Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Remembering that this is Mandelson's crew and he is merrily wanting to have unlimited power to censor the Internet and cut people off for copyright violation think they know something we don't?

http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/...right?cat=open

Good to see democratic process isn't dead, evidently they couldn't even wait for the non-existent debate and vote to happen.

Democracy, overrated.


Mod Edit (Matt D) - For continued discussion of the Digital Economy Act 2010 during the General Election period, please see the current General Election sticky thread.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

From the Executive Summary, 1.1 And the indicative timescales, 7.4

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Thanks for highlighting the point that though that the DEB isn't even law yet this is being done. It's extraordinarily presumptuous and contemptuous of the democratic process to quote a timescale like that. Nearly as contemptuous of process as the desire to ensure it isn't debated in the Commons.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

That's a standard timetable for most bills, consultation periods are standard too with many bills, it allows concerned parties, ISP's, copyright holders, you and me to express opinions on the bill before it gets debated in Parliament. That's the time to write to your MP and start a petition, if you believe petitions are ever worth anything.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

You misunderstand. This isn't a consultation on the bill, it's a consultation on how the costs of implementing one section of it will be shared between ISPs and the Government. The bill itself isn't going to be debated or voted on in the Commons at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...y-bill-commons

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...l-bpi-doctorow

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Correct.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

indeed

I can just imagine the nice backhanders from the recording industry to the Government for passing this with no fuss and it would not surprise me if there are nice little sweeteners for the isps so they can use the kit to make money if they don't complain about the setup costs.

Mark my words it will not be long before the recording industry will have direct access to isp's monitoring data so they can sue anyone they see infringing.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

In reality it's not just the recording industry that is affected by wanton piracy - there are ancilliary industries, ordinary people with real jobs, that suffer.

Illegal downloading with impunity was great while it lasted - sadly for those who have become accustomed to it / endorsed it those days are coming to an end.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I have to agree. There are all too many people who simply don't buy content and instead download it. There are also far too many people downloading content in considerable amounts. It was much more reasonable in the early 2000s but is too OTT now and something does need to be done to tone it down a bit.

Getting it less mainstream along with kicking the backsides of those who download several hundreds of GB of content a month will be just fine.

The concern is it going too far and affecting those who very occasionally download things here and there to 'plug gaps' while also buying a lot of content.

Of course people will go underground to some extent, which is fine, just getting it out of mainstream and away from people who just go to a self-search news client or P2P client, do a search and leech on would be alright, along with kicking the backside of extremely heavy users - there is very simply no realistic legitimate way to consume 500GB a month.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

ignition the people you speak off will still download 100s of gig per month, the most serial downloaders dont use the well known torrents and will still happily download, so what will change?

legit sales might go up by a single digit number.

underground, pirated goods sold in pubs, in the workplace, on the market will grow again. These people were the real victims of internet piracy, it was their customers that went online and started downloading. People who can afford and are happy to buy media still do that anyway.

So it will be a comibination of people finding more discreet ways to download, hard pirated copies of media been sold on the streets, and a few perhaps resorting to buying media but I expect a lot more will simply choose to go without than buying it.

Lets not forget one thing, the #1 reason people dont buy media is a lack of availability. They either want content not available in their country yet or want old content the copyright holders dont want to make available.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Not hard to guess what people are doing when they are downloading a ton of data from ssl.giganews.com ;)

ISPs can simply take a closer look into what people are doing when they are leeching these files, there are ways and means. People who are using heavily downloading massive amounts of content shaft both their ISP through messing up the average usage sums and those who provide content.

That may be true in some parts of the world but here it isn't, we have good content release dates relative to a lot of the rest of the world. When that was the major issue it wasn't such an issue, now that a new movie is released to the cinema and has hundreds of thousands of people too cheap to buy a ticket to go see it so they download it or an album is released and is downloaded wholesale that becomes an issue.

For those relatively few things that other countries get significantly before us, well, before TPB we got by waiting for their release, not wanting to wait isn't an excuse to download the thing.

Many people download, and the very occasional bit of dubious downloading from some people is cool, we are however now in a stage where too many people do it occasionally, and those who do it a lot are really doing it a lot. Something's got to give, too many people think paying not very much per month for an internet connection entitles them to download content costing several times their monthly sub.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

You are not looking at the "big picture". The DEB is not simply VM monitoring what goes across P2P - it encompasses the entire gamut of file transfer protocols - the internet and digital exchange mechanisms in their entirety.

That is a good thing from a creative industries investment perspective, and certainly for artists, both new and established.

Proportionately those bodies with enforcement powers to deal with such activities will do so. You are correct in saying the "bloke down the pub" was a prime victim of internet theft however his "piracy" was commercially geared, most internet "pirates" are, themselvelves, not commercial enterprises however those that are profiting from facilitating the infringement of copyrighted works have seen / are seeing the writing on the wall - Rapidshare, Newsbinz etc.

Yes, but as the media industries adapt their delivery, pricing and distribution models the excuses for doing so will become more & more vaucous. In a few weeks / months time the very notion of a "more discreet" way to download (at least as far as using the internet to do so) will be a thing of the past. Culpability and accountability are two words which ISPs and "pirates" are very uncomfortable with. Unfortunately for both of them they form the backbone of the DEB.

Simply not true. The #1 reason people don't buy media is because technology, the internet and ISPs enabled them to acquire stuff for free. The internet afforded everybody a global, non territorially bound, opportunity to avail of media simultaneously. The fact that the media companies didn't react to this opportunity immediately (due in no small part to contractual obligations already in place between themselves, artists, producers, studios, retailers and distributors of both music and movies) is not an excuse for people to wantonly infringe the copyright of those artists / holders.

