UK’s Terrifying Anti-Piracy Plans Leak

somanyholes · Nov 20, 2009, 08:15:00

http://torrentfreak.com/uks-terrifying-anti-piracy-plans-leak-091119/ unsure how reliable the source is ...

kinmel · Nov 20, 2009, 08:20:40

I am sure the report is basically correct.

All NuLab's legislation has worked in this way, this useless Parliament keeps giving the Executive more and more Powers.

somanyholes · Nov 20, 2009, 08:22:39

it does sound believable which is why I posted it. I'll be watching this failure with interest.

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 08:34:53

I fear it's likely to be true. More power being accrued by a man who wasn't elected. Egomaniac at large?

somanyholes · Nov 20, 2009, 08:38:25

you call him

QuoteEgomaniac

i call him a self-righteous prick that needs to be muzzled immediately

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 08:39:18

Castrated might help.

somanyholes · Nov 20, 2009, 08:41:21

lol

or a visit to the river with some ballast

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 08:46:21

Make him an offer he can't refuse, eh?

Tacitus · Nov 20, 2009, 08:56:06

I wouldn't worry about it - they'll be gone by the middle of next year.

Trouble is that as the 'party of business' the Tories are unlikely to be much better.

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 08:57:57

I'm preparing a list of questions for local candidates to answer, the most ticks gets my vote.

sobranie · Nov 20, 2009, 10:27:55

Another sure vote winner for labour methinks.

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 10:29:24

Most people probably won't know, understand or care, Rick.

Simon · Nov 20, 2009, 11:26:14

I usually only have a couple of words for canvassers, but I wonder if it might be useful to have a bundle of questions ready? Perhaps we could compile a Netters Questionnaire?

Tacitus · Nov 20, 2009, 11:33:01

Quote from: sobranie on Nov 20, 2009, 10:27:55
Another sure vote winner for labour methinks.

TBH, I think they must have a death wish, especially when it comes to appealing to the young.

The part I didn't like is Mandelson trying to give himself the power to alter copyright laws. Absolute gift to Murdoch, which is probably the intention. I can't see the Tories altering that one when the younger Murdochs are part of the Notting Hill crowd.

And people say banana republics are corrupt.

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 11:34:13

1) Given the history of foreign powers who have attempted to control Afghanistan, from the Carthaginians to the Russians, do you believe it's worth wasting more British blood there?

2) Do you support the Kelly report and are you willing to publish your expenses in full, with no redaction?

3) Do you believe in the appointment of unelected people to the House of Lords, where they are able to inflict laws and regulation on a British people who have had no voice in their appointment. If not, what will you do about it?

4) How will you deal with the aftermath of the banking fiasco/recession. When and by how much will you cut public spending, and in what areas? When and by how much will you increase taxation and will it be a fair system based on income, or will it be by stealth taxes.

Simon · Nov 20, 2009, 12:05:04

Hold on, I'm writing them down...

Tacitus · Nov 20, 2009, 12:13:06

You could add:

"Do you believe that a government elected by a minority of the people can claim democratic legitimacy"

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 12:17:55

1) Given the history of foreign powers who have attempted to control Afghanistan, from the Carthaginians to the Russians, do you believe it's worth wasting more British blood there?

2) Do you support the Kelly report and are you willing to publish your expenses in full, with no redaction?

3) Do you believe in the appointment of unelected people to the House of Lords, where they are able to inflict laws and regulation on a British people who have had no voice in their appointment. If not, what will you do about it?

4) How will you deal with the aftermath of the banking fiasco/recession. When and by how much will you cut public spending, and in what areas? When and by how much will you increase taxation and will it be a fair system based on income, or will it be by stealth taxes?

5) Do you believe that a government elected by a minority of the people can claim democratic legitimacy?

I have.

zappaDPJ · Nov 20, 2009, 14:47:44

Quote from: somanyholes on Nov 20, 2009, 08:38:25
you call him i call him a self-righteous prick that needs to be muzzled immediately

Jeremy Clarkson proposed a solution in print (The Sunday Times) but Mandelson allegedly had it pulled. google Clarkson/Mandelson for the full text.

Rik · Nov 20, 2009, 15:49:40

Is there nothing this man can't do.

Simon · Nov 20, 2009, 22:28:38

Great article by Clarkson!

Sebby · Nov 21, 2009, 01:40:26

It is indeed.

Steve · Nov 21, 2009, 07:57:35

This article I presume

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article6907747.ece

I 'd be happy to provide the rope.

zappaDPJ · Nov 21, 2009, 09:05:11

That's the one, interesting to see it's been republished.

john · Nov 24, 2009, 12:38:23

There's more on this today on the BBC News

Inkblot · Nov 29, 2009, 12:49:53

On a slightly different note, is this something that is likely to concern IDNet customers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm

I have 2 teenage children who each have their own computers, I know that they download music from pirate sites occasionally. According to the article the lawyers have obtained a couple of court orders forcing ISPs to reveal physical addresses:

QuoteACS: Law recently obtained two High Court orders that require ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of the account holders for 30,000 IP addresses, a number which can identify a computer on the internet. It is currently preparing three more.

