Mr Popodopolous Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Well, there has been much speculation about this over the last year or two but it has finally been announced as law, due to be brought in next April. What do people think of this story? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle6892922.ece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broa...sconnected.html I don't know a great deal about the law, but to the un-trained eye this law seems possibly flawed to me. Among those potential flaws: * No trial or judge to adjudicate your case if accused. * 3 strikes and then cut off- false/inaccurate accusations can happen! *Collective punishment breaches Geneva Convention. Some may argue that cutting off a family connection for actions of one could fall under that category. * With wireless connections, it is quite possible that somebody who you don't know could download using your connection. How would this be proven in a court of law/under democratic process? * Nobody elected Mandelson!! Not to mention the potential cost to the ISPs of mass disconnections either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Jeez, better starting downloading via a different country then to add to my estimated 40 Terra bytes of illegally downloaded music, software and films. Haha, like to see them catch me out, this is almost impossible to enforce and where is the money gonna come from to do this. its just cloud talk maent to scare you into not doing it lols, Sir Elton John, Noel Gallagher and James Blunt can all kiss my ass, I've never downloaded any of their shitty music anyways, but I think I'll start today and help to circulate their music for free as their being such peens about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 All this law means is that torrent clients will default to using gpg encryption and trackers will be anonymized to prevent the content being shared from being identified by anybody. It is unenforcable crap that results from the record industry effectively bribing the ***** in government who are by and large technology illiterate. ISPs won't co-operate either, it is not in their interests to. The solution to file sharing is a different business model but for some reason the record industry are frightened of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Am I right in saying Mandy isn't elected? If not, why is he allowed to bring in legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolborn_and_red Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Am I right in saying Mandy isn't elected? If not, why is he allowed to bring in legislation? No he isn't elected. When he was elected he had to resign from government on two occasions because of his corrupt ways. The bloke is an utter devious fudge packing see you next Tuesday who would sell anyone out for 30 pieces of silver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 No he isn't elected. When he was elected he had to resign from government on two occasions because of his corrupt ways. The bloke is an utter devious fudge packing see you next Tuesday who would sell anyone out for 30 pieces of silver. Judas Lord Peter Mandelsohn is an unelected neoliberal fundamentalist European Unionist shyster. Peter Mandelsohn has brought nothing but shame on the Labour Party. I hope Mandelsohn's buddy Adam Crozier gets nailed in court soon with the coming CWU court action. Let's hope that the Toff led British judiciary have one of their better days and remember their duty to check and balance the power of this crap, corrupt and unprincipled Labour Government. Good luck to the CWU, and shame on the Labour Party neoliberal shysters - may their days in Government be numbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 No he isn't elected. When he was elected he had to resign from government on two occasions because of his corrupt ways. The bloke is an utter devious fudge packing see you next Tuesday who would sell anyone out for 30 pieces of silver. Judas Lord Peter Mandelsohn is an unelected neoliberal fundamentalist European Unionist shyster. Peter Mandelsohn has brought nothing but shame on the Labour Party. I hope Mandelsohn's buddy Adam Crozier gets nailed in court soon with the coming CWU court action. Let's hope that the Toff led British judiciary have one of their better days and remember their duty to check and balance the power of this crap, corrupt and unprincipled Labour Government. Good luck to the CWU, and shame on the Labour Party neoliberal shysters - may their days in Government be numbered. LOLs, Not Mandy fans then you two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 All this law means is that torrent clients will default to using gpg encryption and trackers will be anonymized to prevent the content being shared from being identified by anybody. It is unenforcable crap that results from the record industry effectively bribing the ***** in government who are by and large technology illiterate. ISPs won't co-operate either, it is not in their interests to. The solution to file sharing is a different business model but for some reason the record industry are frightened of that. I agree with pretty much all this post. Though I guess ISPs wish to keep the old ways and this is them attempting to fight hell for leather to keep it, self interest of course. Also regarding ISPs not co-operating- I agree not in their interests no doubt, but suely this law would compel them to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 I agree not in their interests no doubt, but suely this law would compel them to? I can just see the visit from OFCOM now... "Oh sorry Mr Inspector, there was a surge in the flux capacitor side flange that flumigated the contraptivator" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Unfortuantly legislation will require ISPs to be fully involved. Personally I can see the reasons behind this move, as I have several thousand poiunds worth of software, and suspect that this is the case all over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Unfortuantly legislation will require ISPs to be fully involved. Personally I can see the reasons behind this move, as I have several thousand poiunds worth of software, and suspect that this is the case all over the country. It will require involvement but it will be very easy for them to passively resist and they will do. And that's if the law even makes it through unamended. How much of the software would you have bought at the current market price? If the market price was lower or it was licensed differently (like a small monthly fee to use any of a manufacturers software) would you be more inclined to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 It will require involvement but it will be very easy for them to passively resist and they will do. And that's if the law even makes it through unamended. How much of the software would you have bought at the current market price? If the market price was lower or it was licensed differently (like a small monthly fee to use any of a manufacturers software) would you be more inclined to pay for it?Good point, The record companies etc lose out very little as people like myself wouldn't buy it anyways. The only person losing out then would be myself as I wouldn't use it. Who would honestly spend a lot of money on say Windows 7 when you can get it for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Good point, The record companies etc lose out very little as people like myself wouldn't buy it anyways. The only person losing out then would be myself as I wouldn't use it. Who would honestly spend a lot of money on say Windows 7 when you can get it for free? Actually I did! I paid for it because it's worth the money - I'll use it for the next five years at least. The alternative was linux and I like to play the occasional 3d game which don't work well windows emulators on linux. Windows is worth the money to me and that's the key point, if it's worth it I'll pay. There are free alternatives for most software. I use OpenOffice instead of MS Office for example, there's no way that the minor differences between the two are worth the cash. Antivirus, email, browsers - all free software. Software companies making them have different business models like advertising, product placement and a large userbase gets them commercial customers who purchase support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 It will require involvement but it will be very easy for them to passively resist and they will do. And that's if the law even makes it through unamended. How much of the software would you have bought at the current market price? If the market price was lower or it was licensed differently (like a small monthly fee to use any of a manufacturers software) would you be more inclined to pay for it? I've always wondered why shareware never really caught on. Surely if CS3 was made available on shareware, more people would by it rather than spend hundreds on something they havn't tried. of the software I have, I doubt a) I'd of bought any of it b) if any of it really is worth the asking price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Actually I did! I paid for it because it's worth the money - I'll use it for the next five years at least. The alternative was linux and I like to play the occasional 3d game which don't work well windows emulators on linux. Windows is worth the money to me and that's the key point, if it's worth it I'll pay. There are free alternatives for most software. I use OpenOffice instead of MS Office for example, there's no way that the minor differences between the two are worth the cash. Antivirus, email, browsers - all free software. Software companies making them have different business models like advertising, product placement and a large userbase gets them commercial customers who purchase support. This will be the first time in a long time that I have gone out of my way to buy a Windows OS out of choice. Windows 7 does seem to be (at long last) not bloaty, stable and very reasonably priced. I have a few issues with windows emulators in Ubuntu, but they are getting better all the time, there are games I run which seem to be as good if not better than running through Windows. Anyway, I can't see how any new law introduced will ever stop illegal downloading, as soon as they clamp down on one way, there will be many new ways of filesharing being brought out by people determined to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.