by coadec
on July 01, 2010 at 10:51AM
Repeal the copyright infringement provisions (sections 3-18) of the Digital Economy Act 2010.
Why the contribution is important
The copyright infringement provisions of the Digital Economy Act pose a substantial threat to the health and vibrancy of Britain's digital economy. Separate from the civil liberties issues the Act raises, these provisions will unnecessarily stifle innovation by, and growth of, the small, technology-driven businesses that form the backbone of the digital economy. Specifically, the provisions create the potential for:
(1) arbitrary or erroneous disconnection resulting from the Act's guilty-until-proven-innocent system;
(2) a substantial reduction in public wi-fi due to the imposition of unworkable burdens on wi-fi providers; and
(3) the elimination of websites that permit user-generated content, and the decline of web locker and software-as-a-service platforms, as a result of the web blocking provisions that allow a platform site to be taken down for inadvertently hosting a limited amount of infringing content.
If an entrepreneur is working to create the next big thing but finds that her Internet connection is randomly cut off, she can no longer access public wi-fi, and even if she could get Internet access she can't allow user-generated content on her website and the SaaS apps that she runs stop working as the underlying infrastructure gets shut down, she's going to have a big problem, assuming she wants to stay in Britain. In turn, Britain is going to have a big problem if the people who would be the key drivers of the digital economy--which by all accounts will be one of the main sources for growth and job creation in the coming years--are forced to choose between ceasing innovation or moving abroad.
The government has put tremendous efforts into promoting technology, entrepreneurship and the digital economy in recent years (the increase in entrepreneur's CGT relief introduced in last month's Budget being just the latest example). It would a shame to see all that good work discarded as a result of one misguided piece of legislation, but that is exactly what will happen if the copyright infringement provisions of the Digital Economy Act remain in force.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
Posted by
NLExpat
July 01, 2010 at 11:04
Change the laws around Copyright.
Why is a Patent only valid for 6 years (US) and 12 years (EU), yet Copyright is for life?
Why can copyright be willed to a relative but a Patent cannot?
These copyright laws might have been valid in the 19th Century but not now. A movie makes all it's money within the the first year from the Box Office and then DVD sales for another year or so followed by TV, so why can't we have Copyright laws which match Patent rules, they allow the producers to make their money back in the first few years, but then allow others to use this material freely.
Software is the same, after only a couple of years it is out of date, but parts of it could be used by other developers and move technology forward not keep it restrained by the few.
When the UK government created libraries, they changed the laws so they didn't have to pay royalties, so there is a precedent here.
Why is a Patent only valid for 6 years (US) and 12 years (EU), yet Copyright is for life?
Why can copyright be willed to a relative but a Patent cannot?
These copyright laws might have been valid in the 19th Century but not now. A movie makes all it's money within the the first year from the Box Office and then DVD sales for another year or so followed by TV, so why can't we have Copyright laws which match Patent rules, they allow the producers to make their money back in the first few years, but then allow others to use this material freely.
Software is the same, after only a couple of years it is out of date, but parts of it could be used by other developers and move technology forward not keep it restrained by the few.
When the UK government created libraries, they changed the laws so they didn't have to pay royalties, so there is a precedent here.
Posted by
alister667
July 01, 2010 at 11:06
The Digital Economy Act was ill conceived, opposed by almost everyone who actually was involved in IT. Shoved through the house without proper time and consultation, it's an abomination. A less well formed piece of legislation would be hard to imagine.
Posted by
WillDavies
July 01, 2010 at 11:09
There was virtually no consultation with experts or the public in general. The assumption of guilt before innocence is a direct attack on the civil liberties we enjoy.
Posted by
nkbahar
July 01, 2010 at 11:19
A bill so fundamentally lacking understanding of the technological landscape that it would be laughable if it hadn't entered the statute books.
Ill-informed, misguided, unworkable.
Ill-informed, misguided, unworkable.
Posted by
michaelstr
July 01, 2010 at 11:26
We must stay competitive with economies which do not have strict enforcement of intelectual property laws. In the long run IP law is doomed, but going to fight a long rear gaurd action.
Posted by
Bugsie
July 01, 2010 at 11:30
The Digital Economy Act has some important provisions which deserved far better oversight and review than to be rushed through in wash-up. Please repeal and have a sensible engagement with industry (on both sides of the argument) to develop a vision for regulation of the digital economy which is forward looking and "fit for purpose" to make UK *the* place to be.
Posted by
Tynam
July 01, 2010 at 11:31
Without question the most ill-conceived, technically ignorant bill to pass the house in decades, the DEA was a textbook lesson in why government-by-lobbyist is a bad idea. The total violation of basic civil liberties and destruction of business infrastructure, in pursuit of a goal that the bill miserably fails to achieve.
