UK Copyright Lobby attempting to restrict the Internet in the UK

magick · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:38

Nitefly said:
Well there is a huge and problematic state of affairs with copyright infringement on the internet so you can't blame them for trying.

Copyright laws need to be updated to fit the era we're in. Technology has changed the value of music and films but the music and film *industry* don't want to accept this.

platypus · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:42

I can see why they want to block live event streams, but the opportunity for abuse is staggering.

My MP was one of the creators of the Parliamentary Motion to reconsider the DEA. Lets hope it works..

Glaucus · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:42

magick said:
Copyright laws need to be updated to fit the era we're in. Technology has changed the value of music and films but the music and film *industry* don't want to accept this.

I think the music industry has finally changed, look at the deals with things like spotify and the deals they've done with YouTube. DRM free music downloads as well from multitude of sources.
Film industry on the other hand still seem be stuck in the past.

Although we should have the right to personal backups and change to media format.

TheYoungster · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:44

Anyone seen V for Vendatta?...

Burnsy2023 · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:47

AcidHell2 said:
Not going to happen, lobbyists can do what ever they want. It doesn't mean anything.

It means a lot. Lobbying is how the DEA got passed to quickly. Don't be naive.

antijoke · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:49

TheYoungster said:
Since when has this been north korea?

It's not, it's Best Korea.

Glaucus · 1 Jul 2011 at 09:53

Burnsy2023 said:
It means a lot. Lobbying is how the DEA got passed to quickly. Don't be naive.

It got passed so quickly due to the general election and laws allowing it to be rushed through before change of government.

Lobbying does not automatically mean legislation.
DEA is awfully written same as many other laws for that era. Well have to see what happens with dea and any future laws.

TheYoungster · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:00

anticonscience said:
It's not, it's Best Korea.

We do need more footage of david cameron riding a thouroughbred through a field of tea plants (?)

platypus · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:00

TheYoungster said:
Anyone seen V for Vendatta?...

One of the few films I've watched more than once. And worrying..

Burnsy2023 · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:01

AcidHell2 said:
It got passed so quickly due to the general election and laws allowing it to be rushed through before change of government.

Lobbying does not automatically mean legislation.
DEA is awfully written same as many other laws for that era. Well have to see what happens with dea and any future laws.

The reason the DEA got written in the first place was due to lobbying.

Cosimo · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:04

TheYoungster said:
Since when has this been north korea?

It's not and I can't see it happening.

Nitefly · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:04

Dunks said:
Yeah, so having 'expert panels' to decide what websites we can see is a good way of stopping this?

I don't know, it depends how they would operate.

magick said:
Copyright laws need to be updated to fit the era we're in. Technology has changed the value of music and films but the music and film *industry* don't want to accept this.

I don't really understand what you're getting at. Technology (the internet) has made copyright infringement easier and more commonplace, but I don't see why that means the law should change. In anything, the right holders are probably entitled to an enforcement mechanism against copiers that has greater teeth.

UncleRuckus · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:04

It will happen folks, no matter how much we oppose it this is what they want. We don't matter and we get far to much freedom on the net for there liking.

RomanNose · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:07

PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MP.
Bickering about this on and internet forum won't help, the best thing to do is whip out the good old pen and paper and tell them how you feel. Ask your mp to sign the early day motion against the DAE bill.

Nitefly · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:08

chaosdestro0 said:
PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR MP.
Bickering about this on and internet forum won't help, the best thing to do is whip out the good old pen and paper and tell them how you feel.

This should be a forum sticky

TheBigCheese · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:10

magick said:
i missed this. what was the act in question?

You'll love this one it was so well thought out it included nuggets like this...
From Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (as quoted by Wikipedia):

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is a piece of legislation in the United Kingdom that criminalises possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images".[1] The law was enacted from 26 January 2009.[2][3] It refers to pornography, defined as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal", which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", and portrays any of the following:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

The term covers staged acts, and applies whether or not the participants consent.[4][5] Classified works are exempt, but an extract from a classified work, if the image was extracted for the purpose of sexual arousal, would not be exempt. Whether an image is "pornographic" or not is up to the magistrate or jury to determine simply by looking at the image; it is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image.[6] If an image is held in a person's possession as part of a larger series of images, the question of whether it is pornographic is also determined by the context in which it appears.

I don't want to debate the pros and cons of banning such material - but the way it was implemented.

So...if you are watching a film that has something considered that particular brand of adult in it you're fine BUT if you 'like' watching that bit then it's illegal.

A Judge and jury can decide what's a problem and what isn't - a jury - made up from the same people who have been brainwashed by the red tops screaming paedo and weirdo at everything (think of the Joanna Yates case with her landlord - attacked horrendously by all the rags), who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you have your collection of adult enjoyment and accidently copy a few family snaps in there - well the implication is you could be enjoying yourself over them as well = you're a paedo.

Some links:

Protest BBC

Wikipedia

Consenting Adults Action Network

Indy Media - more links

TheYoungster · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:13

simulatorman said:
It's not and I can't see it happening.

Part of me wants to say that we have a choice, the other bit says if they want something to happen, it will happen

magick · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:16

TheBigCheese said:
You'll love this one it was so well thought out it included nuggets like this...
From Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (as quoted by Wikipedia):

I don't want to debate the pros and cons of banning such material - but the way it was implemented.

So...if you are watching a film that has something considered that particular brand of adult in it you're fine BUT if you 'like' watching that bit then it's illegal.

A Judge and jury can decide what's a problem and what isn't - a jury - made up from the same people who have been brainwashed by the red tops screaming paedo and weirdo at everything (think of the Joanna Yates case with her landlord - attacked horrendously by all the rags), who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you have your collection of adult enjoyment and accidently copy a few family snaps in there - well the implication is you could be enjoying yourself over them as well = you're a paedo.

Some links:

Protest BBC

Wikipedia

Consenting Adults Action Network

Indy Media - more links

OK Thanks. Won't apply to me as I dont own any p0rn.

Morbius · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:19

I think as soon as we start censoring the internet, even to a small extent, it'll be the start of a slippery slope towards heavier censorship.

gropingmantis · 1 Jul 2011 at 10:21

TheBigCheese said:
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus

Isn't that like half the internet?

This whole thing is ridiculous, this month Australia is trialling allowing ISPs to block certain sites so unfortunatly I can see this getting quite far.