Many of those aforementioned contracts (particularly those of a distribution nature) are coming to their term end and new arrangements / terms are / have been negotiated for global release days as opposed to the old territorial models. These changes, particularly in relation to "catalogue", will become evident in the coming months. I wonder what the "pirates" excuse will be then?

"Old content" has, by it's very nature, already been made available. The fact that you cannot get certain content in a certain format is a result of contractual obligations having been met by one or more parties to an agreement which has expired. If sufficient numbers of fans lobbied the licencees of the material they might, ordinarily, have been able to secure e a re-release in a new format (say cd). However, given the very nature of what you describe as a reason for demand (ie. illegal downloading / piracy) who, in their right mind, would risk such a venture?

Ebay will turn up almost anything of an "old content" nature. However, speaking as an avid collector of rare vinyl, one might reasonably be expected to pay not inconsiderable sums for certain pressings of "old content". The payment for anything on the part of most internet "pirates" is an alien concept to them. Hence their voracious appetite for "all you can eat for free" (at someone else's expense, obviously).

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

release dates we have are slow enough, anything even 1 day behind america is slow. But to be honest cinema figures are good, there is no signs of piracy affecting cinema viewing, I hardly know anyone who downloads movies and never goes to the cinema. Most piracy seems to be tv shows and music. People still download movies of course but they still also go to the cinema. Let us not forget that these companies are making healthy profits in a recession, they not on the brink of going bust.

tv shows can be months behind.

some content never gets released at all and is america only.

An example I can give as well is I went on the f1 website expecting to be able to buy some previous season dvd's as well as onboard footage, it turns out only the previous season gets made available and the rest is gone. So if I either have to go without or find somewhere to download it.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------

As I said to ignition its my belief (I may be wrong) that the vast majority of people who 'only' download content and never buy would not buy it legit anyway, they would either go without or buy an illegal hard copy, or simply even copy offline via usb sticks etc.

Lets wait and see if and when this happens the affect on the market, for sure the regional marketing is out dated and not helping matters, however piracy will never ever cease to exist, to expect it to do so is very unrealistic, its like thinking one day no one will ever take drugs etc.

I know some cases of where people sold old content on ebay and ebay were forced to remove the adverts by the copyright holders, even second hand copies were blocked. Examples are the old nightmare children tv show and prisoner cell block h an old australian drama.

I have no objection to people been dealt with fairly for copyright infringement, what I am against is special laws been given to copyright holders that dont apply to everyone else. Cutting people of without a court order and 'real' proof is not right. What is stopping these media companies using the courts like everyone else?

is it because?

(a) the 'REAL' financial losses are way lower than projected figures so as such the legal costs dont make sense.
(b) the evidence used is unreliable and probably would not be admissable in court in a lot of cases.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Nobody is saying or anticipating that "piracy" will stop.

However, the reality is that those who infringe on copyrights now stand a far greater chance of being brought to account. That, even by your own admission, is a positive thing.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

incorrect, I dont believe in using methods that catch innocents in the net as a good thing.

the problem is these companies want to bypass normal legal procedures and have their own special law in place, this is very wrong. not to mention if you just download material without distributing it I am not sure if thats actually illegal.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I was referring to your "I have no objection to people been dealt with fairly for copyright infringement" statement.

Like yourself I have no wish to see innocent people penalized. However if innocent people are caught in the net and make noises then "pirates" , and indeed others, will realize the shallowness of their "victimless" crime argument. This is a societal problem, not just an "industry" problem.

Either way one has to look at how and why this situation has been arrived at and the common denominator is the illegal distribution and consumption of copyrighted works.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

dealt with fairly yes.

the new method proposed is not fair. However the current law is fair where the copyright holders need to get a court order.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

In your estimation, obviously. The fact is, as the "pirates" like to remind everyone, that the times, business models and delivery mechanisms for digital media have changed. Consequently it should come as no surprise that the law in relation to the protection of same should change.

Advocates for change in the digital age need to be very, very careful for what they wish for. Governments and legislators have shown that they are no longer prepared to allow people to decimate the creative and ancilliary industries simply because "they can" or they don't have the patience to wait.

I'm sorry but that is the reality.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

So basically you are saying you have no problem of innocent people been judged guilty without proof and legal process?

thats what this bill does.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

That is exactly not what I am saying. You appear to have overlooked my earlier statement above "Like yourself I have no wish to see innocent people penalized".

Unfortunately the behavioural habits of "pirates" and their freetard mentality have necessitated this legislation.

Anyone following the progress of this bill with any degree of interest beyond that which is normally espoused by the pro "piracy" lobbyists would know / see that the popular assertion that it is simply a mechanism whereby all and sundry (including innocent parties) would be deemed guilty without proof or adequate due process is very far from the truth.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

yes I understood you, you dont want it but are prepared to accept it. I am not prepared to accept it.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Not wanting to put words into his mouth you didn't understand him. He's saying that it's just not the case that innocent people can be punished out of hand and that that's a 'popular assertion' so nothing to accept.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

The behaviour of the Pirates does not excuse this bill going through on the nod without proper scrutiny. Smaller companies will not have the time or resources to make proper use of this. Whilst the big boys will just use it as an excuse to continue to charge exorbitant prices - the real reason piracy thrives.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I'm sorry but you are mistaken on several levels.