That a bill that consists entirely of provisions to restrain, damage and sabotage the digital economy was even able to keep the _name_ of "Digital Economy Bill" is idiotic - and the fact that the wash-up process and had to be so badly abused to bring it in at all says everything. It's an act that even the _proponents_ knew could never have stood a chance in an actual debate.
The Conservative's support for this, and Clegg's abandonment of the LibDem pledge to repeal it, is a hideous black mark on
the new government's record. Get this poorly-conceived trash off the books.
That a bill that consists entirely of provisions to restrain, damage and sabotage the digital economy was even able to keep the _name_ of "Digital Economy Bill" is idiotic - and the fact that the wash-up process and had to be so badly abused to bring it in at all says everything. It's an act that even the _proponents_ knew could never have stood a chance in an actual debate.
The Conservative's support for this, and Clegg's abandonment of the LibDem pledge to repeal it, is a hideous black mark on
the new government's record. Get this poorly-conceived trash off the books.
Posted by
TheStateOfMe
July 01, 2010 at 11:47
The passage of this act revealed a despicably corrupt relationship between parliament and the lobbying groups representing content distribution firms. The whole process revealed just how bent out of shape UK democracy has become. Repeal gives this government a chance to show that it isn't tainted by the abuses of the past, and is willing to side with the consumer (voter), the businessman, the start up company and the artist rather than a decaying group of companies that feel that they need legislation to prop up their outdated businesses.
Experts were consulted, and then ignored. Reports were written, and then discarded. Pubic consultation processes were kicked off, and then abandoned. Finally the text itself was force fed to the legislators by the lobbyists, and whacked through the 'wash up' process. It should therefore be no surprise that this act is littered with inconsistencies and perilous unintended consequences.
Repeal and start again (perhaps from last summer's Digital Britain Report, which whilst it had its failings remains a better place to begin than where we are now).
Experts were consulted, and then ignored. Reports were written, and then discarded. Pubic consultation processes were kicked off, and then abandoned. Finally the text itself was force fed to the legislators by the lobbyists, and whacked through the 'wash up' process. It should therefore be no surprise that this act is littered with inconsistencies and perilous unintended consequences.
Repeal and start again (perhaps from last summer's Digital Britain Report, which whilst it had its failings remains a better place to begin than where we are now).
Posted by
maxlittle
July 01, 2010 at 11:54
This horrendous act should be repealed. Part of it was drafted by unelected industry lobbyists in a position of considerable financial and legislative power. It was passed under "duress" during the wash-up period, with very few MPs actually in attendance. It is draconian, lacks the proper checks and balances of a modern democratic state, and has the potential to lead to law enforcement trampling over personal freedoms including the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence. The premises of the act are nebulous and ill-researched, and in many cases factually incorrect. These factual errors about the relevant economic and technical realities show the act to be the worst kind of faith-based, not fact-based, policy making.
I note that there are several other similar proposals, which hopefully will be merged with this one in order to send a clear message to Mr Clegg that this act is highly unpopular and should be repealed as a matter of great urgency.
I note that there are several other similar proposals, which hopefully will be merged with this one in order to send a clear message to Mr Clegg that this act is highly unpopular and should be repealed as a matter of great urgency.
Posted by
kaitgeo
July 01, 2010 at 12:02
The unfairness of this law lies in the use of IP scraping technology to find 'culprits'.
And IP is not a digital fingerprint. It is a number connected to an account - similar to a credit card number. It is possible to spoof, proxy and create fraudulent IPs in innocent people's names and addresses as it is to set up fraudulent credit cards. However, the DIgital Economy Law does not recognise this - instead it treats IPs logged by third party scrape software (operated by copyright holders with vested interests and a cartel style business model) as reliable, independent information with 100% proof of guilt.
There is also nothing to stop copyright holders accessing user account information for spurious, marketing reasons using the Digital Economy Law. All they have to do is present a list of IP numbers to an ISP, accuse those IP holders of a copyright violation and the ISP is forced to hand over their details without notifying the user. However, the copyright holder is not required to present proof of how they obtained the user's IP, and could easily have collected it from their own promotional site for their products. This creates a situation where a user could be bombarded with unwanted promotional material while unknowingly being on an ISP blacklist.
And IP is not a digital fingerprint. It is a number connected to an account - similar to a credit card number. It is possible to spoof, proxy and create fraudulent IPs in innocent people's names and addresses as it is to set up fraudulent credit cards. However, the DIgital Economy Law does not recognise this - instead it treats IPs logged by third party scrape software (operated by copyright holders with vested interests and a cartel style business model) as reliable, independent information with 100% proof of guilt.
