Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Has this been discussed? http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
early stages. Many debates, committees and consultations to happen first.
in the full knowledge it'll need to be toned-down, but in the expectation that taking the harshest parts out will be "enough", and a tough bill will still be passed into law
bill will still
It sounds really quite dodgy to me and moreover I'm not sure it can have the harshest parts taken out since he harshest part is the provision that the government can essentially make up the copyright laws and penalties to satisfy whichever fat cat company is bank rolling their bills...
more just pointing out that it's only had it's 1st reading so is a while away from being actual law, it needs to go through many processes first. Also I'm aware of scare stories involving new bills are often very misleading and in some cases complete bollocks so it's best to have a look at the actual bill itself.
I can't be bothered to search for it.
probably better off looking on opsi
>Using a statutory instrument rather than Parliamentary consent.
- Mandleson's manoeuvring at it's slimiest. Why let a small inconvenience like democracy get in the way?
>Maximum £50,000 fine for commercial copyright infringement. But unclear what the penalty might be for non-commercial infringement.
- Nothing to do with most of these measures being put forward as a kneejerk result of shrieking by industry lobbying groups rather than a genuine attempt to reform digital copyright issues for the modern age out of a sense of governmental duty. Nothing to do with that at all.
>ISPs forced to monitor their customers' and send records of suspicious activity to copyright groups or face a fine of £250,000 for non-compliance.
- ISPs forced to pay for doing the dirty work of monitoring your net ttrafffic and then dob you in to "copyright groups" (aka the heavies from the BPI, PRS & FACT???). If criminal activity is going on, it should be reported to the police, not some industry body. But why is this happening at all? We don't require the Royal Mail to intercept all our letters and report anything they deem to be suspicious.
>The UK government would also be able directly to intervene to control the use of the UK's domain name space, currently overseen by the independent body Nominet.
- The current setup is working ok, is it not? Why does the government want to take control of this independent body when it's all to happy to set up independent bodies for just about anything else you can think of?
Very very dodgy.
So basically it time for all those who believe in the current democratic system to swoop into action and block this.......cmon, I'm always being told on here how great our democracy, lets see it in action, get those voting slips and pencils out and do whatever it is you do with them.
Srsly this is kind of useful for the gov, cos essentially anyone could be 'set up' with this charge and be hit for these sorts of fines, and it would be very difficult for the anyone to defend against it (all the evidence would no doubt be in the authorities hands and this sort of evidence can be changed) .....so it would suit us well to be good people who dont criticise mandy quite so much
I'm thinking about 'fishing expeditions. Someone gets pulled up on suspicion of one thing, and then their entire digital past is delved into, potentially bringing up a whole bunch of stuff unrelated to the original investigation. It's all a bit suss.
I dont think that they would be as at the forefront of electronic forensic expertic, compared with their expertise in physical forensics.
I also suspect that the sort of geeks that might be able to grab technical info analyse it on behalf of the defendant and counter any evidence provided by the state, might be the sort of person who themselves has 'pushed the boundaries themselves' so they might be on an unsteady platform.
Of course Im not suggesting this IS the reason, its just an area that could result in problems. ;)
Good grief. We don't need any new laws covering videogames ratings. None whatsoever.
There's already an abundance of age ratings and content advice on videogames. The universally used EU PEGI ratings (wot superseded the already decent ELSPA ratings) are pretty comprehensive. And for any 18 rated games, the game can be submitted to the BBFC to get the familiar red "18" circle, for extra kudos/warning.
Games makers are responsible. Shops are responsible.
The problem is ignorant parents. End of.
Put out a hard-hitting government-funded prime-time TV ad campaign that unambiguously hammers home the point, if you want to do anything. But don't waste time coming up with yet another set of ratings that will dilute the simple message that idiot parents already ignore.
The more I see of this bill, the more it seems to be full of shite (and democratically questionable shite, at that).