"Legislation to combat internet piracy, including internet bans for persistent illegal file-sharers, has cleared the Lords and now goes to the Commons where it will be rushed through before the general election"
Follow me to see the article
So is this the end for all of us?????????????????
Full Version: Good Bye My U.k. Darksiders
There was a rather naive documentary on BBC Panorama this evening about this bill (highlights)
(and how to avoid getting caught by the net-rozzers - here)
*
* em, I say !
(and how to avoid getting caught by the net-rozzers - here)
*
* em, I say !
I've just finished watching a BBC TV program about the ramifications of this: Panorama: Are the net police coming for you?
Here's the iplayer link for those who can access it when it becomes available.
Edit: Charnel beat me to it
Here's the iplayer link for those who can access it when it becomes available.
Edit: Charnel beat me to it
I wonder which Member of Parliament will be the first to get disconnected 
It looks like a precursor for attaching the ACTA crap later on -- it's only a matter of time before your webcam is used as a CCTV camera too
It looks like a precursor for attaching the ACTA crap later on -- it's only a matter of time before your webcam is used as a CCTV camera too
Louis Walsh can go away lol. Best dl loadsa stuff now before they pass it I guess 
EDIT - Sorry bout that, I just really hate Louis Walsh :S
EDIT - Sorry bout that, I just really hate Louis Walsh :S
QUOTE (ADL_242 @ Mar 15 2010, 11:49 PM) 
it's only a matter of time before your webcam is used as a CCTV camera too
nothing a bit of black electrical tape over lens wont fix.
QUOTE (ADL_242 @ Mar 15 2010, 09:49 PM)
it's only a matter of time before your webcam is used as a CCTV camera too
Some people haveall ready tried.
I'm still of the opinion that this contravenes some european law. What I'm more concerned about is some of the powers that my potentially censor the web, under the guise of protecting copyright holders certain websites could be banned from view.
These people are idiots.
i hate this why can they just leave us the **** alone 
Time to start signing petitions and making a general nuisance. Get noticed, make their lives hard work. 
QUOTE (Badog @ Mar 15 2010, 11:02 PM)
Time to start signing petitions and making a general nuisance. Get noticed, make their lives hard work.
Unfortunatley we all know what happens to petitions that are not popular with political goals mate...Did I just hear a shredder start up?
But Nuisence I can do...
sounds very similar to a few more bills that have been passed
by the labour gang of crooks,thieves and scoundrels.
fingers crossed for you back in the UK.
would a seed box help???
download your file to a seedbox,rename it and then
let it trickle in to your pc.
how the hell will they know what is in the file???
also i have just read bits of the bill at parliament.co.uk
and they have not made any decision on cyber cafes,hotels
or wifi hotspots.
as it read,it will all come out in the wash and ofcom can
make the call.
i wonder if all MP's,families alike are exempt from this??
by the labour gang of crooks,thieves and scoundrels.
fingers crossed for you back in the UK.
would a seed box help???
download your file to a seedbox,rename it and then
let it trickle in to your pc.
how the hell will they know what is in the file???
also i have just read bits of the bill at parliament.co.uk
and they have not made any decision on cyber cafes,hotels
or wifi hotspots.
as it read,it will all come out in the wash and ofcom can
make the call.
i wonder if all MP's,families alike are exempt from this??
When will they learn, we are a massive, decently educated, international group with a long long history of overcoming every hurdle they throw in front of us. All these new laws in the works are no more effective than the last 10 they passed. Under all this legal attention from governments and not to mention the doings of a few industry organizations our numbers grow every day.
Every time they pass a law somewhere pirates, everywhere, not just in the country the law passed in, start working on ways to get around it. If you take a look at the video and audio technology on the web today, a serious chunk of this innovation can be directly credited to pirates. We are always on the front lines of innovation, always reaching not to just stay ahead of the law but always how do we do it faster bigger better.
U.K. Darksiders, look at all the benefits we may get from your troubles, what new advance in speeds or file type or distribution methods might come out of this besides the obvious jump in internet privacy. the bill hasn't even passed but one part of the process and people are already looking into circumventing it, heck there is already one idea thrown out in this very thread.
If you are seriously wanting to fight these laws, organize and and write petitions but don't send them to the government send them to the Internet Providers. Look at it logically, they have a real stake in this. The politicians and the industry groups come down on the providers for not doing more to stop pirates and the public looks at the providers as a giant Inc. that wants to overcharge them and help the gov spy on them. The sole purpose they do what they do is to make money. From their point of view you have customer A. who looks at web pages and blogs about every thing and may even stream media now an then and you have customer B. who is a pirating little devil that still surfs and streams but also shares files at the same time requiring vast amounts of bandwidth. Whos your favorite customer? I pay $45 a month when the basic and adequate connection only costs $19.99 per month.
They already don't want these new laws so maybe if the customers started openly supporting them en mass the providers would take that as a reason to fight. Ya no "its the will of the people" they want me to make more money.
