Despite how absolutely corrupt this Bill is they are making a huge mistake this is actually a good bill if you take into account the almost certain effects when they begin criminalising every household with a teenager, real encrypted communications will become normal, darknets and VPN will take over the technology is already available this will accelerate it in a huge way.

The governments and other nosy corporations will lose any power they had at all over the internet and be unable to monitor anything in effect they are cutting themselves off and will end up clueless what anyone is doing online.

It's a classic case of their ignorance multiplying the problem which is what started making filesharing mainstream in the first place being repeated and this time I think they will be out of any kind of countermeasures.

The other bonus is this will massively swing public opinion against them and I can't wait to watch.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Teknikal]

It may create a really huge black market.
Also, an independent internet network may be triggered (I mean underground internet).

Any censorship of the internet will destroy it - if in the UK, you need to fight this with your life.

The internet is the only freedom we have - this must be fought with blood and determination.

If this goes through - then thought and freedom die. This is the foot in the door, but it is a very big foot.

Saw this on another site

Monaghan Media Response To Latest BERR Statement

There are an estimated 7 million file-sharers (your figures) in the UK, and you want to reduce that number by 70%. 70% is 4.9 million. A fair trial is fundamental to democracy. To fairly prosecute 4.9 million citizens is an optimistic suggestion when currently Her Majesty’s Court System holds 200,000 criminal cases per year. This would suggest it is going to take 25 years to reduce file-sharing by 70%. This is only dealing with the 70% of today’s file-sharing with no regard to the expected increase of file-sharing. Research suggests that the number of file-sharers increases every day, 63% of people aged 14-24 now admit file-sharing, with 83% of those file-sharing every day.

To prosecute 4.9million people you will also need evidence. No evidence exists. Anywhere.

The ‘evidence’ championed by the failing sector of the media industry – the physical distribution sector – has been proven time and time again to be incredibly flawed. I refer here to the elderly couple who the copyright industry began legal proceedings against for downloading hardcore gay nazi pornographic film ‘Army F*****s’ (1) among others. I also refer to the law firm Davenport-Lyons, who sent out 15,000 letters telling people to pay a small ‘fine’ (usually about £600) and they’d make a lawsuit against them (for file-sharing) go away. This is what is known as ‘extortion’.

Luckily for the consumers, and all of those of us who enjoy freedom from criminals, Davenport-Lyons were quickly picked up by BBC’s Watchdog program, and promptly disappeared.

I note though, that in today’s (25th August 2009) response, you don’t mention a fair trial. In fact you don’t mention any opportunity for those accused with this flawed and faulty evidence to defend themselves. Which rather gives the impression that there will be no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. What you do say is this:

“…the previous proposals, whilst robust, would take an unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for urgent action…”

So what you’ve stated, is that it is impossible for your draconian anti-file-sharing measures to be implemented fairly. Which is correct. What this means, is that this route of anti-file-sharing legislation, the ‘criminalise-7-million-of-your-citizens’ route is wholly unfeasible, impossible to implement without massive cost to the tax-payer, and impossible to implement without massive damage to the progress of the UK’s creative industries. What this does not mean is that instead of fair trials and the assumption that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, everyone should be presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. This is perverse as the accused would not then have the opportunity to be proven innocent.

In my previous contribution to this consultation, I briefly touched upon the fact that the industry has never been able to show any loss, financial or otherwise, has been caused by file-sharing. I’ve gone into a little more detail here, which shows, with numbers, evidence, and references, (rather than the usual hearsay provided by the industry) to show that there isn’t a financial loss to any of the most downloaded films this year (so far).

You’ll note that all of the top ten most downloaded films so far this year (3) are all incredible commercial successes, each making hundreds of millions of pounds. Watchmen, the most downloaded film with 16.9 million illegal downloads, still made $185,248,060. How can anyone argue that file-sharing has caused it a financial loss? Benjamin Button was the second most downloaded film so far, being downloaded 13.1 million times illegally. It made $332,860,689. A financial loss? I think not.

What we are seeing here, is the end of one type of business: the physical distribution of digital products. We are in a world where DVDs are old technology, in less than ten years Blu-ray disks will go the same way as LPs, as tape cassettes, as VHS tapes, and as DVDs. The internet however, has outlived the DVD. And it will outlive the Blu-ray disk. And it will outlive whatever format ‘succeeds’ the Blu-ray disk. The internet is here to stay. What we are seeing in the Creative Industry is a very small sector (distribution), which makes massive money from a system which is made redundant by the internet.

