UK Digital Economy Bill...
The policy seeks to restrict internet usage for monetary gain. This is utterly ridiculous, I can't believe such restrictive and intrusive measures are being pushed through without listening to the obviously large opposition to it.
Sources refering to the matter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...iracy-scrutiny
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...75323ae7cfa46e
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communi...mons-10015367/
http://geeks.pirillo.com/forum/topic...my-bill-it-has
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010...ernet-justice/
http://www.scmagazineuk.com/open-rig...rticle/165859/
The Bill itself:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...01/2010001.pdf
Even though major ISP's like BT and Talk Talk are against this among many other companies such as Google we still have an issue with the government seeking to bypass proper scrutiny in order to pass the law before the election.
It's a sad state of affairs if the UK government can get away with this.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
I have no problem with the principle of taking measures against illegal downloading. After all, if you want to avoid the measures, don't download illegally.
However, in relation to these measures, I can see a series of problems, of which, two are :-
1) It won't work. Anyone with any nous will simply use some type of anonymous proxy. The record/film industry won't be able to track the IP if it ends with a server in Azerbaijan, or China, or Eniwetok, that doesn't keep IP logs.
2) The level of assumption of guilt. It seems that if it's done on an ISP account in my name, I'm liable. Well, I'm savvy enough to have sufficient measures in place to block casual piracy of my broadband line, but there are several users within range of me that have wide-open wifi links. What's to stop anyone with a laptop and a car driving around and casually pirating the ill-informed? Someone will suddenly start getting rude letters, or their connection slowed or lost, simply because they aren't technically literate enough to secure their link. This has already happened with record company's "pay up or else" letters.
Oh, and 3) .... it won't work unless similar legislation is in place,. and rigorously enforced, pretty much all over the world. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
In regard to 2), are you really not liable if someone download illegal materials with your line? I suppose that it kind of make sense, I wouldn't expect the owner of a car to be liable if someone steals it and go on a joyride. And yet, I am not that sure if it is the case for wi-fi connections.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Maybe we will have to start paying for a network MOT to prove its secure enough to be on the net, or perhaps more appropriate be allowed to access the webz.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ExHail
I can't believe such restrictive and intrusive measures are being pushed through without listening to the obviously large opposition to it
Really?:rolleyes:
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
i hope they see sense! it's just wrong, however you look at it, and will cause more problems then it solves. Politicians should stick to what they do best, Nothing!
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PeteSmith
Quote:
I can't believe such restrictive and intrusive measures are being pushed through without listening to the obviously large opposition to it
Really?:rolleyes:
This. Someone's obviously been asleep at the back of the class...
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
I understand for the most part, this is been put into place to discourage people from acquirring copyrighted materials.
But if you read the first part of the bill
Quote:
to make provision about the online infringement of copyright
I get copyright is copyright and if the material does contain copyright and you take it without the owners permission, you are indeed breaking the law. BUT!
That says it all for me... I mean, going onto the internet and downloading a game and playing it, then not paying for it is one thing.
But uploading and sharing images through somewhere like Flickr could also be cause for copyright, do they then take serious measures against someone then and cut their internet off?
It's stupid, it's rushed, it just needs more consideration.
And if the people that chased the "pirates" down actually put more money into people developing more software/hardware based methods in which to secure their content from people pirating it instead of bitching, suing and prosecuting, this bill wouldn't be getting pushed through as fast.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Saracen - all you needed to say was: "it won't work"
The rest is irrelevant. It just goes to show how out of touch both politicians and the media corporations are with reality. Shame on the former for believing the utter crap stats being punted around and shame on the latter for not waking up to the reality of a world where paid for business models (e.g. iTunes) make a small fortune despite apparently all and sundry stealing billions of dollars from them.
And I suppose shame on us for allowing such Orwellian legislation to pass through our system without an enormous backlash. But then most are ignorant of the incoming legislation doubtless.
What's the saying? "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, comrade" :D
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
FWIW there's a campaign running from here to try to stop it.
I don't think anything will prevent this now and it's disgusting, particularly in the way that this is being rushed through.
Anyone see the Panorama episode about it? I thought it was very one-sided, perhaps that's not surprsing though.
The Guardian has an interesting take on the 'demise' of the music industry - record singles profits last year, in the depths of a recession.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
I think the music, movie and games industries gripe is that because digital commodity is not scarce they can't make as much money as they used to before digitisation occurred. Instead of adapting to the reality of new technologies they want to instead force artificial scarcity on everyone through laws since copyright has not worked.
If these industries don't adapt they will perish through consumers not participating the way they want them to. IMHO Piracy is negative feedback from consumers, either learn from it or it will get worse.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ExHail
IMHO Piracy is negative feedback from consumers, either learn from it or it will get worse.
Do you really think so? I know many people who download music because it is free, it isn't to make a statement against the record companies or whoever else they may be pirating from. It is simply because they haven't had to spend money on it.
It is the attitude of 'why pay for something when I can have it for nothing'.