Now if the IPs don't act or the bill passes any way you could try something old school, figure out which providers are banning the most customers ie helping the government, organize their customers and boycott, if they are the only provider in the area, you might just have to suffer a few months with out the web, if you have more than one IP available figure out the one who is taking the least action and every one switch to them. I would advise some sort of form letter be given to the boycotted provider explaining why they canceled their service and an other letter to be given to the new company when people sign up for the service stating why their company is being chosen.
A few hundred of these cancellations would get their notice a few thousand would have their undivided attention.
Getting the media involved and advertising a web site where all is explained and the form letters can be downloaded would work to reach the customers so it could be started by a small number of people.
Maybe someday the Movie and Music industries will wake up and see that the obvious answer is to stream their content on the internet with commercials, seems to be working for the TV industry so far.
Every time they pass a law somewhere pirates, everywhere, not just in the country the law passed in, start working on ways to get around it. If you take a look at the video and audio technology on the web today, a serious chunk of this innovation can be directly credited to pirates. We are always on the front lines of innovation, always reaching not to just stay ahead of the law but always how do we do it faster bigger better.
U.K. Darksiders, look at all the benefits we may get from your troubles, what new advance in speeds or file type or distribution methods might come out of this besides the obvious jump in internet privacy. the bill hasn't even passed but one part of the process and people are already looking into circumventing it, heck there is already one idea thrown out in this very thread.
If you are seriously wanting to fight these laws, organize and and write petitions but don't send them to the government send them to the Internet Providers. Look at it logically, they have a real stake in this. The politicians and the industry groups come down on the providers for not doing more to stop pirates and the public looks at the providers as a giant Inc. that wants to overcharge them and help the gov spy on them. The sole purpose they do what they do is to make money. From their point of view you have customer A. who looks at web pages and blogs about every thing and may even stream media now an then and you have customer B. who is a pirating little devil that still surfs and streams but also shares files at the same time requiring vast amounts of bandwidth. Whos your favorite customer? I pay $45 a month when the basic and adequate connection only costs $19.99 per month.
They already don't want these new laws so maybe if the customers started openly supporting them en mass the providers would take that as a reason to fight. Ya no "its the will of the people" they want me to make more money.
Now if the IPs don't act or the bill passes any way you could try something old school, figure out which providers are banning the most customers ie helping the government, organize their customers and boycott, if they are the only provider in the area, you might just have to suffer a few months with out the web, if you have more than one IP available figure out the one who is taking the least action and every one switch to them. I would advise some sort of form letter be given to the boycotted provider explaining why they canceled their service and an other letter to be given to the new company when people sign up for the service stating why their company is being chosen.
A few hundred of these cancellations would get their notice a few thousand would have their undivided attention.
Getting the media involved and advertising a web site where all is explained and the form letters can be downloaded would work to reach the customers so it could be started by a small number of people.
Maybe someday the Movie and Music industries will wake up and see that the obvious answer is to stream their content on the internet with commercials, seems to be working for the TV industry so far.
Britain is a police state anyway. Most watched country in the world (cctv). The more they tighten their grip the more people (star systems) will slip through their fingers.
NO, we are an un stopable HORDE! oj lol
but seriously, this could potentially screw up my daily routine haha jokes
i hope somene does something ... soon or it will be too late ...
oj lolbut seriously, this could potentially screw up my daily routine haha jokes
i hope somene does something ... soon or it will be too late ...
Its not looking good, soon we'll have the three strike rule in place, hefty fines, reduced speeds and even suspended Internet accounts for "persistent offenders". It will probably get worse too, I wonder how long it will be before before the government starts handing out prison sentences for file sharing and will the three strike rule ruin an entire households internet access, along with the person accused, yep, probably.
Also another bullshit new legislation (Changes of the digital economy bill or some crap) put forward, will give the secretary of state (Mandelson) the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright. That is BAD news, Mandleson will be able to pass laws without any objection.
Just imagine the bullshit laws they can come up with, they could even force ISPs to track/spy on users (or maybe they can already do that?).
Anonymity is gonna get worse surely. Which really pisses me off, as if its not bad enough already.
I like how France has had similar problems lately and their piracy has increased
Hopefully the same will happen here.
Also another bullshit new legislation (Changes of the digital economy bill or some crap) put forward, will give the secretary of state (Mandelson) the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright. That is BAD news, Mandleson will be able to pass laws without any objection.
Just imagine the bullshit laws they can come up with, they could even force ISPs to track/spy on users (or maybe they can already do that?).
Anonymity is gonna get worse surely. Which really pisses me off, as if its not bad enough already.
I like how France has had similar problems lately and their piracy has increased
Hopefully the same will happen here.
This type of nonsense will be rearing its ugly head here in Australia soon, and little relief is in sight. We have been cursed here with politicians that don't have a clue when it comes to the net. Richard Alston, lauded as the worlds greatest luddite under the previous government has been succeeded bu the current governments Stephen Conroy, who makes Richard look like a benign genius. His proposed internet filter has Australia placed in the same category as some of the world's most oppresive regimes. Meanwhile, under the auspices of the Fair Trade Agreement with the United States we face the spectre of attempts to bring our already reasonably effective copyright law closer to that of the United States.
