Piracy bill to cost broadband users extra £25/year

11. With the immense harm the Vista fiasco did to the IT industry -which was mainly the result of its builtin DRM- and now this, it's time we started looking at things from a different angle, namely can we afford the damage which copyright-enforcement measures are doing to other business interests?

If the answer to that is NO, then we need to go tell the music industry to find another business-model.

Or, if they want to do this kind of thing then the music/film industries should foot the bill. And compensate every computer shop that lost sales over Vista. (Not to mention compensating Microsoft!)

10. I think the biggest problem with misinformed govt / music / film industry people is that they equate a "download" as a lost sale.

Someone could potentially have thousands of downloads that they would never have bought, sitting on their pc never watched or listened to - to the media industry this is part of the fantasy of lost revenue that has driven this bill.

Although as an earlier poster mentioned though look to the small print and some even more draconian legislation is being added by stealth . . .

9. This is another attach on internet users because some decide to download music illegally. Well I for one believe this legislation to be a breach of our human rights(remember this before accusing China over theirs....gormless Brown).

The music industry is a disgrace to even request this....it never got its act together when the internet started and deserves the kicking it getting by irate internet users who are sick of them trying to blame us for others illegally downloading music and films.

DISGRACEFUL. I expect Cameron to drop this bill like a hot potato if he wins the next election.

8. Good God this little country of ours,What next fining anybody who f*rts classing it as a chemical attack?

An extra £25 per yer?

I like to be kissed when I get f**ked!!

Soon they'll be controlling our thoughts then fining us when we think out of turn,well that's there goal.

RATCATCHERS AND THIEVING B*+@ARDS THE UK Gov

7. i think i will not be paying anymore amount of money ontop of my current payments.

add to that they are trying to tax all landlines regardless if you have broadband.

as soon as they start their greed charges i will cancel all subscriptions,landline too. then i will just keep my moblie phone with its internet.

enough is enough.

be thankful that i am still paying my television license.

6. Just shows that all of them are a bunch of thieves. the music industry, govt and film industry! its all about money and not ethics! I wont be voting this election thats for sure!

5. "Clause 11 - I've just read this blog article:

http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2009/12/government-wants-new-powers-to-block.html

Its worth a read (its quite short too) because it is pointing out that clause 11 of the current bill would enable the government (if the bill was passed) to, effectively, censor any websites that it did not agree with. The blog's author cites WikiLeaks as an example of a website that might be a candidate for censorship but but there are many, many more. As a denizen of the net I am pretty much opposed to any form of censorship and its clear to me that Clause 11 cannot go through in its current form."

I totally oppose this ridiculous bill and urge everyone to do the same

Steve...

www.virginonmedia.wordpress.com

4. This government has frequently demonstrated it's complete lack of understanding concerning anything more advanced then pen and paper when it comes to communication issues.

Rather than seeing this as an opportunity to generate more tax revenue to be squandered on the next politically inspired white elephant, the government should be actively investing in advanced fibre optic infrastructure to ensure this country has at least some chance of competing on the world stage.

Wake up! The future is not snail 2Mb broadband, overtaxed customers and persecuted file sharers. If the government is keen to reduce road traffic, carbon usage and pollution then give us the means to reduce these by emphisising the importance of the "e" in the UK ecconomy.

3. Government should set a date and offer immunity from prosecution for anything you have downloaded before that date (possibly with a one off immunity licensing fee which could go to the music/film industry to pay royalties). Anything downloaded afterwards would be subject to whatever new rules they introduce.

I think by setting a date, the Government is saying that action will be taken from that day forward. Downloading is illegal now but the majority still do it. Giving a date with immunity from previous downloads gives users a clear starting point.

It would also be good to encourage more subscription or licensing fees for continued downloads too.

2. "Ministers have also confirmed that the measures will result in £1.7 billion in extra sales for the music and film industries, and an extra £350 million for the government in extra VAT."

How in the hell do you "confirm" sales rises, especially to that degree? If anything it's the opposite. I've read studies that simply said most people use the internet to aquire music and such they would never even consider otherwise, and it actually generated sales.

Plus how are they going to tackle this? Is it confirmed illegal content you have to download? Or just be a high bandwidth user? Where is the line being drawn that we cannot cross. I mean some fellow in the US was threatened disconnection after playing Modern Warfare 2 online due to it's P2P structure and him managing to pull in a lot of bandwidth (presumably, he had the best connection 9/10 times so was host upping the data throughput to him?).

Everything is starting to use the net. DVD/BDs, TVs, consoles, computers, phones, books, personal hygiene appliances etc. How can we be certain we are within the guaidelines being set 100% of the time?

And why do we pay for it? We pay for them to inspect our lines AND we are expected to shell out for their products (which won't happen, according to the contradictary survey).

1. So the end user is going to have to foot the bill while the music, film industries and Government make a profit.

So the rich get richer while the end user pays for the possibility of themselves being cut off.

The music, film industry and Government should foot the bill as they are the ones who are demanding this not the broadband users.

Why should the end users have to foot the bill for the Film, music industries and the government being so out of touch with technology.