As at March 15th this bill, of only 48 clauses, had more than 430 amendments tabled during the term of its passage through the lords - more than sufficient scrutiny at that level by anyones standards.

Your assertion that "smaller" companies will not be able "to make proper use" is also flawed. One only has to look at how the independent sector (via the umbrella of Merlin by way of one example) is now representing the rights of their members. Whilst the "pirates" have been plundering the industries have been consolodating.

If the "pirates" did not behave as they do then perhaps your argument would stand and there would be no need for this legislation however that is not the reality of the situation.

As for "exorbitant prices" I'm afraid that argument, from a popular music perspective, is also flawed. Physical copy CDs have never been cheaper, you can buy single tracks for as little as 50p rather than having to buy an album of "filler" should you elect to do so. The only way that could be described by any rational person as "exorbitant" would be if the base comparator were "free".

Remember, artists and those involved in the creative industries - like anyone carrying out a job of work or delivering a service - deserve to be paid for their work in that regard.

Therein is the issue.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Ok the crunch question.

will a copyright holder be able to get someone cut off based on their ip been listed on a torrent tracker without a court order?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

It's not as simple, nor as automatic, as that.

As I referenced earlier the pro "piracy" lobbyists would have you believe the proposed end result measures are akin to the closing scenes in Surrogates - that's simply not the case nor the intention.

The first step is education, not punitive measures. Additionally - and a lot of people are overlooking this - it is the ISP who carries out the technical measures, not the rights holder. It is in the ISPs interest (not least from a fiscal perspective) to effectively police the activities of their subscribers.

The playing field has changed - no longer can ISPs cite net neutrality or privacy. All to often it has bbeen proven that busines (especially at national and international levels) supersedes the rights and entitlements of individual citizens.

Creative people are by their nature, by and large, more interested in creating things than destroying them.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Indeed :)

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

nice one sirius. I even know of artists who sell pirated copies of their own media to get by.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Hmm. Evidently they took some fairly abysmal deals which is their own fault totally. It's all there in black and white, if they aren't selling enough to get by via the terms of the contract they signed that's their problem.

It seems this thread has gone back to the old defence that record companies are brutal subjugators of the artists so why not just download the stuff for free.

Be interested in the source of that image that was posted.

It is of course total nonsense - the less profit that record companies make the less willing they are to take a chance on more risky acts and the more likely they'll be to stick to reality TV output that is pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit. We see that effect every week in the album and singles charts.

Of course that doesn't fit in with the freetard agenda behind that image, does it?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Given the fact that the industry standard for a manager is 20% of artist income it is quite evident that the pie chart image is distorted to suit a particular agenda.

Even if we were facile enough to take the splits as evidenced therein as serious then it becomes a self defeating argument. If, as it suggests, artists are receiving the notional splits the diagram suggests then, by definition, they are indeed the most affected by (illegal) free downloads.

On the matter of artists having to sell pirated copies of their own media to get by it comes as no surprise - given the fact that "pirates" have decimated the worth of legitimate releases.

I think you've rather tidily answered your own (badly formulated) counter argument.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

guys

The picture was a bit of fun hence the :)

Mr A knows i don't download music, I download TV eps watch them then delete them. Mainly Hd content that i cannot get on VM

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

The only new music I acquire is purchased at live gigs of the band or bought from our local independent retailer of known artists. Don't download music and hear very little new or interesting music on mainstream radio. Hate the reality idle way of finding fly by night talent and am saddened by the masses who go along with this and fuel the lifestyle of those who leech off the talent of others.

As for the cost of single tracks being 50p, I can remember buying a whole album for 50p :rofl:

This government has legislated us to death, with more custodial crimes on the statue books than ever before. Why in all honesty should we be at all surprised by yet another ill thought out piece of legislation which could easily catch the innocent & therefore end up failing to do what it was meant to.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Sirius, No problem mate, it's just that there are some out there that would take the diagram as fact.;)

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

The pie chart is distorted on an overall perspective true, artists often get better deals 2nd time round when they have had success and the gamble is less for the record company. But the image is not far off the truth for the lesser known artists who dont have past success.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

You kinda killed your own point off when you used 'gamble'. If the record company is gambling their money why can't they get some reward on it? It would be interesting to see a similar chart showing how much the record companies invest in the acts and how many acts they actually see a profit on.

I would speculate the chart to be a long way off the truth unless you are seriously suggesting that agents and managers, whose payment is on a commission basis, are between them managing to eat 90%+ of a group's money.

Any group paying their manager and agent that much have some serious issues.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Teehee.

Adjust that price for inflation or perhaps more accurately the consumer price index, compare it to equivalent albums now, and get back to me :)

I can pick up an album for not that much more than 50p from the bargain bin, doesn't really prove much.

As a general hint taking inflation, etc, into account a shiny new release album would cost a fair bit more than 15 quid now.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Who are these "2nd time around" artists of which you speak? Not a single artist I know that failed to recoup on their initial advance terms and has been subsequently dropped has gotten "better deals" second time around. Since the advent of the internet and digital file distribution the concept of "less" of a gamble in relation to anything committed to recording for any record company is a nonsense.

"Lesser known artists who don't have past success" such as who? Which artists do you know who are in a deal are represented by an already acknowledged as fictional and distorted (by your own admission) pie chart?

It's somewhat Ironic that you share your username with what was once one of the iconic UK labels.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

after all is said and done ,what has all this got to do with the thread subject matter ?

a simple question ,are people here looking to profit from this as yet unpassed statute ?

not that i care, im just posting the question to get rid of the Really annoying "you have not posted on our forums in several weeks..." message.

