[dundee] Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

Fri Mar 26 09:51:00 UTC 2010

I think what upsets me most about this is:

1. Mandelson, twice thrown out of government for sleaze, is forced on an
electorate, who wouldn't vote for him to run a school tuck shop, by way of
appointment to the Lords.

2. Said sleazy politician shows no interest in this subject until he has a
nice little holiday courtesy of a music industry mogul.

3. Said sleazy politician comes back from said holiday all fired up about
the uber-criminals that are destroying the British creative arts industry.
Something that this government has done more to damage than any pirate.

It's just all so... sleazy and so illustrative of everything that is wrong
with this Labour government. Roll on the election.

Cheers,
Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dundee-bounces at lists.lug.org.uk [mailto:dundee-
> bounces at lists.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Robert Ladyman
> Sent: 26 March 2010 09:33
> To: davidson.kris at gmail.com; Tayside Linux User Group
> Subject: Re: [dundee] Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill
> 
> One of my favourite games is 'join-the-dots': sometimes one can see
> patterns
> that are hard to see without the lines (or are not there at all, of
> course).
> 
> For instance:-
> 
> * ACTA (copyright) discussions are taking place in secret between
> governments
> and the businesses involved (with the ICO complaining to the government
> about
> that).
> * This new bill seems to benefit those companies' business models over
> the
> rights of individuals
> * Political parties are short of money to fight an election
> * A general election announcement will likely dominate any other event
> (such
> as the forced passing of a bill) to its exclusion from the news.
> 
> Were I of a suspicious nature, or a betting man, I might expect this
> bill to
> be forced through and then, co-incidentally, a general election
> announcement
> be made (or, if you prefer, no election announcement will be made until
> the
> bill is forced through). It would have to be forced because of the
> time-limit
> for elections. I do not, of course, make any suggestions or allegations
> as to
> why this would happen, or if I have drawn real or imagined lines, but
> leave
> that to the reader and the passage of time.
> 
> RJL
> 
> 
> 
> > So a bit of an update on my activities, I've written to my local MP,
> > to my local newspaper and called in favours and markers for everyone
> I
> > know to do the same.:
> >
> > * The letter to the local paper was published in quite prominent
> place
> > (page 4, about the fold, top left quarter)
> > * My local MP John Thurso (Lib Dem) replied and I've posted his reply
> below
> > * I seem to have motivated some others on a local message board to do
> > the same http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=681523
> >
> > I disagree with the first few paragraphs and hes kind of ignored some
> > of my points but he seems to have more knowledge on the subject than
> > most MPs still it does read like a party briefing written by a
> > researcher, plus government could still try and pass it with a 'Rump
> > parliament'.
> >
> > Just wondering what everyones thoughts were, and if anyone else got a
> > reply. I'm guessing its a form letter.
> >
> > ==============================
> > Reply from John Thurso MP (Lib Dem)
> > ==============================
> >
> > Dear [Me],
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much for your recent email about the Digital Economy
> Bill.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a very wide ranging Bill and covers issues such as a new
> remit
> > for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for
> > switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV as
> > well as the issue of illegal downloading.
> >
> > My Party supports the creative industries and believes that many
> > aspects of this Bill are vitally important to the continuing success
> > of our radio, television and content industries. We are also
> concerned
> > about the financial implications of illegal downloading of copyright
> > material and recognise the importance of protecting intellectual
> > property.
> >
> > A report published on the 17th of March 2010 predicted that a quarter
> > of a million jobs in the UK's creative industries could be lost by
> > 2015 if current trends in online piracy continue. Commenting on it
> > Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, said: "The results of
> > the study stress that the growth of unauthorised file-sharing,
> > downloading and streaming of copyrighted works and recorded
> > performances is a major threat to the creative industries in terms of
> > loss of employment and revenues. The scale of the problem is truly
> > frightening now - let alone in the future if no firmm actions are
> > against illegal file-sharing are taken."
> >
> > For those reasons we do believe that some action is needed and must
> > form part of the Digital Economy Bill. However, we have opposed - and
> > helped defeat - goverment proposals (contained in Clause 17) of the
> > original Digital Economy Bill) to give itself almost unfettered
> powers
> > to act against copyright infringement. Further, as a result of
> debates
> > instigated and amendments passed by the Liberal Democrats in the
> > Lords, the government's original proposals  relating to illegal
> > peer-to-peer file-sharing have been significantly improved.
> >
> > As a result, no action to introduce "technical measures" (whether
> > temporary account suspension, bandwidth throttling or whatever) can
> be
> > introduced until:
> >
> > 1. Soft measures (letter writing) have been used;
> >
> > 2. An evaluation of their effectiveness has been undertaken;
> >
> > 3. An evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of,
> > technical measures have been undertaken;
> >
> > 4. Further consultation has taken place;
> >
> > 5. Proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision,
> and
> >
> > 6. There is an explicit assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
> >
> > We remain concerned by some aspects of the system for tackling
> > peer-to-peer file-sharing being introduced in the Bill and will taken
> > further action in the Commons to scrutinise and improve legislation.
> > In particular, we are concerned that there will not be enough time
> for
> > in-depth consultation on the initial code that Ofcom will draw up, We
> > also feel that there is currently inadequate protection in the Bill
> > for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses offering
> > internet access to the public.
> >
> > We are also unconvinced of the merits of the various technical
> > measures that have been proposed, including bandwidth shaping and
> > temporary account suspension. For this reason we have amended the
> Bill
> > to ensure that any such measures cannot be introduced without proper
> > consultation and not until evidence has been produced to prove that
> > this is the best available options. We are further seeking to ensure
> > that any measures brought before parliament will be subjected to the
> > maximum scrutiny in both Houses and that it will be possible for
> > changes to be made to them before a final decision is made.
> >
> > We are urging the creative music, film and video games industries to
> > work more vigorously to develop new business models which will make
> it
> > easier and more affordable for people to legally access their
> > products. We hope that this combined with "soft measures" and an
> > effective education campaign will mean that further action will not
> be
> > required.
> >
> > The Party agreed at our Spring Conference to establish a working
> party
> > to address these issues. With at least a year before there will be
> any
> > attempt to introduce "technical measures" this will provide an
> > opportunity for the party to consider the outcome of research into
> the
> > effectiveness of the early stages of the implementation of the
> > legislation in the Digital Economy Bill.
> >
> > The Billl has now completed all stages in the Lords but cannot
> proceed
> > unless it has as a minimum been debated in a "Second Reading" in the
> > Commons. We believe that many of the measures in the BIll that do not
> > related to illegal file sharing and important and must be allowed to
> > go into law. However, in respect of those that relate to illegal file
> > sharing we will not support them in the Commons if we are not
> > satisfied that the procedures in place are fair and allow for full
> > consultation and scrutiny before their introductions in the future.
> >
> > With very kind regards,
> >
> > John Thurso
> >
> > ==============================
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list
> > dundee at lists.lug.org.uk  http://dundeelug.org.uk
> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee
> > Chat on IRC, #tlug on irc.lug.org.uk
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Robert Ladyman
> File-Away Limited, 32 Church Street, Newtyle
> Perthshire, PH12 8TZ SCOTLAND
> Registered in Scotland, Company Number SC222086
> Tel: +44 (0) 1828 898 158
> Mobile: +44 (0) 7732 771 649
> http://www.file-away.co.uk
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list
> dundee at lists.lug.org.uk  http://dundeelug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee
> Chat on IRC, #tlug on irc.lug.org.uk
> 
> !DSPAM:5,4bac7f39291296705974905!