There is also nothing to stop copyright holders accessing user account information for spurious, marketing reasons using the Digital Economy Law. All they have to do is present a list of IP numbers to an ISP, accuse those IP holders of a copyright violation and the ISP is forced to hand over their details without notifying the user. However, the copyright holder is not required to present proof of how they obtained the user's IP, and could easily have collected it from their own promotional site for their products. This creates a situation where a user could be bombarded with unwanted promotional material while unknowingly being on an ISP blacklist.
Posted by
Jericho
July 01, 2010 at 12:10
This act should be repealed. The Open Source project will suffer as a result
Posted by
JManktelow
July 01, 2010 at 12:17
We're essentially an online magazine. We spend a great deal of money commissioning, creating, editing and distributing articles, audios, PDFs, and suchlike. Because we are able to spend this money, we're able to deliver a useful and popular resource to many millions of people around the world.
We can only spend this money if we get a return on investment. This return on investment is harmed by the evil, parasitic, copyright theft websites that are sucking the economic return out of the content creation business.
Content is not free. People who steal it are thieves. People who get rich helping other people steal content are accessories to theft.
We can only spend this money if we get a return on investment. This return on investment is harmed by the evil, parasitic, copyright theft websites that are sucking the economic return out of the content creation business.
Content is not free. People who steal it are thieves. People who get rich helping other people steal content are accessories to theft.
Posted by
wacom
July 01, 2010 at 12:47
@JManktelow
What you are crying your eyes out about is not the *actual* return on your investment, but a *fictional* guarantee on investment.
So, sorry but I would not trade everyone's basic human rights to give your accountant a confidence boost.
If you create content that people enjoy, and keep it coming at a reasonable rate, then you have nothing to worry about. Online magazine content has a shelf-life of a few days at best, followed by a few more days syndicated elsewhere.
You hardly need copyright protection for that, let alone 100 years of it. You definitely don't need the power to take parts of the internet offline whenever you feel like it, or the power to smite anyone who dares copy your precious article on their blog (thief!!).
What you are crying your eyes out about is not the *actual* return on your investment, but a *fictional* guarantee on investment.
So, sorry but I would not trade everyone's basic human rights to give your accountant a confidence boost.
If you create content that people enjoy, and keep it coming at a reasonable rate, then you have nothing to worry about. Online magazine content has a shelf-life of a few days at best, followed by a few more days syndicated elsewhere.
You hardly need copyright protection for that, let alone 100 years of it. You definitely don't need the power to take parts of the internet offline whenever you feel like it, or the power to smite anyone who dares copy your precious article on their blog (thief!!).
Posted by
leckie
July 01, 2010 at 12:55
I have little to add to the comments of maxlittle, kaitgeo, and others other than to say this bill criminalises where it should innovate and educate. It shows a deep misunderstanding of the changes the internet has brought to society and information provision. It is the previous Government's attempt to prop up failed business models, and it would laughably naive if it was not so dangerous to our liberty.
Posted by
straightwicket
July 01, 2010 at 13:14
I'm a private broadband user and my ISP is BT. My BT supplied system has both cable and wireless connectivity. I'm worried that this new act makes me responsible if a hacker succeeds in using my WiFi hub to download copyright material, paedophilia or, God forbid, terrorist data from the web. A trusted neighbour already uses my WiFi when she needs to Google research something for her Parish activities. If her computer is compromised, I'm doubly liable.
This act needs to be modified to, at minimum, allow a legal defence for such potential occurrences.
This act needs to be modified to, at minimum, allow a legal defence for such potential occurrences.
Posted by
sab517
July 01, 2010 at 14:04
Agree entirely. Point 2 is particularly salient for me. Small coffee shops and cafés often distinguish themselves from Starbucks, Nero et al by the provision of free wi-fi which gives them an edge over the economies of scale on product of the giants. The act as it stands imperils their ability to provide this.
This act was, as many have already pointed out, written entirely by a corporate lobby and passed through parliament under the patronage of an unelected politician with a track record of sycophancy to the rich and powerful as part of a term-end process intended for uncontentious legislation, and certainly not for illiberal, idiotic and anti-competitive acts such as this one.
This act was, as many have already pointed out, written entirely by a corporate lobby and passed through parliament under the patronage of an unelected politician with a track record of sycophancy to the rich and powerful as part of a term-end process intended for uncontentious legislation, and certainly not for illiberal, idiotic and anti-competitive acts such as this one.