BTW i did sit through All the DEB video as it happened in the HoL ,(did You do the same?) and have seen these so called many ammendments debated , i also watched as each and virtually every single one got tabled, talked about, then systematicly Withdrawn , only a Very small amount of ammendments have got through and of these that Did, most were pure legal language corrections...
and even these were it seems, done without taking the well known EU directives into account.

its clear very little if anything that was wrong with the original bill or its concept as put forward has been put right to date, but no one seems to care as long as it opens up new profit avenues for tax paying companies to exploit.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

As I said earlier "All too often it has been proven that business (especially at national and international levels) supersedes the rights and entitlements of individual citizens".

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I didnt say anything wrong with it, rather that the artists are not the big losers as they made out to be.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

since noone has been able to tell me a clear answer on if people will be cutoff without legal process I will wait until I have looked into or someone gives the answer to give further judgement on this.

The law is already in place tho to protect these companies, the fact is if someone is caught distributing copyrighted material they can be fined and even sent to jail. Also in regards to if its illegal to download copyright material without redistributing it.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Really? Are you not the person who was talking earlier about artists having to get by through selling bootleg copies of their own media?

Chrysalis, like many others you are trying to create a strawman argument. I notice from your speedtest result that you are a VM customer. If you check the T&Cs of VMs service to their customer base , in particular their AUP, you will find therein that it categorically states the conditions under which they may exercise their right to terminate the services provided to "you" where you breach any of the following:

3. Use of the Services

• 3.1. We reserve the right to investigate any suspected violation(s) of this AUP. When we become aware of possible violations, we may initiate an investigation, which may include gathering information from the User involved and the complaining party, if any, and examination of material on our servers, networks or any other equipment associated with the Services.
• 3.2. You must not use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users. You also must not allow anybody using your connection to use the Services in any way that is unlawful or illegal or in any way to the detriment of other Internet users.

4. Use of Material

• 4.1. You are prohibited from storing, distributing, transmitting or causing to be published any Prohibited Material through your use of the Services. Examples of "Prohibited Material" shall be determined by us (acting in our sole discretion) and shall include (but are not limited to) material that:
• 4.1.1. is threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, defamatory, racist, obscene, indecent, offensive, abusive, harmful or malicious;
• 4.1.2. infringes or breaches any third party's intellectual property rights (which shall include, but not be limited to copyright, trade mark, design rights, trade secrets, patents, moral rights, paternity rights and performance rights) - this includes the use, distribution and/or copying of any material without the express consent of the owner;

You (or whomsoever pays the bill), and several million other VM broadband customers, have agreed to be bound by this particular clause of the contract which exists between VM and their paying / subscribing customer base - it is nothing new. What is new is that the Government (by way of elements of the DEB) are forcing the ISPs to comply with their own terms and conditions / AUPs.

Rights holders will police the illegal downloading and the annonymised aggregate data will be provided to ISPs to issue educational warnings up to a limit where persistence on the part of the offending party will necessitate a suspension / termination.

The pro "piracy" lobbyists have cited this as a new development, again, it's not. Take for example "Talk Talk" who threw their toys out of the pram at the time that the Government strategy to force them to enforce this obligation became glaringly clear to them. I suspect they tried to kick up such a furore simply because they cannot afford to implement and enforce their own AUP without haemmorraghing many thousands of customers.

So, as I have evidenced above - there was never really a legal or judicial requirement to be met for the processing of an account suspension or termination on the part of VM (for example) once effective and reliable data / intelligence could be established.

Where the legal / judicial requirement lay was in the identification of the offender to the rights holder (a third party) by the ISP. This, it appears from the most recent draft of the bill, is no longer an issue as the ISPs are being forced to take a more pro-active position in enforcing their own AUPs.

Why else do you think VM are so keen to work with Mr Clarke & his friends at Detica?

In addition, and direct reference to this, the Consultation clearly lays out the initial two obligations and an optional (where necessary) third under the DEB - read Introduction & scope, points 2.1 - 2.4

Now, about that list of "2nd time around artists" and the "Lesser known artists who don't have past success" where were we with that?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Not saying it's right or wrong, but what's your take on Courtney Love's speech Mr. A?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

It's actually another one of Courtney's not very well researched rants.

Bearing in mind it dates from 2000 when she thought that Napster et al were not "piracy" it shows just how ill informed she was on the subject matter.

A more objective, and indeed factually based analysis if you can find it is Steve Albini's. Whilst parts thereof have been debunked it is, for the greater part, accurate in its analysis of the money tree from my knowledge and experience of it.

The bottom line is, irrespective of one's opinion of major labels & publishers (and it's interesting how Courtney's changed after the death of Kurt), it's the small guy (ultimately the artist) that gets hurt.

This pretence, for that is what it is, that "pirates" are "fighting the industry" is a nonsense. If they really wanted to "fight" the industry or "destroy it" as Christian Engstrom put it, then the best way for them to do that is to ignore the product / output all together - a total boycott where the industry cannot cite "piracy" as a prime cause of its losses.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

It is quite ironic that you are forced to download content over a VM cable modem because they don't carry it in HD on their TV network. You'd have to subscribe to Sky to watch it without being able to download.

There's a loser somewhere along the chain in most things, in this instance, though no-one will feel sympathy and certainly not me, it is Sky as you'd either have a Sky HD subscription to watch their exclusive HD or you'd have to wait for DVD / BluRay. Virgin benefit to an extent as downloading plugs the gaps their substandard HD offerings leave behind to you.

