Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fine, I've tried Gordon, I really did.

I wanted to like you pack of gaks, I wanted to support you, despite you and your predecessor's policies and bills not resembling what I was expecting of the Labour Party. This goes too far, this and the creature behind it, Peter Mandelson, the habitual comeback kid, and the insidious erosion of internet anonymity and personal privacy are the reasons that, given the opportunity to deny a 'New' Labour seat, I will break the promise I made myself at 18.

I will vote Tory... And a pox on your house.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/05/digital-economy-bill-pushed-through

Kind of along the lines of betrayal we had here in Americuh when Bush Senior said "No new Taxes" and "Jeb Bush in '00."

But seriously; you would think that they didn't have to go that far as to deny people web access and shut down websites. What is it like over there now that news has broken that they this piece of legislation is going to pass?

As with all these 'little erosions', it's not widely realised. This bill is running quietly along in the background and the massed majority don't really get the further implications that it will create.

If voting Tory is what it takes to get this thing dropped, I think it counts as a necessary evil.

Any chance of a quote from the article so those of us cursed with work can see the latest erosion of freedom commited by Labour?

"The digital economy bill will become law before Parliament is dissolved at the beginning of April ahead of a likely general election in May, senior media industry figures believe.

That will usher in controversial laws enabling rights owners to cut off or restrict internet access for users who download films and music illegally.

The bill contains measures designed to combat piracy. If it becomes law it will compel internet service providers including Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media to pass on information about persistent offenders to rights holders.

It is currently in the House of Lords and about to get its third reading, when peers get the chance to table final amendments to the legislation.

One of the most contentious parts of the controversial digital economy bill was voted down by the House of Lords – only to be replaced by a clause that campaigners say is even more draconian. The Liberal Democrats forced through a surprise amendment to the bill's notorious clause 17. Instead of new powers that threatened sweeping alterations to British copyright law, the Lib Dems added a clause that gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright-infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.

After the Lords, the bill will then go the House of Commons in a fortnight's time. If it proceeds to its second reading by early April, when an election is widely expected to be called, it could enter the statute book before parliament rises.

After an election is called, the Commons and the Lords normally spend a few days passing legislation that has not finished its passage through parliament in a process known as the "wash up". At this stage the government can only get measures through with opposition support and bills, or clauses of bills, that are opposed by the Tories will almost certainly be dropped.

One senior industry source said: "The government deserves credit for pushing through a proposal that is not a votewinner. They recognise that the creative industries are a huge asset for the country."

The Conservatives have said they will torpedo the bill unless the government reverses a bid to push through "independently financed news consortia", which will make regional news to be shown on ITV1, and ministers are likely to have to drop these provisions from the bill if they want to get the rest of it on to the statute book."

The bill contains measures designed to combat piracy. If it becomes law it will compel internet service providers including Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media to pass on information about persistent offenders to rights holders.

...and not quite as bad, but still...

The Liberal Democrats forced through a surprise amendment to the bill's notorious clause 17. Instead of new powers that threatened sweeping alterations to British copyright law, the Lib Dems added a clause that gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright-infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.

Bad news for YouTube.

The sooner I leave this malady-ridden island, the happier I will be. We have fallen so very far from grace.

This bill will be talked out, it hasnt got enough parliamentary time.

Another fail for Labour and more proof that 13 years of new labour has sent this country further down the pan.
Instead of addressing why there are issues with piracy, and making the music and media industries take note they have pandered to their donors and are trying to win votes by producing a bill which aids creaky old laws and makes middle class england feel a bit better (but they wont know why).

It only even got proposed because Mandelson is such big buddies with media multimillionaires.

Liarbour seem to be hell bent on losing the next election. It seems everytime they have a resurgence against the Tories they go and feth it up with some ridiculous idea or another.

The latest gem is that ALL dog owners should have an insurance policy to protect against getting sued if another person or dog is bitten. For feths sake instead of locking up the chav scum who keep, breed and train these dangerous dogs for the purposes of fighting and intimidation, the government take the week option and decide to penalise ordinary decent people yet again.

The sooner the cyclopean fool is kicked out of power the better and he can take his assorted bunch of useless feth wipes n the cabinet for a long drive on a short road to the cliff edge.

I can't see Dave, Gideon and their Eton pals being any better. It's one of those elections where I want both sides to lose.

Don't worry, Labour will win anyway, because they will rig the polls.

The dog insurance thing is one of their stupider ideas.

Car insurance has failed to prevent chavscum from cruising the streets without a driving licence or insurance cover. Why would they care about a licence for a dog?

Surely this will get bounced by the House of Lords anyway? I don't think Labour can force it through before the election despite what they might think.

