Slashdot Log In
UK Government Abandons Piracy Legislation
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:49 AM
from the abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-here dept.
from the abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-here dept.
arcticstoat writes "Following last year's reports of a scheme to 'ban' pirates from the Internet via ISPs in the UK, it looks as though the UK government has now decided to back down on the plan, saying that it hopes it won't have to apply 'the heavy hand of legislation'. The UK's Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy, said that 'I'm not sure it's actually going to be possible,' as a result of the complexities of enforcing such legislation. Lammy also revealed that he had a different opinion on file sharers than many people in the music industry. He pointed out that there's a big difference between organized counterfeiting gangs and 'younger people not quite buying into the system'. He added that 'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap — there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
First (Score:5, Funny)
Uk government, "if at first you don't succeed" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, "First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government". Its not common sense. They just plan to use a bigger net to catch people with.
In other words, Jacqui Smith's team of control freaks will be able to watch everyone (and then punish) via their much bigger plans to monitor all Internet communications, i.e
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/imp_tim_hayward/ [theregister.co.uk]
Parent
Re:First (Score:4, Funny)
>First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government? Pinch me!
Don't worry, our error will be corrected and normal service will resume shortly.
Thank you for your patience, loyal citizen (your lack of faith has been noted).
- Zanu Labour.
Parent
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, that's not possible, because pinching is considered harassment under UK law. Sorry about that.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
[Looks outside at typical January day in Pudding Island]
Nah, too wet for flying pigs. Bit dark, too.
--
E
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we can download stoner movies, but can't smoke a reefer whilst watching them.
Stoner movies don't actually make you think about stuff that much, granted, pot does make you think incoherent stuff at times but it makes you think nonetheless. The last thing the UK government needs now is people thinking stuff about their incoherent policies.
Parent
Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Insightful)
it looks as though the UK government has now decided to back down on the plan, saying that it hopes it won't have to apply 'the heavy hand of legislation'.
Call me stupid but I was kind of hoping they would pass legislation and attempt to arrest a 100,000 people--flooding their legal system with 'guilty' file sharers and stealing valuable time from police officers who should be focusing on real threats to society.
You know, it's not until they actually try to rigidly enforce this that they'll realize that the premise of "stealing from the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA" is utter bullshit. They'll be arresting (hopefully Brazil [wikipedia.org] style) large numbers of students that have no money and finding that the file sharing they were doing did not supplant an imaginary source of spending. They'll also cripple their legal system to try to reprimand people from "stealing" something that isn't physical.
I'm not supporting illegal file sharing, I'm not condoning it, I am just hoping that they try to enforce something this stupid so they realize they are in no way providing a solution to a fix an archaic business model threatened by amazing new communications technology.
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Funny)
It seems kind of surprising to me that an ISP would try to charge the government anything for access to investigatory data. I'd think the government would just respond with an "OK, if that's the way you want to play it. Allow us to introduce you to our little regulatory friend; the "Federal Undernet Cooperative Knowledge and Unification Act" (aka: FUCK-U) that states you will give us this data for free, whenever we ask, and in whatever condition we desire."
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It wasn't the government, it was the IWF (www.iwf.org.uk) who are actually an independant charity.
(quoted from their about page)
"We are an independent self-regulatory body, funded by the EU and the wider online industry."
"We work with UK government to influence initiatives developed to combat online abuse and this dialogue goes beyond the UK and Europe to ensure greater awareness of global issues, trends and responsibilities."
"IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee. Charity No. 1112398."
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, an independent charity whose CEO is an ex-police officer.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/page.66.200.htm [iwf.org.uk]
No offence to them but at best it's a quango. Robbins joined fresh from his police career the year that Malcolm Hutty, executive director of the Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet, and two other members resigned [bbc.co.uk]. At the same time that the IWF came up with its 'Tough New Approach', in fact, curiously enough.
Whether or not it is funded as an independent charity, the Powers That Be very definitely have a hand in IWF sockpuppetry. As far as I can see the only differences between this approach to the IWF and the directly govt funded approach are a) the govt don't have to pay for it, because they can just lean on the ISPs to get 'donations', and b) a complete, total lack of accountability. The govt pretty much forced the creation of the IWF in the first place by threatening to raid ISPs...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't the government, it was the IWF (www.iwf.org.uk) who are actually an independant charity.
Except it was the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre [bbc.co.uk] who are a Government agency headed by a senior police officer [wikipedia.org].