The irony isn't lost on me at all ;)

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

You have to love people complaining about the trash the industry is putting out and how the output is so low quality they refuse to pay for it, as they download it and get it for free. Obviously not that bad...

Would you agree with me that a total stop to piracy isn't the masterplan. Getting it to the kind of level it was at when Napster was not quite getting the attention of the industry, 2000, would be alright as at the moment it's just out of hand?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Mr Angry you still havent answered my question.

As far as I am concerned someone finding my ip on a torrent tracker is NOT sufficient evidence.

So will isps be cutting off users based on that sort of information after the bill is passed?

Proper legal process which is fair is for the end user's computer to be examined for the content and after that evidence that they have distributed the material. Yes its a lot of work and yes life is a bitch, but everyone else outside of the industry also has to follow these kind of procedures for prosecutions.

So posting me an AUP which states if I break the law I can be cutoff is completely irrelevant.

Just so this is clarified I dont use torrents, and I dont download music. So this is not about myself its about having a proper legal process.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Chrysalis, with all due respect, I have answered your question.

For the sake of clarity - as I posted above - third party involvement aside your ISP is entirely within their rights to monitor and suspend or terminate your services if they believe they have sufficient reason to do so as a result of your having breached any of the many and varied terms and conditions (several of which I have printed above in black for all to see) to which you have subscribed.

However much you might wish to think that you are entitled to a CSI type investigation headed up by Grissom and a full jury based trial before Judge Judy decides whether you should be cut off or not it simply is not going to happen - nor has it ever been a requirement.

"Pirates" have bought into and propagated this idea that things should be free and ISPs have been remiss in enforcing their own terms and conditions and protecting the intellectual copyrights of third parties - choosing instead to chant the tired old mantras that they are "only a conduit" or "not there to police the internet".

Those days are over, it is real world time and, whether you, personally, upload or download material illegally is of no personal interest to me in this particular argument.

The fact is that Virgin Media, and I suspect all other ISPs, have in their terms and conditions sufficiently robust caveats to enable them to suspend or terminate services where a user is found to be infringing on a third party's rights.

Indeed, having just done a check out of interest here are TalkTalk's:

Your Use of the Services
6.1 You agree not to use the Services:
6.1.1 for business purposes or to sell on or supply the Services to anyone on a commercial basis;
6.1.2 for making calls, sending data, publishing, knowingly receiving, uploading or downloading any data or material which are or may be reasonably deemed to be a nuisance, a hoax, abusive, obscene, racist, defamatory, menacing, indecent (including to the Customer Services operators who deal with enquiries concerning the Service), in breach of confidence, in breach of any intellectual property right (including copyright) or which is otherwise objectionable or unlawful, or you allow others to do these things.

7.1 We may suspend immediately the provision of the Services to you until further notice without compensation if:
7.1.1 we reasonably suspect that you are in breach of these Conditions;

Someone really ought to point this out to Mr Heaney and his "Don't disconnect us" campaign who state [superironicdoublestandardspeak]It is not for rightsholders to make decisions about whether someone is guilty or not of infringing copyright[/superironicdoublestandardspeak].

The fact is, as I pointed earlier, ISPs have always had this right / obligation but have previously refused to enforce it because it would cost them customer revenue. Because they have refused to act previously the problem has grown exponentially to the point that it is very seriously impacting on industries and GDPs across the world.

Neither the Government, nor the rights holders, are prepared to sit back any longer.

ISPs who, lets face it, make millions from selling / boasting of their download capabilities are being brought to book (kicking and screaming I might add) hence this consultation on shared costs.

In summary:

As evidenced above ISPs can cut you off if they (with or without third party ie. rights holder participation) find you to be , or in the case of TalkTalk merely "suspect" you of being, in breach of another persons copyright or intellectual rights as per their terms and conditions.

They do not need, nor have they ever needed, a court order nor a due judicial process to do so.

Indeed as evidenced in TalkTalk's T&Cs they, contrary to Mr Heaneys assertions, are prepared to cut subscribers off without proof of infringing activities citing their reasonable suspicion as sufficient grounds to do so.

As a party to any contract you have a legal right to appeal any such decision on the part of an ISP with whom you were party to the provision of such services in the event that you feel they have acted unlawfully or breached their obligations under said contract.

The Government are now using existing law in conjunction with the DEB to force ISPs to comply with the law and their own (the ISPs) terms and conditions and warranties to third parties.

It is quite simple and, as I sad, nothing new in real terms bar a "pulling up of the socks" being forced on the ISPs.

If you cannot understand that then I'm sorry.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I find it particularly irksome that this bill is likely to go through on a "nod" using the the Wash up procedure simply because of timing (election may be called) which IMO is rather more than fortuitous timing. So much for the democratic process.

I supposedly have nothing whatsoever to fear from the potential legislation because I do nothing that breaches any of the proposed laws within the act. However having seen a PC magazine article on secure wireless network hacking I looked further with Google and found over 500K hits on how to hack WEP and WPA secure wireless networks.

Given that many\most users do not have a clue how to secure their networks and even those that do are open to easy hacking it does not bode well for the innocents who by accident or intent are going to find themselves on the receiving end of potentially punitive measures for something they neither had knowledge of or control over.

Holding somebody accountable for the actions of another party who broke in to commit a criminal act when industry standard anti-intrusion methods were in place runs contrary to UK common justice.

