Home General Discussion

UK government + File sharing = Stupidity. What a surprise!

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/08/new-fast-track-clampdown-proposals-expected-today/

This week, the evil "intertron" baffles and confounds those zany politicians. Watch as they fall over themselves to introduce unenforceable, impractical and unpopular laws on their own people, for the umpteen-billionth time!

Those crazy politicians. It's rather cute, watching them fumble around in the darkness of the 21st century.

Replies

  • aesir
    Offline / Send Message
    aesir polycounter lvl 18
    this is what your link linked to as the source. So maybe post the source. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/25/file-sharing-internet

    Anyways, is this a big deal? Sounds fine to me... Better than fining people 675 thousand dollars for 24 songs. Especially when the fine for stealing the actual CD is only 2,500...
  • Surfa
    Offline / Send Message
    Surfa polycounter lvl 12
    File sharing is bad m-kay
    2008-02-23-Mackie.jpg

    But seriously the idea works in theory but alot of people are now depend on the internet in one way of the other so if the message isn't spread out properly it could easily turn into a fiasco.

    Doesn't really bother me much the only reason I used to fileshare was to get music I couldn't find in shops but now with itunes and all the jazz that shouldn't be a problem.


    Although this is all implying they will only block the internet of people who participate in illegal file sharing an it doesn't target people who uses file sharing systems to gain faster downloads of perfectly legal files.
  • Ghostscape
    Offline / Send Message
    Ghostscape polycounter lvl 13
    Your article doesn't talk about the actual law, just bitches about how it is unfair and how other people agree with them that it is unfair.

    the actual law cutting off people's internet access seems interesting, and I find it neat that France found it unconstitutional - As someone who has grown up with an internet connection since he was 11 or so I find it interesting that it is being considered infrastructure and a necessary service rather than a perk.

    Ultimately I live in America so I can't really be arsed to care about the UK other than that their legal system tends to be about 5 years closer to 1984 than American law.

    I don't really think game developers have a place to bitch about cracking down on music and movie piracy when we bitch so much about game piracy. It seems like its all shitting in the same pool.

    "In the report, the then communications minister Lord Carter said illegal filesharers should receive letters warning them their activities could leave them open to prosecution. If that failed to reduce piracy by at least 70%, Ofcom would have the power to call on internet companies such as BT to introduce so-called "technical measures" to combat piracy. The most draconian of these measures was to slow down a persistent filesharer's broadband connection, but it would not appear until 2012.

    But today the government will take the unusual step of proposing much stricter rules midway through the Digital Britain consultation process. Illegal filesharers will still get warning letters but if they continue to swap copyrighted material they could have their internet connection temporarily severed, although it may be possible to retain basic access to online public services."

    Is this saying they're expecting a 70% drop in all piracy, or that the warned folks need to drop their personal piracy by 70%?

    It seems like they're saying if 70% of all piracy isn't reduced by sending out these letters, then they will enforce their new rules. Which basically seems like an out to give them full authority to impose their shit since sending letters to some individuals with no knowledge or concern for the whole will obviously not reduce all piracy by 70%.

    On the other hand, if the individual is allowed to pirate at 30% of their initial piracy, it seems like the government is condoning a certain level of piracy, which seems to contradict their stance on the issue.
  • okno
    Let's just hope whoever oversees this can tell the difference between legal and illegal file-sharing. I'm all for punishing the pirates, but I get the feeling that anyone using bit torrent will be under suspicion, even if they're using it legally. A bit like how, if you don't own a television, they can send someone to your house to have a look around, since they suspect you're avoiding paying the television license fee.
  • Ruz
    Offline / Send Message
    Ruz polycount lvl 666
    I keep all my files inside a cake in case I have to break out of prison.
  • Mark Dygert
    Hahaha Ruz

    But seriously its like you imported a bunch of US senators... Did they come over to the US for a visit and drink the water? I hear that's a really bad idea.
  • kat
    Offline / Send Message
    kat polycounter lvl 17
    okno wrote: »
    Let's just hope whoever oversees this can tell the difference between legal and illegal file-sharing. I'm all for punishing the pirates, but I get the feeling that anyone using bit torrent will be under suspicion, even if they're using it legally. A bit like how, if you don't own a television, they can send someone to your house to have a look around, since they suspect you're avoiding paying the television license fee.
    You are. It's a shift in paradigm, you're actually guilty unless you can prove innocence with those things. In the UK if you buy a TV the shop that sold it to you has to, by law, inform the authorities you've done so, they then check against their data to see if you're licensed, if not, round goes the van.

    P2P networks are worse because companies are employed by the likes of EMI, Sony et-al to monitor all traffic on them, regardless as to what that traffic is or for (I don't know *how* that's technically done except for reading something about 'baiting'). So yes, that very action means everyone is under suspicion rather than specific individuals who the authorities could justifiably (and 'lawfully') monitor.
  • Steviant
    Ghostscape: Well, yes, but it does link to the documentation, which means that people can read it themselves and see exactly how stupid it is.

    The point, more than the "oh it's so unfair" stuff, is the fact that the government has already been thinking about doing this for a couple of years now, and decided earlier this year that it was a little draconian, so decided against it. Peter Mandelson has a dinner date with David Geffen and all of a sudden its the number one priority. We have far more worrying issues to deal with than filesharing, but it seems that the friends of the idiots in charge have more of a say in what should be governed than the actual populous does.

    The thing that rather worries me about the whole thing is that they actually don't have the first idea what they are legislating. Those measures are INSANE. You can't monitor that level of traffic effectively enough to be able to say, without a doubt, that the person that you have decided to punish for a so-called crime is actually guilty of a crime in the first place. For instance, World of Warcraft uses BitTorrent to distribute it's updates, but I seriously doubt that Labour understands the difference between "BitTorrent" and "The Pirate Bay".

    Combine that problem with the fact that in order to implement even a percentage of these measures, there has to be constant surveillance on the ISP's part, on the governments behalf. Making private organisations do their dirty work in the first place is bad enough, but the fact that they are essentially telling them to spy on their customers? That gets a little too 1984 for me.
  • ZacD
    Offline / Send Message
    ZacD ngon master
    I don't listen to bands/record companies that are part of RIAA, anyone that supports (directly or indirectly) the RIAA charging $1,000-$17,000 per song is crazy.
Sign In or Register to comment.