Long Live TPB where not everything is illegal on there.
The government has today unexpectedly revived plans for laws to disconnect persistent illegal filesharers, in a move to delight the entertainment industry and anger ISPs. The unscheduled changes to the Digital Britain consultation also envisage a more powerful, direct role for Lord Mandelson. Despite denials last week, the …
Long Live TPB where not everything is illegal on there.
Rent-a-politico if i've ever seen one.
VPN it is then.
... had persuaded it to reconsider introducing the threat of disconnection from the internet.
Err, excuse me? "we will be extending the deadline for responses to 29th September 2009"
The fucking Consultation hasn't even *FINISHED* yet, but already you're deciding what you're going to do?
Why not just admit that, like every other damn consultation you've held, it's a complete sham because you're going to do what you like anyway?
How about we all club together and buy Mandy an expensive dinner? Maybe *THAT* is the way to get Government policy changed...?
I have watched over the past few years as freedom after freedom gets eroded by the 'Labour government' and I have shook my head watching no-one do anything about it.
I will be damned if I am gonna let this government think it can hound me in my own home... with it's powers to the councils, the fake coppers it puts out on the streets and everything else,this is one step too far,and I think any ISP that agrees to it needs abandoning... quickly...
Mines the one with the plane ticket to Guernsey, Working Permit and passport thanks!
I live in a house with 3 other people - all of whom are avid internet users, the internet account is in my name. I can ask them not to download - I can even block the ports on the firewall but either way if they know enough about technology they could circumvent this. Am I then responsible for their actions? I need the internet at home as I work from home often - for the government to then force suspension of my internet for the actions of another individual is illegal I am sure.
This country seriously sucks balls and good work to all of the people creating encrypted P2P stuff - lets make this as difficult for them as possible!
I hate politicians. Should I go as far as to hate democracy?
Not only is there more than a passing similarity in looks between 'the gentleman also know as Mandy' and the MCP from Tron, there are now ever growing similarities in working methodologies too.
Cue the light-cycles and a search for the exit
Stephen Timms, minister for Digital Britain, explained the change of heart.
"We've been listening carefully to responses to the consultation this far, and it's become clear there are widespread concerns that the plans as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights holders," he said.
So they are going to ignore our rights in favour of a bunch of greedy <insert suitable offensive ephitet here>.
I'm not talking about our "right" to be a freetard, but our "right" to be innocent until proven guilty.
As has been shown already with certain legal firms use of threatening letters, odds are that there will be very little in the way of burden of proof before we find ourselves cut off. And, no doubt, there will be almost no way of proving that we weren't guilty once we have been cut-off.
Yes, I admit I download BitTorrent stuff, but I don't do it on my home connections. I lease a seedbox from a French company that does all my peering/seeding and then download from that using a simple FTP program. How are they going to police me???
I've got an unlimted (sic) account from BT and get an email once a month to say I've excedded their FUP (sic again) and I ring up every month and complain that the account is described as unlimited when it's plainly not...
Best of luck UK Gov - but I think you're on a non starter here...
I don't like the sound of this at all.
When the bandwidth speeds come up and people start hosting their own websites etc. This is going to be used to enforce some kind of internet tax.
Users will be determined as an unauthorised broadcaster and disconnected. It is a slippery slope.
Can we have a new icon with Mandelson in it?
Its amazing how many people who meet Lord Peter get changes made to there advantage......the aluminium deal, gaddafi's son,now a media mogul.......it wont be long until they are meeting on HIS yacht at this rate.
Not long till the election now !!!
He is not even elected. To give the man so much power of discretion is typical of nulabia's disregard for due process.
And are they complete morons? If they *really* have a case for preventing people using p2p illegally (or do they mean using p2p to breach copyright? after all, using p2p is not illegal per se as far as I know), and I am not convinced they have, why not block P2P access on that connection rather than blocking everything? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I am not supporting blocking p2p anyway, but why block everything?
BB because he is....
This hugely influential plonker has been thrown out of government twice and could never get elected again. And yet, he gets to make huge decisions about what kind of country we live in because the elected officials are too busy crying to their bank managers about their sudden loss of income.
If you wanted to come up with a system of government that made it easy to buy influence you wouldn't be far from what we have here.
Forget the meeting with David Geffen, the most pertinent part of the report is
" ... also envisage a more powerful, direct role for Lord Mandelson."
Lord Mandy is a power grabbing freak who created the current Government's love of having all power in Whitehall.
The most powerful non elected man in this country (At least brown is an MP) Mandelson is just toilet filling of the highest capacity as shown by his previously two sackings from government.
He is scum of the highest order and this is just one of many thigns the leech has done. He always reminds me of a skesis. From the dark crystal, evil to the core and the morals of a scorpion.
It won't change anything, it just means more eaves dropping, more meddling and even more legislation to get through before something is changed.
We need a symbol of guy Fawkes for any governmental meddling.
In short - here's why UK Gov has changed it's mind...