My Wireless is totally disabled and will stay that way because over time hackers and crackers will break anything produced.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Mr angry thats if the isp reasonably suspects.

You still have it wrong.

The new legislation as I understand it will allow isp's been 'told' to disconnect users if a 3rd party suspects. If I am wrong on that bit feel free to tell me.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

You are wrong.

With the new legislation, unlike the existing T&Cs, ISPs will not be able to disconnect users simply because they "suspect" (whether reasonably or not) that an infringement "may" have taken place. The DEB will require a process of proof and processing, proper data collection and identification to be put in place - currently this is not a legal requirement and "suspicion" is, in some cases, considered sufficient reason by ISPs.

I have pointed out, repeatedly, the involvement of a third party or instruction by or on behalf of a third party in order for an ISP to disconnect a user / subscriber is not currently, nor has it ever been, a necessary part of the process in order for someone to have their service / connection suspended or terminated on the basis of copyright infringement where an ISP "suspects" such infringements to have occured.

This is stated very clearly in laypersons plain english in the portions of the T&C's which I copied for you above if you'd care to read them.

In effect, the DEB will provide better protection for customers, not less, than the current T&Cs of many, if not all, ISPs.

Under the DEB the IP addresses of infringers will be identified and forwarded to the relevant ISPs, letter(s) will issue, consequent offences will be logged, further correspondence will issue and only the most persistant offenders will be disconnected.

The current system (that of disconnection at the whim of an ISP based purely on "suspicion" as is the case with TalkTalk) - if it were enforced - is a much less formal, fair and balanced system and that is what the ISPs (particularly TalkTalk) have issue with being forced to implement.

If you can be bothered researching these things you'll find that the DEB is not quite as bad as it has been painted to be. Even its initial opponents in the House of Lords have had to concede as much on various elements of same.

Fear mongering on the grounds of rights to privacy, ignorance and a wanton disregard for the intellectual rights, copyrights and the right to be paid for their creative works (together with the rights of those in the ancilliary industries to earn a living) will shortly no longer be tolerated.

You pretending to not understand the situation will not change it.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Under the DEB will these ip address be forwarded with a court order?

I am not concerned about isp's t&c's. They not going to cut off their own customers without a 3rd party been involved. Its what happens in the 3rd party side of things I am interested in. As it stands now people get warning letters (with insufficient evidence) and sometimes get fines but they do not get cutoff, unless they doing some kind of crime such as port scanning, exploiting sites etc.

So.

1 - How will these ip's get identified?
2 - Will the 3rd parties be able to send these ip's to isp's for action to be taken directly without legal process?
3 - action such as throttling the customer or blocking protocols?
4 - action such as cutting the customer off?
5 - if fines stay are they still going to be disproportionate to losses, eg. will someone get fined £50k for downloading a few music tracks?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Chrysalis,

With all due respect, the documentation is there for you to peruse at your leisure and you will find the answer to your "questions" - not that the answers to many are not already provided within the thread if you'd bother to read the posts in their entirety.

Your "I am not concerned about isp's t&c's" shows that you have little or no understanding whatsoever of the situation and that you are not reading, or you are failing to understand, replies offered to you.

I am not prepared to put things in black and white for you only for you to pretend you can only see grey.

Good luck to you in your quest.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

its not pretending, I admit I am been lazy that I have not read it yet.

I am also asking rather than saying. If my fears are wrong then fair enough.

For example in america its common for people to serve false DMCA notices to get sites they dont like shutdown.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------

so

So this obligates isps to pass on notices of infringement, I notice it doesnt say 'suspected' notices of infringement and only an ip address and time is required. Lack of evidence.

Further down (I wont paste is a lot of work formatting it) there is obligations for isp's to impose restrictions such as port blocking, throttling and even disconnection.

It is hard to understand but I dont see anything that says I am wrong.
(a) It appears to say content owners can give copyright infringement reports to isp's directly without legal process.
(b) It appears to say isp's must provide a list of other copyright infringement reports to a content owner if they ask for it, again without legal process. However the end user remains anonymous.
(c) The secretary of state can order isp's to impose technical limits to help copyright holders. Such as throttling, blocking ports and suspending the user. So basically censor the internet.

Seems to me my concerns are correct and the government is holding the copyright holder's hands.

(c) is particurly damaging as it means quality isps such as ukonline and BE will need to get traffic shaping equipment.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Fair enough.


Note the terminology used (in bold below). It obligates the ISPs to forward to the account holder notices of "apparent" infringement, not "alleged" infringement.

A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—
(a) states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright;
(b) includes a description of the apparent infringement;
(c) includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;
(d) is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and
(e) complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.

I will try to outline this for you.

That is correct - and it has always been the case.

Yes, you are correct, on both counts. At this stage there is no user identification ergo there is, again, no requirement for "legal process".

Yes, and in doing so is acting to protect the rights of thousands of UK citizens whose income and job security is directly derived from or dependant on revenues raised through the creative or ancilliary industries which would otherwise be further jeapordised by continued inaction or a disregard for the illegal activities of those who seek to procure media without paying for it as is normally required.

I should point out that it is not to "help" copyright holders but to protect their rights under law.

You may consider it as "Government holding the copyright holders hands" others will see it as an attempt to reduce the wanton infringement of copyright and to secure jobs and businesses which are under threat as a result of such activities.

It appears that both service providers mentioned have cut off provisions akin to earlier posted T&Cs and it is clear that at least one has shaping & traffic management already in place.