Anyway MGS, how come this has tipped you over the edge? Labour have done way more crappier things than this in the last 10 years or so. Or is this the proverbial straw?

Gwar! wrote:Don't worry, Labour will win anyway, because they will rig the polls.

At least they can't do the traditional "keep on putting it to the vote over and over until everyone is fed up with it and stops voting, so the motion is passed by the tiny minority who actually want it".

The dog license is a classic example of trying to legislate society into being a better place. They haven't realised yet that passing a law saying people shouldn't do something, doesn't actually stop them from doing it.

It's Labours mantra of, 'We say it, therefore it shall be so', and living in their own little world up in the clouds.

There reaches a time in every governments life when it just completely loses touch with reality. Labour reached that point a year ago.

How exactly are they going to prove that music or video was obtained illegally?

Tyyr wrote:How exactly are they going to prove that music or video was obtained illegally?

WarOne wrote:Kind of along the lines of betrayal we had here in Americuh when Bush Senior said "No new Taxes"

That wasn't a betrayal as much as taking a look at the situation and adjusting. It isn't like he wanted to raise taxes and knew it was going to hurt him in the election but it was what had to be done.

Ketara wrote:The dog license is a classic example of trying to legislate society into being a better place. They haven't realised yet that passing a law saying people shouldn't do something, doesn't actually stop them from doing it.

It's Labours mantra of, 'We say it, therefore it shall be so', and living in their own little world up in the clouds.

There reaches a time in every governments life when it just completely loses touch with reality. Labour reached that point a year ago.

I think they lost sight of certain bits of reality when they started introducing all the performance targets for everything.

The latest bit of education news is that schools which were doing well in inspections have suddenly started failing inspections because the inspectors come round the week after a curriculum change, spend an afternoon ticking boxes on a form, and make their report.

This is caused by meta-performance targets. The Inspectors have a performance target as much as the schools do, and theirs is to inspect 200 schools a year each or something.

Labour failed to grasp that performance targets are not an end in themselves.

I didn't read the whole thing, but is the gist of this legislation to punish people for stealing other peoples property?

I mean we do agree that downloading music or films without paying for it, is stealing right?

GG

generalgrog wrote:I didn't read the whole thing, but is the gist of this legislation to punish people for stealing other peoples property?

I mean we do agree that downloading music or films without paying for it, is stealing right?

GG

It's not stealing. Taking a CD from a shop is stealing. Downloading a Song you had no intention of ever buying doesn't actually make anyone lose anything.

Gwar! wrote:
It's not stealing. Taking a CD from a shop is stealing. Downloading a Song you had no intention of ever buying doesn't actually make anyone lose anything.

You got to use something that you normally would have had to pay for, for free

Stealing


GG

edit....not to mention the fact that you are being intelecually dishonest, because we both know that a lot of people download and use the music that they want to listen to and would normally have had to pay for. So this costs the music industry sales revenue. Therefore they do, in fact, lose something.

Flashman wrote:I can't see Dave, Gideon and their Eton pals being any better. It's one of those elections where I want both sides to lose.

Oh this is so true

But if they push this bill through before the election, wont matter who you vote for

Stealing is legally defined in law as deprivation of someone else of their property.

Copying a disc does not deprive the owner of the disc of his property because he still has it.

This is the source of trouble in the whole area of Intellectual Property law.

I'm not condoning copyright violation, it is just important to get the terminology right.

filbert wrote:Anyway MGS, how come this has tipped you over the edge? Labour have done way more crappier things than this in the last 10 years or so. Or is this the proverbial straw?

Indeed it is, seeing Mandy dripping slime and simpering on about the 'poor artists' and how this is 'robbing the food out of their mouths' and 'how much revenue the creative arts makes the UK, revenue that helps pay for education, hospitals etc'... I finally blew a gasket. I have always hated that man, this time I went Mean Machine Angel and all the way to 4.

Tyyr wrote:How exactly are they going to prove that music or video was obtained illegally?

They will force ISPs to provide details of anyone using 'excessive' bandwidth. So, sites visited etc. It is the invasion of privacy I principally object to, and the boundaries this removes for further legislation in the future.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:They will force ISPs to provide details of anyone using 'excessive' bandwidth. So, sites visited etc. It is the invasion of privacy I principally object to, and the boundaries this removes for further legislation in the future.

Indeed. Soon it will be "We need to know who is visiting anti-labour sites because they are a threat to national security" or "Anyone visiting a site hosted in [Enemy of the Week] is obviously a Terrorist!"

And "Excessive Bandwidth" can be anything. I happen to use Bittorrent to help Distibute Linux Clients. Suddenly, I am having my Privacy invaded and treated like a criminal (were I in the UK that is. It's things like this that make me half glad I'm in Ireland).