It is long past time for a far reaching review of the basis of all intellectual property laws to ensure that they are in fact achieving the purposes for which they were originally intended in this far different age. All Western countries have in relatively recent times placed a premium on so-called competition policy. Generally, practices that tend to lessen competition, including especially monopolies, are frowned upon and occasionally something is even done. The most spectacular example I can recall is the forced break-up of AT & T in the United States. Intellectual property laws have always furnished an exception to this emphasis on competition. It is as a general rule necessary to provide rewards and encouragement for innovation and invention. Artists, actors etc. once had to rely upon the benificence of private patrons for the economic freedom to practice their art. Some now depend on the government to fill this role. Copyright, Patent and like laws provide this reward by means of a statutory monopoly.
We should of course look closely at whether granting a statutory monopoly is the best way to provide the required incentive. But we should also look at things like the length for which such statutory monopolies are granted. This is particularly so with Books and Music where the creators of the work get their reward (if very succesful and lucky) by signing their rights away to Record Companies and Publishers. Would books and music cease to exist if the period of their statutory monopoly was significantly reduced. Would Disney really have suffered terribly if Congress had not extended their ownership of Mickey? How about measures for the protection of, for instance, artists from record companies, and authors from publishers? For that matter, is copyright protection of material easily shared on the internet practical at all? Perhaps we can all become patrons of the art for such items by facilitating a system of voluntary donations?
Patent law is similarly problematic. We have seen this with pharmaceuticals, where some developing countries have produced their own cheap drugs in defiance of first world intellectual property laws because such drugs are simply unaffordable. Of course, the drug companies counter that without the protection of patent law and expectation of monopoly the drug would never have been developed. This is a valid argument, but not very comforting to someone dying or suffering because they have no access to this miracle drug. How do we encourage the research and development and keep the resulting products affordable? Can this be done at all?
Times and technology have progressed enormously since intellectual property laws were first introduced. I think it is time to look at a complete redesign of such laws to serve the interests of the community as a whole and not the interests of sectional groups with well funded politial lobbyists.
It is long past time for a far reaching review of the basis of all intellectual property laws to ensure that they are in fact achieving the purposes for which they were originally intended in this far different age. All Western countries have in relatively recent times placed a premium on so-called competition policy. Generally, practices that tend to lessen competition, including especially monopolies, are frowned upon and occasionally something is even done. The most spectacular example I can recall is the forced break-up of AT & T in the United States. Intellectual property laws have always furnished an exception to this emphasis on competition. It is as a general rule necessary to provide rewards and encouragement for innovation and invention. Artists, actors etc. once had to rely upon the benificence of private patrons for the economic freedom to practice their art. Some now depend on the government to fill this role. Copyright, Patent and like laws provide this reward by means of a statutory monopoly.
We should of course look closely at whether granting a statutory monopoly is the best way to provide the required incentive. But we should also look at things like the length for which such statutory monopolies are granted. This is particularly so with Books and Music where the creators of the work get their reward (if very succesful and lucky) by signing their rights away to Record Companies and Publishers. Would books and music cease to exist if the period of their statutory monopoly was significantly reduced. Would Disney really have suffered terribly if Congress had not extended their ownership of Mickey? How about measures for the protection of, for instance, artists from record companies, and authors from publishers? For that matter, is copyright protection of material easily shared on the internet practical at all? Perhaps we can all become patrons of the art for such items by facilitating a system of voluntary donations?
Patent law is similarly problematic. We have seen this with pharmaceuticals, where some developing countries have produced their own cheap drugs in defiance of first world intellectual property laws because such drugs are simply unaffordable. Of course, the drug companies counter that without the protection of patent law and expectation of monopoly the drug would never have been developed. This is a valid argument, but not very comforting to someone dying or suffering because they have no access to this miracle drug. How do we encourage the research and development and keep the resulting products affordable? Can this be done at all?
Times and technology have progressed enormously since intellectual property laws were first introduced. I think it is time to look at a complete redesign of such laws to serve the interests of the community as a whole and not the interests of sectional groups with well funded politial lobbyists.
QUOTE (Dav13s @ Mar 15 2010, 06:21 PM)
Louis Walsh can go away lol. Best dl loadsa stuff now before they pass it I guess
EDIT - Sorry bout that, I just really hate Louis Walsh :S
EDIT - Sorry bout that, I just really hate Louis Walsh :S
I like the Thundercats Sig Dav they were the sh@@
USA will be following soon havent got a chence to read up on this, but its a shame, just anothre way to dictate and control the peoples lifes. It will only get worse and worse until its put to a stop. Its terrible good luck.
QUOTE (macjd527 @ Mar 17 2010, 12:02 PM)
I like the Thundercats Sig Dav they were the sh@@
You mean my avatar? It's Inspector Gadget, but yeah, ThunderCats were the bomb lol.
Said it before and i will say it again. The only thing that will happen is that the whole file sharing goes underground. The BBS will return and swapping will become the fashion again. Piracy can not be stopped it's a counterwight. A balance that excists.
QUOTE (Dav13s @ Mar 17 2010, 12:02 PM)
You mean my avatar? It's Inspector Gadget, but yeah, ThunderCats were the bomb lol.
oh yea lol it is it made me think of thundercats haha
For those interested the Bill is under it's second reading right now in parliament, a LOT of MP's are against it for varying reasons. You can watch the debate on BBC parliament.
It goes to committee reading and third reading (final vote) tomorrow in what is known as the 'Wash Up' of rushed post dissolution legislation.
It goes to committee reading and third reading (final vote) tomorrow in what is known as the 'Wash Up' of rushed post dissolution legislation.
aww man so do you think we're screwed lol
Screwed.. not again..need a drink now... then again...we will find a way.. hopefully
not again..need a drink now... then again...we will find a way.. hopefully
The Bill passed it's second reading, in-spite of large scale opposition from MP's. (Their main argument was not that they oppose the bill, but rather they oppose the fact that it is being rushed through parliament).
The Bill faces it's committee and third reading today.
The Bill faces it's committee and third reading today.
Sorry for the double post, But this Bill has passed it's third reading and is on it's way to become law.
I am not happy. I like twoplus have been emailing my MP with regards to this, not just in the law it enacts but by the very contempt for parliamentary scrutiny that the government has shown parliament for giving the commons a total of only 3 hours TOTAL to debate the bill.
All I can say is thank god the labour party are on the way out. Just wish we could vote out that slime ball Mandelson!
I am not happy. I like twoplus have been emailing my MP with regards to this, not just in the law it enacts but by the very contempt for parliamentary scrutiny that the government has shown parliament for giving the commons a total of only 3 hours TOTAL to debate the bill.
All I can say is thank god the labour party are on the way out. Just wish we could vote out that slime ball Mandelson!
holy crap are you kidding me... it passed??? so how are they gonna be catching me and what are the punishments
QUOTE (tor-angel @ Apr 8 2010, 09:49 PM)
holy crap are you kidding me... it passed??? so how are they gonna be catching me and what are the punishments
It's your standard Three-strikes policy. They can disconnect your internet. Not only that, but the Secretary of State has been given the power to make ISP's ban access to sites that host copyrighted material for download.
But there is still hope, TalkTalk have said that they will not comply with the bills orders and will refuse to give details of account holders to copyright holders, they will take them to court first.
Here's a link to the story on the telegraph,
and here's a link to the story on the Metro.
What I can't get over is how this important violation of the democratic process is being ignored by the mainstream media. It really grinds my gears
Just goes to show how un-democratic our country is! I'm so angry that this has gone through.
We can only speculate why the 'The Baron Of Foy' was in such a hurry to get this Bill passed into law.
Maybe during his recent junketing trip to the US, he had an offer he couldn't refuse?
Maybe during his recent junketing trip to the US, he had an offer he couldn't refuse?
I suspect you're probably right, this is all about the money not the principals.
All this stems from a dinner He had with David Geffen, the billionaire producer who co-founded the DreamWorks studio with Steven Spielberg. in 2009 In Corfu..I guess its all Nisakimans' Fault for not taking this guy out while he was there
^^^Yeah Like thats ever going to happen
I really Believe that mandelson is one of THE most dangerous Men in the world..If he can "FORCE" a bill like this through parliament with only 3 hours debate what will happen if he gets his teeth into something even more connected with our Liberties and freedoms?..
What I find Incredible is that the media is letting this Breeze through with out one piece in the mainstream newspapers..But I guess they have been told to leave it alone or their printing presses might just grind to a halt.!..God I really hate politicians..Scum of the earth these people..
Linky
QUOTE (linky)
David Davies, the Conservative MP, said last night: “It does seem a remarkable coincidence. Peter Mandelson should be forced to reveal the full extent of his meetings with wealthy friends on holiday and, in the name of openness, disclose exactly what they discussed.”
^^^Yeah Like thats ever going to happen
I really Believe that mandelson is one of THE most dangerous Men in the world..If he can "FORCE" a bill like this through parliament with only 3 hours debate what will happen if he gets his teeth into something even more connected with our Liberties and freedoms?..
What I find Incredible is that the media is letting this Breeze through with out one piece in the mainstream newspapers..But I guess they have been told to leave it alone or their printing presses might just grind to a halt.!..God I really hate politicians..Scum of the earth these people..
Linky
QUOTE (knightron @ Apr 9 2010, 12:41 PM)
What I find Incredible is that the media is letting this Breeze through with out one piece in the mainstream newspapers..But I guess they have been told to leave it alone or their printing presses might just grind to a halt.!..God I really hate politicians..Scum of the earth these people..
Linky
Linky
I know what you mean. I was watching the coverage of the day that Gordon Brown dissolved parliament. As they were following the motorcade as it was heading away from No. 10 the BBC presenter asked a woman 'expert' next to him "Is there any important bills remaining before parliament?' and the woman responded "No nothing important, there is a bill that will cover internet piracy issues but nothing major'
I almost threw something at the television.