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Informative)
First the average payment was £18 (about $25), which is hardly unreasonable. Secondly the law explicitly allows for ISPs to make a charge covering the costs of data retrieval. If it wasn't for that, you'd get police forces on fishing expeditions requesting information on just about *everybody*.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think if you were a large ISP and getting that many requests, you'd just write a script (or collection of) to automate the process.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't stop many people when the RIAA were on a rampage. It didn't even stop any of my friends when they got cease-and-desist-on-fear-of-being-taken-to-court letters from the MPAA.
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me stupid but I was kind of hoping they would pass legislation and attempt to arrest a 100,000 people--flooding their legal system with 'guilty' file sharers and stealing valuable time from police officers who should be focusing on real threats to society.
See, "Drug War"
Parent
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Funny)
> Call me stupid...
You're stupid.
Parent
Not common sense (Score:5, Informative)
They just ran out of money [denninger.net], that's all.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
"'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms."
Why not? We do it here daily in the USA.
we also financially ruin their families just for good measure as well.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
> Why not? We do it here daily in the USA.
In Europe, we forgive and turn the other cheek ;)
I take it the devout christian states in the US have less severe sentences than the evil athiest states?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Tim's on him laptop at home in his bedroom
(In a IM window) Hey Tim, what does "little Timmy" look like?
(Tim sends a picture of "little Timmy")
(In the IM window) Wow, that's so b
At that instant SWAT teams blow-up the front door of both of their houses and arrest them on the spot
Both are now on the Sex Offender lists for the rest of their lives.
We do it here daily in the USA.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a big difference between stealing a bar of soap and stealing a television. There's also a big difference between stealing a television and maliciously burning down the hotel. In the USA, the potential penalties for sharing a few albums are up there with the penalties for arson.
Parent
holy crap !!! (Score:3, Funny)
a sensible politician in UK ? i wouldnt expect to see that after last 8 years !
Problem always was standards of proof (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem always was, Company A complaining about person P to Company B, who then has to refuse P service. If you think about it from B's point of view, do they check or not? If not, what if they get it wrong and get sued - does A indemnify them? Further, from the Government's point of view. There are some services which are reasonably considered essential, and which, if you are denied them, may be more damaging to your quality of life than some criminal sentences. Yet in the case of the criminal law sanctions, the Human Rights legislation (entered into by this Government) demands due process and open hearings of the evidence. Where would that be in the present case?
To see the absurdity of it, and why it would not fly, consider the following case. The country is in the grip of smoking hysteria. Suppose we pass a law that on three accusations of buying tobacco for minors, a person must be denied access to his local supermarket. Suppose there is only one. His ability to buy food at a reasonable price and selection is being abridged solely on an unsupported allegation, the evidence for which does not even to have to be presented to him. No judge is involved.
In the UK we have anti social behaviour orders. These enable magistrates to order almost anything - like barring people from certain streets, certain associations or meetings, some behaviour. But even these, you do have to get an order from a magistrate. When you think about it, the proposal would be giving the record industry the power to disconnect anyone they chose from the internet with no reason given, no hearing, no comeback, not even a magistrate being informed.
It was never going to fly. The EC Charter guarantees access to information. This sort of measure is totally incompatible with it. It is going to be down to old fashioned policing and prosecution if they want to stamp out file sharing in violation of copyright. Yes, it will be expensive and time consuming. And yes, it may not work, or may not be worth working. And yes, maybe they would be better off revising their business model. But if they don't want to revise, that's the only way. Very glad the government has seen the cliff in time, and stopped. Not that you could really miss it, it was pretty obvious. The only people who would have enjoyed it would have been the lawyers, blowing up case after case with unconcealed glee!
Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm left speechless. It's as if someone with an ounce of intelligence has cunningly infiltrated their way in.
Someone in British government with a clue, this really should be headline news in every paper.
No doubt Jacqui Smith will implement emergency legislation and have him shot by firing squad ASAP on terrorism charges now however.
Just means someone else will do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
All this does is open the way for a properly appointed government body to do it.
Bugger.
David Lammy MP (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the wonderful "4 hour wait" in the Accident and Emergency departments..
Nice idea, in theory.. But the implementation is something along the lines of:
"Ok, this task that took you anywhere between 30 minutes and 6 to 8 hours, depending on how many people walk through the door (a random number, very roughly predictable in trends analysis, but often with huge discrepancies), will now definitely be done in 4 hours or less. No, we won't give you any more money to employ extra people to cope with the extra l
In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap â" there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television
In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value. I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why it's such a perfect analogy. Crime isn't binary - there are decent people that would take soap from a hotel room, but wouldn't consider stealing gum from a shop.
Society is better off if we don't prosecute crimes of low value or low impact, but rather leave it to citizens to work out between themselves.
