Digital Economy Bill Passed In the UK 384
Grey Loki writes "The UK government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading – which means it will get royal assent and become law – after just two hours of debate in the Commons."
Re:It was a farce... (Score:5, Informative)
Link moved, here is where you can find the MP votes: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0032.htm#1004088001556 [parliament.uk]
Re:FYI: (Score:5, Informative)
No, we just wish he was incarcerated.
PS. I think the word you were actually looking for is "incarnate", but nice Freudian slip.
Re:can somebody explain (Score:5, Informative)
A "Three-strikes"-equivalent law for filesharers is still in (without trial), and the text of the bill can be ready to imply that it will be ISPs responsible for ensuring that their networks aren't used to infringe copyright - effectively mandating monitoring of all internet traffic at a much greater level than is currently done.
There is also a provision which allows the Secretary of State (with the approval of a court, to allow a tiny bit of balance) to require the blocking of any websites which are involved in the infringement of copyright. Or, indeed, may be used in infringement of copyright. When asked if this would include sites such as Wikileaks, ministers said yes, it would, as the material they leak is copyrighted by its original owners. They were quick to point out that they wouldn't use it to infringe on freedom of speech though.
Yep, I feel real safe with that reassurance.
Other aspects of the bill are actually reasonable, there's just a handful of provisions that are really quite shockingly draconian.
Erm... (Score:2, Informative)
Dear dear, you believed something you read in the Guardian. Shame on you.
Actually the law has not passed, it still has to go to the Lords tonight. Not saying it won't pass there - it almost certainly will - just that the story is hopelessly wrong.
Broadband tax (Score:3, Informative)
The broadband tax was scrapped though. This was a proposed tax of 50p on every household with a landline, intended to raise around £170m per year to fund the development of a super-fast broadband network.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8606639.stm [bbc.co.uk]
It ain't over yet? (Score:3, Informative)
The register say it has not done yet http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/mandybill_last_day/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:It was a farce... (Score:5, Informative)
As a PPUK PPC, I'm more than happy to answer any questions Slashdotters have about PPUK, our policies or how much The Digital Economy Bill sucks...
Here's a bit about me:
http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/04/08/pirate-party-uk/ [thenextweb.com]
http://www.tdobson.net/node/409 [tdobson.net]
Correct. Almost all Conservative MPs abstained. (Score:5, Informative)
AC wrote:
>Can someone explain this to us unfamiliar with British law & politics:
>out of all 646 MPs, only 189 + 47 == 236 of them voted Y/N?
>That's only 36.5% of them. What about the rest? All abstained from voting?"
Correct. Almost all 193 Conservative MPs abstained (in the UK parliament, didn't turn up == abstained).
Of the Conservatives that did vote, more voted against (5) than for (4).
Not that it would have made any difference, since Labour have a majority (this month).
Brits - Contact your MP and then VOTE (Score:5, Informative)
See this list [theyworkforthebpi.com] for who voted and how.
To contact details for them go to WriteToThem [writetothem.com].
If they voted against, let them know that you appreciate it. My MP is Don Foster, who voted against. I've emailed him to thank him for doing so.
If your MP voted in favour, berate them for their obvious contempt for you, not just in passing this bill, but the manner of its passing.
If they didn't vote at all, ask them why they are such a spineless contemptible worm (in the nicest possible way) and ask them why you should vote for a person or party that has so much contempt for you that they couldn't be bothered to debate and vote on such a bill, and could allow it to be passed in this way. Point out that not voting in this case was tacit support for the bill and the manner in which it was passed.
Keep it clean and polite (nut-job rants will be ignored), but make it clear what you think of them and their kind.
As I pointed out to Don Foster, whatever the merits of this bill, the idea that it could be passed in this fashion just goes to show just how much contempt many politicians have for the electorate (as if we needed any more evidence).
And for christ sake, VOTE. I'm bored of people telling me they are not voting because "they are all the same". If you don't want to vote for one of the main parties, vote for an independent or a smaller party. If you don't vote at all then they don't care about you, it doesn't work as a protest.
"In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Tocqueville/Hunter S Thompson (and various others, take your pick).
Re:Erm... (Score:3, Informative)
Time to download I2P (Score:5, Informative)
Rather popular in France and Germany, and growing a lot in the USA and elsewhere:
I2P is a general-purpose network anonymizer [i2p2.de] with built in web, email and bittorrent. You can download other apps for it, too, like a chat messenger and a distributed filing system. There is also a version of eMule available for it called iMule.
I2P was made to host data services in-network, so it is something of a darknet. It shares some of the concept behind TOR, but outproxies are the exception and it is quicker (though not nearly as quick as direct Internet access). If you have some patience and can live with 25KBytes/sec then it should fit the bill for you and provide peace of mind.
Not quite (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, if the Lords do block it, which is possible but relatively unlikely, AND there's no time left for the Commons to overturn the Lords' vote, which is possible and fairly likely as the Mandybill is the last of the wash-up bills to be debated in the Lords, then it will fail, as the current Parliament will be dissolved. Unfinished bills can be carried from one annual session of a Parliament to the next, but can't be carried from one Parliament to another. If the above, admittedly not likely, scenario takes place, then even if Labour do get re-elected with a Commons majority, they'd have to re-introduce the Mandybill from scratch.
Also, not applying to this bill I beleive, but generally any bill that begins in the House of Lords can be thrown out by the Lords and the Commons can't override this. That's why if the government has any sense they always start likely to be controversial bills in the Commons.
Re:It was a farce... (Score:3, Informative)
Factionalisation is only a problem in the UK electoral system because it's not truly democratic (read: not using proportional representation).
In any real Democracy with a proportional system where all votes count the same, many smallish parties together can be as powerful as one big party as long as the total of votes they recieved is more than the votes that the big party got.
In the UK, a party can get a parlimentary absolute majority (more than half the seats) with only 35% of the vote: How Democratic is it when the voice of a third of the people is more important than that of the other 2 thirds ...
So the issue is not one of liberal/idealistic ideologies being prone to defeat due to their own nature but one of uneveness of the playing field.
That said, at the moment the Liberal Democrat leadership dresses, talks and moves in the same circles as the Tory and Labour ones - they copied the style of the top parties, cultivate the same circle of influnces and do not represent a "break with the past", more of a "same shit, new flies".
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not convinced this is true. My understanding of it was that they would have to catch you actually doing it (although I'm sure you could claim entrapment on that) and give you a warning through your ISP. Then they would be able to tell your ISP to cut your internet connection off if they caught you doing it again.
Not that I want to get into a debate about whether it should or shouldn't be illegal or not. Given that it is, this seems to be a fairly sensible way of policing it. It may appear that they are being heavy handed with the threats (to satisfy those who think it is a problem), they can also get away with minimal policing and catching the biggest offenders.
Citation: Section 124A, section 3c of the bill [parliament.uk]
Re:It was a farce... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yup (Score:3, Informative)
They're not generally an option for me, and even if they were running in my constituency it wouldn't matter, being probably one of, if not the safest Labour seats in the country. I don't really have a vote because of our first past the post system, I get to turn up put my little slip in the ballot box, but it's not really a vote, it doesn't really actually matter, it's just something to pacify me as a mere citizen of the state.
At least if we had a PR system I might be able to vote, but as it stands, I'm effectively not entitled to a real vote because I do not and will not vote Labour.
It's one of the disadvantages of living in a nice rural area, that unfortunately has a few miles away from it a bunch of ex-mining villages filled with complete and utter ignorance and an interest merely in which party will give them the best benefits (Labour) and which party was most vocal against Thatcher 25 years ago (Labour), apparently those things are more important than actually, you know, voting for a party that will run the country competently.
Re:It was a farce... (Score:4, Informative)
In the UK, a party can get a parlimentary absolute majority (more than half the seats) with only 35% of the vote: How Democratic is it when the voice of a third of the people is more important than that of the other 2 thirds ...
It's actually much lower than that. To get a majority, you need 50% of the seats plus one, which works out at 50.15% of the seats. Each of these seats is contested on a first-past-the-post basis, meaning that you only need to get more votes than anyone else. This means that, if only two parties stand, you could get a majority with only 25.8% of the vote. Typically, however, you get five or six candidates, with the top two getting around 30-40%, the second place getting 20% and the rest of the vote being split among others. This means that you can generally win a seat with only about 35% of the vote, giving you 17.5% of the overall popular vote.
Note, however, that voter turnout is only around 65% in a general election, so you can win a majority in Parliament if only a little over 10% of the eligible electorate vote for you, as long as it's the right 10%. Some votes are more equal than others.
Re:Tragic would be an apt way to describe it (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't read through all the explanatory notes that cover the bill so I can't comment on the requirements when it comes to throttling/disconnection. But the copyright holder is required to provide evidence of 'apparent infringement' even at the stage where only letters are being sent.
From the Digital Economy Bill explanatory notes, note 47 [parliament.uk] (emphasis mine):
What concerns me is that this part of the law seems to be very much written for Bittorrent. Copyright holders are expected to acquire the IP addresses of infringers by connecting to a tracker. This means that when piracy deserts Bittorrent in favour of another method of distribution, the copyright lobbies will be back asking for broader powers to snoop online.
Re:Yup (Score:3, Informative)
Likewise - "it was going to be you, until you let he Digital Economy Bill through"
Re:Last chance to hang in there? (Score:3, Informative)
The customer will want to ensure you don't turn around and sell the same code to their competitors at a knock-down price, after they've paid for its specification & development.
This can be enforced in the contract, if it's required. Most customers, however, want to spend as little as possible and so are very happy with code reuse. They don't pay for the things other people needed in the past, your next customer doesn't pay for stuff that was developed as part of this contract.
This is why they will insist you hand copyright over to them at the end of the project - they rely on that copyright to exploit the competitive value they've paid for in the software.
It is very rare to hand over the copyright to the customer. You will generally give them a permissive right to the code, but you retain the copyright.
Your argument would have weight if the norm was for the developer to retain the rights, but that is not the norm - you just didn't understand why until now.
It has been the norm for every contracting company that I have worked with. This is why a lot of the small ones are so keen on open source - they get paid for adding the features that the customer needs, but don't have to pay for the original code. The customer doesn't want code, he wants a business problem solved. He only wants enough rights to the code to make sure that you don't screw him on support.
Re:can somebody explain (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yup (Score:3, Informative)
Mining villages can be persuaded to vote for a party other than Labour. See Blenau Gwent for example.