It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beginning of the end for the Internet in the UK

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


On the subject of prison for filesharers...i agree with you that it definitely goes against our human rights, but where are they going to put all these millions of filesharers then?

Our (UK) prison pop is around the 80,000 mark, and they are even now, giving early release to prisoners that have committed REAL crimes (admittedly, except violent/sex criminals) because of prison overcrowding...methinks this is a (another) golden money making opportunity for the government.

There will probably be a system in place where you download a film or game or whatever, they spy on you, sent you a scary letter or email, informing you they know what you've been up to you naughty person you, and offer you the chance to pay a fine or go to prison...they'll be banking on most people paying the fine of course.




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


On the subject of prison for filesharers...i agree with you that it definitely goes against our human rights, but where are they going to put all these millions of filesharers then?

Our (UK) prison pop is around the 80,000 mark, and they are even now, giving early release to prisoners that have committed REAL crimes (admittedly, except violent/sex criminals) because of prison overcrowding...methinks this is a (another) golden money making opportunity for the government.

There will probably be a system in place where you download a film or game or whatever, they spy on you, sent you a scary letter or email, informing you they know what you've been up to you naughty person you, and offer you the chance to pay a fine or go to prison...they'll be banking on most people paying the fine of course.


I do wonder, since there are proposals to close 30 magistrates courts I very much doubt they want any case to go to court..

They want the cash, just as they do with the many other cash raising approaches they have used.. littering, parking, speeding... along with expanding those with the right to hand out a fine, which now includes door security and hospital staff, they know people will pay rather than go to court..

This is not about justice, its a power grab... and it won't stop at illegal file sharing, it'll start the ball rolling for more internet based offences which can be fined.

Edit to add: for me this represents the coportate government demanding money with meanaces.. and I don't think it will be long before a lot of other people begin to feel that way to..

[edit on 23/11/09 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I wonder if this could be opposed on the grounds of human rights in regards to mental health issues? Internet addiction is a recognised global problem

netaddiction.com...

If an individual is compelled to scour the net for the latest badly filmed cam of a Hollywood blockbuster or they absolutely must have Susan Boyle's new album (God Bless Her) and they simply can't help themselves due to net addiction should this individuals mental well being not be taken into consideration if they were to be suddenly unplugged from the net?

Food for thought or clutching at straws?

B



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
It may create a really huge black market.
Also, an independent internet network may be triggered (I mean underground internet).



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

First off, just for your peace of mind, I do read other sources and debate these issues in other forums,.. here one link that I debated the issue on, since you require proof.
Extract

All this together means Mandelson's plan violates the fundamental principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that only the guilty should be punished. His system would see parents thrown off because of their children, children thrown off because of their parents and all thrown off because of a stranger. So here's the key question: do we want to live in a society where people can be cut off from the internet without a trial, without a jury and without proving they committed any offence at all?

And I agree with the above sentiment, while it appears you believe in the government legaly imposing punishment for a crime without trial or the need to prove guilt is the right way to go, on this point we shall disagree.


It is up to the copyright holder to proceed with legal action, not the government. At what point does this mean the government is imposing a punishment without trial or the need to prove guilt? Have you read the bill? Do you understand criminal and civil proceedings?


so just to just clarify your position, do you also feel the same way about shoplifters? burglers? and what crimes do you feel worthy of a trial? I'm intruiged.


See above, as your arguement is baseless I need not comment any further.


Just to confirm whatever assumptions you have already made, I personaly feel that a person should be tried, and found guilty of the crime before the government can punishment them.


They do have to be. The bill includes provision for repeat offenders however. Maximum penalties exist in law though in practise are used for usually the most serious and persistant offenders.


And I'll argue this point regardless of topic..


Or relevance it seems.


As for the 60s, since when was the BBC ever free?


Who said anything about the 60s? Oh wait you did just now. Don't change the goalposts to suit your arguement. Quote what you originally said. Pirate radio didn't end with the 60s. From your own link you can see that a radio license was abolished in 1971.


to listen to music at that time it was either radio, record or concert.. and what stations actually played modern music at this time? mainly the pirate ones.. and as you said it yourself, for free.. people didn't need to buy records, or go to concerts to hear the music THEY wanted to hear, which in my opinion had the same impact on the industry and forced the industry to change the model it uses.


People could listen to them because someone else was breaking the law on their behalf so by your logic downloading stuff is fine if someone else does it for you? Is that point your trying to make? If you wanted to listen to music you liked at any time and not just when the radio played it you either had to copy or buy it. The only difference with today is the means to buy or copy is so much easier. So while pirate radio stations may have made a cultural impact on listening choices I don't really see what point you are trying to make by comparing it to illegal downloads.


While I know you have made the assumption, I have not actually said downloding was right..


Well, tell me what you do think and what you would do if it was all up to you.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
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



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by logican
 


A very sad part of my life has been interpreting and implementing EU directives as transposed into the legal systems of 9 European nations, most of which is done in conjunction with legal teams in said nations, So yer I have read too many.. and as an aside I also work in telcoms covering voice, data and data security.