It's "funny" that ISPs (such as TalkTalk by way of an example) might moot a legal requirement for additional investment in technology to address these issues as a potential death knell for their own business model - yet at the same time they extol the virtues of technological advances which they provide (at a profit) to "customers" to decimate other business models.

On that point it is interesting that you frequently raise the matter of certain rights being protected by "legal process" in relation to matters which you appear to have issues or concerns with and which you consider to be inappropriate in relation to the DEB legislation. I shouldn't really have to point this out to anyone but the illegal downloading / sharing of copyrighted material is a matter of concern to rights holders, why are those who download illegally not as vocal in their defence of those persons right to "legal process"?

That said, if in a few weeks time the DEB is passed into law it will, ironically, form the backbone of that very same legal process.

Food for thought.


EDIT:

Just for info, here are excerpts from that "quality" ISP BE's current "legal stuff" wef 01/01/2010.

So what can Be’s services not be used for?

1. Unlawful, fraudulent, criminal or otherwise illegal activities
2. Sending, receiving, publishing, posting, distributing, disseminating, encouraging the receipt of, uploading, downloading, recording, reviewing, streaming or using any material which is offensive, abusive, defamatory, indecent, obscene, unlawful, harassing or menacing or a breach of the copyright, trademark, intellectual property, confidence, privacy or any other rights of any person

and

What about usage by kids and others without you knowing?

No excuse. You are responsible for all uses made of Be’s Internet services through your account (whether authorised or unauthorised) and for any breach of this Policy whether an unacceptable use occurs or is attempted, whether you knew or should have known about it, whether or not you carried out or attempted the unacceptable use alone, contributed to or acted with others or allowed any unacceptable use to occur by omission. You agree that Be are not responsible for any of your activities in using the network. Although the Internet is designed to appeal to a broad audience, it’s your responsibility to determine whether any of the content accessed via Be’s Internet service is appropriate for children or others in your household or office to view or use.

That is some serious, pre-emptive, "ass covering" if ever I saw it.

Do you think maybe they know something?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

As I said before if someone is infringing copyright, I have no problem with them been dealt with fairly which yes would include them having their isp agreement terminated as its a breach of aup.

My problem is the method's used to catch these people.

I think we can agree to disagree on the method's used. Although I read somewhere the lib dem's have managed to get some kind of ammendment where there needs to be another debate? before users can be suspended by the secretary of state.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Nobody is "disagreeing" with you about the methods used - you are questioning the suitability of the process.

Quite why anyone would have an issue with an IP address being identified by a rights holder, the rights holder communicating that information to the service provider, the service provider confirming the information and, having done so, writing to the account holder to advise them of the fact (several times if necessary) and affording them the chance to either deny culpability or address the issue to prevent future infringements is beyond me.

Would you rather the ISPs used their own monitoring systems and cut users off (with, as I have evidenced from several ISP's T&Cs, no warning or redress) citing a breach of the AUP?

The fact / point is that under the DEB they would be having their access terminated both because they had violated the terms of their providers AUP and had been persistent in their infringement of copyrights. As such it offers better protection for both the customers and the rights holders.

As for the Lib Dems - I think you are referring to Amendment 120a (which they themselves originally introduced and then sought to have changed) but this has subsequently been rejected out of hand.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

Because the current methods used involve copyright holders watching torrent trackers for uk ip address's and sending these off to isp's.

These ip's can be spoofed amongst other things.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

As I evidenced above the ISPs will then check the validity of the report against their records of activity on the part of the IP address and, in the event that the information is corroborated, there will be ample opportunity for the IP address "owner" at the time of the alleged infringement to refute same and / or to take appropriate measures (security or otherwise) to prevent it happening again.

It's better that they have these avenues of redress available to them than just a straightforward termination decision being made by their ISP, don't you agree?

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I dont know if I am allowed to link to another site, but I just read an interesting article on tbb from an isp.

They raised some very good points why this bill needs to be not ruled in, and it appears now the lib dems are going to try and block it completely.

The bill makes no mention that the isps can check against the evidence, it seems to say the information is passed to the isp, the isp then passes this onto the customer and the government can choose to enforce technical measures based on this evidence. The key point is the onus is onto the end user to prove themself innocent rather than the copyright holder going to court to prove them guilty. This bill is very very wrong as it will just lead to internet censorship all for a small group of copyright holders.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

That is patently untrue and more scare mongering on the part of ISPs and the piracy lobby.

Tell me Chrysalis, why are you not up in arms, or prepared to comment, on the already existing ability, as repeatedly evidenced herein, of ISPs to terminate accounts even without the involvement of third parties?

Rather than reverting to form and ignoring information which is contrary to your "ideal world" view you could read the "obligations" part of the bill I linked to earlier

Here are the relevant points under "Obligations".

(4) An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement
report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations
code requires the provider to do so.

(5) A notification under subsection (4) must be sent to the subscriber
within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the provider
receives the report.

(6) A notification* under subsection (4) must include —

(a) a statement that the notification is sent under this section in
response to a copyright infringement report;

(b) the name of the copyright owner who made the report;

(c) a description of the apparent infringement;

(d) evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the
subscriber’s IP address and the time at which the evidence was
gathered;

Is that clear enough for you?

Evidence is required, several letters will issue, where appropriate / required and this is not a straight to court thereafter issue.

You are making yourself look foolish with your continued refusal to accept the reality of the situation and your credibility, and indeed that of your "argument" is not helped by the fact that you assert that this whole "plot", as you see it, is "all for a small group of copyright holders".

