in such a situation to make education a feasible financial option for everyone.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?