Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet United Kingdom Your Rights Online

DMCA Amendment Proposed For UK 208

Posted by samzenpus
from the some-ides-are-better-than-others dept.
Grumbleduke writes "During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticized Digital Economy Bill, the unpopular Clause 17 (which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs. The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees. This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them. The UK's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticized this new amendment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DMCA Amendment Proposed For UK

Comments Filter:
  • by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:10AM (#31355834) Homepage Journal

    Worse, it's in the ACTA treaty:

    Their goal is to conclude the ACTA agreement by the end of 2010. Countries involved are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (US) - and others will be pressured to join afterward.

    • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:37AM (#31355962)

      Seeing zero reporting on this in the media (apart from the excellent interviews professor Geist linked on his blog [michaelgeist.ca]). Big media all for this. The majority of "big media" business models are based on artificial scarcity [wikipedia.org]. That is, big media charge for the packaging and distribution of bits and bytes as a if these things are scarce commodity. Note that I am not talking about the actual artistic content creation, but only the packaging and distribution. Packaging and distribution are certainly value adding exercises, but when talking about digital media, the cost to reproduce and distribute is a fixed cost or as close to fixed as you can get (see wikipedia article reference - "duplicated billions of times over for a relatively cheap production price (an initial investment in a computer, an internet connection, and any power consumption costs; and these are already fixed costs in most environments)").

      It is physically impossible to maintain the current (substantial) profit differential between charging for the packaging and distribution of each digital item as if it is a scarce commodity, while running that part of their operation at or very close to fixed cost (The most profitable and central part of big media). Any other business model that embraces the digital medium for what it is (a fixed cost medium for duplication/distribution), and not based on artificial scarcity simply could never maintain the same levels of profitability they currently enjoy.

      They only have one choice if they wish to maintain their currently profit levels: Legislate scarcity into the digital medium (hence we see secret ACTA treaties and other morally questionable political clout being thrown about in favor of this goal)

      If we actually talk about the artistic content creation part of the business model, that could be considered and entirely different issue. Big media obviously pay artists to produce content. The interesting "moral high ground" issue that both sides of the debate are claiming revolves around the question of if Big Media should also be allowed by society to charge for artificial scarcity well into the future (even well beyond the original artists death!) because they also happened to contract the artists to create the work to begin with. Big Medias defense so far seems to me to be a "muddy the debate" tactic, ignoring the artificial scarcity issue entirely and just shouting "your damaging the artists" in an effort to maintain the moral high ground.

      • Who can you trust? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Taco Cowboy (5327)

        The supposingly "defenders of the Internet" turn out to be the one who table the bill.

        Who else can you trust?

        Internet is indeed the whipping boy of the political scums !

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by HungryHobo (1314109)

          Not exactly surprising.
          Now all that have to do is slap a copyright notice on anything embarrassing.
          Next time someone leaks the MP's expenses or some other embarrassing piece of info they can just send a takedown to have it blocked.

          The DMCA has a few half decent elements like the safe harbour stuff and a lot of awful crap.
          I just wish that when other governments try to copy the idea they'd learn from others and at the very least try to magnify the good and cut out the crap.

          Instead they do the exact opposite,

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The supposingly "defenders of the Internet" turn out to be the one who table the bill.

          Who else can you trust?

          Had to look this one up for it to make sense.

          For others who may be confused, in the USA "to table a bill" means basically to dump it. In the UK, "to table a bill" means to begin discussion of it.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:42AM (#31356268)

        A very good point. I have a sinking feeling about the whole matter.

        I've grown up in a world where items of negligible value are price-inflated through packaging, advertising and pointless distribution channels. I have had enough. Now when I buy something, be it a movie, music or a game I seem to own nothing less than the packaging, whereas the items I desire remains the property of those who sold it to me and I am denied any freedom in it's usage.

        This is a hypocrisy of greed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TractorBarry (788340)

        One thing that totally clarifies this point for me is the fact that any sequence of bytes can be thought of as a number. If the byte stream is large (long ?) then admittedly we're talking about a huge number but it's still effectively just a number. The fact that this number can be interpreted by software and hardware to represent music, film, images, words etc. is very nice but doesn't change the fact that it's just a number.

        So would it make sense to have a business model that tried to charge people mone

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by N1AK (864906)

          In the meantime it simply means a lot of people are going to made into criminals for making use of maths.

          Anything bar a physical entity can be replicated as a number (if others have a means to interpret it) including novels, music, blueprints and medical formulas. The entire premise that limiting the unauthorised distribution of anything without a physical form is punishing people for using maths is pure and utter nonsense.

          If you don't think people should have a right to control anything other than a phy

        • by Chrisq (894406)

          So would it make sense to have a business model that tried to charge people money for telling each other a number ? Obviously not.

          Try telling that to the horse racing punters, they have essentially being doing that for years

        • by digitig (1056110)
          I can offer you a good price on 788340...
      • This may be a disturbing observation but Big Media is pulling off a stunning achievement here.

        Not content to work with the laws of various countries, they bought the cooperation of powerful legislators and created a mechanism to force adoption and compliance to a very restrictive set of laws.

        These laws will work to penalize movement and use of copyrighted works but at the same time will have a chilling effect on the internet as a whole. They will probably force ISP's to block many services they will now be

    • by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:49AM (#31356040)

      ACTA Jr has been introduced to Parliament [creativefreedom.org.nz] in New Zealand a week ago. It includes 3 strikes, and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.

      We've had a few talks about it at work, and the general consensus is that it's a joke, with so many ways to render the IP addresses "evidence" questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it's one we have to stop. You don't lose your phone if you break a law with it, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection (email, facebook, skype, etc) for the same.

    • page 27 requires that "the online service providers act expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law, to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement" - i.e. upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter.

      Page 3 [swpat.org] has the current working text about "n order to a party to desist from an infringement" and which the EU wants to be written as "The Parties shall also ensure that the right holders are in a position to apply for an injuncti

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:57AM (#31356078)
      Michael Geists recent 20min presentation [michaelgeist.ca] to American Uni, Washington College of Law was very interesting, he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty. If I understood correctly, big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process. Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from.
    • by AHuxley (892839) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @06:26AM (#31356476) Homepage Journal
      In Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea,New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States in theory you can find the political party and minster linked to this.
      Stay on public property and expose them.
      Never drive to an event, they will note all car license plates in the area.
      Read out the laws they are working on in your name in dark places.
      Speak some truths at their next walk about, meet and greet, mall trip or suburban town hall meeting.
      Have a few friends around you to film the response of their public security and party helpers.
      If they allow you to protest, keep on showing up.
      If they get physical you have some great clips for the local news, youtube and keep on showing up.
      File complaints about your mis treatment, turn up in court with video evidence and a real lawyer.
      Always ask for the collar numbers/shoulder number/badge number of anyone without it on display.
      Make sure your friends record the reaction.
  • by cyclomedia (882859) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:15AM (#31355858) Homepage Journal

    Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant". So Mr. Billy Footballer could seek an injunction to block a website because it has a photo of him snorting coke on it, probably.

    From TFL:

    97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement
    (1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.
    (2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—
    (a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,
    (b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),
    (c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,
    (d) any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.
    (e) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,
    (f) the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and
    (g) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

    • 97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

      Which can be roughly translated as... torrent index sites and commercial BT proxies, They can't ban a protocol but they can ban some of the popular index hosts and anonymizers, so that's what they're doing.

      The best part is they can use this legislation to block foreign hosts quite easily, so whether or not TPB is legal in Sweden has little bearing on whether you in the UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Aussie, Japan, Korea, and others can access it. No, you can't find your favorite free-to-air TV programme (or Japanese

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by julesh (229690)

      Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant".

      You appear to be misreading it. These aren't reasons why an injunction should be granted. They are things that a court must consider before deciding whether or not to grant it. "Any other matters which appear relevant" is actually a way for the court to *avoid* issu

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        I think most courts now realise that you can't keep anything secret any more, thanks to the internet. In fact widespread knowledge of something is a reason they give for not granting an injunction.

        This is all about big media companies trying to turn back the tide and protect their business models. It won't help keep information out of the public domain.

  • by arethuza (737069) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:37AM (#31355966)
    I had been contemplating voting Liberal Democrat as they seemed to have at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable) - which is one more than the other parties can muster. I'll go and read up on this and if they did table this then that's my vote going somewhere else... of to check the Pirate Party site to see if they are going to have a candidate here at the next general election.
    • by I confirm I'm not a (720413) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:59AM (#31356086) Journal

      For goodness sake let them know what you've just told us. A polite letter explaining that you were seriously intending to support them, but won't now, will do more than you might expect.

      • by VJ42 (860241) * on Thursday March 04, 2010 @09:39AM (#31357782)

        For goodness sake let them know what you've just told us. A polite letter explaining that you were seriously intending to support them, but won't now, will do more than you might expect.

        Even an email via http://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com] makes a big difference. I know my MP has answered me every time I've emailed her. Hell, my MP even responds to my tweets to her twitter account, she's a Lib-Dem and I was going to vote for her as we won't have a Pirate Party member standing in my constituency.* It now depends on her response to my email about this vote.

        *I'm a member, but don't think I would want to stand myself.

    • The usual keywords like "crack" "moderators" "on".

      Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying.

    • by Xest (935314)

      I'm of the same feeling here, I was certainly a Lib Dem voter until I read this. However, I do intend to seek clarification- is this just some Lord going off on his own little journey, or does it have party support?

      The summary makes no fucking sense either, it seems to imply the Conservatives support the Lib Dems stance of challenging large parts of the bill. This is outright false, the Tories have only agreed to challenge clause 17 which gives Mandelson full control over copyright law with no parliamentary

    • by arethuza (737069)
      My MP is this chap: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/mark_lazarowicz/edinburgh_north_and_leith [theyworkforyou.com]

      Not a big majority and in a seat that I suspect will have a lot of strong feeling on this topic (particularly students). For £500 it might be worth standing as a Pirate myself..... :-)

    • by mrsmiggs (1013037)

      Lord Clement Jones has replied to critism of the ammendment
      http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html [libdemvoice.org]

      To sum up he argues that; this is only an addition to existing power of copyright holders in the UK and simply clarifies their role in the process.

      I do think he misses the point however that this ammendment puts emphasis on the ISPs which provide any service that can access this material rather than those which host the material. It's one step closer to to a great firewa

    • Note that this is happening in the House of Lords. Of course yes, as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this, but it's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy, or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory Lords.

      From the link, all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord. A Lord can propose what they like (this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they're not tied to party policy).

      Please don't throw away your vote for yo

    • by Andy_R (114137)

      Unfortunately, the answer is probably no. We don't have the funding to run more than a handful of Pirate candidates at the upcoming election. There's a £500 fee to get a name on the ballot paper, and running a campaign on an absolute shoestring budget adds another thousand to that.

      You can help though, through donations, membership fees, and if you really care about this and have the cash to spend, by standing under the pirate banner yourself.

  • Someone somewhere will have published a novel about a bunch of lying thieving scumbag politicians working only to enrich themselves who bring in a load of legislation and powers that enable a police state. That person can then issue takedown notices against ALL government servers.

  • Blanket law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:44AM (#31356018)

    The problem with these laws are that they pretty much cover anything and can easily be misused and breaking an injunction costs $$$ which means these laws favor corporations not consumers. A government is supposed to protect it's citizens and not play into the hands of large corporations.

    A better solution would be for the record industry to realize CD is DEAD!!! Try to embrace the internet not fight against it, adapt or die a simple darwinian principle.

    If you need a law like this make sure it's specific and that it target's real problems. The current problem with Piracy is born of record companies inadequacy to adapt and offer an alternative. Apple store is one of the few that exists and even there the record companies don't really like it.

    I agree piracy is bad, but also it's like civil disobedience it points out there is a problem. There are lots of examples of civil disobedience that have inspired good change instead of more fear mongering and draconian rules.

  • by Aceticon (140883) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:51AM (#31356054)

    I'm disapointed with the Lib Dems (which are the 3rd largest party in the UK) but not overly surprised: they have pretty much adopted the style, dialetics and posture of the two major parties.

    This probably goes a long way to explain why, at a time when people are very disapointed with politicians in the UK (and one would expect that the two main parties, being more visible, would bear the brunt of it), the Lib Dems are not increasing their share of the vote.

    The sleazy salesmen in designer suits have taken over the party and the result is that people, instead of going for them as an alternative, are just not voting at all or voting for more fringe parties, especially younger people.

    Honestly, even though they are a bit of a "one issue" party, the UK Pirate Party are more in tune with what matters for the Internet generation than any of the "traditional" parties. If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.

    • If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.

      I am and I still can't vote for the UK Pirate Party. I would if I could, but they don't have anyone standing for election in my area. It's like some kind of pseudo-democracy.

      • by Tim C (15259)

        No suitable candidate in your area? Stand yourself. That is how democracy works.

        • I've thought about it, but I believe I would be doing the Pirate Party a disservice by standing in their name. They need people who can communicate well - that isn't me.
          • So donate to them, write to them with coverage of these issues and your support of their stance regarding them, and become an activist. Offer your skills, if they are applicable. It could be web design, accounting, legal advice, whatever. Just show your support, and let others know why you do it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PeterBrett (780946)

        If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.

        I am and I still can't vote for the UK Pirate Party. I would if I could, but they don't have anyone standing for election in my area. It's like some kind of pseudo-democracy.

        Want to stand as a candidate in the general election? Get in touch with us.

        • by arethuza (737069)
          Cool - I can just imagine the question "So, how did you get into politics"... "I replied to a posting on Slashdot"

          So are the Pirate Party seriously looking for candidates? I live in Edinburgh North & Leith.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by VJ42 (860241) *

            Cool - I can just imagine the question "So, how did you get into politics"... "I replied to a posting on Slashdot"

            So are the Pirate Party seriously looking for candidates? I live in Edinburgh North & Leith.

            No; the correct answer is "I found out about that the Pirate party were looking for candidates from one of my favorite internet sites, and I already supported their principle, and it snowballed from there." or something similar, that shows the power of the internet and the power that the Party has in reaching the demographic that uses it most. Disclaimer: I'm a Pirate party UK member. It's only £10 a year join!

          • by Andy_R (114137) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @09:02AM (#31357454) Homepage Journal

            Yes.

            - Andrew Robinson, party leader, Pirate Party UK.

            (hey look, politicians can give a straightforward yes or no answer... when the slashdot filter lets them).

    • by Xest (935314)

      I had a look at the PDF in question, and I think the summary may be somewhat wrong tbh. I'm not convinced this amendment has party support.

      The layout of the PDF is confusing, it's hard to tell which names support the amendment, but if it's the ones before it, then the names listed are simply both the Lib Dem and the Tory ministers for culture and sport- i.e. those who are always most closely lobbied by the music industry.

      If it's the names after, then it's still the Lib Dem culture and sport minister, couple

  • Pirate Party? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhantomHarlock (189617) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:53AM (#31356056)

    How is anyone going to take you seriously with a name like that?

    • by qc_dk (734452) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:14AM (#31356146)
      If you own a ship?
    • How can anyone take you seriously when your mascots are an elephant or a donkey?...

  • My fellow internet denizens.
    It seems that every single day we are getting rammed by new legislation and international agreements that are so insane and ridiculously out of touch with where technology is actually taking us, mere words fail to properly describe my feelings on the matter. The quicker we are able to share/sync the entirety of human culture the less useful copyright becomes for the well being of the human race. How useful will copyright be for our race once the complete collection of all human
    • by AHuxley (892839)
      " Is there no one who writes legislation who agrees that easy sharing is good for the human race?"
      Say your a law student with political dreams ... and understand copyright reform ..
      Political parties have their feeder staff on the look out to tap any new talent.
      Expect to filtered out in university by the topics you select and papers your write, then by the types of early cases you represent.
      If you are not exposed by your early legal life will be invited to join the ruling elite.
      At parties in cities or
  • Well, sort of. I always pirate music, and if I especially enjoy an artist's music and continually listen to it I will buy T-Shirts and other merchandise. That way they get most of the money I spend and the ones I truly appreciate get all of my money-- the garbage albums with a few hits and some filler songs get rm -rf'd.

    For my software, I use FOSS all the time and rarely need to use proprietary software (I'm a student).

    I am a HUGE movie pirate. Why? Well, for starters movies are just too damn expensive-

  • Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?

    Here's some points that would actually work in that direction:

    • Don't let copyright expire too much in the future. We want artists (especially good ones) to work on new material, not spend the rest of their lives on a multi-million dollar yacht.
    • Stimulate that the work be released in source form, so that others can build on it. For computer programs, we are already see the positive effects this may have. For music, r
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2010 @08:16AM (#31357044)

    I said I was disgusted with the proposal etc. and here is their reply; from the horses mouth no less.

    Thank you for your email yesterday. Please see Lord Clement-Jones' justification for his amendment here:

    "The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 35% of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services. Particular threats concern “cyberlockers” which are hosted abroad.

    There are websites which consistently infringe copyright, many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Many of these websites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.

    It is a result of this situation that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Lords which has the support of the Conservatives that enables the High Court to grant an injunction requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to sites.

    The amendment (amendment 120A) has generated some concern on the internet in the last few days.

    Amendment 120A makes an explicit reference to human rights implications being taken into consideration by the Courts whilst they consider the imposition of an injunction. Such a safeguard is paramount to our concerns.

    The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.

    The injunction will only be granted where copyright owners had first requested ISP’s to block access to the site and where they had also requested the site operator to stop providing access to the infringing material (either by removing the material itself or removing the ability to access the material).

    There already exists a remedy under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (section 97A) which grants copyright owners a broad power to apply to the Court for an injunction. Therefore, all amendment 120A does is enhance this power by giving copyright owners a more clearly defined route.

    Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation

    Clause 17, the Government’s completely objectionable power to enable the Secretary of State to attempt to amend copyright law at any time is deleted by the joint Lib Dem and Conservative amendment.

    Unlike Clause 17, amendment 120A depoliticises the process. The amendment will ensure any action will be heard before the High Court. The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact allowing both sides to make their case before a judge, not by appeal to the Secretary of State.

    Before making an injunction, under the amendment the Court has to have regard to whether the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access. This is designed to ensure that copyright owners continue to develop innovative ways of enabling their material to be accessed online legally, such as Spotify, before turning to legal action.

    To conclude, the Lib Dems are not seeking to censor the internet but are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally."

    Best wishes,

    Dan Murch
    Liberal Democrat Policy Research Unit

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mdwh2 (535323)

      Thanks, interesting - although it doesn't really tell us much. I'd like to see what the Lib Dem MPs say about their party policy on this matter, not handwave the issue over to what that Lord has to say. Do they support it, or not?

      "Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation"

      Ah yes - which blocks (potential) child pr0n. Leaving aside that they can't even get that right (remember Wikipedia?), extending censor

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by julesh (229690)

      It's an interesting reply, but I think it misses the major problem with the idea behind this legislation, which proposes to ban access to any site where some unspecified majority of content is infringing (the required amount presumably to be established later by courts in the case law on the issue). The problem with this is that many of these sites also contain useful non-infringing content that can often be difficult to acquire elsewhere, e.g. I've come across a number of small free/shareware software aut

    • by Andy_R (114137) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @09:26AM (#31357658) Homepage Journal

      Lord Clement Jones "is paid £70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper's global government relations practice" according to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm [parliament.uk]

      DLA Piper works on behalf of the MusicFIRST coalition.

      The RIAA is a founding member of the MusicFIRST coalition.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grumbleduke (789126)

      As I pointed out in my original article [pirateparty.org.uk] that response from Lord Clement-Jones just highlights his lack of understanding.

      He makes a major mistake in the first sentence - I pretty much stopped reading after then - although his assurances about it involving due process are worthless as the debate (and text) made it clear that the Court is not expected to be involved and if it is, the service provider will have to pay all the costs.

      The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing.

      Wrong!"P2P" or even the word "peer" do not appear at any point in the current t

  • > The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner
    > could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to
    > infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to
    > pay the copyright owner's legal fees.

    This describes something which is virtually the opposite of the DMCA safe harbor, which grants immunity to ISPs who otherwise might be found liable and does not grant new powers to copyright owners.

nohup rm -fr /&

Working...