cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

MrC
Grafter
Posts: 525
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎17-07-2008

Re: Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

Quote from: A
If I had a static IP address and I get a threatening letter because Plusnet have given my personal details away, how would I be able to challenge any record of my ip address?
The point is that there wouldn't be any issue over which IP address was being used whereas there could be with a dynamic IP address. In fact continually resetting your PPP session to get new IP addresses could open up a whole new world of pain should you actually be unlucky enough to get one of those letters Smiley
Quote from: A
I think Plusnet do periodically reset the PPP session(?) and in any case there is nothing to stop me resetting my PPP session manually.
ISPs woudn't normally reset PPP sessions unless there was a fault or because of maintenance somewhere.
WebDude
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎11-03-2010

Re: Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

Quote from: Moominfish
93 views, 4 posts.  Says it all really...

From a thread I started (Urban or Rural... - so it covers pretty much anyone, not just those interested in the Digital Economy Act) it seemed to me that a lot of the views might be PN staff (most of whom won't comment) - perhaps just in case it is unsuitable (given this is a company service).  After a week or so, it has had no extra posts (just a half dozen extra votes I think, but even so, made me wonder how many people on PN see these boards at all) - there are non customers on some other board who probably do more of the reading than PN customers, to be frank (and I'd tell them where to go except it would be censored or I'd be banned!)
As for the DEBill - now DEAct - it was badly thought out, will drive the most serious "pirates" into using encryption and VPN so will reduce speed of transfers, but become less and less trackable - PN and all ISPs want networks to work smoothly and examining packets slows things down and costs money to buy extra kit to keep everything going fast enough to satisfy user demand.
I think that since there are discussions on many and varied discussion boards, more about the "guilty until you appeal, and appeal will cost you money" aspect of this being very poor laws, I doubt it will die down after the election and any new government might have pressure to re-consider the clauses.  Some parts are left to Ofcom or some Minister to decide and again, that looks likely to come under scrutiny by the public, because "open ended" law making (without  MPs knowing or approving the aspects of what constitutes breaking the law, and as important, what penalties can be imposed) is sloppy and far from transparent.  The idea of needing it "flexible" to accommodate changes in technology is understood, but each time there's a change in technology and a desire to alter the monitoring of, or activities which are banned, should get proper scrutiny.
No one is in a "winning" position if they claim piracy is acceptable, but the attacks need to be targeted at the method by which the law has been passed, the technical issues and problems concerning detection and prevention, and the legal aspects concerning how one is accused, how one appeals, and how the proposed method takes away the need for "proof" that would be acceptable in a court to mere "suspicion" and the three strikes suggestion is another way in which the "fairness" in law is avoided.  The rights holders for copyright materials have adequate laws under which they could prosecute, but the proposals put forward by Lord Mandelson appear to bypass "justice" as one suffers if there is suspicion indicated rather than firm proof, and rather than being innocent until guilt is proved, the suggestions are that one can appeal once sanctions have been taken, and one has to pay towards that appeal.
Personally I hope a few hundred MPs have insecure wi-fi connections and themselves get accused.  It would be interesting to see how they'd squeal if their internet (and that of their family) is removed for some period, until they pay for an appeal.  In the meantime, I suspect one of the first petitions on the Number 10 site could be against the Act.  There will be tens of thousands (if not millions) of people from FaceBook and blogs plus Twitter users.
Some of the MPs have used YouTube which is one possible target (for holding some copyright material) alongside Google (for linking to torrents found online) so early complaints (once the details are known) could block both Google and YouTube, and then we'd see how many more of the public would be contacting their MPs asking for a review!
b2hbm
Grafter
Posts: 35
Registered: ‎31-07-2007

Re: Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

Quote from: WebDude
Personally I hope a few hundred MPs have insecure wi-fi connections and themselves get accused.  It would be interesting to see how they'd squeal if their internet (and that of their family) is removed for some period, until they pay for an appeal.  In the meantime, I suspect one of the first petitions on the Number 10 site could be against the Act.  There will be tens of thousands (if not millions) of people from FaceBook and blogs plus Twitter users.
Some of the MPs have used YouTube which is one possible target (for holding some copyright material) alongside Google (for linking to torrents found online) so early complaints (once the details are known) could block both Google and YouTube, and then we'd see how many more of the public would be contacting their MPs asking for a review!

