Be Excellent To Each Other

This isn't about file sharing or fighting for your right to download dodgy MP3s. It's about much more than that.

It's about stopping a law that could bring libel-style censorship to UK ISPs, forcing them to block the next YouTube on copyright owners' say-so - with no penalties for organisations making misguided or malicious accusations. It's not hard to imagine politically awkward sites such as Wikileaks ending up on the blocklist too.

It's about stopping a law that would make cafes and libraries responsible for their users' activities, bringing an end to open Wi-Fi.

It's about stopping a law so badly written that it could shut down an entire mobile phone network for a dodgy 3G download.

It's about stopping a law that enables anyone to rip off photographers by removing image data and claiming they couldn't find out who took the photo.

It's about stopping a law that penalises the law-abiding majority - by upping ISP costs and therefore everyone's broadband bills - for the actions of a tiny minority.

It's about heeding the concerns of crazed anti-copyright hippies such as the Metropolitan Police, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and MI5.

I'd expect to see YouTube disappear or be heavily censored for our country due to copyright infringements by posters.

It's about stopping a law so badly written that it could shut down an entire mobile phone network for a dodgy 3G download.

It's about stopping a law that could bring libel-style censorship to UK ISPs, forcing them to block the next YouTube on copyright owners' say-so - with no penalties for organisations making misguided or malicious accusations.

It's about stopping a law that enables anyone to rip off photographers by removing image data and claiming they couldn't find out who took the photo.

Libraries?

This was on Panorama last night, with the lovely Jo Whiley.

It was rather cutely one-sided.

Oh come on. This already is the case, and has been for a long time without the world ending. Almost every user generated content site, from Youtube to Zazzle, has a "pull content first and ask questions later" policy when a copyright holder sends a form email to them, without any appeal process.

Instead of which, they've effectively endorsed the existing "shout loudly and win" approach.

For they laymen, how will this realaistically effect me?

Time to resub Razzle.

I wish to discuss the Digital Economy Bill with you. I strongly believe this important issue requires a full Parliamentary debate before it should be passed into law and I would like to know your views on the subject.

I have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, namely:

1) The financial burdens potentially placed on ISPs who will be required to monitor and log all Internet traffic across all their customers, which will inevitably result in increases in costs passed on to consumers. Government research as part of the Digital Britain programme (http://www.ipa.co.uk/Content/Digital-Br ... 14-billion) has suggested that the British economy would be £1.4 billion better off if the target of 100% broadband access by 2012 is achieved. Making it more expensive for businesses and consumers isn't going to help that goal.

2) The appalling privacy implications of the aforementioned monitoring. We have always, as a society, recognised that free speech is important, and worth standing up for. We have also believed that people are innocent until proven guilty. Why should my Internet traffic be intercepted and examined, when I have not been accused of a crime? My phone calls are not treated this way, nor my post, nor my conversations with friends and colleagues. We don't allow the government to tap phone calls without due diligence and we wouldn't allow them to install listening devices in offices, so why do we seem to think it's acceptable for Internet based communication?

3) By making all account holders liable for all traffic, libraries will find it very challenging to offer public Internet access. Coffeeshops, pubs, and other businesses who have found the offer of "free Wifi" a valuable perk they can use to compete will also be at risk of substantial fines for just a very small

4) It is impossible to see how legislation can be drafted that will allow the government to shut down one type of website linking to illegal things (the Pirate Bay, for example) whilst not also targeting other websites that do the same (such as Google). Ministers have dismissed this argument as scare mongering; of course they won't use the powers granted in this Bill to pursue Google. I'm sure that's correct but all that means is that the powers will be applied in a hypocritical manner. Is that really what we want? A law applied only to smaller firms who cannot afford to defend themselves against it whilst larger firms are ignored?

5) Clause 42 of the Bill allows publishers to use an orphaned photograph without the explicit permission of the copyright holder as long as they have done a "diligent search" to locate the holder, as explained here: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPa ... age=873803. This appears to me to be a disaster in the making, as there is a clear conflict of interests as to how "diligent" the search will be. To expect publishers to not flat out lie about their search processes when they are caught using an image is naive to the extreme. I myself, when working as freelancer, have had copyrighted work published illegally in a UK magazine, and could not possibly have taken the publisher to court to pursue my compensation. This clause will only allow publishers to take further liberties with the rights of freelancers and ordinary citizens.

I have a PhD in computer science and I have worked all my life in the digital sector. As such, I feel qualified to understand some of the issues around this Bill, and I feel strongly that it is overly broad and overly vague. I think it will harm the privacy of individuals, stifle vital innovation, and do more harm to a British economy already reeling from a global recession.

