Unlicensed file sharers have a new name to toast this morning: Lord Razzall. Together with his Lib Dem colleague, the party's spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport Lord Clement Jones, Razzall has tabled an amendment (No.76) to the Digital Economy Bill that gives serial infringers a bit of leeway. Well, quite a lot of leeway …
.... Yet another reason I'll be continuing to vote Lib Dem...
As if trying to stop Scheming Dave and His Lordship of Darkness from getting / maintaining power wasn't enough...
I don't believe I'm saying this, but I think I might join ya.
Screaming Lord Such & The Monster Raving Looney Party when you need them.
Their policies are actually beginning to make sense, especially when compared to the other loonies..
There is also another reason why we should vote LibDems. To balance the parliament so no one party can pass any laws they want. If law gets stuck on discussion stage, newspapers are more likely to pick it up and trigger national discussion. That can only be a good thing.
Sadly, Sutch is dead now, but I'd still vote for him in preference to the available competition.
Re: Where Is
I believe at one point the Looney Party promised free biscuits for the unemployed. Now that's a vote winner!
No, no, no, no, no.
It still misses the fundamental point. Just because someone makes a claim, it does not make it fact if they repeat it n number of times.
If the copyright holders are so sure of themselves, take people to court for breach of copyright, the way they currently can under current legislation.
Any law which puts hear-say as evidence (you know, just like the eCRB does, thanks LieBore) is not a viable law. Any law which removes the right of Habeas Corpus (equally, like all the fines for littering, anti-social behaviour and so on, thanks LieBore), which has been enshrined in law since the Magna Carta, should not get through parliament (assuming MP's "work for you").
This government is full of so much fail it's quite unbelievable.
Plenty of thick bastards in Brizl, and any policy that will never be implimented in law is easy to spout.
BTW Clegg in Sunday said the UK should accept, as asylum seekers, all homosexuals, who who wish to escape any intolerant governments in Africa. Now that's really well thought through isn't it, co' we have all he space in the world in the UK. Now that's pig shit.
Re: "LibDems clever?"
Daily Mail much?
"Plenty of thick bastards in Brizl, and any policy that will never be implimented in law is easy to spout.
BTW Clegg in Sunday said the UK should accept, as asylum seekers, all homosexuals, who who wish to escape any intolerant governments in Africa. Now that's really well thought through isn't it, co' we have all he space in the world in the UK. Now that's pig shit."
You mean thick bastards who can't string a sentence together? Or spell "implemented," and whatever word "Brizl" is supposed to be?
At least Africans can spell their own language.
re: A title
"It's only a small consolation, but it's something at least, something to let those of us smart enough to understand the implications of our votes that there is at least some justice in the world."
My, what a high opinion of yourself you do have!
The simple fact is that the Lib Dems could also promise jetpacks for all... sounds good, but it ain't going to happen 'cos they ain't going to get in at a national level.
The main reason the LibDems started running Bristol Council is because Labour made a pig's ear out of it, there's little support for the Tories (who are a bunch of shockers here) but if you think that the LibDems are doing a good job, then you don't live in Bristol. One of the first things the LibDems tried to do was to shut down a number of well-used amenities, such as swimming pools and libraries (most of which in poorer areas of the City), which led to a number of protests and a quick climb down. The current shennigans involving the building of a new football stadium for the World Cup (whether we get it or not) that is dependent on yet another giant supermarket in Ashton Gate are all very murky and there isn;t much public support for either. New party running things, same old crap.
If you really want to attract people to the cause, it might be an idea of to climb of your high horse.
50 is hardly a large amount if you count say for example singles.
Heck should you lose your mind and decide to grab the latests "Now that's what I call pop sh**" that could be you out straight away!
...the is never more than 42-44 tracks on a two disc "Now..." album. So you would still have bit of a download "allowance" left.
The problem with Lib Dem election promises
Is that they are more like election dreams.
They may as well say they'll give each voter a free unicorn once they get elected for all the good it will do them.
Just because they haven't won, doesn't mean they won't.
If people stopped putting up with the Tory/Labour rubbish and actually took a stand by voting for a different party, the country would probably be in a better state.
Don't vote for who you THINK will be the next government, vote for who you WANT to be the next government.
And my usual advice: If you don't know who to vote for, DON'T VOTE! Ticking the "blue" box or the "red" box because it's your favourite colour or your parents' choice is worse than not having an opinion.
@"fifty free download sessions"
What so if you reconnect 50 times (even while downloading 1 file), then its time up.
