Digital Economy Bill passed through Lords.

[Recursion]

Yep, that one that means ISPs have to spy on our web traffic and report any suspicious activity and all sorts.

It's gunna be rushed through Parliament I guess.

http://twitter.com/PiratePartyUK/

[marriott0.01]

I doubt it will be passed, there has been criticisms saying that it is completely unconstitutional.

[Johno]

Well, if this gets passed, we are ******.

[Markeh]

Isn't this the one that makes open Wi-Fi illegal or something?

[Tomm]

Not really. There is no 3 strike rule (i.e you can't be disconnected) and even the simplest encryption on data is enough to thwart DPI.


Well, if this gets passed, we are ******.

[Recursion]

Not really. There is no 3 strike rule (i.e you can't be disconnected) and even the simplest encryption on data is enough to thwart DPI.

You can be parmanently disconnected without three strikes, part of the anti-piracy part of the bill

[Tomm]

I can't seem to find any of this in the bill though - it only mentions that the is a obligation for OFCOM to investigate technical measures to prevent illegal downloading which measures include:



A “technical measure” is a measure that—
(a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;
(b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;
(c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
(d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.


And from what:



The assessment and steps that the Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to carry out or take under subsection (1) include, in particular—
(a) consultation of copyright owners, internet service providers, subscribers or any other person;
(b) an assessment of the likely efficacy of a technical measure in relation to a particular type of internet access service; and
(c) steps to prepare a proposed technical obligations code.


There appears to be nothing set as to what action should be taken.

Also the ISPs are only obliged to inform customer's of alleged copyright infringement by the copyright holder submitting a "copyright infringement report" to the ISP. As far as ISP monitoring goes:



(1) An internet service provider must provide a copyright owner with a copyright infringement list for a period if—
(a) the owner requests the list for that period; and
(b) an initial obligations code requires the internet service provider to provide it.

(2) A “copyright infringement list” is a list that—
(a) sets out, in relation to each relevant subscriber, which of the copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider relate to the subscriber, but
(b) does not enable any subscriber to be identified.


Note 2B where it says "does not enable any subscriber to be identified."

Although I'm no legal expert so it is only my interpretation of it.


You can be parmanently disconnected without three strikes, part of the anti-piracy part of the bill

[SH-Stephen]

Hi there,

The bill enables ISPs to disconnect customers who are suspected of file sharing. This can be done without evidence - and this is quite a concerning issue.

Also, it enables the creation of punishment schemes outwith those outlined within the bill.

-Stephen

[Recursion]

6.
b) the copyright owner may require the provider to disclose which copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider relate to the subscriber;

c) following such a disclosure, the copyright owner may apply to a court to learn the subscriber’s identity and may bring proceedings against the subscriber for copyright infringement;
Which contradicts with 2B

[Tomm]

No it does not as the 2B I listed is the information that ISPs are required to collect about all their customers and provide on demand to copyright holders - they can do this without any evidence that any of the ISPs customers have been downloading their content illegally and does not identify customers.

The section you listed refers to complaints made by copyright holders with evidence + IP address to show that a ISP's customer has been illegally downloading their copyrighted material.


Which contradicts with 2B

[Recursion]

No it does not as the 2B I listed is the information that ISPs are required to collect about all their customers and provide on demand to copyright holders - they can do this without any evidence that any of the ISPs customers have been downloading their content illegally and does not identify customers.

The section you listed refers to complaints made by copyright holders with evidence + IP address to show that a ISP's customer has been illegally downloading their copyrighted material.

Ah well, im no legal expert :P

[Agnostic Bear]

As long as they don't throttle usenet traffic I don't care about this bill!

Shouldn't the EU swat it down at some point anyway?

[N!ck]

As long as they don't throttle usenet traffic I don't care about this bill!

Shouldn't the EU swat it down at some point anyway?

Why would they do that? All them Linux ISOs you download via usenet eh?

[jrh2002]

Most of ISP's have said they will not cut anybody off unless there is a court order for each and every person they must cut off. Plenty of ways around it as well. I struggle to get my head around why our government is spending so much money on this when in reality it should be the Film / Music / Software companies paying from their huge profits and mounting civil cases against private users. This if it was effective would just stop us casual downloaders who download for ourselves bothering to risk it and then buying cheaply from the market / pub / work mate / school mate / college mate / and even under the counter at small dodgy shops - The old black market that declined due to us downloading ourselves would re-emerge and be the big winners in this and who knows what else they will use that cash for.

[Markeh]

I believe with this ruling they're mainly going after the ones that resell on, or big downloaders off of uTorrent, Limewire and TPB and such, not the ones that download 1 track every so often, right?

[Recursion]

I believe with this ruling they're mainly going after the ones that resell on, or big downloaders off of uTorrent, Limewire and TPB and such, not the ones that download 1 track every so often, right?

Ah but this is just the start...

[Oleh]

What ever happened to privacy?

[Agnostic Bear]

Why would they do that? All them Linux ISOs you download via usenet eh?

Of course, gotta make sure I get my latest build of Fedora.

[Recursion]

Of course, gotta make sure I get my latest build of Fedora.

Or those recently brewed Ubuntus eh

[LOLROB]

That went out the window a while ago

[lazerman]

Digital Economy Bill Protest

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=377197221005&ref=nf

Organised by Pirate Party UK!

Im going for sure. Anyone else?


Date: Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Time: 17:30 - 19:30
Location: Old Palace Yard
Town/City: London, United Kingdom

[Black_Apalachi]

Most of ISP's have said they will not cut anybody off unless there is a court order for each and every person they must cut off. Plenty of ways around it as well. I struggle to get my head around why our government is spending so much money on this when in reality it should be the Film / Music / Software companies paying from their huge profits and mounting civil cases against private users. This if it was effective would just stop us casual downloaders who download for ourselves bothering to risk it and then buying cheaply from the market / pub / work mate / school mate / college mate / and even under the counter at small dodgy shops - The old black market that declined due to us downloading ourselves would re-emerge and be the big winners in this and who knows what else they will use that cash for.

Exactly. I got probably about 90% of my music from a friend and I bet I could find someone with any music I wanted who would be able to send me it/give me it on a disc. This would solve nothing as there are ways around anything. Whatever it costs will be a huge waste of money considering how piracy really isn't as big an issue at the moment as it's made out to be.

When should this come into play if it goes ahead?

[Flisker]

I believe the EU will overrule this at some point, surely this is against human rights? If this does go ahead though, it's only the government who are losing out on money (tax on broadband, and such).

[Hitman]

*cough*VPN*cough* search cryptocloud... e p i c .

[lazerman]

Hopefully they delete logs every 60 seconds.

[Hitman]

Hopefully they delete logs every 60 seconds.
Who, cryptocloud? They don't even store logs. :D That is the beauty.