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
Your comments (4) Click to add a new comment
scott.deagan
March 24th 2010
4. @cannonfodder - I am attending the protest today and have written to my MP on several occasions. If all else fails, I honestly believe that organising a boycott is the way forward. I will be more than happy to donate my time and expertise (build the website, database, email notifications etc) as I strongly oppose this un-democratic Bill that was obviously a result of "Lord" Mandelson's complicity with certain folks in the "creative industry". I've heard mention of a boycott in other posts, and I think it's a brilliant idea. The timing will be very important. Most people are oblivious to their civil liberties being stripped from them, but once a few good hard working folks feel the result of this Bill I think it will be easy to muster up the momentum and public support needed (for a boycott).
@psyfur - Firstly - DO NOT DOWNLOAD STUFF THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU! That's the first step in avoiding "worries from the fuzz". However, as has been well documented by industry experts, this is not enough to guarantee you will not be accused (and hence presumed guilty) of illicit file sharing. Secondly - VPNs, secure Proxies, encryptions (etc) is only a temporary solution. There is a provision within the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to amend the law without parliamentary consent - the justification being that the Bill (Act) must be "future proofed" against future techniques and technologies. Encryption technologies will be targeted next, it's inevitable.
Alert a moderator
syganymede
February 28th 2010
3. The people that own copyright material should take more care of it. If they do nothing to exploit sales of their product, then they must accept the loss. This has always been the case (Cassette tapes, VHS video recorders, etc) and has not harmed the business. Just because now the studios have lost strangle hold control of their distribution chain (the CD and DVD) does not mean the collapse of the industry, they must adapt.
Ok, so the internet is a bigger threat , but should be countered not by legislation, but by new business models by copyright owners - i.e. by studios and labels (don't think that artists own copyrights! they mostly sign them away in exchange from promotion to big media businesses...)
This Digital Bill or DRM or whatever is not justified in an open society, it is against freedom.
However the international steamroller behind it is huge, already the EU and UK are in the final stages of negotiation of a US treaty called ACTA which could sign away our freedoms and rights without debate or votes. Check it out with your politician, ask if he has seen and considered ACTA. Tell him to vote against the Digital Bill.
Alert a moderator
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