Well thats just about every file sharer. Within 50 days, everyone using file sharing software could be easily squeezed into this definition of "fifty free download sessions".
Sounds like another empty and meaningless political statement. So they want to re-word the document, so they can tell us, hey everyone, look we done good, (just before an election) yet its actually meaningless.
Sounds like another typical two faced politician. :(
Tim and Tim get it right
Pleased to see that the Tims understand that cutting people off the internet is a serious thing and should not be done casually.
As I read it, it's not 50 infringements, but 50 complaints, and each complaint would have to be for a new infringement that occurred after you had be notified of the previous complaint. If you managed to get 50 solicitor's letters sent to your ISP about you, then you would have been trying really hard to get yourself cut off.
Vote Lib Dem
What have we got to lose.
Our civil liberaties - GONE
Our Money - Paying bankers bonuses
Our Pride - Gone
Our Chocolate - Gone
We have nothing left to lose
Ha, I don't know about pride and chocolate but kiss goodbye to any remaining civil liberties and moneys if that lot gets elected!
...at least not until hyperinflation takes hold, then we are all paupers.
Which party has actually bothered to put up *ANY* real opposition to NuLabour's nonsense? Here's a hint, it ain't the Tories.
They had the chance to kill idiocy like the Extreme Porn legislation, but they didn't because, as one Tory Peer admitted to me "We don't support Lib Dem amendments".
Wow! Thanks, guys...
why don't they...
Ignoring the dodgy figures spouted by the recording and music industries because we know that every downloaded album is not necessarily a lost sale, much as they want us to believe it is.
Why not levy a charge on every unlimited broadband user, say £20 a year, to be divided up between the copyright holders.
ISP's moniter traffic, but to allow fair division of the cash raised to the copyright holders.
So they get the cash owed and serial downloaders are no longer worried about a knock on the door from plod.
If you don't want to pay the £20, then you are fair game for possible legal actions.
"Why not levy a charge on every unlimited broadband user, say £20 a year"
Excellent! A new compulsory Poll Tax that goes to subsidize the music biz. I'd like to see you sell that idea to the Daily Mail, Grauniad, Reg commenters, etc.
Dealt with here:
Why I should pay £20?
So when I haven't downloaded anything illegal for a year, will the copyright holders refund my £20?
What about those who download more than £20 worth of illegal data? How do you get the extra from them?
Re: why don't they.
"Why not levy a charge on every unlimited broadband user, say £20 a year, to be divided up between the copyright holders."
In other words steal from the innocent to give to the rich.
See anything wrong with that?
A £20 Levy
I think the point being made was that if you want to download stuff, then you can pick a broadband subscription that has, included in the cost, a £20 levy that goes to the rights holders as a payment for their creativity. If you don't want to download stuff (ie youo'd prefer a physical medium or you don't really like the stuff that's being produced, whatever) then you pick a broadband subscribtion that doesn't include the £20 levy. Then if they found someone with a non levied subscription downloading copyright material, they can do all the stuff the media mafia are requesting. If you've paid for a levy then you can download what you want as the rights holders will have been compensated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, original poster
Private King Johns
I bet you love the television licence, don't you? What do you mean by "no"?
If the media industry executives were our elected representatives (instead of being in bed with our elected representatives and Mandy, who isn't elected, obviously), then they'd have tax-raising powers. But they aren't. And they aren't representatives of a public asset that can be considered an extension of the public bureaucracy. So, no free money for them!
A private tax?
That will be what - a charitable collection to keep recording industries executives' champagne flowing?
What we need (and what the music, movies, software industries really need but refuse to see) is a legal ban on DRMs. Only then these "rights-holders" will be able (forced) to compete on equal terms with "free" downloads (which are never free anyway - bandwidth, time to search, risk of getting a virus instead of lady gaga or whatever...). Yes there will always be infringing downloads but they will be marginalised and anyway they just replace what used to be the word-of-mouth spread of awareness about products in pre-internet era.
Itunesky clearly showed that there is a market there so, when the "rights-holders" will stop chasing control and start chasing business they can get a share.
At the moment though, the IP owners are solely after the control (in reality none of them cares about piracy in the sense of people downloading stuff) because they have this wet dream that once they assured total technological control over the use of content they will magically multiply the returns per product x10, x100 times without making much efforts.
