Screw you, Internet? Digital Economy bill passes in the UK

■■■■■ you, Internet? Digital Economy bill passes in the UK

I’m glad (sort of) I’m in the USA.

The same goes in France (and, i suppose, in other european countries, while forbidding Internet access in some other countries, like “People” Republic of China is only related to the infringement of official politics, we should therfore maybe not whine so much…).

This kind of law comes to be edicted due not to infringement of software copyright holders via p2p, but to the infringement of movies and music property.

When asked why they do so, people shay that music CD are far too expensive, and they are ■■■■■■ right: i always wondered why a ticket for some rock star playing with 10 guys, and whom no one shall remember of in 2 years, is more expensive then one for the Berlin Philarmonic and 100 guys.

Nevertheless, the guys being caught at the day speaking had often thousands of records (sometimes even selling copies in high schools), and would most certainly not have bought them even if their price had been divided by ten.

On the other side, ordinary people like you and me have not always been the owners of everything we use, but we know we were cheating and stealing when doing so, and it’s like driving too fast: very pleasant until you get caught.

I am surprised no similar law seems to exist in the United States, where most of the major copyright holders come from, and some constitutionnal amendment might not be enough an explanation, maybe rather coming from a federal organisation where each state has a large independence, thus making it very uneasy to rule on a global point of view.

Already posted:
Re: Interesting read on ACTA (Anti-Counterfitting treaty)

Different links? …

Same story

I think this is a good thing. I don’t download illegally :a0, I buy my music from Amazon MP3 Downloads. I’m a total quality freak 88) and so I only really buy Blu-ray’s, which would take along time to download even on a 100MB download connection (I’m on 10mb LOL). I’m happy paying for a subscription to Sky+HD (satellite HDTV) and anything I like I record on to my PVR. If the hard disk gets full I upgrade it.

All of this that I have isn’t expensive.
Blu-rays are cheap around £10 if you wait about a month after the premier release date so guys who just want DVD’s will get there legit movies even cheaper, and the PVR is free when you sign upto the satellite service which only cost £28 (£10 cheaper if you don’t want HD) a month. (you get around 400 odd channels, 42 atm in HD and a video on demand service [Free])

So whats better hmm
£33 a month on sat and internet. And with the Sat I can record any movies, TV shows ect and watch them back legally + the odd blu-ray.
£15 a month for internet, since you don’t get a reduced price because your not with there Sat service +
Vicom, Newscorporation, Timewarner ect fining you upto £5000 and the likely hood of having your internet cut off and losing your job because I now have a criminal record.

I know what I would choose :wink:

And also if no1 downloads illegally there is a big possibility that the prices of legit stuff would come down even cheaper :slight_smile: I totally back this law, I think its a brill idea.

P.S If you can’t afford the media, You can’t afford the fine ;D

Thing is, they are not trying to protect the authors and their rights. They just want to control the internet.

They only want to control the bad on the internet, its just like customs really, come in with a legit drug like paracetamol and you’ll get through, try with something illegal and you won’t be able to. Like with customs some people will complain about the measures because you do nothing wrong, I’m using the service legally I don’t get what’s the hold up, in the internet example I want to download an Ubuntu torrent but I can’t. Like with customs you get angry but after a while of waiting your going in the right direction, you find a unblocked download mirror hosted by a unblocked site, your happy :slight_smile:

An inconvenience yes, But it will become natural over time, And of course it would be ironic to complain about it because we have brought it on ourselves, abusing our internet to “Steal Content”. If no1 did it there would be no need to block sites, but some people just can’t resist and sadly we all have to pay the price. :-\

The main reason they want to block site is because ISP’s don’t want to cut people off,

  1. because there losing money
  2. we are depending on the internet more and more everyday in our lives

Ah, but is it good for even legit users? I have read articles about users who sound like you: Totally perfect and legal. 88) And they get mistakenly charged with illegal downloading/file sharing.

Maybe this will become like the French Reign of Terror, except in England! >:-D >:-D (Yeah, losing internet is that bad)

Yes of course every system will produce false alarms and thats why you don’t just get your internet cut off straight away. If its the first time you get a letter with a warning only then does it get more severer, every time you caught you will get a letter or call and so then you can question and challenge them about it, They don’t and wont just cut of off without contacting you for this very reason. Again it is another inconvenience. As far is I can remember no1 has had to pay a fine/been to prison for a false alarm on this system, I could however be wrong.