None of the Major parties have won my vote because none of them stopped it. Only 20+ MPs actually debated the bill, but 200 VOTED on it. My own MP despite of me raising my concerns and her telling me she would 'Watch the Bill closely" voted IN FAVOR of it.
I'm sorry for all the capital emphasis, I'm just so angry. Democracy is dead, and has been for a long time. Mandy worries me deeply and we can't get rid of the S***.
Bring on an electable house of lords, though he will probably wrangle a way to stay in there.
Don`t appologize for emphesis mate ..Political scum buckets like this n00b are enough to make a Vicar swear!
Peter Mandelson has been proved a Liar many many times and no doubt will be again! although nothing will happen to him hes' a real rat bag
Peter Mandelson has been proved a Liar many many times and no doubt will be again! although nothing will happen to him hes' a real rat bag
QUOTE (knightron @ Apr 9 2010, 02:41 PM)
All this stems from a dinner He had with David Geffen, the billionaire producer who co-founded the DreamWorks studio with Steven Spielberg. in 2009 In Corfu..I guess its all Nisakimans' Fault for not taking this guy out while he was there
Had I known he was here, I probably would have tried!
I can't stand the sneaky devious b*stard. It surprises me not at all that he's behind this bill. He epitomises everything that is wrong with nulab. I don't think UK has ever suffered such an illiberal, authoritarian government. They have created a new crime every day since 1997. Linky
On the positive side however, I think this bill will prove largely unworkable. How will they deal with an apartment block with an internal wireless network? They can hardly demand that the ISP denies access to the whole building because someone has been filesharing.
Thank heaven for Greece. They have other priorities here, like how not to go bankrupt!
So....How did your MP Vote?
My didn't appear to have voted, but then my MP is Elliot Morley
QUOTE (nisakiman @ Apr 9 2010, 05:09 PM)
Thank heaven for Greece. They have other priorities here, like how not to go bankrupt!
The ironic thing is, that's exactly what the UK government should be concentrating on rather then looking after huge media companies interests.
It scares me that they can rush through such an important bill without proper scrutiny.
Do they really think that it will work? I watched the 'debate' on the TV and was appalled at the lack of knowledge for the internet and the technology behind it. I understand that they aren't experts, but surely that should have been enough for them to realise that they needed more time to understand what they were pushing through? Apparently you just need to password protect your wireless connection and that will stop anyone from accessing it... uh-huh. Idiots.
It is a sad day for the UK as we will start to see wifi spots disappear and grandparents being disconnected. I work at a university where a few thousand students have access to the internet. How will we be affected if just one student downloads something illegally? Will the whole uni lose the internet?
It's just a load of bollox! I hope the pirate party get enough votes. http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
Time to get a VPN.
Do they really think that it will work? I watched the 'debate' on the TV and was appalled at the lack of knowledge for the internet and the technology behind it. I understand that they aren't experts, but surely that should have been enough for them to realise that they needed more time to understand what they were pushing through? Apparently you just need to password protect your wireless connection and that will stop anyone from accessing it... uh-huh. Idiots.
It is a sad day for the UK as we will start to see wifi spots disappear and grandparents being disconnected. I work at a university where a few thousand students have access to the internet. How will we be affected if just one student downloads something illegally? Will the whole uni lose the internet?
It's just a load of bollox! I hope the pirate party get enough votes. http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
Time to get a VPN.
so for when this comes in... how can i avoid being caught? 
Basically Tor its not going to be much different from now.....Except..*Takes deep Breath*
ISP's will be required By LAW to give your Information to the relevant authorities if asked by Copyright lawyers,At the moment they are not required to do so unless they are presented with a warrant issued by a magistrate or Judge,
The government will be able to install sniffer programmes on ISP severs to see what you are doing and when you are doing it,They do this now but again Need a warrant otherwise it is not admissable as evidence if you are dragged into court,so If you are suspected of illegally downloading anything they can and will use sniffer programmes to trace and track the Illegal files on your computer without having to come knocking on your door and physically take your computer to prove your Guilt...
It just saves the lazy Bas......eerrrrr people from using good old fasioned Police work..I`m going to make a concerted effort to really reaserch what exactly the impact will be on us that like to share things..I will post what I find... 
ISP's will be required By LAW to give your Information to the relevant authorities if asked by Copyright lawyers,At the moment they are not required to do so unless they are presented with a warrant issued by a magistrate or Judge,
The government will be able to install sniffer programmes on ISP severs to see what you are doing and when you are doing it,They do this now but again Need a warrant otherwise it is not admissable as evidence if you are dragged into court,so If you are suspected of illegally downloading anything they can and will use sniffer programmes to trace and track the Illegal files on your computer without having to come knocking on your door and physically take your computer to prove your Guilt...
It just saves the lazy Bas......eerrrrr people from using good old fasioned Police work..I`m going to make a concerted effort to really reaserch what exactly the impact will be on us that like to share things..I will post what I find...
I think the impact of this legislation is not the actual bill itself, it's going to be in how they use the new powers they have. As with most laws, just cause you do something illegal doesn't mean you're going to end up in court, it will be down to how much resources they throw at it and basically whether they want to see 3/4 of the UK population in a court room.