Have IDNet been asked to provide this information? I appreciate that this is an unofficial forum but thought somebody might know the answer!

Rik · Nov 29, 2009, 12:53:02

IDNet would have to comply with a court order, as would any ISP.

Inkblot · Nov 29, 2009, 12:57:22

Quote from: Rik on Nov 29, 2009, 12:53:02
IDNet would have to comply with a court order, as would any ISP.

Oh I realise that alright! I was more wondering if anybody knew if IDNet were one of the ISPs who have already been asked to provide this information

Glenn · Nov 29, 2009, 12:59:19

I doubt that IDNet would reveal that information on a public forum, but as Rik says, if subject to a court order, they would have to tell the authorities.

Simon · Nov 29, 2009, 20:26:02

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, you're not likely to get stuffed for downloading a couple of top 40 singles each week. It's the big uploaders (the people distributing the files illegally) that they are after.

Inkblot · Nov 30, 2009, 08:13:18

I guess I'll have a word with them anyway although at 17/19 they are probably not going to listen as it's something they have grown up with and is common practice with the peer group. Don't have to agree completely with all parts of the law but do have to try and comply with it

Gary · Nov 30, 2009, 09:17:15

Quote from: Simon on Nov 29, 2009, 20:26:02
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, you're not likely to get stuffed for downloading a couple of top 40 singles each week. It's the big uploaders (the people distributing the files illegally) that they are after.

Considering that has been mistakes with people not downloading illegal material. Simon, I would not be concerned, but you can get done for downloading porn films, so if you use a torrent and get one of those by accident that counts as piracy

I am so glad I never used P2P for any downloads.

Simon · Nov 30, 2009, 09:54:27

I may have been lucky, but I've never managed to download porn by mistake. I can see how it could be done if people don't look at the file extension and size, though.

Rik · Nov 30, 2009, 10:01:09

Is it illegal to d/l porn in general, or just certain forms?

Simon · Nov 30, 2009, 10:07:39

it's only illegal to download illegal porn, surely?

Rik · Nov 30, 2009, 10:10:26

That's what I was getting at. Do most of us know what's illegal, beyond children?

Simon · Nov 30, 2009, 11:40:40

Probably not, but I believe almost anything goes, as long as it's consensual and 18+.

Gary · Nov 30, 2009, 11:47:16

Quote from: Simon on Nov 30, 2009, 10:07:39
it's only illegal to download illegal porn, surely?

Its not illegal to own it the laws were changed quite a few years back I believe you can buy it legally online (Private etc are multi million $ companies (saw a program on TV about the industry) so if you downloaded a film from one of the big studios you could get done jast as you would any other film, and I know people who have downloaded films and they have been.....not what they thought shall we say

sobranie · Nov 30, 2009, 15:41:59

Most people have some form of video recorder linked to the TV. Some TV's even have them built in of course.
So, I presume it's technically illegal to record anything from BBC.ITV,Sky etc.
So, why do manufacturers make the darned things in the 1st place and why can one buy blank media to facilitate the practice??
So, I d/l from 'The Box' site which lists all tv progs going back yonks so I presume this is illegal or perhaps even more illegal in the eyes of deep packet inspections.
I will resort to 'shoplifting' when the new rules arrive as it will probably work out cheaper to apologise to the store where I nick things, much better than a £500 fine don't you think?

Rik · Nov 30, 2009, 15:45:31

It's legal to record and store a programme, technically, I think, you are only meant to keep it for 28 days, though.

dujas · Nov 30, 2009, 17:41:25

You can record TV broadcasts for the purpose of time shifting i.e. "copying to view the broadcast at a more convenient time", I don't believe there is a time limit on how long you are allowed to keep it.

I also believe you are allowed make a backup copy of the original CD/DVD you own for music, films and computer software/games, but it's illegal to try and circumvent any copy protection measures built into them (which pretty much every form of media comes with these days).

Possessing pornography, assuming you've paid for it and it's legal, isn't an offence. But since early 2009, it is a criminal offence to possess images of "extreme pornography" i.e. images that portray necrophilia, bestiality and "acts which threatens a person's life, or acts which result, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals").

Simon · Nov 30, 2009, 20:31:26

This article might be of interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/facts_about_filesharing.html

Rik · Dec 01, 2009, 09:34:03

And so the argument will go on...

Glenn · Dec 01, 2009, 09:38:46

QuoteGeoff Taylor, BPI: Plenty. There are several pieces of substantial research showing that around 7 to 8 million people in the UK are file-sharing music alone. Let's look at two examples.

Harris Interactive conducted research among the UK general public aged 16-54 from February to March 2009, which gave a 23% incidence of music file-sharing using peer-to-peer networks in the UK population aged 16-54, or 8.3 million file-sharers based on ONS population data. This number omits people under 16 completely.

Additionally, Jupiter Research conducted consumer research on behalf of the BPI in August 2007, which predicted 6.7 million peer-to-peer file-sharers during 2008, and 7.3 million for 2009.

I wonder how big the target group was, and if it was taken countrywide or just in one area?

dujas · Dec 01, 2009, 11:51:59

The effects of Sweden implementing the EU's Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive would seem to indicate there is quite a bit of piracy filesharing (of music at least) going on.