Imagine, you will have to ask their permission and pay every time you want to play, stop, rewind, FF something. Want to play it in your car? - there is a car tariff. On a plane? - hurry, get you special discount on air passenger rate. Want to play something on a higher quality player? - there is a license for that - just download the "platinum" unlock key. And sorry, you are not licensed to watch that movie on a SONY TV, your license is for Samsung and weekdays only, no weekends...
Well, I can see that there are naive but highly paid executives who are having orgasms at the thoughts of how much money they will make when they get there, but it's never going to happen, Mandelson or no Mandelson. So, they need to just relax and get down to business and a legal ban on DRMs will be a good incentive for them to start.
What's needed is a STIFF penalty -- for making false allegations
The way to ensure action is only taken only when justified is to have an anti-fine of at least ten times the standard penalty if somebody implies another has committed an offence and the implication turns out to be false.
Example -- man knocks on door "You don't have a TV licence, please prove you don't have a TV".
If TV found -- fine £1000. Fair enough, an offence was committed.
It TV not found -- fine the caller £10,000 for investigating without adequate proof.
Same with file sharing, ebay takedowns, etc -- if you don't have 100% irrefutable proof, don't take action -- there must be compensation of at least ten times the potential fine to prevent abuse.
The liberals are even more determined to sell us down the road to a federal Europe, so I doubt they'd have any power left to make this kind of decision after being in power for a few years.
So whats to loose
We might now be recovering from recession like Germany instead of still going down the tubes whi;e being told what a wonderful job the Darling Gordo has done for us.
'Best placed for recovery as a result of our policies' NOT....
Erm... you need to think that over for a moment. Europe is swiftly becoming our last great hope for freedom and civil rights in the UK. As anti-federalist as we might want to be, we can't deny that without the ECHR and other EU organisations (yes, I know the ECHR *isn't* the EU or EEC) we'd be completely stuffed.
Look at the ECHR response to ID Cards, Phorm or s44 to see what I mean.
I'm rapidly becoming pro-European because they seem to be more concerned about our rights than our government is!
Thats one more tick for the Yellow Party.
I want a free unicorn...
@Alan Gregory 1
oh dear, you were sounding reasonable until you decided to put the fucking meerkat twat quote in there :(
it's advertising, they are trying to get in your head, for their own purposes, and it appears to be working.
-Wake Up Alan!
It's a meerket. I know. But it has taken me the time of clicking reply and writing the first five words before I remembered it was "compare the market", thanks to the "compare the meerkat" version. A fairly brilliant bit of creativity there. But, without going to the site (and I have no plans to), compare... compare what? Prices on knock-off iPods? Insurance? My-bed's-better-than-DFSs-bed?
It's like those deliciously obscure adverts for silk cut or the drink-ones-with-Rutger-Hauer. If you didn't already know, you'd probably have no idea WTF it was about. Like what's the deal with those big fake bulls on the hillsides in Spain? It's the same deal. A legacy of an advertisement. Just like "seemples" will be. Ten years from now people might still be saying "seemples" with no idea it was a CGI foreign (Russian?) meerkat advertising comparing... something.
Seemp... no, I shaln't. :-)
That would be why here in Southport, the Lib Dems have systematically destroyed our once thriving town. Under their leadership they have taken a seaside resort and tried to turn it into a shopping centre. The last thing the area needed was more shops as weh have shopping centres on all sides - Liverpool, Preston, Ormskirk and Wigan all competing for shoppers money.
The sensible thing to do would have been to provide attractions to bring people to the town to spend their disposable income on, things that other areas could not provide. Instead we now have an endless parade of shops you can find anywhere - M&S, Next, Topman, River Island etc etc which is hardly an incentive for anyone to come. Why should they bother if they can get the exact same things on their own doorstep? The Lib-Dems are at a loss to explain why visitor numbers to the town are down, when most of the residents can tell you exactly why.
Anytime anyone comes up with an idea for a new attraction, they shoot it down. Anytime a new shopping centre wants to open it gets the go ahead, while all the time they increase the council tax rates while reducing the available services and have gradually moved all decisions about what happens to the town over to Bootle, instead of keeping it locally in our own town hall. They have public consultations on plans for the town and then completely ignore the wishes of the residents. Look up the pedestrianisation of Chapel Street as an example. It was put to a public vote, we decided we didn't want it so they ignored us completely and spent millions of pounds of our money because they had already decided that is what they wanted to do.