Posted by
cjmillsnun
July 01, 2010 at 16:00
Please repeal this illiberal act that was rushed through the Commons without full debate at the end of the last Government. As pointed out above, this has effectively made copyright infringement a criminal offence (previously it was a civil matter) and has given the right to copyright holders to disconnect people from the internet without fair trial.
It really has got to go for all the reasons pointed out in the main idea posting.
It really has got to go for all the reasons pointed out in the main idea posting.
Posted by
rob8urlaws
July 01, 2010 at 16:17
The title of this proposal is spot-on because this Act does nothing to help the struggling artist whereas there's evidence which shows filesharing for no cash and no exchange of goods actually promotes the valiant efforts of these wonderful people, thanks for posting this proposal coadec.
The main enemy of the struggling artiste isn't "illegal" filesharing, it's anonymity.
And this Act makes our struggle all the harder. Please repeal sections 3 to 18 of this stupid Act.
The main enemy of the struggling artiste isn't "illegal" filesharing, it's anonymity.
And this Act makes our struggle all the harder. Please repeal sections 3 to 18 of this stupid Act.
Posted by
johncscott
July 01, 2010 at 16:33
this is an idiotic and unconstitutional piece of legislation that should be immediately repealed
those who are in favour of it seem to have no concept of what they lose and appear blinded by what they think they gain
whilst there may be some argument in favour of the ridiculous draconian powers it grants the purpose of the wash-up period is not to introduce a bill and make it's entire passage through parliament into law without any meaningful debate after the election has been called with no scrutiny, public debate or media attention, the media appear to be wholly in favour of it with opposition only being found from the people who will need to operate it - it is wrong totally wrong and should be removed immediately - it is the worst corrupt stitch up of our governmental process in living memory
the consequences of this bill are hugely damaging and require all providers of internet access to behave like soviet era informers it is totally incompatible with good governance of the internet
as someone who relies on VPN access to secured systems being available everywhere I go on the internet in the UK I fear that this technology will stop me as how can the internet access provider know what i am doing in this VPN tunnel and I could be using it to infringe copyyright so they risk disconnection, will libraries and other free access points have the budget to monitor every user or will blanket bans be made to a list of approved websites only?
this risks taking everything that is good about the internet and turning it into a battle
given the large media organisations who are apparently in favour of this act i expect fierce and totally hysterical response to opposition to this bill from them but really this bill is wrong and must be replaced with a bill that has an appropriate amount of time to be debated
this is the worst travesty of democracy in our country that i can think of
those who are in favour of it seem to have no concept of what they lose and appear blinded by what they think they gain
whilst there may be some argument in favour of the ridiculous draconian powers it grants the purpose of the wash-up period is not to introduce a bill and make it's entire passage through parliament into law without any meaningful debate after the election has been called with no scrutiny, public debate or media attention, the media appear to be wholly in favour of it with opposition only being found from the people who will need to operate it - it is wrong totally wrong and should be removed immediately - it is the worst corrupt stitch up of our governmental process in living memory
the consequences of this bill are hugely damaging and require all providers of internet access to behave like soviet era informers it is totally incompatible with good governance of the internet
as someone who relies on VPN access to secured systems being available everywhere I go on the internet in the UK I fear that this technology will stop me as how can the internet access provider know what i am doing in this VPN tunnel and I could be using it to infringe copyyright so they risk disconnection, will libraries and other free access points have the budget to monitor every user or will blanket bans be made to a list of approved websites only?
this risks taking everything that is good about the internet and turning it into a battle
given the large media organisations who are apparently in favour of this act i expect fierce and totally hysterical response to opposition to this bill from them but really this bill is wrong and must be replaced with a bill that has an appropriate amount of time to be debated
this is the worst travesty of democracy in our country that i can think of
Posted by
dug
July 01, 2010 at 17:14
Whatever you think of the content of the bill, this should've never been rushed through.
Especially by Peter Mandelson, especially after having met days before with David Geffen and especially on the Rothchilds' yacht in Corfu.
Go Google it, it's unbelievably true.
Especially by Peter Mandelson, especially after having met days before with David Geffen and especially on the Rothchilds' yacht in Corfu.
Go Google it, it's unbelievably true.
Posted by
project2501
July 01, 2010 at 18:15
Using someone elses hard work without permission and/or remuneration has never been a 'human right'. In fact the 'Universal declaration of human rights 1948' it specifically states that you have a right to fair remuneration for your work and that you have the right to protect works for which you are the author.