Personally I hate it, I hate it passionately, for what it is worth I still buy CD's (namely because I like the physical item and they sound better) but also because I feel that if I like something enough to want to keep it, then I should pay that person who made it for me.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dangel
It just goes to show how out of touch both politicians and the media corporations are with reality. Shame on the former for believing the utter crap stats being punted around and shame on the latter for not waking up to the reality of a world where paid for business models (e.g. iTunes) make a small fortune despite apparently all and sundry stealing billions of dollars from them.
Naw, they're right in touch.. They know fine rightly the majority would be ignorant to both the bill and its possible applications, which pretty much means being able to screw practically anyone without producing actual proof.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Everyone will open their routers to public and blame a random...
Honestly, I know of one person that has been done for illegal downloading already (he got a warning letter)
Both of these were never followed up, and the guy who I know who got caught once continued to do it and has not been warned again.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dangel
Saracen - all you needed to say was: "it won't work"
....
I think you may be missing the point of a discussion and debate forum.
Besides, I know from experience that if I were to make a sweeping and generalised assertion like that, with no basis or justification, someone would pick me up on it.
So sorry but no, that wasn't all I needed to say.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
Oh, and 3) .... it won't work unless similar legislation is in place,. and rigorously enforced, pretty much all over the world. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
Isn't that where the still secretive ACTA legislation comes in?
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
I think you may be missing the point of a discussion and debate forum.
Besides, I know from experience that if I were to make a sweeping and generalised assertion like that, with no basis or justification, someone would pick me up on it.
So sorry but no, that wasn't all I needed to say.
Aw, don't be sore at me ;) What other sorts of internet forums are there? :D
That aside.. the point was it's unworkable - it's literally technically and politically a disaster in the making and so yes, a sweeping and generalised assertion like that is completely warranted. If you disagree, please counter - after all - it's a "discussion and debate" forum isn't it? :mrgreen:
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
Do you really think so? I know many people who download music because it is free, it isn't to make a statement against the record companies or whoever else they may be pirating from. It is simply because they haven't had to spend money on it.
The assertion is that no matter what the reasoning is behind the pirating act it lends itself to the distribution, creation and/or value of the item not being applicable for that group of people. The result is what was referenced, not why the result occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
It is the attitude of 'why pay for something when I can have it for nothing'.
That is the basis of thought in a supply and demand system... Profit can only be made when a commodity is scarce, it allows you to charge more than the cost of the item when selling it.
Now that music, video and games are not scarce customers want that reflected in lower prices but publishers want the opposite to maintain/improve their profit margins.
The question I ask is; "why pay more for something than it is worth?" Supply and demand is neutral and when applied to digital goods points towards them costing more than they are worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
99Flake
Personally I hate it, I hate it passionately, for what it is worth I still buy CD's (namely because I like the physical item and they sound better) but also because I feel that if I like something enough to want to keep it, then I should pay that person who made it for me.
I don't hate anything to do with business... way too much effort involved.
Piracy I understand and the thinking behind property I try to. I don't hate them, but I may disagree with some things regarding them.
I also feel that people do deserve to maintain the means to live, in our current system that can only be achieved through selling of goods or services. But where I think we differ is the necessity for some people to have 20x the means to live while others barely maintain their own livelihood. There is no need, nor logical reason, for people to have the means to waste resources for personal endearment while others suffer at the same time, specially when their job has little to no relation to society.
Piracy may not be morally acceptable, but is business any more morally acceptable?
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dangel
Aw, don't be sore at me ;) What other sorts of internet forums are there? :D
That aside.. the point was it's unworkable - it's literally technically and politically a disaster in the making and so yes, a sweeping and generalised assertion like that is completely warranted. If you disagree, please counter - after all - it's a "discussion and debate" forum isn't it? :mrgreen:
I'm not sore at you.
And I didn't say a sweeping generalisation was or wasn't warranted. I said that experience tells me I'd get picked up on it. This is because it happens regularly. As for whether I post more or less than is needed, it's simple really .... I post what I want to post. People can read it or not, but I do get irked when people tell me it's too long and that I shouldn't post it, as also happens regularly. Again, if people think it's too long, then don't read it. Working that out isn't exactly rocket science. But I get the hump when people tell me how to post, and they regularly do .... or try to anyway.
What you said was capable of being interpreted two ways .... one was that "it simply won't work, Period". On that, I agree. The other, which may not be what you meant and is why I'm not sore at you ... is "don't post all the extra crap when 'it won't work' would suffice".
Let me put it this way. I periodically get told variations of tl:dr. To that, my answer is simple .... don't read it then. Someone (don't remember who, as I have sigs turned off) even has (or had) it in their sig. Again, that doesn't bother me. But when people tell me to change my posting style because they don't like it .... well, they aren't required to like it, but telling me what I can and can't post is going to rub me up the wrong way.
People telling me they don't read my posts if they're too long is fine. People telling me not to post like that, as some have, isn't fine.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saracen
I'm not sore at you.