Many thanks Knightron... and i take it theres nothing i can have to hide from my ISP lol i will keep my eye on this thread 
lol i will keep my eye on this thread
Oh Dear!..Digital Economy Act 2010
Rubber stamped and passed without one single "Normal person"/Non parliamentarian voting for it.....
As I`m reading it ,it says that the government WILL intervene if a service provider refuses to offer information (which was Before protected by the dataprotection act)i.e our Names addresses ) and Legally Oblige the ISP to do so, so the person doing the downloading can be persued by the Police....so from being a civil matter it has now become a criminal matter...Ah well *Packs Prison bag* Looks like I`ll be away for a while then eh....
I would`nt worry too much, as there are only 47 Prison cells left unoccupied in the UK at the moment..the rest are filled with people who have dropped litter and been seen smoking in the Pub...
Rubber stamped and passed without one single "Normal person"/Non parliamentarian voting for it.....
QUOTE (Above link)
Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation Show ENAfter section 124F of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“124G Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation (1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to—
(a) assess whether one or more technical obligations should be imposed on internet service providers;
(b) take steps to prepare for the obligations;
© provide a report on the assessment or steps to the Secretary of State.
(2) A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the internet.
(3) A “technical measure” is a measure that—
(a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;
(b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;
© suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
(d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
(4) A subscriber to an internet access service is “relevant” if the subscriber is a relevant subscriber, within the meaning of section 124B(3), in relation to the provider of the service and one or more copyright owners.
(5) The assessment and steps that the Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to carry out or take under subsection (1) include, in particular—
(a) consultation of copyright owners, internet service providers, subscribers or any other person;
(b) an assessment of the likely efficacy of a technical measure in relation to a particular type of internet access service; and
© steps to prepare a proposed technical obligations code.
(6) Internet service providers and copyright owners must give OFCOM any assistance that OFCOM reasonably require for the purposes of complying with any direction under this section.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any direction under this section.
(8) OFCOM must publish every report under this section—
(a) as soon as practicable after they send it to the Secretary of State, and
(b) in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who, in their opinion, are likely to have an interest in it.
(9) OFCOM may exclude information from a report when it is published under subsection (8) if they consider that it is information that they could refuse to disclose in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
“124G Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation (1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to—
(a) assess whether one or more technical obligations should be imposed on internet service providers;
(b) take steps to prepare for the obligations;
© provide a report on the assessment or steps to the Secretary of State.
(2) A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the internet.
(3) A “technical measure” is a measure that—
(a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;
(b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;
© suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
(d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
(4) A subscriber to an internet access service is “relevant” if the subscriber is a relevant subscriber, within the meaning of section 124B(3), in relation to the provider of the service and one or more copyright owners.
(5) The assessment and steps that the Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to carry out or take under subsection (1) include, in particular—
(a) consultation of copyright owners, internet service providers, subscribers or any other person;
(b) an assessment of the likely efficacy of a technical measure in relation to a particular type of internet access service; and
© steps to prepare a proposed technical obligations code.
(6) Internet service providers and copyright owners must give OFCOM any assistance that OFCOM reasonably require for the purposes of complying with any direction under this section.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any direction under this section.
(8) OFCOM must publish every report under this section—
(a) as soon as practicable after they send it to the Secretary of State, and
(b) in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who, in their opinion, are likely to have an interest in it.
(9) OFCOM may exclude information from a report when it is published under subsection (8) if they consider that it is information that they could refuse to disclose in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
As I`m reading it ,it says that the government WILL intervene if a service provider refuses to offer information (which was Before protected by the dataprotection act)i.e our Names addresses ) and Legally Oblige the ISP to do so, so the person doing the downloading can be persued by the Police....so from being a civil matter it has now become a criminal matter...Ah well *Packs Prison bag* Looks like I`ll be away for a while then eh....
I would`nt worry too much, as there are only 47 Prison cells left unoccupied in the UK at the moment..the rest are filled with people who have dropped litter and been seen smoking in the Pub...
^^^
You hit the nail on the head there Knightron!
Haven't they got anything better to do...?
I despair...
You hit the nail on the head there Knightron!
Haven't they got anything better to do...?
I despair...
Heres another Piece of sh..No better not...
So it looks like everytime I read through that Peice of Toilet paper they call the Digital Economy Act 2010 I find that Mandelson is using Tax payers money to police the internet on Behalf of his friends in the music and film industry
As It says in the first quote."ISP's are now required by law to pass on any infringements they encounter",which basically means they have been instructed to look for them and immediately pass on any possible infringements they come accross.. We may be in a little more trouble than we first thought...
QUOTE (section 4 of the make even more people criminals act 2010)
Obligation to provide infringement lists to copyright owners Hide EN
ISPs have to keep a record of the number of CIRs linked to each subscriber along with a record of which copyright owner sent the report. Under section 124B of the 2003 Act, inserted by section 4, an ISP may be required to provide a copyright owner with relevant parts of those records on request (“copyright infringement lists”), but in an anonymised form so as to ensure compliance with data protection legislation. The code must set the threshold for determining who is a relevant subscriber who may be the subject of a copyright infringement list that the ISP provides to a copyright owner. The threshold may be set by reference to any matter, including the number of CIRs made (see section 7).