It is not the responsibility of the government, of the ISPs to prop up a failing business. If a business is failing, it is the responsibility of that business to look at itself, at its actions and rethink its operations in order to save itself.

It is wholly unfeasible to enforce any rule against filesharers, and impossible, literally impossible to enforce according to law.

I reiterate the statement I made in my first contribution to this consultation, the majority of my audiences watch my films over the BitTorrent system, a system so revolutionarily brilliant that it means I, an independent film-maker, can distribute a film in full High Definition to hundreds of millions of viewers with absolutely no cost incurred to me, where normally global film distribution costs several tens of millions of pounds. I think it is acceptable to say then, that my company and I are at the forefront of the industry.

As someone who uses file-sharing systems, not only to gain access to media which I never could’ve before, but also to distribute my own contributions to the UK’s Creative Industry, I am utterly shocked and appalled by the lengths to which your government will go to make my audiences, my peers and myself criminals.

This is not the end of the creative industry. I can say this with great confidence, as someone working in the industry. The industry is currently undergoing a change, a natural change, a change that it must undergo. Although this is not the end of the creative industry, it is the end of a disgusting sector of the industry which has been a parasite on the industry for the past half-century, milking it for as much money as it can, promoting false inflation of the rest of the industry only to increase its own profits.

The criminals here are not the teenagers downloading films and music, but the global corporations that extort money from artists and consumers alike, and who operate in a manner not unfamiliar with sinister global criminal networks.

It is the remit of democratically elected Government to protect the citizens, film-makers, and business-owners from the failing business model which threatens freedom, civil liberty, and creative business’ economic future.

Finally, I take this quote from your statement today:

“…As ever we would need to ensure any such measure fully complied with both UK and EU legislation…”

Disconnecting people from the internet does not fully comply with EU legislation. In fact it directly contravenes EU legislation. I am referring to amendment 138/46 which was adopted on the 6th May 2009 in response to French attempts to implement a system almost exactly the same as the one proposed here. A system which was declared unconstitutional by the French High Court. You will be aware that amendment 138/46 declared that access to the internet was a fundamental human right.

Not only do your proposals directly contravene European Law, but the certainty of wrongful sanctions being taken against citizens opens the government up to legal action. The fact that cutting off an entire household’s internet punishes everyone in that household and not just the ‘accused file-sharer’ is near-certain to breach the government’s ‘Every Child Matters’ directive where children are punished for others’ actions. The probability of cutting off the internet of those who need the internet to survive, the long-term sick, for example, or the disabled, further opens up the government to attack.

Is this the route that my government wants to pursue? Or should the government perhaps listen to its’ citizens’ outrage and stop neglecting them in favour of the power and massive wealth offered by the global corporations who’s only motivation is furthering said power and wealth?

Yours faithfully,
James Monaghan

Monaghan Media

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
As far as you other comments go, I also stand by my thoughts which I mentioned, and feel that that all such cases should be resolved within the existing legal framework the entertainment industry in the UK already has at it's disposal, in my opinion it does not need the extra tools.

The problem is that despite various applicable laws, file sharing is largely a gray area. It's not severe enough to carry the same penalties of either theft, or of commercial piracy and the entertainment industry argue that the current penalties are not severe enough.

In all actuality, what the media would prefer would be for this to be represented fully within the framework of law, because then they wouldn't actually need to do anything. They are tired of failure. And to be fair to them they are correct to an extent, there really are no punishments for committing copyright infringement on the scale we're talking about. Damage awards are to infrequent to consider them an effective deterant.

Now I'll probably be hated for this but the media industry has just as much right to protect their business as any other business does, and I can see why we are where we are now, and that is because ISPs have fought against honouring their own terms and conditions. People like to punt the media industry around (and somewhat for good reason) but when all is said and done, they are only attempting to force ISPs to do what they should be doing already.

The government is getting involved now for the sole reason that ISPs have been unable to come to any agreement with content providers on how to treat copyright infringement in any meaningful or consistent way. We were warned about this at least 2-3 years ago, when the government told both ISPs and the media industry to sort their # out and stop the bickering, and if they did not the government would sort it out for them. So here we are.

So I read your comments and found your responses interesting, however I stand by my interpretation just because you are interpreting it differently is beside the point.