As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you, please: do all you can to ensure the Government doesn't rush the bill through without granting us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate.

3) By making all account holders liable for all traffic, libraries will find it very challenging to offer public Internet access. Coffeeshops, pubs, and other businesses who have found the offer of "free Wifi" a valuable perk they can use to compete will also be at risk of substantial fines for just a very small

By making all account holders liable for all traffic, libraries will find it very challenging to offer public Internet access. Coffeeshops, pubs, and other businesses who have found the offer of "free Wifi" a valuable perk they can use to compete will also be at risk of substantial fines unless they somehow police their users with complete effectiveness. Residential consumers will, I fear, also be open to prosecution if their Wifi is hacked, as it'll be impossible for them to prove the traffic sent under their account was not of their doing. Properly securing Wifi access points is technically difficult and far beyond the average consumer, and even then it is still almost always possible for a dedicated hacker to break into the network.

I wish to discuss the Digital Economy Bill with you. I strongly believe this important issue requires a full Parliamentary debate before it is passed into law and I would like to know your views on the subject.

I have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, namely:

1) The financial burdens that will be placed on ISPs will be counter productive for the national economy. They will be required to monitor and log all Internet traffic across all their customers, which will inevitably result in increases in costs passed on to consumers. Government research as part of the Digital Britain programme (http://www.ipa.co.uk/Content/Digital-Br ... 14-billion) has suggested that the British economy would be £1.4 billion better off if the target of 100% broadband access by 2012 is achieved. Making it more expensive for businesses and consumers isn't going to help that goal.

2) The appalling privacy implications of the aforementioned monitoring. We have always, as a society, recognised that free speech is important and worth standing up for. We have also believed that people are innocent until proven guilty. Why should my Internet traffic be intercepted and examined, when I have not been accused of a crime? My phone calls are not treated this way, nor my post, nor my conversations with friends and colleagues. We don't allow the government to tap phone calls without due diligence and we wouldn't allow them to install listening devices in offices, so why do we seem to think it's acceptable for Internet based communication?

3) By making all account holders liable for all traffic, libraries will find it very challenging to offer public Internet access. Coffee shops, pubs, and other businesses who have found the offer of "free Wifi" a valuable perk they can use to compete in their marketplace, will also be at risk of substantial fines for just a very small percentage of users who will inadvertently spoil it for everyone.

4) It is impossible to see how legislation can be drafted that will allow the government to shut down one type of website linking to illegal things (the Pirate Bay, for example) whilst not also targeting other websites that do the same (such as Google). Ministers have dismissed this argument as scare mongering; of course they won't use the powers granted in this Bill to pursue Google. I'm sure that's correct but all that means is that the powers will be applied in a hypocritical manner. Is that really what we want? A law applied only to smaller firms who cannot afford to defend themselves against it whilst larger firms are ignored?

5) Clause 42 of the Bill allows publishers to use an orphaned photograph without the explicit permission of the copyright holder as long as they have done a "diligent search" to locate the holder, as explained here: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPa ... age=873803. This appears to me to be a disaster in the making, as there is a clear conflict of interests as to how "diligent" the search will be. To expect publishers to not flat out lie about their search processes when they are caught using an image is naive to the extreme. I myself, when working as a freelancer, have had copyrighted work published illegally in a UK magazine, and could not possibly have taken the publisher to court to pursue my compensation. This clause will only allow publishers to take further liberties with the rights of freelancers and ordinary citizens.

I have a PhD in computer science and I have worked all my life in the digital sector. As such, I feel qualified to understand some of the issues around this Bill, and I feel strongly that it is overly broad and overly vague. I think it will harm the privacy of individuals, stifle vital innovation, and do more harm to a British economy already reeling from a global recession.

As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you, please: do all you can to ensure the Government doesn't rush the bill through without granting us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate.

So this means I'll have to go to america to watch my american shows?

You filthy fucking criminal. I've called the po-po.

What in the name of fuck could you possibly need such a whopping connection for for anything other than downloading?

Legit streaming video or video downloads, rather than pirated ones?

Well yeah but surely a say, 5meg line would suffice for the streaming?

I struggle to see why your pirated downloads are larger than legit ones would be.

Well yeah but surely a say, 5meg line would suffice for the streaming?

I already said that there were legal things to download. .

And Nik, yes, there's definintely good in this. My connection won't take a crap for four hours every evening.

Yes, but you're saying 50Mb is fine if you're pirating things, but you don't need it if you're not. I'm saying if you download exactly the same things, but legally, then surely you need the same bandwidth?

Crasty has a point. There are lots of legit ways to get films/porn/music these days, which will require faster connections, as well as gaming.