Digital Economy Bill Passed in UK

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rock Raiyu

Clock Up
OP
Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
5,066
Trophies
1
Age
32
Location
Walking the path of heaven
XP
2,359
Country
United States
commonsfloor460.png

QUOTE said:
The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading - which means it will get royal assent and become law - after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: "The UK Government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. THEY HAVE FAILED," said the site set up to oppose the proposals.

But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed.

Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister who resigned in mid-2009, voted against the government for the first time in the final vote to take the bill to a third reading. However the vote was overwhelmingly in the government's favour, which it won by 189 votes to 47.

Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

The Labour MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech - but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could apply to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

The Lib Dem opposition to that amendment prompted the first vote - known as a division - on the bill, but the Labour and Conservative whips pushed it through, winning it by 197 votes to 40. The next 42 clauses of the bill were then considered in five minutes.

Numerous MPs complained that the bill was too important and its ramifications too great for it to be pushed through in this "wash-up" period in which bills are not given the usual detailed examination.

However the government declined to yield - although it had already done a deal with the Tories which meant that a number of its provisions, including clause 43 and the creation of independent local news consortia, would not be part of the bill.

News Source: Guardian UK

Long story short, if UK deems any website on the internet that infringes copyright (piracy), they can and will block it.
 

Hop2089

Cute>Hot
Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
3,812
Trophies
1
Age
37
Website
Visit site
XP
805
Country
United States
Chinese style internet here they come.

The US at least won't do this without a fight, most likely a fight like the health care bill with far less support from both parties and more movements and protests.
 

DarkMario616

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
547
Trophies
0
Location
New York
XP
276
Country
United States
So wait, all it does is block all sites that provide copyrighted material for free?

Eh that sucks for them, hope this never happens to the US.
 

thegame07

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
3,853
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
472
Country
DarkMario616 said:
So wait, all it does is block all sites that provide copyrighted material for free?

Eh that sucks for them, hope this never happens to the US.

The diffrence is the British public won't take it. The british government is soft they will back down if there is a big kick up about it
ph34r.gif
There is already talk of it breaking the rights of the public and it shouldn't have been passed.
 

TrolleyDave

Philosolosophising
Former Staff
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
7,761
Trophies
1
Age
52
Location
Wales, UK
XP
933
Country
Hop2089 said:
Chinese style internet here they come.

The US at least won't do this without a fight, most likely a fight like the health care bill with far less support from both parties and more movements and protests.

The British public is too busy hating foreigners and Islam at the moment to care about something like this. Plus we've had our own version of the Great Firewall for a while. It's used to ban kiddy porn and such like, if I remember what Little told me correctly.

I don't really see there being half as big of a fight in the US over this as there has been over the health care bill. Very different scenarios. Americans made little fuss over the PATRIOT Act which introduced some pretty draconian measures, why would the be fussed about something like this? It's basically a bill to stop people stealing, or at least that's the costume they've dressed it up in.
 

thegame07

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
3,853
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
472
Country
Also the Chinese government block websites as they will even if everything on it is legal. If you say something bad about China they will block it from the public. They block stuff they don't want the Chinese public to see, This is very diffrent from that.
 

RupeeClock

Colors 3D Snivy!
Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
6,497
Trophies
1
Age
34
Website
Visit site
XP
2,954
Country
There's no way they would dare ban Youtube.
Yes there's a lot of copyright violation there, but that's all user behaviour, not what the site owners allow.

If Youtube is banned for copyright infringement, they'll be stifling free speech and social activity, shit would fly.
 

TrolleyDave

Philosolosophising
Former Staff
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
7,761
Trophies
1
Age
52
Location
Wales, UK
XP
933
Country
thegame07 said:
Also the Chinese government block websites as they will even if everything on it is legal. If you say something bad about China they will block it from the public. They block stuff they don't want the Chinese public to see, This is very diffrent from that.

Exactly mate. This bill is mainly aimed at stopping casual pirates, the kind that use rom/torrent sites for all their downloads. Any decent pirate won't be affected by this.

QUOTE(RupeeClock @ Apr 8 2010, 02:41 AM) There's no way they would dare ban Youtube.
Yes there's a lot of copyright violation there, but that's all user behaviour, not what the site owners allow.

If Youtube is banned for copyright infringement, they'll be stifling free speech and social activity, shit would fly.

It's more aimed at sites like that famous torrent site that shall not be mentioned and places like rom sites. Plus YouTube is a huge money making venture, our corporate pandering politicians wouldn't touch it.
 

RupeeClock

Colors 3D Snivy!
Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
6,497
Trophies
1
Age
34
Website
Visit site
XP
2,954
Country
Well there's no such thing as an almighty blacklist.

So what if a number of sites get blacklisted in the UK? An equal number of sites will open up in their stead, or even just acquire additional domains.

All blacklisting websites will do is cause inconvenience, and at worst segregation between nations, where people suddenly aren't allowed to talk to someone on specific websites.
 

kicknhorse

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
320
Trophies
0
Age
37
Location
North Somerset
Website
Visit site
XP
157
Country
zuron7 said:
Is that the Britain parliament, it's looking quite empty or the MPs are not tech-savvy.

On-Topic : It's not as bad as the Chinese internet but if it is there is Baidu.

Well not many showed up for the debate as you can see. A few more showed to vote in line with their party whips. Yet, like over 400 MP's (out of nearly 650) never even showed up to vote.

This does violate some type of human rights. We should take a lesson from the Polish Constitutional Guards who stopped a smoking ban there because it was against their constitution of human rights.

I know we do not have a codified constitution as such, but our uncodified constitution covers the same kind of aspects.

Also I agree with TrollyDave, the Americans did nothing over the Patriot Act, which really is one of the worse Acts from what I've seen out there.
 

Frederica Bernkastel

Well-Known Member
Member
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
3,169
Trophies
2
Age
28
Location
Hinamizawa
XP
989
Country
Japan
the likelihood is, I won't be affected by this.
If necessary I'll start wardriving for warez again, and start ssh tunneling all my internet traffic, but I'm hoping the bill will be overturned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Veho @ Veho: The cybertruck is a death trap.