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.

This is pretty bad.

And you guys make fun of American politicians for having $$$ lined pockets HAH!

How ya doing, buddy?

Just wait till the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which your President has designated as a top-secret matter of national security, is finalized in 2010.

Why, your politicians will have "no choice" but to amend the laws to implement the treaty, if the existing DMCA laws are not harsh enough

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

Haha, people are getting emo that they have to pay for shit again when some of us working schlubs have been doing it all along.

Nice to see entitlement take one on the chin.

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

Originally Posted by LeHah

Haha, people are getting emo that they have to pay for shit again when some of us working schlubs have been doing it all along.

Nice to see entitlement take one on the chin.

It isn't entirely about that, though. You can be disconnected and/or fined without any proof or evidence that you were illegally filesharing. Also, this particular law involves the Dark Lord Darth Mandelson, the most corrupt man in British politics. God only knows why we haven't got rid of him yet. I'd bring back hanging just for him. And then I'd stake him through the heart, and watch his grave for a week before I'd believe he was dead.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Haha, people are getting emo that they have to pay for shit again when some of us working schlubs have been doing it all along.

Nice to see entitlement take one on the chin.

This is not about entitlement—I see things available without cost and seize the opportunity, legally dubious or not. Being pissed off about such avenues of freedom being legislated against is human nature. It turns out your straw man was made of bricks and it has broken both of your legs and eaten them.

I don't give a toss about most popular music (which is likely what this legislation will apply to if it becomes law); most of the bands I listen to either encourage filesharing or don't give a toss about it. Nonetheless, I shall be writing to my MP.

Most amazing jew boots

Wow, my brothers and I were just talking about this last night over dinner, along with Australia, who is going down the path of China with their own "virtual curtain", and Germany, who will start secretly censoring the internet without letting the public know what has even been censored. Net neutrality is still being threatened in the States, but we actually have it pretty good over here compared to what's going on around of lot of other places.

I'm all for cracking down on blatant piracy, but disguising it as a bill that's supposed to stimulate the British economy is pretty shady. The worst part is the lack of due process when people are accused of file sharing.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Originally Posted by Soluzar

It isn't entirely about that, though. You can be disconnected and/or fined without any proof or evidence that you were illegally filesharing.

Without knowing anything about British politics and without saying I do - its obvious that the logic here is "scare tactic". As what Soluzar said before - "You can be disconnected and/or fined without any proof or evidence that you were illegally filesharing."

Then the point is STOP FILESHARING. Its a legal idea writ large in that if YOU don't stop filesharing, you're gonna fuck someone else and what they're trying to do is punish *everyone* for something a *lot* of people are doing. What, you think going after individual people is going to stop this? You have to cut all the heads off a hydra. YOU do not have the right to steal anyone else's stuff anymore than your neighbor has the right to come into your house and steal your TV because he wants to watch a cricket match tomorrow night.

Not to mention - without knowing anything about the politics over on the other side of the pond, its obvious that the writer of that article is an idiot. He's complaining about a video game rating system, something thats been implemented in America for over a decade and then cries out for the poor people in the UK. What, you're telling me the poor people - the homeless, the ones raising three kids on a single paycheck in a small apartment, the ones who eat bread sandwiches and juice for breakfast are struggling along to make basic ends meet want Internet? Why not give them something they *need*, asshole?

Originally Posted by Krelian

legally dubious or not.

"I obey the law when it suits my needs"

Cute.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by LeHah

"I obey the law when it suits my needs"

Cute.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Without knowing anything about British politics

Originally Posted by LeHah

without knowing anything about the politics over on the other side of the pond

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

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.

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

They can legally host it on their site all they want. Just can't do it over P2P services.

Seems, you know, Obvious BB.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

Lehah, where then, do you stand on musicians who have literally given the go-ahead to download their music for free?

As I see it, there are two types of people in this situation:

1.) Those Who're Already Well Off: David Bowie, Brian Eno, Trent Reznor (ugh) and other talents don't care if you download their music because they already have made their fortune. They don't need you - and yes, by you I mean *YOU* - anymore; if their band dies out or people forget they still have enough money to buy an island somewhere in the pacific. And besides, it makes them look cool with kids, right?

The real, sad truth beyond that though is that no established artist is going to say that without permission from their label. Do you realize how suicidal it would be if some band member dipshit came out and said "Steal out music"? He'd be sued out of existence by whomever owns their label. Do you really think a popular band is going to risk being dumped and then sued by some giant like Warner Bros?

2.) Those Who Haven't Made It And Won't: You in an unsigned band? You looking to make it big? You want to get known and get gigs to play? You're a dime a dozen out there, kiddo - you just want to get known before you can start cashing in and cashing out. So what do you do? Give it away, because Lord knows you don't have enough popularity to make money at this.