And I didn't say a sweeping generalisation was or wasn't warranted. I said that experience tells me I'd get picked up on it. This is because it happens regularly. As for whether I post more or less than is needed, it's simple really .... I post what I want to post. People can read it or not, but I do get irked when people tell me it's too long and that I shouldn't post it, as also happens regularly. Again, if people think it's too long, then don't read it. Working that out isn't exactly rocket science. But I get the hump when people tell me how to post, and they regularly do .... or try to anyway.
What you said was capable of being interpreted two ways .... one was that "it simply won't work, Period". On that, I agree. The other, which may not be what you meant and is why I'm not sore at you ... is "don't post all the extra crap when 'it won't work' would suffice".
Let me put it this way. I periodically get told variations of tl:dr. To that, my answer is simple .... don't read it then. Someone (don't remember who, as I have sigs turned off) even has (or had) it in their sig. Again, that doesn't bother me. But when people tell me to change my posting style because they don't like it .... well, they aren't required to like it, but telling me what I can and can't post is going to rub me up the wrong way.
People telling me they don't read my posts if they're too long is fine. People telling me not to post like that, as some have, isn't fine.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...dntreadlol.gif
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
It's rather disheartening that people behave in this manner when they contribute to a discussion.
I do my best to ignore it as it's not worth the effort of thinking let alone coercing your thoughts into concise idea's about the inherent disregard for discussion.
I for one enjoy your posts Saracen and probably wouldn't visit these forums if it wasn't for yourself and others like you who are a joy to discuss with.
Re: UK Digital Economy Bill...
I don't normally go into piracy debates because we always end up in some kind of circles. Still, I have a little 20-30 minutes to spare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ExHail
That is the basis of thought in a supply and demand system... Profit can only be made when a commodity is scarce, it allows you to charge more than the cost of the item when selling it.
Now that music, video and games are not scarce customers want that reflected in lower prices but publishers want the opposite to maintain/improve their profit margins.
Digital distribution may not be scarce but how about every other aspect of the business? Movies, games are not getting cheaper to make. The thought that distribution alone dictate a commodities' availability and value (ignoring the work behind, i.e. the intellectual property) is horrendously flawed.
Piracy wrecks havoc to supply and demand, especially for digital goods. The business is basically competing with an alternative supplier of it's own product. The problems are twofolds: 1. The company can not afford to sell the goods at the cost of distribution, because they have staff who worked full time for a living, in order to create the product. 2. This 'alternative supplier' only need to acquire -one- copy (not even necessarily via retail) plus the cost of distribution (and they do not even need to pay for every 'distributed copy', since this is spread amongst the pirates). The 'staff' here can afford to work for free, it's not a full time work (probably even a hobby to them) compared to creating the content in the first place.
To be honest, I do not have a problem with publishers wanting to maintain/improve their profit margins. Why should they be any different than any other business? The only difference is that for other business, the customers have the choice between paying and getting the goods or not buying and not getting the goods (the, IMO, fair concept of a willing buyer and willing seller), whereas here, they have a third option of not paying and obtain the goods leaving with the team that created the product with nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ExHail
The question I ask is; "why pay more for something than it is worth?" Supply and demand is neutral and when applied to digital goods points towards them costing more than they are worth.
So are you saying that music/movies/games are worth nothing? The artists, actors, directors, programmers, and indeed, the staff on the business side do not deserve even the minimum wage? By paying nothing, that would be the implication.
Now of course, those people are getting paid (least the ones that are still around). But they are paid by the people who buy the product. Effectively, they do not feel that it is 'more than it is worth' although, at least some probably think that pirates are leeches to the system. The paying customers ensure not only that the business stay afloat, but that the pirates can continuously enjoy the free ride.
And to be honest CDs and DVDs may well be cheaper in real term (taking inflation into account).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ExHail
I also feel that people do deserve to maintain the means to live, in our current system that can only be achieved through selling of goods or services. But where I think we differ is the necessity for some people to have 20x the means to live while others barely maintain their own livelihood. There is no need, nor logical reason, for people to have the means to waste resources for personal endearment while others suffer at the same time, specially when their job has little to no relation to society.
Piracy may not be morally acceptable, but is business any more morally acceptable?
What is morally unacceptable about an employer paying whatever sum he wishes to an employee (so long as it's within his mean)? We have the freedom to give whatever material possessions we possess, don't we (*excluding items that may require licence/other legal requirement)? And what is morally unacceptable about an exchange between a willing seller and a willing buyer? Or millions of willing buyers? And indeed, so what if the end result is the seller earning 20x or more than those who are barely making it? Is it their fault? Or the fault of those willing buyers? Would the world be a better place if all businesses function like charities?
I agree that people do deserve to maintain the means to live (* as long as they are honestly trying), but surely that is what welfare is for? And to be honest, the UK's welfare system is on the generous side of what I've seen in many places.
Even if we were to vilify businesses for wanting to make money - at least they still have to work for it. Perhaps there are particularly unscrupulous organisation (especially but perhaps not limited to illegal ones) that are far worse than pirates, but on average, I'd say you'd need to be pretty bad to sink lower from a moral perspective.
