| No surprise, run by clueless idiots. |
Are the Net Police Coming for You? (Panorama 15 March at 8.30pm) • Page 17
-
oceanmotion 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
PearOfAnguish 7,573 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 17 years agoAh, was it posted a few pages back? I did have a quick scan but missed it like an MP misses important votes. -
Woffls 96 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 15 years agobahhh haha. I had a rant about MP's being clueless idiots when it comes to this kind of thing, and it doesn't surprise me at all. What does surprise me is how Parliament is structured in such a way that policies that have absolutely no deviation based on geographical location are still represented by ignorant local MP's who don't know their mouse from their monitor.
I hate this country.
Who wants to move to Canada?
I'm serious. -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years agosquarejawhero wrote:
The ISP's will no doubt be asked to police it, and they won't, because it's an unrealistic expectation. If they were to be asked expect costs to rise and a billion solutions to fuck things up further.
They will when the proposed fine for each disconnection they refuse is £250k.. -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoPearOfAnguish wrote:
Ah, was it posted a few pages back? I did have a quick scan but missed it like an MP misses important votes.
Yep, and discussed in the other DEB thread....simple admin fuck up with 2 related abbreviations. -
CosmicFuzz 32,632 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoDougs wrote:
squarejawhero wrote:
The ISP's will no doubt be asked to police it, and they won't, because it's an unrealistic expectation. If they were to be asked expect costs to rise and a billion solutions to fuck things up further.
They will when the proposed fine for each disconnection they refuse is √Ç£250k..
Jesus is that right? TalkTalk will be going out of business once the pirates flock to the -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoThat's after a subscriber has been proved to have infringed copyright persistently but I think that's the amount in the Bill.
As I say, most of this is aimed at the casual downloader who sees nothing wrong. -
Futaba 3,636 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years agoGod I hate politicians. Spineless ignorant pricks. -
I have it on sound authority Canada isn't really the promised land. They have fuckwits in power there too. -
daz_john_smith 1,636 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 15 years agohiddenranbir wrote:
So when am I going to start getting letters saying my internet will be cut off because I downloaded the new episode of Lost?
I'd like to understand the actual technology on how they will hope to maintain policing a system like this. How much will it cost?
Exactly. How are they planning on policing this any better with these new laws than they policed it before is an excellent question.
Tracking exactly what we're all doing and whether or not it's acceptable would surely require a significant undertaking of both technology and manpower. Who exactly is going to do that and who is going to foot the bill for it all?
The easiest, probably cheapest, solution is simply to institute a great firewall of China and block whatever websites the big media corporations tell them to. Can they get away with that? -
daz_john_smith 1,636 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI wonder how they intend to monitor if ISP's are enforcing this or not. Are ISP's going to be given targets now. They'll have to catch said number of pirates a year or reprimand a specific number or customers a year with strongly worded letter? Targets work so well with the NHS, Education System and and the Police 
Real pirates will circumvent this with ease, leaving only the less technically educated and uniformed to be caught in the crossfire.
I doubt the average person knows the difference between what is freely available media and what isn't. I mean average Joe probably doesn't understand the difference between watching channel 4 and BBC programmes legally on Youtube (via 4OD) or iPlayer; and watching other programs illegally on Megavideo, etc. -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoecureuil wrote:
I read that ISP's that don't enforce this are hit by a √¢àö√Éá√Ç£250,000 fine. And that's not per pirate.
Surely some companies could just take the fine?
As I said over the page, I think that's 250k for each disconnection they refuse. Def not a cost ISPs could swallow
Edit: Seems it's not per sub but doesn't say how often an ISP could be fined.
Edited by Dougs at 07:54:50 0 -
So whats this actually about then? I haven't really been paying attention to it. -
blizeH wrote:
And they're actually allowed to enforce this? What a bunch of cunts. When is it being put into place?
iHAZaCHEEZ3burger wrote: So whats this actually about then? I haven't really been paying attention to it.
Download any copyrighted information = bye bye internet -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Dougs wrote:
Cheers mate.
Cheese - see here
I might not have understood it all, but it seems that it mostly affects people pirating stuff on the net? -
Jackface 3,736 posts
Seen 11 years ago
Registered 12 years agoHoriZon wrote:
Actually, I'm far more worried about how the rules are going to be bent to suit whatever they like.
ecureuil wrote:
HoriZon wrote:
ecureuil wrote:
HoriZon wrote:
hiddenranbir wrote:
HoriZon wrote:
Well you wont as most of it wont effect 99% of users out their.
Like all those anti terror laws right? This is invasive monitoring and it puts Government in a position to dictate what internet we experience.