The fact of the matter is (as stated several times in this thread alone) these measures are to protect the rights, income, jobs and futures of hundreds of thousands of people and those who work in or are dependant upon the creative sectors or ancilliary activities.

Please stop acting so naive.

* A "Notification" as distinct from a "Copyright infringement report".

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

as I said before we need to agree to disagree.

3rd and final time a letter with an ip address gathered from a torrent tracker and time is 'not' evidence a court would accept, hence them lobbying the government to bypass legal process. You disagree with me which is fine, but there is no point in trying to make me change the way I see this.

End of the day an isp can terminate who they want for any reason after all it is their service, why would I have a problem with this?

You seriously cannot see a difference between an isp choosing to terminate a customer and a 3rd party been able to force them to do so? Sorry but from where I sit all you thinking about is the well been of the media industry.

Not only this but you chose to put in bold some information I already know and is nothing to do with what I said. The isp is obligated to pass on the report, that is not saying the isp can check the evidence and dispute it on behalf of the customer, it says exactly the opposite that the isp without question has to pass on the report even if false. Also isp's are agreeing with me and they do this for a living.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

I am not trying to make you change how you see things. I am stating a fact. There is currently no requirement whatsoever on the part of ISPs to entertain a legal process before cutting of someone whom they suspect or catch infringing on someone elses copyright.

If you have information (other than your opinion or your having read / heard it somewhere) to the contrary then publish it here. Otherwise admit that you are wrong and are flogging a dead horse.

Here is the news. If the DEB is made law then whatever it deems sufficient from an evidentiary perspective will be the benchmark, not what you, I or anyone else thinks.

I don't know, why would you have a problem with it? Could it be that (as per your post over on TBB) you subscirbe to the school of thought that copyright infringement is "wrong" but not theft?

You really are a contradiction in terms Chrysalis. Here you are acknowledging the right of ISPs to cut people off based on "suspicion" and you are crying about them now possibly having to provide proof before doing so. Can you see how self contradictory and idiotic your stance appears?

See above (and multiple previous references to same). It's you who is splitting hairs. I am stating the fact that ISPs have always had the ability (technologically) / right (contractually) and legal obligation to do so. It is you and your ilk who are getting hot under the collar because ISPs will now be forced to do so by the participation of the very people who suffer most as a result of piracy.


It's very juvenile to try and pigeonhole this as a purely music / movie / media issue. There are countless other industries such as software etc that piracy affects.

If I am considered by you, or anyone, to be supportive of legal steps being taken to prevent people losing their livelyhoods and jobs I don't think that's anything I ought to be ashamed of. On the other hand - those who have an issue with my doing so would in my opinion have good cause to question their own ethics / moral scruples (or lack thereof).

Forgive me, I put things in bold because It is obvious that you are failing to comprehend basic english - a fact borne out by your continued and repeated refusal to deal with the facts as presented to you. If you care to go back and read either the Act or my previous post on the matter you will see that the ISP is obliged to issue a "notification". The notification is an entirely different thing to the the "copyright infringement report" which is provided to the ISP by the rights holder.

The ISPs (who you seem to think are your friend, protecting you and providing all and sundry with entertainment and software on tap illegally at the click of a button) are not interested in defending you, they are interested in preserving their market share and the legal element of their customer base - at the minimum cost to themselves. The unfortunate thing for freetards is that the Government are now, very belatedly, bringing them (the ISPs) to book. Effectively everyone knows that you can't stop piracy but if you start hurting the bottom line of the conduit providers, blocking the facilitators and disconnecting the more persistant offenders you will make an impact.

Part of the costs issue being consulted on (for I know you haven't even bothered reading the links provided) is directly relevant to the additional overheads which will be incurred by ISPs to ensure that they have effective usage monitoring systems in place to monitor and ensure the accuracy of alleged infringements. You yourself have even alluded to this in your posts on another forum "...the costs will be tremendous".

Do you really think, for a minute, that back here in the real world ISPs are going to expose themselves to the threat of breach of contract proceedings based on an "apparent infringement"? If this Act becomes law they will need to have considerable proof prior to any move to disconnect a subsciber for persistant infringement. That they may not feel inclined to share that proof, or how they established same, with the subscriber up to the point of appeal necessitating them having to do so, is entirely up to them and based, most probably, on reasons of commercial confidentiality.

That is total rubbish. Under schedule 4. Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements subsection (4) states "An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations code requires the provider to do so. I can't find any reference to "even if false" in the initial obligations code - can you point it out for me?

Well, well, well, there's a surprise - you overlooked / ignored my earlier posts about why the ISPs "are agreeing" with you, didn't you?

It is not in their interests financially to be compelled by law to cut off persistant or repeat offenders - everyone, even you, knows that.

Chrysalis, with all due respect, since you entered this discussion you have posited several statements which I have challenged you on and asked for clarification or for you to substantiate. You have singularly failed to respond to any of them. Your continued evasiveness is noteworthy but let me tell you something which I think you need to know.

Closing your eyes tight, sticking your fingers in your ears stamping your feet and repeatedly singing out aloud "La, la, la la, I'm not listening" will not change reality.

You best get used to that fact.

re: Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"]
 

if we bring financial reasons into it, consider that copyright infringers tend to be heavy users of bandwidth and then isps would be jumping up and down about it. So that isnt their motivation.

Sorry but I will stay out of this now. I dont want this debate to go too far, I have said my views, others will read them and decide if they agree with me or not.


Mod Edit (Matt D) - For continued discussion of the Digital Economy Act 2010 during the General Election period, please see the current General Election sticky thread.