Posted by
froglet
July 01, 2010 at 18:26
I agree with contributors above, knee jerk legislation implemented to keep big corporations happy. This will act put unnecessary burdens on private, public and 3rd sector organisations (some of which - e.g. universities, public libraries, schools, etc - will already have measures in place to limit infringements).
The administrative and financial burdens will potentially divert capacity and money away from core business/ service provision at a time when they are already stretched and will potentially have no impact whatsoever. Determined infringers will always find new ways to access what they want...
I know the OFCOM code currently under consultation sets a threshold at 400,000 subscribers and above but the concerned industries are bound to find this is too high, particularly as infringers will of course move to smaller providers to avoid penalties.
The copyright infringement provision of the Act need to be repealed!!!!
The administrative and financial burdens will potentially divert capacity and money away from core business/ service provision at a time when they are already stretched and will potentially have no impact whatsoever. Determined infringers will always find new ways to access what they want...
I know the OFCOM code currently under consultation sets a threshold at 400,000 subscribers and above but the concerned industries are bound to find this is too high, particularly as infringers will of course move to smaller providers to avoid penalties.
The copyright infringement provision of the Act need to be repealed!!!!
Posted by
noodlemaz
July 01, 2010 at 18:38
Hear, hear.
Sort this one out ASAP!
Sort this one out ASAP!
Posted by
nm51ml
July 01, 2010 at 18:48
Too right, this issue really needs some public debate. Maybe this will raise awareness...
Posted by
blueocean
July 01, 2010 at 20:18
The Digital Economy Act is a disgrace to parliament providing decent citizens with more evidence of the corruptability of MPs who pander to the self-interests of powerful lobby groups.
The content of the public consultation prior to the enactment was ignored. The digital industry groups against the bill were ignored.
We will not be surprised if Nick Clegg's initiative here to take further feedback will also be ignored. This whole farce is pseudo-democracy, nothing will change.
The content of the public consultation prior to the enactment was ignored. The digital industry groups against the bill were ignored.
We will not be surprised if Nick Clegg's initiative here to take further feedback will also be ignored. This whole farce is pseudo-democracy, nothing will change.
Posted by
chriscf
July 02, 2010 at 02:22
I did notice the result of the votes. Lib Dems had around 10 MPs that were in the chamber at some point in the debate, all voted No. Conservatives had around 20 MPs that were in the chamber at some point, those off the front bench voted No. Labour had around 20-30 MPs in the chamber at some point, these were split 50/50. Yet somehow there were over 150 Aye votes to the passage of the bill. I think it's fair to say the public were stitched up there.
The Act is not manifestly bad, and would have been even better if the provisions for Ofcom to review the spectrum and the extension to the remit of Channel 4 had survived. However, the provisions of ss.11-18 (at the very least) have to go. They effectively place every subscriber in a position of liability, and puts in place contradictory provisions - on the one hand, it legitimises the pursuit of civil penalties (long held to be unlawful) by suggesting that any action can be appealed through the courts, while at the same time it allows for action to be taken before the stage at which judicial review becomes possible. Most depressingly of all, it allows action to be taken on the back of an unproven allegation, and enjoins providers to actively seek out and keep records of *suspected* infringement and make these records available to anyone that asks.
The Act is not manifestly bad, and would have been even better if the provisions for Ofcom to review the spectrum and the extension to the remit of Channel 4 had survived. However, the provisions of ss.11-18 (at the very least) have to go. They effectively place every subscriber in a position of liability, and puts in place contradictory provisions - on the one hand, it legitimises the pursuit of civil penalties (long held to be unlawful) by suggesting that any action can be appealed through the courts, while at the same time it allows for action to be taken before the stage at which judicial review becomes possible. Most depressingly of all, it allows action to be taken on the back of an unproven allegation, and enjoins providers to actively seek out and keep records of *suspected* infringement and make these records available to anyone that asks.
Posted by
KristianFrost
July 02, 2010 at 02:51
What is almost as important as repealing this horrendous act is for the UK to refuse to sign the international ACTA agreement, from which a lot of this act was undoubtedly lifted by industry lobbyists.
If we sign up to ACTA, then this act will be right back again, but worse, and with less ability for the British citizen to do anything about it.
If we sign up to ACTA, then this act will be right back again, but worse, and with less ability for the British citizen to do anything about it.
Posted by
mcmrbt
July 02, 2010 at 06:59
The government's job should be to protect the rights of British consumers from powerful corporate interests. This Act was a result of a global PR and political lobbying campaign by the entertainment industry, based on largely made-up figures and conjecture.
Posted by
metatron
July 02, 2010 at 08:30
This law potentially criminalises the innocent, presumes guilt without evidence and is technically flawed.