45.
A CIR represents a single breach of copyright at a moment in time. Up until now, a copyright owner has had no way of knowing whether the subscriber behind that breach habitually infringes copyright online or whether the breach represents a curious individual trying file-sharing for the first and only time. Because of this, the high costs involved in legal action have deterred copyright owners from enforcing their rights. By allowing copyright owners to target only the most serious repeat infringers, copyright infringement lists provided by ISPs are intended to make legal action a more attractive and effective tool for copyright owners to use in respect of their copyright.
46.
The lists will be made available to copyright owners on request in an anonymised form. For example, while a list might (for example) identify subscriber 936 as being linked to the most CIRs, it would not include any personal information about subscriber 936. In order to get this personal data, the copyright owner would need a court order. However, the list would allow the copyright owner to identify subscriber 936 as someone against whom legal action may be appropriate.
ISPs have to keep a record of the number of CIRs linked to each subscriber along with a record of which copyright owner sent the report. Under section 124B of the 2003 Act, inserted by section 4, an ISP may be required to provide a copyright owner with relevant parts of those records on request (“copyright infringement lists”), but in an anonymised form so as to ensure compliance with data protection legislation. The code must set the threshold for determining who is a relevant subscriber who may be the subject of a copyright infringement list that the ISP provides to a copyright owner. The threshold may be set by reference to any matter, including the number of CIRs made (see section 7).
45.
A CIR represents a single breach of copyright at a moment in time. Up until now, a copyright owner has had no way of knowing whether the subscriber behind that breach habitually infringes copyright online or whether the breach represents a curious individual trying file-sharing for the first and only time. Because of this, the high costs involved in legal action have deterred copyright owners from enforcing their rights. By allowing copyright owners to target only the most serious repeat infringers, copyright infringement lists provided by ISPs are intended to make legal action a more attractive and effective tool for copyright owners to use in respect of their copyright.
46.
The lists will be made available to copyright owners on request in an anonymised form. For example, while a list might (for example) identify subscriber 936 as being linked to the most CIRs, it would not include any personal information about subscriber 936. In order to get this personal data, the copyright owner would need a court order. However, the list would allow the copyright owner to identify subscriber 936 as someone against whom legal action may be appropriate.
QUOTE (as above)
5 Approval of code about the initial obligations
The obligations provided for in new sections 124A and 124B will not have effect until there is a complementary code in force that has been approved or made by OFCOM.
48.
Section 5 inserts new section 124C in the 2003 Act. This section sets out the requirements for OFCOM’s approval of a code regulating matters in connection with the initial obligations. The process by which infringements are detected, the standard of evidence that the copyright owner must meet before an ISP must send a notification, the format of CIRs, and the routes of appeal for subscribers are all issues of detail that section 124C requires the code to deal with. The government hopes that all stakeholders (ISPs, copyright owners and consumers) will contribute to the development of an industry code. Other criteria that an approved industry code may specify include setting in advance the number of CIRs the ISPs will be expected to process in a given period (say, six months).
49.
Without these criteria, there would be no obligation for copyright owners to provide infringement information in a standard format and no protection for ISPs in the event that copyright owners set extremely high levels of expected CIRs.
50.
The government also envisages that any approved code will also set out the time a copyright owner has to submit a CIR (so that a CIR must relate to a recent infringement) and the time the ISP has to act on the CIR and send a notification to the subscriber (for example, 5 working days) within the outer limits of one month set by the legislation.
51.
The government’s intention is for the obligations to fall on all ISPs except those who are demonstrated to have a very low level of online infringement. This is on the basis that it would be disproportionate (in cost terms) to require an ISP to incur significant costs to counter a problem that does not exist to any significant degree on its network. The proposal is therefore for the code to set out qualifying threshold criteria, based on the number of CIRs an ISP receives in a set period of time. The government anticipates that most small and medium-sized ISPs and, possibly, the mobile networks would fall under the threshold. However, this exemption would not be a one-off exercise and the qualifying period would be a rolling one (for example, “x” number of CIRs received in a rolling 3 month period). ISPs would need to ensure online infringement of copyright remained at a low level or else face the prospect of passing the qualifying threshold. Once in scope, ISPs would have to comply with the obligations and to continue to do so even if the number of CIRs later fell below the threshold.
52.
In order to ensure that any industry code covered all the necessary areas and to a sufficient standard, OFCOM’s approval would be needed before the code could come into force. The Secretary of State’s consent to the approval would be required.
53.
Before approving a code, OFCOM must carry out consultation. Under section 124C of the 2003 Act and section 124E of that Act (which is inserted by section 7), OFCOM would also need to satisfy themselves that the code was objectively justifiable, proportionate and transparent.
The obligations provided for in new sections 124A and 124B will not have effect until there is a complementary code in force that has been approved or made by OFCOM.
48.
