Digital Economy Bill

[Fivetide]

i dunno, it's something i'd be more likely to join in with... maybe in part because a mass, co-ordinated email would feel more of a group action - like if there was a demo with 10 people or a demo with 100 000 i'd be more likely to go to the big one.

 

not the greatest reason, but still...

 

and if it was going to be en masse then not at an mp... at the Mandelson himslef.

 

(Is it wrong to admit he's one of my modern political heroes? lmao it's true!)

[Fivetide]

This Bill will be on the Order Paper for a Second Reading debate on 6 April 2010.

 

1.there's the date

 

2.whatever time it's due to be heard would be a time

 

3.and the addresses or place to comment would be either

 

http://www.dius.gov.uk/contact/ministers-business

or

http://twitter.com/lordmandelson

 

as he doesn't list an email address

 

edit - could just bombard him on the date, wouldn't have to be same time.

[NightFlight]

I've written to my MP Angela Smith a while back. not got a response yet, surprise surprise

[Funky_Gibbon]

Well the easy way to prevent accidental prosecutions is for every PC to log every keystroke and store the data so we can all prove our innocence. There you go, problem solved!

 

Oh... hang on a tic.

 

I'm positive I read a serious article last week where someone actually suggested that.

[splodgeyAl]

I'm positive I read a serious article last week where someone actually suggested that.

 

Well, nobody would use a pointy thing to click on virtual buttons and such, would they? Command line for the win!

[anywebsite]

Sign the petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/dontdisconnectus/

[esme]

signed it

 

but my personal prediction is that the reply will say people will only be disconnected as a last resort and then only temporarily and there is a right of appeal so the government are going to ignore you

 

the petition failed to state that the innocent are going to be punished for the crimes of others, that they will have warning letters to intimidate them, their bandwidth throttled, their internet traffic subjected to packet shaping and as a last resort they will be temporarily disconnected and all this will happen before they can appeal and even then without proof it is likely the appeal will fail

 

good idea though, is it possible to update the wording of the petition ?

[esme]

well I have a reply from my MP

 

Further to my email of yesterday, it is my understanding that the bill presented before Parliament on Tuesday will have changes to the sections regarding illegal sharing of copyrighted material. The bill will receive a full debate on the floor of the commons, but as the entire bill is being debated it cannot be guaranteed that those sections will be debated in great detail.

 

With regard to the language used in certain clauses of the Bill I do understand that they may look alarming as it could be deemed as being too subjective, but this is standard parliamentary language and many Bills are worded in this way as the arguments will be considered by a Judge who will make the final decision when a matter of contention comes to court.

 

With regard to the power to cut off or limit an internet connection, it is my understanding this course of action will only be followed once a copyright holder has proved (in court) that the person(s) downloading the information have had fair and reasonable warning and chances to stop their activity and the cut off would only happen after a legal injunction had been sought. Ministers have made it clear in my view that this will be a last resort and that OFCOM would only be in charge of monitoring the system but not implementing legal issues.

 

I believe that Copyright holders would only seek to use this against serial offenders and that it more likely that they will seek through the courts to use another power in the bill, one which will require ISP's to block access to websites/torrent/servers etc that are providing illegal material.

 

I also understand your concerns that someone maybe disconnected if someone else is using their connection without there knowledge. However I think it is unlikely that if an individual were to have there home wifi router/modem 'hacked' that the perpetrator would be unable to download the quantity of material that the copyright holders would seek to legally stop. Also, anyone who had there connection being used by someone else would also be able to demonstrate that they were not in possession of any illegal material.

 

I also believe that there is some confusion as the bill does contain some outline proposals for a Secretary of State to have power to force ISP's to disconnect subscribers who have proved to be downloading large amounts of copyrighted material illegally, but this is only a framework which will be subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny when it is presented in detail in secondary legislation after the bill has been passed and the details will not become law with the rest of the bill.

 

I hope that this response is helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions on this or any other issue.

 

Regards

not happy with it though

 

how exactly do you prove you haven't got something ?, just because it can't be found doesn't mean you haven't got it, and he may feel that the quantity of material downloaded over a hacked connection would not be sufficient to attract OFCOM's attention but what he feels isn't an issue, what can be downloaded is

 

and finally the burden of proof is placed firmly on the subscriber to prove their innocence rather than the rights holder to prove their guilt, whatever happened to reasonable doubt ?

[anywebsite]

I think he needs a reply. Don't forget to highlight the 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent' parts, the effect on businesses that provide public wifi (it will effectively prevent any business from being able to offer this service), the effect on isps, and the web censorship part.

[esme]

oh he's getting one, drafting it now

 

businesses and public wifi have the possibility of using equipment with different capabilities to prevent users downloading illegally, they can monitor their own traffic, they can block websites, in short they can act like an ISP but home users generally don't have this capability

 

it's still an unfair imposition on public providers though, a bill passes and st*rbucks price for a mochachocalattegrande has to go up to pay for the extra equipment and staff to run it or council tax goes up to fund the extra equipment and staff training for libraries free wifi and ultimately it's because the rights holder doesn't want to change a business model that allows them to make a product and sell it for orders of magnitude more than it cost