Updated 10 hours ago

13061 products + 16585 members

Digital Economy Bill sparks mass protest

Consumer rights groups unhappy at Mandy's piracy crackdown

November 24th 2009 | Tell us what you think [ 2 comments ]

government-under-fire-over-anti-piracy-plans

Government under fire over anti-piracy plans

<>

The recently introduced Digital Economy Bill that was ushered into parliament via the Queen's Speech on 19 November has sparked numerous protests from consumer rights groups across Britain.

A petition to Number 10 against the bill has already generated over 11,000 signatures, with many up in arms over the suggestions that persistent illegal filesharers will have their internet connections suspended should they not change their copyright-infringing ways.

The fear is that by cracking down hard on a minority of persistent online pirates, the government might be committing a 'baby and bathwater' error, by effectively stifling innovation and technological progress for the majority of Brits.

The petition on the Number10.gov.uk website that calls for the abolition of Peter Mandelson's proposal to disconnect illegal filesharers has gained considerable traction since Stephen Fry urged his million-plus Twitter followers to sign up.

Fry tweeted last week: "Dear Mandy, splendid fellow in many ways, but he is SO WRONG about copyright. Please sign and RT."

Trusting bureaucrats?

Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group, said: "It's quite a shocking bill. We're extremely worried about it.

"It could destabilise business and destabilise innovation… It means entirely trusting to bureaucrats and politicians to get it right."

By way of response the government has posted "Filesharing: some accusations and some answers" on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills webpage which says that the Digital Economy Bill was in no way a response to music industry lobbying.

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has issued the following statement:

"Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the government should be asking rights holders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding."

Via BBC

Comment on this article
 

Your comments (2) Click to add a new comment

cannonfodder


November 24th 2009

2. lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.

Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.

RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment

# Warner Music Group

# Universal Music Group

# EMI

MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:

# Sony Pictures

# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)

# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)

# The Walt Disney Company

# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)

# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)

====================================================================

If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:

Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.

RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132

Alert a moderator

psyfur


November 24th 2009

1. If you must download (or the addicted crew that just can't stop) two words for you! SSL + Usenet = no worries from the fuzz

Alert a moderator

Tell us what you think

You need to Log in or register to post comments

By submitting this form you agree to our Terms of Use and so are legally responsible for anything you submit. DO NOT submit anything which may violate the Terms of Use or another person's rights including copyrighted or offensive materials.