* Geffen was an early supporter of Barack Obama for president and raised $1.3 million for Obama in a star-studded Beverly Hills fund raiser
* Geffen has an estimated net worth of $4.6 billion, making him one of the richest people in the entertainment industry
"Who made Mandelson a lord? The Sith?"
Nasty, slimy little politician.
My child requires internet access for their schoolwork. I can argue that I dont, and do it on my phone.
If this is criminal legislation, and if the contract is in my child's name, whilst he is below the current legal age of criminal responsibility, could (assuming he might not be expected at his tender age to have the technical knowledge required to secure his wifi beyond default) any "dodgy downloading" be done with impunity?
If not, then we'll probably all have informal agreements with the neighbours where they can show they were on holiday when their wifi was hacked for two weeks of data transfer every so often, thus holding them harmless.
When will these idiots learn?
3 strikes rule is too broader punishment for an individual as they clearly stated themselves it would punish innocent people who live with said person. I’d be interested to know how they can categorically prove that this person has downloaded illegal goods?
Also why the hell should ISP’s have to monitor what Joe blogs does? I was under the impression that it’s the copyright holder’s responsibility to look after its own goods not a 3rd party.
iTunes, spotify, last.fm, steam, etc etc.... prove that if the “entertainment” industry pulled their finger out and produced a good distribution model people will use it and buy legally
so in short GIVE US THAT GOD DAMN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY HOW WE WANT TOO
sorry if it's very disjointed too many cups of coffee
I'd like to say, please bring on the election so that we can get rid of the rotten stench of it all.
If the music industry wish to take me to court in a civil copyright infringement case, by all means do so.
If, however, they want to simply introduce guilt by accusation, with no due process of law, they can fuck right off.
"UK's Intellectual Property minister, David Lammy (elected by Tottenham), said the government would not force internet service providers to pursue file sharers.
'We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms,'"
- BBC News 12th May 2009
So now Mandy (elected by nobody apart from Gordon), who was twice sacked after corruption scandals, has now decided that the elected ministers don't get to make the rules - he does, coincidentally after a nice spot of lunch with David Geffen?!
Please, do fuck off Peter...
How the hell do we take the power back from these corrupt, money grabbing, self serving, conniving toss pots? Serious question...
Let's stop filesharing. Let's go back to swapping cds/dvds and copying them for mates. How about CD clubs amongst peers (sic). Let's see them try to stop that.
And let's stop buying overpriced unimaginative formulated crap that the media industry peddles.
...I hack one of my many neighbours WEP visible wireless networks and they get struck off? ...or I access through a coffee shop WiFi point and they go? It's like banning car hire companies for customers speeding offences.
. . . Frankie Boyle got it spot on :
"Who made him a Lord ? The Sith ?"
An unelected appointee of the Labour Government dictating policy to please his chums in Corporate land. He is of the firm opinion that he rules this country rather the elected people representing us.
The fault lies with the music/film industry not getting its act together with an effective DRM system. They prefer their old rip off prices for music/films.
Just one more reminder to never let the Labour Party regain the reins of power again.
I wonder if there will be a concerted effort to disconnect the phone lines of those companies using CD's or MP3's etc of licensable music on their hold or queue systems where it is proved they don't have a PPL/PRS license?
It strikes me that this should be treated in exactly the same way. It is distribution of unlicensed material, over the POTS, so the phone line should be cut off, shurely?
"This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used," the government said.
It should - let them deal with the outcry & mess (immediately and at the ballot box). Wasn't it a Roosevelt who said something like 'The quickest way to the abolition of bad law is rigid enforcement'?
Too much law is selectively applied, and often inappropriately (Anti-Terrorism laws used against Iceland???)
If you don't P2P then you don't have a problem.
What's that you say? You can't control your kids? You don't know where they are? If that's the case, you shouldn't have an internet connection anyway.
Watch the price of a seedbox and a VPN go through the floor as the market for them explodes...
Good to see organised crime getting a stimulus package from Mandelson
does anyone else hear the Imperial March everytime you see a picture of Darth Mandy?
You will find quite a few of the Cabinet are not elected officals but Peers that Gordon Brown created and put into the cabinet to stop him getting knifed in the back by offically elected MPs.
A couple of points:
On the one hand, we have a government that proposes a levy on all fixed-line services, the funds raised to be used a resource for a more general upgrade and extension to an aging infrastructure (we're told). If that doesn't say that internet access is now a requirement for all- a utility- rather than a luxury, then I dont know what does.
So, its a utility? Well, we are told that this utility will be cut off if we abuse it. This isn't fair; if we take the example of water or gas, there's no threat to be cut off if we use too much, we're merely billed more. There's no 'fair use' policy attached to any utility that I know of.
But this argument really goes nowhere. The fact is that 'illegal downloaders' as they are known are not the responsibility of their ISP, any more than a bus company is for taking me the library so that I can steal books, or that phone companies are when I make a dirty phone call. Its just a pipe. The ISPs are a soft target.
Or we wait 4 years, like the Wire.
There is an election coming up, and the Labour Party will let Mandleson bypass Parliament and introduce yet another measure sure to be hated by the voting public?
And him being a Lord, he doesn't care, because he can't lose his seat, but them being MPs do care because they can?
All this just after YET ANOTHER holiday on a yacht with rich special interest groups, which will inevitably raise questions about back room deals?
What happens if you use the P2P Sky Player? That uses P2P technology. As do many other things. TVOD will probably use some form of P2P.
As Mandy (and indeed the Labour Government's recent policies) is preposing a "Guilty until proven Innocent" situation, Joe Bloggs could have his broadband disconnected and be dragged into court for LEGALLY downloading.
What if someone hacks your Wireless? I'm sure that with these laws, Wireless hacking will increase dramatically as downloaders try to evade detection.
title says it all. I think they'd better get the country of our its current mess, and then, maybe then consider to utterly piss of the public (once again). no?
...and is nothing more than the logical, if unhappy, conclusion of what happens when governments realise their citizens (or subjects, in the UK's case) actually might be enjoying a little too much freedom online. Time to close that freedom down. Governments do not like the interweb, not one bit. It makes them nervous that their populations might actually have a place to communicate freely, to read 'off-message' journalism and generally disregard the manicured, pre-digested information they would rather we all consume.
Sure, they'll wrap it all up claiming they are 'clamping down' on file sharers, pornographers and terrorists, but in the end all they really want to do is to enact a mechanism for closing down net access to those citizens it would prefer did not have access to the online world. Once the power to confiscate net access is granted, does anyone seriously imagine things will stop there?
The UK government watches in mute envy as Australia's lunatic politicians sabotage all pretence of a free and open society with some of the most breathtaking attacks on online freedoms in recent years - all in the name, of course, of 'protecting' it's citizens from the veritable armies of pornographers out to corrupt an entire nation, no doubt. But Parliament here in the UK would very much like to follow Australia's lead - indeed, it shows every intention of doing so just as soon as it can get the draft legislation through the consultation stages.
Things were always going to end badly. It's not over yet.
That was Frankie Boyle, but regardless, it sums Mandelson up perfectly.
They can have my internet connection..... when they pry it from my cold dead fingers or as soon as they get past 256 bit encryption and prove that what I am downloading is piracy :)
What i would ever really need even a 10meg connection (the smallest virgin offer on cable) for without firing up P2P occasionally. I used to get by fine for online gaming, web, email, etc on my old BT 256k broadband. I can't see why i'd need more than 1 or 2 meg for the most part
ISP's would love it though, as it would mean that most connections were Idle 99% of the time and they could oversubscribe them even more.
It will work exactly as mentioned, if your house mates P2P (and get caught) then it is *your* connection that will be cut.
Although not exactly morally clear cut, I very much doubt it is illegal for the ISP to cut you off - possibly breach of contract but probably not, some clause will state that the connection should not be used for blah... and that the account signatory is responsible for actions taken with / through the account.
Failing that there is the precedent with taking / crushing unlawfully driven cars. If I lend you my car, which has valid tax & MOT and I am covered by appropriate insurance and it turns out you lied to me about your license / insurance then the filth will impound *my* car if you are caught - this deprives me of my car due to the actions of another.
I assume (though I may be wrong when TPoD is involved) that there would be some degree of warnings before you got suspended so what you would need t do is to warn your housemates against breaking the rules and if you then get warned you need to cut them off.
Although the trick of leasing a seedbox helps you, how about helping the ones that get disconnected?
I suggest FON: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FON
In order to share your wireless network with everybody. I would like to see the court make an argument that you actually did the download. And also other people that get disconnected can then still get Internet.
Of course if the government really pushes it's people then I think most will start using TOR for online anonymity.
No way you can limit the Internet (or mess with network neutrality), Pandora's box is already open....
Every street market in South America, Russia and Asia is awash with the latest CDs and movies, none of which are legal, whilst there isn't a single record shop or movie rental place to be found.
Unlike in Europe and the US, that's piracy for profit not personal use. And there are far, far more people in Asia.
So, I assume a hardline stance is being taken right across the world, especially in places where it's consumed instead of rather than as well as paid-for content?
This repeatedly refers to 'illegal downloading'
Leaving aside the veracity of that statement, surely the Courts are there to rule on such things?
If criminal activity is taking place (I did say 'if') then the evidence should be presented, and an appropriate sentence handed down. Politicians should have nothing to do with this, nor should ISP's.
Starting off legislation before the consultation has finished is not new, they've done it before. There's a home education consultation in progress at the moment and they've already announced legislation on the subject for the next session of Parliament.
Your fundamental mistake is assuming that they take notice of anything said in a consultation that isn't in support of what they wanted to do in the first place. The rest of us are irrelevant until about four weeks before the next election, at which point they'll repent, utter three Hail Gordons and plead with us to vote them in again because the other lot are the spawn of the devil.
This has as much to do with Democracy as it has particle physics.
Mines the one with the V mask in the pocket.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017