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.

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.

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 UK is inundated with these creeping changes, whereby fines/punishments are moving outside the legal framework that already exists to deal with the issues. On some issues magistrates themselves have complained at this type of move, and along those lines lines I oppose most of the cr*p forward by Mandy and this Labour government is simply not worth trusting..

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.. while the technology may have changed the industry loses out in both situations, but again, that is my opinion, and as I stated in my initial post that those proposing the legislation most likely listened to those broadcasts, so I commented pots/kettle/black and I stick by those remarks too..



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


Not really, In principle I agree with you.. but I also feel the model used by the entertainment industry is wrong for the current market... but that is not for me to fix. (An all you can eat service would make a difference, I suspect a huge difference)

Part of my work is in data security and those that do download will just move to a secure means of getting what they want, so where will that leave this approach! it's a cat and mouse game with the industry lagging behind and the government lagging further behind..

The transformation of the 60s and 80s was incorporating the pirate DJs within the industry.. I mean one of Radio Carolines DJs is an MP now! and that worked to the industries benefit and I don't feel this approach will benefit the industry at all.

So where do you stand on the phones that sync with Itunes, like Threes new INQ mini 3G phone, for £39 you can sync your iTunes media collection to your phone (using DoubleTwist) But which side of the gray line does that sit on, considering the limited DRM removal that takes place? £39 is a huge cost reduction over an iPod, while more software and device manufacturers are making that move.. As the world moves on, the entertainment industry seems to be standing still.. which I feel will be bad for them.

By the day it is becoming a very gray and complex world..


[edit on 23/11/09 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

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.




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Do not mistake anything I said in defence of the media industry as being in agreement with them, or their business practices.

The DJ analogy is wrong for the simple fact that pirate radio still exists on the internet, look at Shoutcast and Icecast, they allow anyone to be a pirate DJ. There is no comparison between oldskool pirate radio and modern day filesharing, none at all. There is just as much potential for legislation in the realm of online pirate radio as analogue, and performing rights groups know this all too well.

As for your question about DRM, I'm not sure what you are asking really, DRM is draconian and utterly useless. Like any form of anti-piracy method be it a license attached to a music file or a rootkit posing as copy protection for a game, they only ever affect the legitimate consumer. Filesharing was around before the general public jumped on the bandwagon, and it will be around no matter how stringent the laws are on the matter. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the real problem is copyright itself, and this whole concept of intellectual property is wrong.

Release groups who crack protections do so pretty much for no other reason that to show the absurdity of such protections. To show that there is no way for them to protect their content. The average filesharer downloads because they can, and because they get stuff for free, and they think of many ways to justify it.

I download stuff, but I don't think I have a god given right to do so. If I get caught, then there is no one else to blame but me. Others wish to transfer their responsibility elsewhere, and I no more buy that argument that I do the one that says an artist has a god given right to "intellectual property".



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
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... :mad
It 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]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DjSharperimage
 


The English very rarely riot, we generally just moan a bit.

We need an election NOW.
Every time Labour are in charge, the UK turns for the worse


[edit on 23-11-2009 by Lolage]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


I wasn't suggesting you were in support of the industry..I was just summing up my position
Although I don't have a problem with intellectual property.. I have a problem with the main stream costs of digital media, which I feel are over priced.

I guess like you I have been around a bit, tho my programing skills only date back as far as 78, and I've seen file sharing evolve over the years.. but my personal opinion is that I can not see a real difference between listening to a tune downloaded P2P or listening to a tune that's been extracted from a youtube vid or listening to a the same tune recorded from the radio, or listening to tune stripped of it's DRM protection, or listening to the same tune on pirate radio. For me I see no difference, since the tune has been listened to for free.. whether you disagree or not, that is my opinion.

what I find it strange is that file sharing in particular is targeted, since the number of methods of obtaining digital media and methods of accessing the net are growing by the day.. once you target one area, I wonder how long before the industry insists on targeting other areas and where does it stop..

my feelings are this will snowball, yet I feel it could stop if the industry adopted a different model... but again these are just my feelings, my thoughts and opinions.


[edit on 23/11/09 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


I'm pretty much in agreement with you, albeit for slightly different reasons. Rather than chasing after subscribers, the media industry needs to evolve. Look at We7, Jamendo or Spotify as being alternatives to the current method of "get paid or litigate". The problem is that artists are entitled to some renumeration for their work, but how do you go about mainting a reasonable level of income without stepping on the toes of the consumer. I'd rather download a decent quality mp3 (or flac!) with a short ad at the beginning or end, for free, which can be edited by the end user and all without breaking any laws. Some people though will never be happy untill they can get whatever they want without charge, and this simply is not a viable solution. Of course changing things in the direction we'd like it to go would pretty much mean the end to the "get rich quick" artists, which is great as they produce crap anyway.



[edit on 23-11-2009 by quackers]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
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.




top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join