Posted by
bthope
July 02, 2010 at 08:32
Is it not enough for these companies that they constantly regurgitate material that those interested already own, never mind the bonus tracks on CD's, etc. If they were good enough or representative enough they would have been on, or in, the original. In publishing, they have the option to issue paperback editions, and should do so more speedily if they really want to raise sales.
Why, having paid the full price for something, and surely therefore own it, shouldn't we be able to let friends/relations borrow it, whether in it's physical form or digital?
The designers of the Internet brilliantly designed it to be free to all and so it should remain. If you want more and more mad profit like Mr.Murdoch, then leave us the right to ignore it and use other sources. How long before he wants an amendment to make us pay for all of it. The content is free and because of that we pay to use it already.
Why, having paid the full price for something, and surely therefore own it, shouldn't we be able to let friends/relations borrow it, whether in it's physical form or digital?
The designers of the Internet brilliantly designed it to be free to all and so it should remain. If you want more and more mad profit like Mr.Murdoch, then leave us the right to ignore it and use other sources. How long before he wants an amendment to make us pay for all of it. The content is free and because of that we pay to use it already.
Posted by
deanjones
July 02, 2010 at 09:15
Absolutely agree. The Digital Economy Act was a poorly-thought through piece of legislation that was created to protect the dying businesses of old media and content producers. It was rushed through Parliament without due process and will only serve to stifle innovation and the creation of a true Digital Economy in the UK.
Posted by
JamesMayes
July 02, 2010 at 10:14
Terrible legislation pushed through by someone who didn't even know whether the IP he was referring to meant Internet Protocol or Intellectual Property.
Repeal it, re-write it, debate it properly.
Repeal it, re-write it, debate it properly.
Posted by
Heleno84
July 02, 2010 at 10:24
An astonishingly ignorant and badly put-together law. Talk about a blunt instrument against movie piracy!
Posted by
benfurneaux
July 02, 2010 at 10:37
The DE Act was badly conceived and rushed through parliament. Completely draconian.
Posted by
Martyn
July 02, 2010 at 10:41
All the lobbiests have left is money and reputation and at least one of those is running out fast.
Posted by
DigitalD
July 02, 2010 at 11:01
Another example of acts been rushed in very quickly.. I agree this is very draconian.
Looking at the screenshot of Parliment that day, there wasn't even many members involved in this --> http://tinyurl.com/yhzbqc2 nor did they know what an IP address was.
Lets make a change.
Looking at the screenshot of Parliment that day, there wasn't even many members involved in this --> http://tinyurl.com/yhzbqc2 nor did they know what an IP address was.
Lets make a change.
Posted by
cyberdoyle
July 02, 2010 at 11:40
The whole act is a shambles. I was assured by my MP that it was so bad it would never get through washup, so she didn't even go down to vote and the whips got it through. It is a disgrace virtually from start to finish and is going to set us back at least 10 years if they don't repeal it quickly.
We all know it is wrong, its just the few people in power (yes the same ones who get their emails handed to them on dead trees) who are being conned. There is too much of the oldboy network at play and it needs doing again properly, without being done by dinosaurs protecting obsolete business models.
We all know it is wrong, its just the few people in power (yes the same ones who get their emails handed to them on dead trees) who are being conned. There is too much of the oldboy network at play and it needs doing again properly, without being done by dinosaurs protecting obsolete business models.
Posted by
cliffharris
July 02, 2010 at 12:16
this is just a call to legalise theft. Made by idiots.
This law is essential
This law is essential
Posted by
baldingtyres
July 02, 2010 at 12:27
This policy was not given sufficient time to be discussed at all, and was unfair to be included in April's "wash-up" in Parliament.
Time to start again on this one.
Time to start again on this one.
Posted by
VijayC
July 02, 2010 at 12:32
Totally agree; a poor law, rushed through in the Wash up in order to satisfy vested interests.
Posted by
HappyHarry
July 02, 2010 at 13:14
The promised repeal of this was one of the reasons I supported other parties in the general election, please don't let us down.
Posted by
poulan
July 02, 2010 at 13:26
Authoritarian law, anti public, anti trust, government gave in to big business squealing.
Posted by
fulford
July 02, 2010 at 13:47
This bill was not properly debated in Parliament. It should be scrapped and reconsidered following due process, consultation and debate.
Posted by
danieljohnlewis
July 02, 2010 at 14:08
I agree that the act should be re-discussed. I think that the internet & web society should be treated differently to the country society, it [internet soc] is a different kind of beast - one that is built from the bottom up with interconnectedness, openness and freedom at the core, any acts passed (in any country or country union) should represent that interconnectedness, openness and freedom, and from what I've noticed the Digital Economy Act does not do that.
