[Nottingham] Digital Economy Bill ("Digital Rights"...)

[Jim Moore]

oh, man, I have /so/ been waiting for a post like this for so long
it's made my head hurt!

This goes a LOT deeper than copyright legislation interfering with
civil liberties, it's a LOT deeper than terrorism legislation, it's a
LOT deeper than "policing pledges". This is about ongoing treason.
That's all I'll say on list (or on email for that matter). I'll be
happy to give a talk but not in the usual place, arrangements offlist
and at a time to suit as many people as possible.

On 12/17/09, Martin <martin at ml1.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This is one to chase up for anyone that uses networks, for good, bad, or
> evil, or whatever.
>
> Just one aspect is that apparently it would in effect make WiFi hotspots
> unsupportable...
>
> Is this another push by the media industry to "extend" their influence?
> Do we next get roadblocks in case of where we are going or what we might
> be carrying?...
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> #####
> Subject: Digital Economy Bill
> From: Katie Sutton <katie at tajasel.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:58:52 +0000
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I hope you don't mind me contacting you; I work for the Open Rights
> Group, and we're currently campaigning against the Digital Economy
> Bill - specifically the clauses which allow for disconnection without
> fair trial and for the secretary of business (currently Peter
> Mandelson) to change copyright law without putting it to Parliament
> first.  We're hoping to get LUGs around the country involved with the
> campaign, and I was hoping that you could pass on this message to
> email lists around the UK, rather than my cold-emailing them all
> myself.
>
> Many believe we are defending copyright infringement: to clear this
> up, we are not.  ORG's concerns with this Bill have nothing to do with
> civil copyright infringement, except that attempts to deal with
> infringement are threatening to erode our basic human rights.  We
> support copyright, but believe that it should never be placed above
> our civil liberties.
>
> ORG's stance on the Digital Economy Bill is simple: any law which
> proposes unreasonable punishments which would be dealt out to anyone
> suspected of copyright infringement with no proof at all is as unfair
> as it is possible to get.
>
> Disconnection is a disproportionate punishment, especially when given
> to families or businesses rather than the individual perpetrator, and
> could have severe consequences, putting people’s jobs, businesses or
> education at risk.  To put this into perspective, if a child is
> suspected of shoplifting, it would be terribly unfair to ban an entire
> family from the town centre without any evidence - yet this is quite
> similar to what the bill proposes.
>
> Additionally, disconnection could mean the end of WiFi hotspots, which
> provide accessible Internet to the public, by making owners of the
> connection liable for any copyright infringement that occurs, even if
> they didn't commit it themselves.
>
> We also believe that nobody should be allowed to change these laws
> without Parliamentary debate (Clause 17), that censorship is wrong
> (Clause 11) and that our personal data should not be used to aid
> copyright enforcement agencies, especially when that data was
> originally collected for another purpose entirely.
>
> The fact is that our concerns with this Bill have nothing to do with
> civil copyright infringement, except that attempts to deal with
> infringement are threatening to  erode our basic rights.
>
> We're asking UK citizens to get in touch with their MP and explain to
> them how unfair this is, and possibly to meet them at one of their
> surgeries to discuss the specific problematic points of the bill in
> detail.  Talking to MPs is a much needed step because, whilst over
> 30,000 people have signed ORG's petition against disconnection (which
> can be found at http://bit.ly/dontdisconnect), we recognise that a
> petition doesn't go far enough.  It's worked in that people are now
> talking about it in the media and to their friends and families, but
> we know we need to push the campaign forwards and persuade the people
> who will actually be voting either for or against the proposals.
>
> ORG believes that visits and letters from voters will help change the
> minds of MPs currently for the proposals; our representatives will
> then see that people care about their rights and, as their duty is to
> vote in accordance with constituents' opinions, we hope that they will
> then oppose the Bill.
>
> Any help is appreciated.  For further information or help with talking
> to their MP, list members can contact me - katie at openrightsgroup.org -
> and I'll do my best to help.  The only thing we can't do is the
> talking, as MPs will only talk to their own constituents - will you
> help us fight this battle for our rights, and do the talking?
>
>
> --
> Katie Sutton
> Digital Economy Bill campaigner
> katie at openrightsgroup.org
> http://www.openrightsgroup.org
> #####
>
> --
> ----------------
> Martin Lomas
> martin at ml1.co.uk
> ----------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nottingham mailing list
> Nottingham at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham


-- 
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici