Andy's witterings - Digital economy bill worse than thought

Dec. 3rd, 2009

02:36 pm - Digital economy bill worse than thought

It is being fast tracked, and has already had its second reading the the Lords. tigerfort has written an exposition.

I will add that in the USA, academics have rigorously demonstrated that copyright infringement notices may be issued to printers, routers, and items of hardware that have not had any contatct with anything copyrighted.

In the light of this, I surmise that the lack of any appeal process, and the ability for the authorities to require that someone is disconnected from the Internet without even an accusation of copyright infringement, is because it is known that finding legally admissible evidence is difficult.

I shudder to think what will happen when the government of the day can point at all their opponents and require that they be disconnected from the internet. I think that will be the case before the next election...

Current Mood: scared

scared

(8 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:

From:	megamole
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 03:03 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I'm making a noise about this at home and at work.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	pellegrina
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 03:05 pm (UTC)

(Link)

But who is driving this legislation? Isn't it the music/film industries who feel threatened by filesharing?

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	megamole
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 04:10 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yep. Ebay, Google, Facebook and Yahoo have all complained about it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	alitalf
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 06:31 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Filesharing is the pretext, and part of the motive. It does not make complete sense, based on the statistics that show that people who fileshare tend to buy the stuff they like most, so that on pure revenue from sales the media companies appear to gain by filesharing.

I am sure it is complete coincidence that an unintended side effect makes life difficult for small publishers, and individual musicians and writers.

Equally, it is pure chance that the way it is worded, no copyright infringement need be alleged for the authorities to have someone disconnected from the net. Far from three strikes, not even one is needed. No excuse needed for disconnection, no appeal.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	pellegrina
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 07:05 pm (UTC)

(Link)

So really, what we need is "authorities" prepared to stand up to the megacorporate bullies who are trying to put the small fry out of business in order to obtain a monopoly. I am in despair at how the State is increasingly become an organ for feeding multinational companies what they want in exchange for the crumbs from the table, rather than an alternative model of social contract guided by something other than profit or some Orwellian goal of control. I dare say it was ever thus, but new technologies give more scope for control.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	the_marquis
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 07:36 pm (UTC)

(Link)

What I find more worrying is Tiger's post which mentions it applying to copyright for group publications eg Seminar proceedings

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	pellegrina
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 07:45 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I wondered about that too :-(

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	rustica
Date:	December 3rd, 2009 09:21 pm (UTC)

(Link)

The world is just too depressing. I look at things like this, and I just want my visa for NZ. I seriously can't face it long enough to do anything about it.

(Reply) (Thread)