Add on the fact the rushed process. This bill is poo and so are its supporters. Poooo!
This has effected you how?
Thing is it has changed nothing for you and neither will this bill unless you DL stuff. (seems like a lot of users on EG tbh, and yes i do too)
If affects people even if they don't download, it's highly invasive and allows the government to dictate what I can and cannot look at online, if they so choose. I'm not a criminal but I don't like 5 security cameras on every street.
There already watching us we are the most filmed country in the world with all those street cameras, they can already look at your email if they want.
If you arent doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about the only ones really moaning are the filesharers its that simple. No matter how you paint it you are doing something illegal and now there is a serious punishment.
Not really, the only illegal stuff I download is TV shows, and I get those from a very private torrent site that almost certainly won't be caught. I don't pirate movies, music or games. The whole idea that only pirates dislike this because they'll now get in trouble, is wrong and actually kind of offensive.
Come on its the main reason you are ticked off no matter how you jazz it up, as for the other laws which are in the bill and some of them are shit i agree but the main thing most of us are moaning about is that we wont be able to get the latest TV show or the latest Britney Spears CD (i really wanted it too) for free anymore.
I mean how long before they're using the vagueness of some clauses to shut down access to sites based on spurious claims like "Well it's also a terrorist threat, not just copyright stuff, so we feel that in this case it is vital to use these laws to protect our security." blah blah. What about WikiLeaks? It just happens to host nothing but copyrighted material. Technically, they could block access to it straight out of the gate.
Of course people that are used to downloading free stuff will be a bit "Oh shit" but it's the long term abuse of the powers by government (any government at all, they're all dictated to by whoever has most money, not by you the voter) that is being objected to the most. And it absolutely will be abused, same as the terrorism bill was regularly abused by the police to stop photographers in the street or at important political events just because the policeman in question was in a bad mood that day. -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoPretty much. Although there are plenty of other measures, that's what's got people hot under the collar. Even those that don't infringe are upset by the potential impact, from a civil liberties perspective -
DFawkes 32,785 posts
Seen 11 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoIt is mostly piracy, but the wording is pretty open. For example, in theory if someone on this forum posted a link to a torrent, they could shut down EG altogether.
Not that they would, I'd expect they'd only shut down a site with a forum if the main discussion points were access to illegal materials. -
daz_john_smith 1,636 posts
Seen 7 years ago
Registered 15 years agoThis is slightly off-topic and I'm not trying to condone piracy; can someone explain to me the legality differences between recording something off TV onto a PVR or Sky+ Box (which can be kept indefinitely) and downloading the same thing off the internet?
Back on topic:
Dougs wrote:
"The digital economy bill was an ambitious piece of legislation"
Cheese - see here
So ambitious they made it intentionally vague for future abuse and rushed it through in 2 hours late at night.
"ensure high-speed broadband access for all" who can afford it. -
ploder 243 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 15 years agoI am really angry about this. It shows how far democracy has been corrupted in the UK.
The way this Bill passed was a disgrace because:
1. Both Labour and Conservatives rolled over for the private interests that lobbied them hard. In other words they sold out.
2. Tens of thousands of people (including me) wrote to their MP demanding that the Bill shouldn't go ahead in its current state. I don't know about the others but I didn't even get a reply. I think that a majority of people in the UK would be against it if it hadn't been snuck through and the measures had been explained to them. Virtually all ISPs and people having open Wifi are against it.
3. The draconian powers of disconnection, web site blocking, IP harvesting were justified on the basis of a faulty argument that had been taken verbatim from the mouths of vested interests; that illegal downloads amount to lost sales. There has never been any convincing evidence put forward for this. The only evidence that has been shown to have a measure of truth is that those downloading illegally tend to spend more on legitimate content than those that don't.
4. Various amendments were made to the Bill at the latest possible stage to avoid having to debate them.
5. Most of the MPs voting on the Bill were not even in the House to debate the damned thing (I was watching the Parliament channel at various points) They were just pressured by their party into voting for this stitch-up.
6. Some of the measures in the Bill look like they over turn the presumption of innocence. They plan for example, to give rights holders the power to demand action be taken against you without them needing to go through the court or provide any evidence. ISPs such as Talk Talk are even threatening not to abide by it which gives you a sense of the scale of this biased piece of crap they call a law. -
Dan234 2,255 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 14 years agoI'm not sure if companies can pick and choose which legislation they follow, not even Talk Talk.
They'll just get repeatedly fined for failing to prevent copyright infringement until they go bankrupt. -
I'd love to know the difference between "Lobbying" and "Bribing"
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