Well as some one who's job involves interpreting directives I'd have thought you would have realised the importance of it. But you said in the previous response "I personaly feel that a person should be tried, and found guilty of the crime before the government can punishment them." This is, as I'm sure you know, baseless and in no way corresponds to the legal framework in place to deal with any copyright claims. I did ask why you thought that was the case but you have avoided answering in any way directly.

As far as you other comments go, I also stand by my thoughts which I mentioned, and feel that that all such cases should be resolved within the existing legal framework the entertainment industry in the UK already has at it's disposal, in my opinion it does not need the extra tools.

Well I'm glad you do know that there is an existing legal framework after all. Which only serves to confuse me more about your comments above a la "a person should be tried, and found guilty of the crime before the government can punishment them."

Since you can not effectively ban someone from the internet, given the prevalence and ease it is to obtain pay as you go dongles etc.. if the legislation is to be effective the next steps in the process would be to ensure the person banned be also banned from owning/buying said dongles, owning/buying mobile phone with internet capability.. So in my opinion this is heading in the wrong direction.

The means to obtain the downloads should be targeted in my opinion. It's not about stopping someone getting on the internet so much as a detterent and inconvenience. It would be a last resort anyway and frankly if it got to that stage the the person had it coming. Of course if they still wanted on the net they would find a way, but just as if a factory producing illegal dvd's was the target of a prosecution so the means to produce those dvd's would be seized. If the criminals wanted to still do it they would simply go and get more copying machines.

The UK is inundated with these creeping changes, whereby fines/punishments are moving outside the legal framework that already exists to deal with the issues.

No, it's just being incorporated into the legal system. It's simply moving with the technology. Well, lagging behind a little is probably more accurate.

As for my comments on the 60s.. I see little difference between someone listening to a tune on a pirate radio station illegally, and listening to that same tune on an IPOD illegally..

I'm genuinely not sure why you can't see the difference between acquisition and simply listening to something.

Laws like this are no more than the result of lobbying by ruthless and GREEDY industry execs. that are getting greedier by the minute. It's almost inverted correlation: The more trash that's not worth looking at, the more greedy they get and the more draconian the "laws" to protect intellectual ownership..

In the Netherlands, where I currently reside, there is a s.c."independent" institution (yeah, riiiiight..independent..my hairy behind)that collects fees for artists when their products are played/shown(Buma/Stemra)...however... said institution has failed quite consistantly to pay out anymore than about 35% of what they get their greedy hands on, to the artists they pertain to "represent"... THAT's the reality of it. Even the original artists get scammed. (What band was it that made their last album available almost for free, and accepted any amount of money the listener would pay? All in all, the end result was that they made more money than they ever would have if some recording industry exec. had been between the band and the listener..)

On top of that, Buma/Stemra foul up EVERY dvd/blue-ray disk with un-skippable junk about how bad copying is and how terrible pitating is... :madIt gets worse: However much i like the country I currently live&work in, sorry Dutchies , their actors can't act for the life of it..said junk on the media carriers are acted so dismal, it is painful to watch...it's like being strapped to a chair in front of the most horrendous "Novelas" ever seen..)

Dammit! I honestly paid for said Blue-rays and DVD's, I do not need a sermon about piracy!! It is one of the reasons I buy most of it in Great Britain and overseas in the US (Yes, I got a multi-region player) -->No anti-piracy junk intro's and not a penny in the pockets of Buma/Stemra! Just a short notice about copy-right. Fine ,I can live with that.

[edit on 11/23/2009 by diakrite]

[edit on 11/23/2009 by diakrite]

I don't know but I feel the whole UK is falling apart myself it's getting worse than 1984 ever was they moan about how China is evil and censoring the net yet they are prepared to sentence the innocent from accessing an internet connection at all their next step is probably banning people from phones.

I'm honestly starting to think I live in the most corrupt backwards country on earth they don't even try to hide the bribing now.

Brown is unelected, Mandelson is unelected the whole lot of them are obviously taking bribes to screw the British public and you just have to wonder how long it is until allegations are enough for all crimes to be sentenced. I mean evidence that takes to much time.

I honestly expect to see people being cut off for remarking they didn't like a new movie. I'm still convinced the whole thing will backfire on them though people will only stand for so much.

Make believe profits are being protected at the cost of freedom, privacy and progress.