And to be honest? Thats fine, thats cool. If you're in some garage band and you're trying to get your name out on college radio and you send out a demo and stick stuff on the internet, whatever. More power to you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

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

Okay? My point still stands. They'd just have to move to hosting it on their website instead. They're welcome to give away their music, you aren't. This isn't complex.

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

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

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.

I love how you attempt to validate stealing with some impossible-to-quantify label of "Shitty". Look, everyone had a mother at some point and that mother loved their child but I guess its okay to rape people anyway, because *you* don't love them, right? Hurr hurr hurr, lets see you get out of that one, Michael Dukakis.

The people who can negotiate what fans pay for the money have the clearance from the label, not the other way around. The label sets the price because everyone from the president down to the guy who's scrubbing out the toilets on third shift need to make a living with music in some form or fashion.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Okay? My point still stands. They'd just have to move to hosting it on their website instead. They're welcome to give away their music, you aren't. This isn't complex.

What if they were adamant about distributing their own files over protocols other than HTTP, Deni? What then?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Krelian

What if they were adamant about distributing their own files over protocols other than HTTP, Deni? What then?

I think you can "what if" this until we're all blue in the face - but can you give me an example of a name artist who has done that? (I am honestly at a loss)

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

Originally Posted by LeHah

I think you can "what if" this until we're all blue in the face - but can you give me an example of a name artist who has done that? (I am honestly at a loss)

Machinae Supremacy
Nine Inch Nails
Anamanaguchi
Radiohead
Devin Townsend
A buddy of mine named David
Every artist who has ever licensed their material under creative commons

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

Originally Posted by Krelian

Machinae Supremacy
Nine Inch Nails
Anamanaguchi
Radiohead
Devin Townsend

Notice how all of the above fall directly into one of the two sets of people I mentioned earlier...

Originally Posted by Krelian

A buddy of mine named David
Every artist who has ever licensed their material under creative commons

...And how the vauge description here is for the rest.

That said though, were they P2P? I'm talking like Napster or Kazaa or whatever it is you kids use these days.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Krelian

What if they were adamant about distributing their own files over protocols other than HTTP, Deni? What then?

Well it's no longer an option. The choice isn't there. I'd like to smoke weed before I get on a job site, but that isn't an option I have now, is it? If I do it, and get caught, I get punished.

So they have to upload it to a webspace. They'll get over it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Well it's no longer an option. The choice isn't there. I'd like to smoke weed before I get on a job site, but that isn't an option I have now, is it? If I do it, and get caught, I get punished.

So they have to upload it to a webspace. They'll get over it.

So people who choose to drink beer have to grab a Sprite. They'll get over it.

So people who want to listen to hip-hop have to listen to trance. They'll get over it.

So people who enjoy playing first-person shooters will have to play platformers. They'll get over it.

So people who want to watch Youtube videos on their telecoms plan will have to pay an extra fifty bucks a month to access certain websites. They'll get over it.

So people who enjoy privacy when they're making a phone call will have to put up with the government listening in on their conversations. They'll get over it.

So people who want to get a job at a country club will have to apply somewhere where they don't only hire whites. They'll get over it.

So people who want to criticise the way their country is being run will face laws against distribution of anti-establishment propaganda. They'll get over it.

So people who want chemotherapy have to get radiotherapy. They'll get over it.

So people who want to marry people of their own gender have to turn heterosexual. They'll get over it.

So people who choose to digitally distribute their artwork in one particular bit order will have to rearrange those individual ones and zeroes and arbitrarily compromise their efficiency. They'll get over it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

That said though, were they P2P? I'm talking like Napster or Kazaa or whatever it is you kids use these days.

Why should such services be treated any differently to protocols like BitTorrent?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

Lehah: First of all, the band I was referencing have no label to moderate such things.

Then your example is completely moot, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

I still agree with the consensus that filesharing is a good thing.

I'm sure you'll feign offense when I call you an idiot because you don't see that coming. And I suppose I should dance around your time-appropriate delicate sensibilities because I hold a more logical, more law abiding and forthright sense of morals? Because you blame the goddamned train that hits you when you refuse to step off the tracks and out of its way, huh?

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

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.

At least you didn't bring up Minority Report because then I'd have lost ALL respect for you. The problem here is very simple: You're complaining about the law when you:

1.) Haven't read it yourself and are depending upon someone else's biased article about it

2.) Have no proper experience with law or lawmaking and thus are unable to interpret this news in a detached fashion.

3.) Are refusing to apply a logical approach to it and are instead investing yourself emotionally in an attempt to make a loud enough call instead of making a smart one.

The first two apply to me too - I am not a lawyer - but I am not the third. Its obvious the law is written the way it is so the vague details can be interpreted by your government on a case by case basis. America goes through this too with people arguing over gun control and the Second Amendment.

Jam it back in, in the dark.