Although I also would love to see some MPs in the dock, sadly this will never happen (unless perhaps they are opposition MPs ?).
I think the first stage of the process would be identification, at which point whoever is pursuing the suspect will have a simple look-up table which will include MPs,  local council and virtually all government and civil service buildings.  If the address originates from such locations,  at that point the prosecution trail will stop. There may be internal warnings along the lines of "your security has been compromised"  (innocent until guilty in such a special case), but that will be all. 
The only trails that will be pursued will be private households where, as you say, there are more chances of successful prosecution.
I think the trouble with this act is that because Mandleson has clearly rushed it through with no real debate and it has been lost in the overall hype about an Election and thus a lot of internet users simply aren't aware of it. As you say, the obvious candidate target #1 is google, simple because it lists so much available content. Will a UK Labour government attempt to stifle google in the same way the Chinese would like to ? I suspect they would love to and perhaps that's the only time we'll see a public reaction to the Act.
 
WebDude
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎11-03-2010

Re: Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

Looking at some website the other day, I saw that for there to be an offence committed, all or a substantial part of a piece of intellectual property had to be offered, and by a specific individual.  Given a single IP is usually shared by everyone in a household, for all the PCs and games hardware (and even TV set top boxes, I think) it starts to get interesting as to whether the new Act changes this definition. 
Also, if there are exemptions for airport lounges, train carriages, High Street cafes/etc, University student unions and libraries, where a wi-fi hotspot is available, I wonder what the criteria will be and whether anyone could become exempt by offering access within their neighbourhood...  Of course, for someone with a 50 Mbps cable connection, they'd just offer wireless access from a separate wi-fi unit and make traffic go via a 10 Mbps hub, so the wireless traffic for the neighbours would not use all their internet capacity, leaving them plenty for the household to use.
severedsolo
Grafter
Posts: 97
Registered: ‎09-03-2010

Re: Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

i think we should be afraid.... dont know if anyone saw the final amendment, but clause 17 was dropped (the 3 strikes your out one) in favour of a nasty new one. I quote: will allow the Secretary of State for Business to block “a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright”.
2 problems with this,
1) remind you of china much?
2) technically, this bill could result in the ENTIRE INTERNET being blocked! (note the "is likely to be used for") so you can kiss goodbye to youtube, facebook, even google
WebDude
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎11-03-2010

Re: Digital economy bill, what do you all think of it?

Now that the Act is in place, they're getting around to the 'fine detail'.
One proposal concerns the cost of investigating a suspected copyright infringement, and it seems the ISP will be expected to pay 25%.  Here's a link to a recent article (14.09.2010 ).
Since we are talking about 'rights holders' (record companies, TV channels, and film studios) that seem to pay some performers millions of pounds / dollars, it seems a bit rich to expect ISPs to pay anything, let alone 25%.
ISPs won't pay for this at the detriment of profits and their priority is to serve shareholders, so any costs that come about should be passed on to customers.
Remember the proposed 50p per month 'phone line tax' to be used to fund broadband in poorly served areas ?  That was scrapped pretty quickly when the Government saw it was unpopular...
I wonder if members of the ISPA should get together and announce that "Due to Government policy on splitting costs for investigating file sharing violations, between the rights holders and ISPs, many ISPs are to introduce price increases from January 2011, of 1 pound per month, to cover their expected costs.  If you feel that the costs should be paid by the rights holders (film studios, TV stations, and record companies) then please make your feelings known to your MP, and the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, MP, or the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, MP,"
If every ISP put out a note to that effect on websites, in e-mail newsletters, and press releases, do you think there might be some prompt changes?  It is completely truthful, that policy / lawmaking decisions will have an impact on the ISPs and with no knowledge of how many investigations may be carried out, nor the cost to the company, it would be reasonable to consider a fee from every customer every month (I have to accept 1 pound may be high, and used it for effect, as it is double the 'hated' 50p 'tax' !!)
The ISPs could also point out the peculiar change in the way the law is interpreted for this Act, where the standard of proof is poor (an IP is identified, and then, irrespective of which person(s) may have attempted file sharing, the bill payer is accused of breaking copyright rules.