Council services are a shambles, repairs are a shambles, local housing is expensive despite constant reassurances they are commited to affordable housing for local people, the roads are full of pot-holes that never get repaired and all the time the 'intelligent mindset' that you mention complain about what is happening to the town and how badly run it is.
Then at the next vote guess what they do - they vote them in again because that's who they have always voted for and are too scared to change. They then continue to complain about lack of services, council tax increases and all the rest because the 'intelligent mindset' didn't have the sense to get rid of them at election time and not because they thought that they are doing a good job.
Whatever you do, do not vote Lib-Dem - even the monster raving looney party would do a better job of management than those idiots. I shudder to think what they could do if they got control of the whole country. As a former Labour voter, I feel my only option in the next general election is to vote Tory as Labour have made a complete mess of the country and the Lib-Dems have made a complete mess of my town.
This is happening to every northern town, irrespective of whether they are Labour or LibDem run. No matter which party holds the seat, the staff who actually make the decisions are the same.
Here in Wigan we were 'rewarded' with a new shopping centre, the Grand Arcade, when half the shops in the already-standing Galleries were empty.
Large, generic out-of-town retail parks are the norm across the country now. Every town is being standardised, and pulled into the CCTV/police state.
Commerce rules now, sadly, and the companies with money make the decisions, not the people.
Is this the antidote?
What does council matters have to do ...
with the InterNet?
I think I'm voting Lib Dem
I don't think they'll get in to power, in fact, I don't really want them in power.
But I do want a bigger bunch of them in Parliament shouting at the other idiots.
In (previously) safe Labour constituency. Vote Lib because they are more likely to lose Labour the seat. No, I wouldn't want them in power, but it would be nice to see Labour in the C21 reduced to the position of the Libs in the last century.
me, I'm an anarchist, a tory anarchist but an anarchist.
Do people vote for the party that they think will win? Do some people not vote for Lib Dems or whatever because they've got no chance of winning? I mean, do people treat voting for MPS in the same way they treat voting for Strictly Big Star?
my biggest concern with the LibDems is that they want to rehabilitate all the murderers and put them back in society (-1 there)
however, at lest the LibDem leader (whatever he is called!) is not of the GB/TB God-squad ilk and won't be claiming God told him to invade whatever country the next lot of oil's found in (+1 there)....
....that does remind me, they were opposed to the Iraq war too...hmmm, another +1, I might have to find out their leaders name after all so I know where to put my X
[PS: +1 for the downloads too!!]
I'm quite sure there are a number of people who'd support Lib Dem, but convinced that they'll never win instead resign themselves to picking the lesser of the two evils that might.
I rember seeing a lib dem campain advert that went
"60% of voters would vote lib dem if they thougt it was not going to be a wasted vote if 60% of pepol voted lib dem it WOULD not be a wasted vote"
Losing the plot
I'm sure that I've missed something but isn't a chunk of this bill about making an acitvity (copyright breach over the Internet) that only has to be proven in the courts on the balance of probabilities and for which there has never been a successful plaintiff., into a crime for which no evidence need be shown, with absolute power to enforce punishment.
Reminds me of CBBC Horrible Histories
"Have you had something bad happen in your life? Then call Witchfinders Direct! We'll burn an old women without justifcation. Call now"
He sounds like a Nordic death metal band or something! Wasn't he also a porn mag back in the day?
Paris, why who else?
Origins of slang
"Unlicensed file sharers have a new name to toast this morning: Lord Razzall."
Hence the slang term "on the razz" meaning "to participate in a session where alcohol is imbibed in quantity" - something which people toasting others in the morning are quite likely to be doing.
The BPI - technical humourists
Living in VietNam I enjoy the benefits of a 'Mandy' free environment where Bittorrent rules and copy software compilations on DVDs sell for a $1.50.
Annually BPI comes out with its 'guesstimates' of hot software used in the Indochina region based upon pure fantasy. If the government of VietNam doesn't know how many computers are in existence in the country, how does BPI know?
The police, along with some government techies from Ha Noi, make a lot of noise and search offices, without warrants, for computers loaded with hot software. . Fortunately we have a totally corrupt police force and for $16 they will warn people of impending inspections.
We have now gathered a collection of very, very realistic disks - complete with hot licence stickers (sold in China) - so when our green-uniformed Plod arrive we proudly show them our licences and after a coffee they disappear.
Little wonder Linux is being blessed by governments hereabouts and schools have standardised on open/freeware programs.
But as sure as hell, the BPI will out and about spreading their lies and idiots like Mad Mandy will be taken in yet again.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS