Digital Economy Bill passed through the Lords

dandos23 said:
Yes, I have heard of a non-admin account in windows.:rolleyes:

I would love to know when you will be teaching the general public about this though. I am sure that it is something that my parents would like to attend as then dont know as much about windows as my little brother, and as I dont live with them any more I am sure it will be very useful so they can keep an eye on what is going on.
Click to expand...

Can you not set it up for them? It's what I normally do...

Would you like to expand on this then?

From what I understand they could restrict access to a website that could be linked with copyright infringement. Youtube is part of google, hence google could be blocked (I may of got this wrong though).
Click to expand...

To block a site under the new rules, the public has to be consulted and a statutory instrument created before ISPs are compelled to block it, and there would need to be demonstration of 'serious adverse effect on business or consumers' and evidence that the bulk of the material involved serious breach of copyright. It would simply not apply to Google (or even youtube, given the restrictions on youtube and their policy of quick response in the event of a complaint).
 
platypus said:
Yes I should do, good idea.

No you sound like a minority of people, a well informed participant in our democratic system. I just wish there where more, and that our democratic system worked.
Click to expand...

Democracy doesn't work where rights are concerned, because rights become something the majority grants at whim, rather than something that should apply to all.

The only solution to this is clear, constitution level limits on the reasons laws can be passed.
 
Athanor said:
...out of 52 million people in the country and 44 million eligible voters I'd say that was democracy working, like it or not.

Unfortunately although designed to impact on piracy the bill will no doubt have ramifications for others. Interesting to see the response from some here has been to blame everyone other than the persistent pirates who should be putting their hands up and accepting their share of the blame for this atrocious piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

Turns out it is more like 20,000. A large proportion of the Electorate are never going to write to their MP and an even larger part simply don't understand what this law means. A large response from those who do know should give the Government pause for thought. However, they have chosen not to apply debate to the bill and have passed it in a backhanded manner during the wash-up period. Hell most MP's didn't even bother turning up to vote. Now that's really taking the ****

You don't beat pirates by legislation. You beat them by making purchasing content easy, convenient and fair. However the Media Cartels have got used to re-selling us the same media and price fixing and thus are desperate to preserve their old business model by legislation. The BPI must be wetting themselves. Money well spent by them.

Outside the confines of internet forums with more than it's fair share of self confessed "downloaders" and their supporters I suspect the attitude you'll get from the general public is don't know, don't care and "if pirates lose their internet connection for ripping off other peoples work then tough".
Click to expand...

Wait until the first innocent family or even worse businessman or MP gets cut off because somebody else had hijacked their Internet connection.
 
platypus said:
No one is going to be cut off.

Read the Bill people, or at least one of any dozens of sites that have summarised it.
Click to expand...
I thought the scope for "technical measures" which could include disconnection had been left in, but awaits further investigation by ofcom
 
Abraham said:
I thought the scope for "technical measures" which could include disconnection had been left in, but awaits further investigation by ofcom
Click to expand...
No, the obligations have been left in to limit internet access, but any clause to deny/cut off/remove internet access was removed before the final reading, as it would have delayed the Bill due to Human Rights issues.

P.S. The Bill is now an Act.

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Drafts:Digital_Economy_Bill
 
platypus said:
No, the obligations have been left in to limit internet access, but any clause to deny/cut off/remove Internet access was removed before the final reading, as it would have delayed the Bill due to Human Rights issues.
Click to expand...

So they dropped the disconnection and replaced it with the option to limit. Two problems with that.

A: Is the limit defined? If not they could "limit" your Internet connection to the point where it becomes useless thus the same effect as being disconnected. Again somebody who relies on a decent Internet speed to do business can be affected by this bill even if they are totally innocent.

B: Due process. There simply isn't any.

That's my issues with just one part of the bill. It's a farce. Government probably knows it is a farce but it seems that most modern Governments are now basically puppets of corporations.
 
It's amazing how many users on a big computing forum have never heard of a non-admin account in windows.
Click to expand...
so if you have a 16year old and he buys a laptop with money he earns himself your going to basicly take control of it?
 
platypus said:
No, the obligations have been left in to limit internet access, but any clause to deny/cut off/remove internet access was removed before the final reading, as it would have delayed the Bill due to Human Rights issues.

P.S. The Bill is now an Act.

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Drafts:Digital_Economy_Bill
Click to expand...
I sat and watched the reading and the inclusion of the clauses and very definitely the clause for technical measures to limit a users internet USE was included that's not limiting their connection, but limiting their use which could include disconnecting them.
 
Nope you're right:

If people don't stop downloading illicitly the full 12 months must elapse before the Secretary of State can draw on powers to act further.

If at that point infringement has not fallen sufficiently in his judgement, the Secretary can order Ofcom to draw up “technical measures” to be introduced by the service provider. Ofcom has a palette of four options, as the Act defines a technical measure as something that does one or more of the following:

1. Limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber
2. Prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use
3. Suspends the service provided to a subscriber
4. Limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way

The technical obligations are then presented to Parliament for inspection, and must pass a vote in each House.
​
So I suppose to actually cut someone off will take at least 18 months anyway. What on earth is the point?
 
platypus said:
Hmm, I was reading the third reading bill, and there was no clause in that said that.
Click to expand...

Link You Provided said:
A "technical measure" is a measure that-
(a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;
(b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;
(c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
(d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
Click to expand...

'another way' surely is completely open ended and can mean termination of service?

So it is possible that without trial or due diligence you could have your internet removed. Does that seem good? Sorry not for me my communist comrades.

EDIT: oops I see you spotted it :)
 
Abraham said:
that's 18 months from now, once it's in place they can do as they please.
Click to expand...
As I read it its 12 months of being monitored after receiving a warning, and then off to the Houses for appropriate punishment. 6 months is probably a generous consideration of how long that would take.
 
So how is this bill actually going to stop the piracy? Surely the hard core File sharing techies will find other means, but the not so savvy will be the unfortunate ones who will be busted.
 
platypus said:
As I read it its 12 months of being monitored after receiving a warning, and then off to the Houses for appropriate punishment. 6 months is probably a generous consideration of how long that would take.
Click to expand...
maybe I'm misunderstanding which bit you're talking about, I'd not noticed a bit about that, but there's 18 months before any of these technical measures could be called into practice as it's a 12 month review by ofcom, but that won't start for about 6 months. This was stated in as many words during the 3rd reading.
 
oldbag said:
So how is this bill actually going to stop the piracy? Surely the hard core File sharing techies will find other means, but the not so savvy will be the unfortunate ones who will be busted.
Click to expand...
that's all they're trying to do. They don't care about tech savvy downloaders who are more likely to buy the product. People who dowload to make a profit are already breaking criminal law (I think). So all they care about is the regular families whose kids are probably the ones downloading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom