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

UK Internet Filtering Bill Watered Down 183

Posted by kdawson
from the still-siding-with-the-man dept.
superapecommando writes in with news that in the UK, Liberal Democratic peers will soften their filtering amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, to allow those wrongfully accused of illegal filesharing to sue the rightsholders in court. The previous version of the Bill had drawn instant criticism from some of the world's largest technology companies, including eBay, Google, and Yahoo, who signed an open letter against the filtering proposal. Blogger Glyn Moody summed up opposition to the Bill, stating that in its previous form, it was "utterly one-sided, where the only winners are a music recording industry too lazy to change, and the losers are everyone else."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Internet Filtering Bill Watered Down

Comments Filter:
  • Re:What bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pandrijeczko (588093) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @05:27AM (#31493258)

    Nope. I remember all too well when CDs came out. We were told they were virtually indestructible, would play covered in jam & hairs and would be much cheaper than vinyl. At the time, they were around 10GBP in the UK compared to 5-6GBP for a vinyl album. We were told within a couple of years they would be cheaper than vinyl. Ten years later they were 15GBP+

    The chances are that if I get jam or hairs on a CD, I can wipe it clean and it will play as it did before - unlike a vinyl LP. Besides which, if you get jam and hairs on CDs and fall for marketing hype then you probably need to be put in a cage in a zoo with a label "Greater Idiot" on it.

    As for £15 CD prices - get real. Maybe if you buy everything in HMV in the high street - in which case you go in the cage also. I buy around 5 or 6 music CDs a month, I don't remember the last time I paid more than £10 for one; plus I buy a lot of remasters meaning they've got the extra tracks on them making them twice as long as a vinyl LP anyway.

    Yep(ish) but you did get double LPs with glorious artwork, liner notes etc.

    Yes, agreed, a lot of the great artwork hasn't survived well being knocked down to CD size, although many do have good liner notes - especially, again, on a lot of the remastered stuff. I always thought it was a missed opportunity to not put some of the old artwork and photos on the music CD as well.

    That's a whole other agument. Back in the day, the A&R department might let a band put out 3-4 albums while they found themselves. Many now great bands had some dreadful early works - if we followed your rules we'd never have the good stuff. That was always the equation, the handful of uber successful groups funded the up and coming ones.

    Yes, I think part of your statement is true, even to this day. I've certainly read somewhere that the Britney Spears of the world selling their trash by the millions helps to finance smaller artists - but then surely that's an advantage a record company has over a small artist trying to market themselves?

    As to the first part of the statement, I'll talk about what I know. I mainly listen to classic rock & blues music from the late 60s to the present, and many artists that have been active pretty much throughout all of that period - e.g. Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin (and their solo projects), Nazareth, many others...

    In pretty much all of those cases, the artists served "apprenticeships" on the pub and club circuits before making it anywhere near super-stardom. In turn this meant that many of the songs which would end up on albums had probably been played in front of live audiences for some time before, so I think this helped many bands put out very high quality initial albums.

    In many ways that's changed today because artists are, in many but not all cases, are catapulted to fame instantly, just because the record companies market artists as fashionable and see a chance to make quick bucks. That's why, in my opinion, the general quality of music has dropped now.

  • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @06:09AM (#31493412)

    But the problem is, who do you vote for instead?

    As a Lib Dem voter, this disgust me too, but I'm still concerned that they're the best option, partly because it is Lib Dem Lords that have done this, rather than the parliamentary party for which you'd be voting, and partly because the Lib Dems goal of doing away with our horrendously undemocratic first past the post system is simply more important. I think this latter point is prominent, because first past the post is the reason we have these untouchable, unaccountable parties holding all the power in the first place. If we get rid of our stupid first past the post system, then it's at least the first step towards more sane government.

    So yeah, it disgusts me too, but I'm not sure withdrawing your vote is the solution sadly. I would at very least however recommend you contact Nick Clegg to make your point heard, and to ensure the parliamentary party rather than the Lords don't follow this line at least.

  • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @06:32AM (#31493532)

    Yeah, I don't know why the BBC struggles with serious current affairs programs so much. Particularly when you look at programs like Horizon and series like Planet Earth, and Life which are generally nothing short of outstanding. They clearly can do serious programs well, they can clearly do comedy current affairs programs well, it's not as if their news site and the current affairs stuff on there isn't generally excellent either. They just can't seem to mix it all together to provide serious TV based current affairs shows without ending up in an epic fail.

  • by xelah (176252) on Tuesday March 16, 2010 @06:39AM (#31493568)
    You often don't get all your costs back. 80%-ish is more normal, I believe, and I'm not sure you can claim for everything anyway. If you run out of money before the end then you lose, so rich opponents can make you go through all the hoops in the hope of making that happen. IIRC, it's also possible to ask a court to refuse to let you continue a case on the grounds that you won't be able to pay the defendant's costs if you lose.

If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.

Working...