UK's Anti-File-Sharing Bill Could "Breach Human Rights" 119
Grumbleduke writes "The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has recently reported on the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which seeks to restrict the connections of anyone accused of infringing copyright using the Internet. According to the BBC, the committee noted the lack of details in the Bill as it stands, asking for 'further information' from the government on several issues. They also raised concerns that some punishments under the bill could be 'applied in a disproportionate manner' and said that the powers the bill granted to the Secretary of State (i.e. Lord Mandelson) were 'overly broad.' These echo the concerns raised in recent months by the Open Rights Group, a consortium of web companies including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and eBay, as well as the UK's Pirate Party. The Bill is currently being scrutinized by the House of Lords, and if it passes there, will likely be forced through the Commons quickly, despite the opposition from the public, industry and members of parliament. The committee's full report can be found on the parliament website."
Re:Mandelson sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, he lost his job for taking bribes twice before. There must be some evidence he took a pay-off from Geffen.
Re:Priorities (Score:1, Interesting)
Or if they must tackle IT based crime how about identity fraud? They just don't give a crap about that becuase they'd actually have to get off their arses to do something about it. Much better to go after the copyright infringers!
Re:Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Lord Mandelson having dinner with David Geffen of Dreamworks [timesonline.co.uk], and I certainly wouldn't dream of suggesting that a politician whose first resignation was due to lying about business dealings might not be telling the whole truth when he denied discussing it with Geffen.
UK (&others) have corrupt PARTIES, not just po (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people complain about the US system (&Japan) where individual candidates raise their own campaign funds. And would like to limit them. But at least these systems produce independant legislators.
It was a spectacle when Tony Blair thrice put down backbencher revolts over UK involvement in Iraq (quite reasonably, labor platforms & supporters have always been dovish and somewhat antiUS). This convinced me that the UK (&other parlementary systems) are really elected dictatorships. Diktat is to be expected.
Re:Mandelson sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
Shock horror! New Labour proposes a law that grants ill-defined, barely-limited power to Secretary of State!
This bunch really don't seem to get that "trust us" doesn't wash. I hope that a) they get turfed out at the next election and b) their replacements are in some fashion better.
Corruption.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lordy Mandy is one of the more infamous characters of our Labour government. Several times he's been fired/forced to resign over corruption (taking bribes) and effectively fraudulent behaviour. Each time, he keeps getting hired back by the government when they think most people will have forgotten.
He's shown himself to out only for his own personal profit, with flagrant disregard for the public, though a side effect is he also feathers the beds of his political allies in his bargains.
Much of what Labour have brought in during their 12 years in power has been something the governmental organisations in Orwell's 1984 would have been proud of.
Still, every election, they bleat about "beware the Tories because they're evil". No real evidence, just their usual "it's that way because we say it is".
The political system bugs the hell out of me. On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs. However a lot of their social track record (though John Major, the last tory PM was a big change on that) is not so hot. They make the hard decisions.
Labour, on the other hand, are the real "protect the underdog", to the extend of actually oppressing the majority to achieve this end.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is the sweet spot, though the 'middle of the road' party we have isn't balanced by the extremes, but seems to try to muddle along without actually making any hard decisions one way or the other.
The hard decision in this one is "how do we best benefit society to allow ourselves the flexibility to foster creativity at a fundamental level so we can compete globally in the future?".
Hint. It's not to chase file sharers. It's probably more along the lines of reorganising the copyright system from the ground up to fit what we need to achieve as a society, not to prop up the business models of huge corporations. The upcoming economies that will in a generation or so surpass the existing economic powers will, while they're growing fast, play fast and loose with this. If the existing powers remain inflexible, and try to hide behind the old rules, they'll fall. History is full of things like this (Agincourt, American War of Independance etc.). Rules of engagement change, yet the 'old powers' try to hold onto them. They fail eventually and are superseded by a more flexible structure (until that structure ossifies under the pressure of internal greed).
One day, we'll have organisational structures that strike the proper balance over extended periods, but I think that's a long way off. We're a primitive species still trying to struggle with its own success. A lot of this can be marked down to the pains of growing up. Doesn't mean we should be complacent. There are many structures that can govern, and many of them unpleasant.
Come back the old "democracy" where at the end of the year, you voted on someone to exile for the year. HAve them living in penury and social isolation. That, methinks, could serve as a useful tool for those in the limelight.. Let them know there are consequences to actions..
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually China and India are good examples of how the artists can still make plenty of money and even benefit from piracy.
The average Chinese or Indian citizen cannot afford to pay the prices we do for a CD. Only pirates can manufacture the discs cheaply enough to sell them at an affordable price and still make a small profit. That's a good thing for both the artist, who gets their work distributed for free and then benefits from increased patronage/sponsorship deals/etc. and a good thing for the pirate who makes a living and maybe even employs others. Since the official CDs are unaffordable anyway there isn't even a lost sale in many cases.
That gets right to the heart of the problem: it used to cost a lot of money to copy media so it was relatively easy to control, but now the price of copying is basically free (internet) or extremely low (CD). As a producer of copyrightable work I think you just have to accept that people will be able to make copies for free now. I am one such producer, in fact I release most stuff as open source anyway, and people still pay me for copies. I do okay out of it in fact.