Parent
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
Can they actually use the soap after you leave? All the ones I've seen have (unopened) individually wrapped soap, which I assume is meant to be disposable for hygiene reasons (can't have people using the previous guest's dirty soap).
Parent
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Informative)
Under Australian health regulations, they have to. Those little packets of soap are covered under the same regulations as the little packets of butter and jam, Anything that is touched by a customer must be disposed of and not reused regardless of weather it is opened or not. Of course this little regulation is sometimes ignored in private with unopened packets.
But when it comes to taking soap from a hotel room, is it really stealing? The cost of replacing that bar of soap and the little bottles of shampoo are factored into the price you paid to stay there. It's not like taking the towels or replacing vodka in the minibar with water (not that I've done this, walks away whistling). Shrinkage is also factored into a hotel's operating costs but it still doesn't make stealing towels right.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem about Internet users and the music industry, is the difference of expectations they have about music made available in a digital form.
"You are not allowed to download this song !"
"But you just put it online !"
How? (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
I'm trying to imagine a way they could prove you stole the soap.
Maybe they could simply decide that if the soap wasn't there after you were gone, you surely stole it. And if that event happened three times, they could permanently ban you from all hotels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because surely all this soap-stealing is costing them so much money that they can't possibly make a profit when GP visits. Also, when the cleaners start stealing soap the hotels will start banning customers who haven't even touched the soap for stealing it.
Try to estimate the severity of the problem before you come up with an expensive way (that will piss off innocent people and require more administration) to 'solve' it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap...
I doubt it. Not when the packaging calls it "complimentary soap". I think it's fair enough to consider the soap to be a gift from the hotel to you, much like the little chocolates on the pillow.
It's a flawed metaphor anyway. If you take the soap, it's gone, whereas when you download an MP3, it's still there. A better comparison would be dodging your fare on the Underground - and Transport for London levies a £50 fine [tfl.gov.uk] for that, which is less than a parking ticket will cost you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a flawed metaphor anyway. If you take the soap, it's gone, whereas when you download an MP3, it's still there.
On the other hand, the packaging calls it "Complimentary Soap." The mp3s aren't called "Complimentary mp3s."
The soap is a consciously given gift, the mp3s are not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Haha - you're entirely wrong.
Complimentary = with our compliments.
Complementary = making complete.
Unless you are trying to claim that the meaning of 'complementary' is that the bathroom sans soap is somewhat less than whole, you've just made a complete arse of yourself.
Thankyou for playing the pedantry game - please feel free to come back when you are better at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know those little bars in hotels I stay at don't cost much, but I'm sure the price of a large bar is higher than the price of a song on iTunes. The wife buys Imperial Leather...
I have never stolen soap. I have copied songs. I no longer feel guilty thanks to David Lammy. Cheers matey.
More importantly. (Score:2)
>In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value.
More importantly and relevantly, it's fine to steal music, since it's no worse than stealing a bar of hotel soap.
Don't get too excited yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bear in mind the Gower's report on copyright terms that was an independent review on what was best for the country. The report fed back that 50 years as is is fine, but less would be better.
Both the Conservatives and Labour outright ignored this independent report that they commissioned in the first place and still decided to push for 70 years.
This could just as well end up the same. Unfortunately common sense holds no place in the corrupt halls of British parliament. Why follow the recommended route and gain nothing when you can just vote for harsh punishments and get all sorts of goodies and incentives from the music and movie industry? That's how most of them see it. It aint just the Lords that's corrupt, I felt David Cameron's comment the other day that he'd put someone from the creative industries (music, movies, books, advertising) in charge of Britain's broadband future quite telling- I mean really, what the hell qualifications do the creative industries have for solving what are basically technological problems?
It really is! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow it really is a sudden outbreak of common sense... I am shocked. Then again, it would be 10x more amazing if it were the US dropping the DMCA...
Holy Shit! (Score:2)
Did this guy just equate the value of a song to a bar of hotel soap?
BWHAHAHAHAHAH
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using a bar of soap makes me claen.
Listening to modern day music makes me feel dirty.
I'd rather have the soap.
So, no more privateers? : ( (Score:2)
:(
Hmm, I wonder if this has anything to do with... (Score:3, Informative)
Of all the potential legislation that the government have been talking about over the last few months, this music industry stuff reeks of lobbyists doing whatever they can to gain influence in Westminster. And what has been in the headlines in the UK the last few days? [guardian.co.uk] Ah yes, allegations that unelected members of the House of Lords are being paid by lobbyists to table amendments to UK law. Maybe there's a hurried shakedown going of this kind of overly "lobbied" legislation - before a pesky journalist joins the dots while the legislation is still on the table.