Posted by
Riff
July 02, 2010 at 14:28
this act is abhorrent to a free society and should be repealed immediately.
Posted by
DigitalDude
July 02, 2010 at 19:42
The Digital Economy Bill was created by people who are obvious oblivious of the world they are trying to regulate. I will go one step further and say it prevents innovation, it was designed to support failing business models rather than encourage evolution of certain industries.
The Bill also makes it harder to justify wi-fi hot spots for businesses, technologically ignorant people will not understand how to secure their wireless networks - thus become liable for what happens on it -, and is going to add extra costs to ISP's for policing it.
Poorly thought out claptrap which seems to cosy up to big business at the expense of the public - the same public which you serve.
The Bill also makes it harder to justify wi-fi hot spots for businesses, technologically ignorant people will not understand how to secure their wireless networks - thus become liable for what happens on it -, and is going to add extra costs to ISP's for policing it.
Poorly thought out claptrap which seems to cosy up to big business at the expense of the public - the same public which you serve.
Posted by
xxlguru
July 03, 2010 at 01:54
This was a terrible act, bought and paid for (metaphorically) by the music and film industry and put together in a hurry by people with no real clue about the technology involved.
Arbitrary assumption of guilt without proof is an unfortunate trademark of the last government and is clearly wrong.
They would never have got past legislation for the compulsory tapping of everyone's phones but they managed with the monitoring of peoples e-mail and internet traffic. What will they do when the masses learn to heavily encrypt everything so they can no longer pry...
Scrap it.
Arbitrary assumption of guilt without proof is an unfortunate trademark of the last government and is clearly wrong.
They would never have got past legislation for the compulsory tapping of everyone's phones but they managed with the monitoring of peoples e-mail and internet traffic. What will they do when the masses learn to heavily encrypt everything so they can no longer pry...
Scrap it.
Posted by
maxbiaggi
July 03, 2010 at 08:42
This suggestion (in a few different forms) is now the top "most commented" across all 3 sections of this website.
Now comes the acid test.
What are you going to do about it, Nick and when?
Now comes the acid test.
What are you going to do about it, Nick and when?
Posted by
jonquark
July 03, 2010 at 10:24
Ill-conceived and rushed through - let's get rid of it
Posted by
renton
July 03, 2010 at 11:30
There are so many of these suggestions on this site, if it is ignored then everyone will see that the government made this site as a pr stunt.
Posted by
mjray
July 03, 2010 at 12:03
Two of my local rail stations have lost free public wifi since the DEAct. The extra risks of providing public wifi all fall on the providers, but the consequences of loss of service fall on the community and local economies. I bet the Cloud and other pay-wifi providers have been delighted by DEAct's chilling effect.
Posted by
dcrocker
July 03, 2010 at 12:48
I agree with most of what has already been said. I would add that having the sanction of disconnecting an alleged persistant offender is at variance with government policy of reducing costs by encouraging individuals to access goverment services online.
Posted by
shevek10
July 03, 2010 at 13:34
I object to the "guilty until proven innocent" aspect of the DEA. With my professional knowledge, I know enough to believe that criminals will find ways to hide their tracks, and to pin the blame on innocent people. That said, I don't know enough to think I could defend myself against a false accusation, and that is very scary indeed.
Posted by
liberalfreedom
July 03, 2010 at 14:56
It's terrible legislation that never should have existed.
Posted by
cliffharris
July 03, 2010 at 17:59
*sigh*
just lots of tight-assed thieves wanting to make other peoples work free.
sad...
just lots of tight-assed thieves wanting to make other peoples work free.
sad...
Posted by
jz
July 03, 2010 at 20:57
You cannot set a rating whilst using the Opera browser. Did nobody check this before making the website public?
Also the site cannot cope with the volume of visitors. Rushed out and not thought through, it seems.
Also the site cannot cope with the volume of visitors. Rushed out and not thought through, it seems.
Posted by
mistral
July 03, 2010 at 22:06
If you copy a cd and put it in the post is royal mail liable. No
If you download a cd. Should the isp be liable. No.
If you have a phone line and the police want to listen in it requires a warrent.
If you have an internet connection and send email between people. They simply don't.
There is a telecommunication act requiring warrent for wiretaps etc.. it should be expanded to cover the newer forms of communication.
Posted by
md1500
July 03, 2010 at 22:55
This law will not work.
It will be the innocent that end up receiving these threatening letters. The hard-core pirates will be tech-savvy enough to get round it and encrypt their connections, enabling them to continue downloading.