Section 5 inserts new section 124C in the 2003 Act. This section sets out the requirements for OFCOM’s approval of a code regulating matters in connection with the initial obligations. The process by which infringements are detected, the standard of evidence that the copyright owner must meet before an ISP must send a notification, the format of CIRs, and the routes of appeal for subscribers are all issues of detail that section 124C requires the code to deal with. The government hopes that all stakeholders (ISPs, copyright owners and consumers) will contribute to the development of an industry code. Other criteria that an approved industry code may specify include setting in advance the number of CIRs the ISPs will be expected to process in a given period (say, six months).
49.
Without these criteria, there would be no obligation for copyright owners to provide infringement information in a standard format and no protection for ISPs in the event that copyright owners set extremely high levels of expected CIRs.
50.
The government also envisages that any approved code will also set out the time a copyright owner has to submit a CIR (so that a CIR must relate to a recent infringement) and the time the ISP has to act on the CIR and send a notification to the subscriber (for example, 5 working days) within the outer limits of one month set by the legislation.
51.
The government’s intention is for the obligations to fall on all ISPs except those who are demonstrated to have a very low level of online infringement. This is on the basis that it would be disproportionate (in cost terms) to require an ISP to incur significant costs to counter a problem that does not exist to any significant degree on its network. The proposal is therefore for the code to set out qualifying threshold criteria, based on the number of CIRs an ISP receives in a set period of time. The government anticipates that most small and medium-sized ISPs and, possibly, the mobile networks would fall under the threshold. However, this exemption would not be a one-off exercise and the qualifying period would be a rolling one (for example, “x” number of CIRs received in a rolling 3 month period). ISPs would need to ensure online infringement of copyright remained at a low level or else face the prospect of passing the qualifying threshold. Once in scope, ISPs would have to comply with the obligations and to continue to do so even if the number of CIRs later fell below the threshold.
52.
In order to ensure that any industry code covered all the necessary areas and to a sufficient standard, OFCOM’s approval would be needed before the code could come into force. The Secretary of State’s consent to the approval would be required.
53.
Before approving a code, OFCOM must carry out consultation. Under section 124C of the 2003 Act and section 124E of that Act (which is inserted by section 7), OFCOM would also need to satisfy themselves that the code was objectively justifiable, proportionate and transparent.
So it looks like everytime I read through that Peice of Toilet paper they call the Digital Economy Act 2010 I find that Mandelson is using Tax payers money to police the internet on Behalf of his friends in the music and film industry
As It says in the first quote."ISP's are now required by law to pass on any infringements they encounter",which basically means they have been instructed to look for them and immediately pass on any possible infringements they come accross.. We may be in a little more trouble than we first thought...
mmm ^^^^ lots of words up there and I have not read them all.
Now don't have a Web Cam and or disconnect it when not in use "ie up plug it "der if you comps on and they hack it then they can turn anything on, haven't you seen NCIS for heaven sakes.
Now don't have a Web Cam and or disconnect it when not in use "ie up plug it "der if you comps on and they hack it then they can turn anything on, haven't you seen NCIS for heaven sakes.
Been following this post for a while now and it doesn't look good at all.....was good while it lasted though!!
Thanks Knigs and Reqium for keeping us updated.
and a big huge thank you to LORD MANDELSON....What a guy eh!!!!
Another question guys...how does this so called "ACT" affect those with a rapidshare account ??? can they still be caught sharing copyrighted material?
Thanks Knigs and Reqium for keeping us updated.
and a big huge thank you to LORD MANDELSON....What a guy eh!!!!
Another question guys...how does this so called "ACT" affect those with a rapidshare account ??? can they still be caught sharing copyrighted material?
Thanks for your analysis Knight! Though I must confess, it has made me more depressed
I don't understand how this is going unnoticed by the mainstream. They want to use tax payers money for work for the media industry. It's just care faced cheek.
I hate politicians, they so rarely think of the people and more so about themselves.
My only hope here is the logistics. With an estimated 7 million people downloading in the UK (and with so many not being made aware of this legislation) then that is a lot of pressure for the ISP to monitor. That will lead to a large amount of reports being sent from the ISP's of potential infringement that will reduce the system to a stall.
My hope is that it is not practically feasible.
I don't understand how this is going unnoticed by the mainstream. They want to use tax payers money for work for the media industry. It's just care faced cheek.
I hate politicians, they so rarely think of the people and more so about themselves.
My only hope here is the logistics. With an estimated 7 million people downloading in the UK (and with so many not being made aware of this legislation) then that is a lot of pressure for the ISP to monitor. That will lead to a large amount of reports being sent from the ISP's of potential infringement that will reduce the system to a stall.
My hope is that it is not practically feasible.
So people it's time to turn encryption on forced and don't allow any open connections, stop jumping on new torrents
Also i have turned off my wireless key and told an ex she can park outside and use it any time.
Anyone else got thoughts on what to do?
Also i have turned off my wireless key and told an ex she can park outside and use it any time.
Anyone else got thoughts on what to do?
If you get your ipaddress harvested just tell them you collect ascii art for a hobby and you only download the nfo files.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.