to be disappointed

[Kaloki]

Ok, I know I'm not. Just wanted more people to know about this.

Did anyone watch the Digital Britain debate last night? Bear with me, I know politics is boring, but this will affect you.

Do you use google? Or YouTube? Heard of WikiLeaks?

Do you think these should be blocked in the UK?

How about to you believe in innocent until proven guilty? Do you believe that if accused of something then you should pay to appeal, even if you are innocent?

Do you think decisions about these things should be made without a vote? How about, do you think votes should be made by people who can't be bothered to listen to a debate? (Especially people who are paid to do just that)

I?m 25, a web designer and graphic designer, I?ve never voted before due to believing that the politicians don?t listen anyway. Last night proved my point. In a bill that claims to be against theft, it shows they are more than willing to steal not only our internet access but also our right to a fair vote.

This bill gives them the right to disconnect internet access based on an accusation, belittling the theory of innocent until proven guilty. Now they have the right to treat you as a criminal with little evidence (using IP addresses as proof shows a complete lack of expertise) and charge you for appealing. They can cut off websites that ?may? host illegal downloads, this includes Google due to it?s ability to search for torrents. Added to that, they?ve given the government power to change the bill without a vote. How long before the UK finds itself banned from controversial websites. Aren?t we following China?s lead a little here?

The internet is a haven for creative minds, we shouldn?t have ourselves restricted. No matter how they?ve packaged the bill to the masses, hiding it behind the pirating issue, it is much deeper and more worrying than that. The public believe that if they don?t pirate then they?ll be fine. They won?t.

And all this because the MP?s decided they wouldn?t show enough respect to actually listen to us, or bother to show up. Where were the MP?s who missed the debate but showed up to vote? Will they come out of the woodwork and explain why they support the bill? My guess is that they couldn?t, all they know is what they?ve been told to vote, and not by their constituents.

AIBU to think the whole system needs to change? If they don?t have the decency to listen, they shouldn?t have the right to vote.

the way i understood it is that they will only block you if you are braking the law ie illigal down loads. If you dont do that surley you have nothing to worry about.

Plus its nothing like china, all websites are vetted there they are not saying they are going to vet websites they are saying if you break the law you will be banned.

The actual clause says
"After apparent copyright abuse, copyright holders can send a "copyright infringement report" to ISPs"

"Copyright owners must pay Ofcom's costs; both copyright owners and ISPs must pay costs of implementing technical measures; accused subscribers must also share appeal costs"

"court injunction to force ISPs to block access to online services that facilitate copyright infringement." (Google and YouTube both under threat - google because you can search for torrents, youtube because people can use it to upload copyrighted material. Google is already fighting this)

It also has a clause that gives the ability to amend copyright law to the state secretary. So the above clauses could be widened easily.

Also, you've missed the part where barely any of the MP's bothered to debate it before voting it through. That's if they could even be bothered to turn up. Over 60% didn't.

Also, wrt "don't pirate and you'll be fine"

Copyright infringement/pirating = theft right?

We already have laws regarding theft. Why do we need this bill? Is it anything to do with the lack of convictions using traditional innocent till proven guilty laws?

With this bill you are guilty till prven innocent.

So as an experiment, if a hacker downloaded pirated material using your connection, how would you prove yourself innocent?

I'm with you completely - for all the people saying 'well don't pirate then' - that's all very well, but public providers of internet access such as libraries, schools, internet cafes and those shops and areas offering free wifi access will be very heavily hit by this. After all, why should they risk it?

How do you stop someone hovering in the edge of your wireless and using an unsecured network to download copywritten material? How do you explain to an elderly couple who didn't know better that they can't acces their children's photos on the internet because someone snuck into their internet and used it, so now they are being held responsible? Because that is the sort of situation which will result. It is the most vulnerable who will lose out, as when any draconian and ill-thought bill is passed.

If this really does become law, there will be a huge drop in the public availability of the internet. Though my DP reckons there will be so many appeals in the fisrt few months that it will quickly become completely unworkable and be scrapped. Here's hoping.

Still what it says for democracy in this country that on the eve of an election MPs will vote in favour of a bill they haven't read and haven't debated and is massively unpopular with and detrimental to the people about to (hopefully) turn out and vote for them is quite depressing.

YANBU at all. Bet there's a whip out on it as well; it feels like there's often a host of really shite bills rushed through by a Govt on the brink of an election just in case they don't get in again. In some ways, it's funnier when they do get in again and have to deal with the fall-out - but not really.

Three whips last night apparently.

Watching the House Of Lords now.

HA! I didn't want to suggest a 3 line whip in case I was being over-reactive but there you go! Just shows.

Idiots.

And the reason they don't give a shit just prior to an election is because they're all the same - MPs that is - so it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things who gets in and they know it.

I guess the only positive thing I can see about this whole mess is that at least clause 43 has been dropped. It's really quite shameful other than that one tiny ray of hope for the creatives.

I'd have just given up if they'd kept clause 43, any chance of getting back on my feet would have been wrecked.

Have been sending thank you messages to the MP's who stood up to the bill all day

Well that was a waste of time.

Why didn't they get other opinions from people with some knowledge?!

Stephen C Timms shouldn't have had a say, he hasn't the faintest idea what anything he said means.

• I am not in the UK, but saw this post and was floored. I am a SAHM now but used to be head of technology for the government organization where I live. That is absolutely scary. Hopefully people are aware of this and get out and vote.

I'm trying to raise awareness as much as I can. People shouldn't just let this go.

It isn't about stopping piracy no matter how much they pretend. It will affect the innocent.

read this It explains all the clauses

again. It will certainly affect the innocent. Someone needs technology advisors. Good for you for trying to raise awareness - people need to understand how they could easily be affected. Surely that would motivate them to demand the politicians involved at least get some IT advice....

And now for some light entertainment wiiith
Stephen Timms Guide to IT!!! Ta daaa!!!

Oh and Copyright infringement is bad mmmkay?

but what are we supposed to do to stop it?? Sorry if that is rather a stupid question.

No, it's a very good question. In all honesty all we can really do is try and vote in enough MP's to question. Or if we are lucky, vote in a party who will stop it.

I'm writing to my local MP and potential local MP's, and also Number 10. Just need to get enough people aware and reacting in order for them to have to pay attention.

We've got to stop peaople thinking that this bill will protect the innocent.

I think the most frightening thing about it is the closeness to blatant breaches of human rights which the bill contains. I'm just reading through the bill, and I'm wondering how on earth it's compatible with current laws.

And isn't it ironic that, given how people complain that the EU is trying to control us, it's actually the Human Rights act from the EU which could be best used to defend us from this Orwellian bill?

There's also a handy guide, clause by clause, which will explain clause 43 for anyone who wasn't aware (photographers would have their work stolen more easily). See [[http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-digital-economy-bill-quick-guide-to-all-45-measures/ here] for a one page summary.

Ooops - try here

Kaloki wrote "Stephen C Timms shouldn't have had a say, he hasn't the faintest idea what anything he said means."

To be fair, with the number of letters going in/out I bet it was some civil servant who mixed "Internet Protocol" with "Intellectual Property" and picked the wrong one.

Same is likely from every minister - they can quickly be made to look foolish by the ineptitude of a civil servant working for their department (who will probably suffer no reprimand whatsoever).

In all honesty, listening to him debate it, he really doesn't have a clue. He said so many things wrong, and yet stated them as fact.

That's why no one is suprised by that letter, as his ideas on how IP addresses work (as stated in the debate) are bizarre. And in the context of the bill, harmful.

Assuming this goes ahead, I will be one of the few who will complain and complain until YouTube is "banned" - just imagine the uproar that doing so will cause - it might make the MPs understand what unintended consequences they have unleashed.

I wish more had voted against, but suspect that of the 400+ who did not even attend, the majority will be quitting as MPs anyway, or expect to lose their seat even if they haven't openly stated they were standing down. So nothing more than to live it up, seeing if they can find a lucrative lobbying job, or get onto the Board(s) of some big firm(s) before they return to regular life.

The suggestion I heard the other day of some 300 new MPs means there may be some "new blood" in Parliament, but I suspect there will be few "new ideas" because for many, the party whips will still be very important, and they will still be unable to "think for themselves".

Calling it democracy is deluded when the whip system means almost any government policy (unless seen to be ridiculous) gets through anyway, and the Lords are hardly any protection.

Sure, they can amend, but the Commons still has some ancient act allowing it to ignore the views from the Lords and pass a bill anyway. So whatever is said about the Lords being unaccountable as they are unelected, is pure Trumpton, it doesn't matter whether elected or not, the Commons can ride roughshod over what the Lords conclude.

Everything that Kaloki and Webdude says is spot on, and it's very bad that this bill was pushed through in a dying parliament.

this stupid piece of mal-legislation could land anyone in trouble.

I very much doubt that the new MPs will have a better grasp of technology than the old ones.

Good idea wrt YouTube!

They need to get rid of the whip system, there is no possible advantage in it, not to the electorate anyway!

Since it got Royal Assent last night, it is now law (even if details are to be put together by Ofcom etc).

I guess even discussing piracy (sorry, "breaking copyright") puts MN in danger now!