Worse still, this law will kill off free Wi-Fi in the UK - a massive retrograde step.
I can't see anyone purchasing more music because of this law - just the opposite.
It will be the innocent that end up receiving these threatening letters. The hard-core pirates will be tech-savvy enough to get round it and encrypt their connections, enabling them to continue downloading.
Worse still, this law will kill off free Wi-Fi in the UK - a massive retrograde step.
I can't see anyone purchasing more music because of this law - just the opposite.
Posted by
kennedysuccess
July 04, 2010 at 02:05
Digital Economy Act NEED TAKEN OUT NOW,
Posted by
kennedysuccess
July 04, 2010 at 02:05
Digital Economy Act NEED TAKEN OUT NOW,HAS ANYONE NOTICED THAT YOU CANT COMMENT ON HERE?
Posted by
kennedysuccess
July 04, 2010 at 02:21
Sorry guys i tried to comment after writing a lenghty message,and it did not work,so i will try again,Digital Economy act was pushed through via Peter Mandelson and his Rothchild Banker friend to implement control of the UK people its not about copyright its about controling our freedom,
That said we need to stand together and say no to this facist act that takes our freedom's away in this country,
Euro police that can arrest us without trials,i do not write like some of you educated people on here but i do know this its time for all of us to say NO to this Act.
Again i say sorry for my other posts,regards,Norm
That said we need to stand together and say no to this facist act that takes our freedom's away in this country,
Euro police that can arrest us without trials,i do not write like some of you educated people on here but i do know this its time for all of us to say NO to this Act.
Again i say sorry for my other posts,regards,Norm
Posted by
Readability5
July 05, 2010 at 09:29
The Digital Economy Act was a poorly-thought through piece of legislation that was created to protect the dying businesses of old media and content producers. Repeal it, re-draft it and put it through the rigour of proper debate.
Posted by
timharding
July 05, 2010 at 09:40
Please repeal this act. I run a growing company in the "digital economy" and it does nothing useful for us. The DE Act is about protecting a small special interest that does all it can to limit the expansion of the digital economy. Thank you.
Posted by
Furtle
July 05, 2010 at 10:03
Why such a poorly researched piece of legislation is being kept by the new government is beyond me, repeal the clauses mentioned above and put some effort into approaching the issues they were trying to address using people who actually know how the technology works and can explain why IPs are not reliable indicators of a person or even a place - let alone a specific PC.
As it stands the act is going to stifle innovation and development in the digital space.
As it stands the act is going to stifle innovation and development in the digital space.
Posted by
rebon
July 05, 2010 at 10:39
This was some very poorly drafted legislation that was embarrassingly rushed through. Hundreds of years of experience lawmaking and this is what we end up with. Shocking.
Posted by
mswoodacre
July 05, 2010 at 17:06
Bad legislation, rushed through, without time for people to really understand what they are voting for
Posted by
benedwards
July 06, 2010 at 08:49
Surely this has to be one of the first act's to be scrapped!
It's unpopularity is frighteningly obvious
It's unpopularity is frighteningly obvious
Posted by
graphiclunarkid
July 06, 2010 at 13:16
The DEAct is one of the worst examples of Parliament being captured by a producer interest. Not my words but those of Lord Whitty, the chair of Consumer Focus.
The copyright enforcement provisions of this Act need to be repealed. The Government should bring forth replacement legislation to promote innovation and creativity, as copyright is supposed to do, rather than stifling it in the interests of large international media corporations.
The copyright enforcement provisions of this Act need to be repealed. The Government should bring forth replacement legislation to promote innovation and creativity, as copyright is supposed to do, rather than stifling it in the interests of large international media corporations.
Posted by
GlennPegden
July 24, 2010 at 05:09
The IT community pointed out just how many parts of the Act are well intentioned, but in their current form horribly horribly flawed, it was acknowledged by MPs of all the major parties, but it was still railroaded through parliament without the discussion (or corrections) is deserved.
This isn't about protecting those sharing copyrighted material, it's about protecting innocent users and service providers from wrongful accusation when their resources have been unknowingly used by a third party.
This isn't about protecting those sharing copyrighted material, it's about protecting innocent users and service providers from wrongful accusation when their resources have been unknowingly used by a third party.
Posted by
Tamo123
August 06, 2010 at 19:25
Get rid of this stupid and ill thought out law. It will hurt the people and the media industries will not see anything from it because people will continue to download (or may think I should start downloading because of this bill) You say we should have our freedoms back, yet this bill is still active.
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
The fact that much of this traffic is encrypted and impossible for us to inspect seems to have escaped the regulators!
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate