There’s hope yet…

It also smacks of coercion of Government by large media corporations. These digital content providers make billions, so it begs the question; why haven’t they developed the technology to stop copyright infringement of their goods? Their own fault I’m afraid and I for one will not be losing any sleep over it.

I also believe this Bill is a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.

Interesting times ahead.

Peace and blessings

“Computers are no longer a luxury for the few, but are as essential a part of education as books, pens and paper.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8483615.stm

“There are many,many more sites like these and our youth and others will NOT stop downloading because of a law, they will find a way around it.”

With regard to ISP`s who want to remain as mere conduits in law. This makes little sense, it is tantamount to the railways leasing a line to someone who wants to move illegal loads, nuclear waste etc., along it`s tracks. The railway would require the knowledge of what is to be transported.ISP`s mostly lease lines from BT unless they are cable.

I am a site owner if I put a picture up on my site it is automatically covered by copyright law and you should ask permission to use it elsewhere. If I find my picture has been used elsewhere I can ask for the site owner to remove it, if they do not I can go to there hosting company and ask for removal. It is after all theft as covered by existing law. Hosting companies do not scream neutrality, that they are merely a conduit nor should they when they are informed of criminal activity.

ISP`s have to accept some form of responsibility especially if an offence has been reported to them after all it is their equipment being used as part of it. ISP`s frequently put in equipment that limits bandwidth if they feel the account holder is using in excess of normal amounts. This shows that individual accounts can be routed either through software or hardware to limit them.

If indivual accounts can be limited in terms of bandwidth it is not a huge step to also filter these accounts if necessary, if infringement is evidenced. The filtration of sites, lists from Copyright Holders, would severely limit the ability of the infringer whilst allowing normal business.

If this is written into ISP contracts and the ISP`s financially helped by the large Copyright Holder industries to financially implement I cannot see a problem. The freedom lobby would still be able to access anysite they wish because they would not be downloading copyright material, whilst real infringers would be filtered because of evidence.

An independent appeal panel,I think a copyright one exists, could be bought in for anyone stating innocence who had the measure taken against them. In most circumstances this would be unnecessary as innocents would not be visiting listed (infringement) sites.

I visited 6 sites today,all forums hosting links to cyber lockers as my Lords like to call them. In 6 sites there were over 1.5 million members, albeit worldwide. There are many,many more sites like these and our youth and others will stop downloading because of a law, they will find a way around it.

If we leave the onus with the Copyright holders,who are big business they have the ability to find these. Our ISP`s have the ability to block them to infringers.

The ISP`s must accept responsibility or they will have it legislated upon them. If they work WITH the industries involved and the industries who state they are losing millions put up the money to make it viable I cannot see a problem or any great need for sledghammer leglislation.

Lord Treisman in his backing for Clause 17 stated Government need to keep up with tech advances in infringement. He stated giving power to the Secretary of State would advance this.

Government proposals under the bill are dealing with peer 2 peer in the main because at present they do not have a way of dealing with what they call cyber lockers (hosting of files by commercial ventures), streaming etc.

Technically to deal with the above would require some kind of Deep Packet Inspection which would infringe current privacy law, UK and EU.

Giving the Secretary of State the powers the Government would like could possibly put everyones privacy at risk should he implement measures that could possibly also be in contravention of EU & UK legislation. Both BT and Virgin are, I believe, having legal action taken against them for such measures though they state the software being used in no way risks privacy as it currently doesn`t establish the IP or identity of users.

Without doubt technology moves at a fast rate but legislation requires the scrutiny that may indeed slow it. To criminalise a proportion of society, if you are cut off from the net you will feel so, possibly in error is not the British way.

In this debate and it`s scrutiny many fine minds have come together and no one person can state catagorically they have the answer. Please answer why the Government think the Secretary of State will have all the answers after the passing of clause 17 ?

The internet now is a necessary part of the curriculum in education, it is also fast becoming the way the Government do business in regards the public, it is a necessary part of communication. The Government benches stating clearly they would like the letters sent electronically to infringers. It is increasingly necessary to all commercial enterprises and they rely on consumers having it.

One lazy uncaring teenager, and that sounds like an awful lot of their species to me, could compromise the education of his/her siblings, the commercial interests of the family, the abilty to communicate with Government and industry and a whole lot more.

One lazy uncaring teenager and one Secretary of State could cause a whole lot more damage if they alone are the truth and the power. The Law has never moved fast, nor should it, facts and witness testimony are paramount. No one man, even in the Supreme Court, should hold such powers.

To give arbitrary measues to the Secretary of State when, and evidence is available, errors can and are made is not right.

Technically the Secretary of State at present, and in future, may not fully understand the measures he/she may agree to. Not only in terms of this Bill but Copyright and RIPA.

Far, far superior to the draconian measure of completely cutting off peoples internet, should repeated infringement, occur would be filtering. Australia has implemented Nation wide filtering and although it is unpopular and not a total success it will impact in the right places. I do not feel we should follow suit but it could be implemented in cases of infringement or alleged infringement until appeal.

The industries that hold copyright and that are concerned with this bill, I believe, hold lists of sites that are infringing. The onus is then on them and the ISP`s to block these sites to any KNOWN infringer. This takes the emphasis away from Government and legislation, it could be written into ISP contracts. It also puts the emphasis firmly back in the Copyright Holders hands that they should provide proof of infringement, which can be verified by the ISP.

This takes away the technical aspects from Government who will alway`s struggle to keep up. It removes some costs, not least in legislation. Innocents will not be compromised by having their internet cut off. It puts the onus back on the copyright holder and gives them the ability to cover ALL aspects of piracy, cyber lockers etc.

It removes the necessity of an Internet Tzar, Secretary of State, who may use powers in conjuction with Copyright Holders to ransom the internet to the public.

The implementation of filtering only to known infringers would I believe satisfy Lord Puttnam in that it would cut off KNOWN avenues of piracy. It could be easily written into ISP contracts. Copyright Holders would have control over their works not Government. ISP`s and holders would ensure evidence is compelling and the impact of any errors would be negligable having little effect on any innocent.

ACS:Law has sent thousands of letters to people claiming they have illegally downloaded material and offers them a chance to settle by paying around £500.

Which? says it has been approached by some – including a 78 year-old accused of downloading pornography – who have no knowledge of the alleged offence.

ACS:Law said its methods were accurate.”

Full Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8481790.stm

The Government speaks of getting subscribers to implement protection both on the PC and in the Router. Most people will put anti-virus on their PC`s but generally cheap ones, these are not alway`s adequate and any form of protection is not 100% safe. Setting the router to block certain sites requires a technical ability beyond that of the general public and of course the sites needed to be blocked would need to be updated constantly. The setup of such protections would be costly, involving in most cases a professional and yearly subscriptions. ISP`s could of course be forced to supply such but the cost to them would be enormous.

On the subject of the Notification of infringement the Government will not state if it should be sent electronically or by post. It infers that in cost terms electronic is the preferred method, a lot of people would not receive such notifications as they tend to use online mail services such as MSN`s Hotmail or Live service and DO NOT use the ISP`s account which is not obligatory. Any notification has to be sent to the subscriber by post, the noble Lord for the Government mentioned mobile users who they may not have an address for, pay as you go users. These users when signing up for the first time have to go through the ISP and there is generally a requirement for address.

Electronic mail can go astray, mail servers fail, spam filters filter wrongly at times or the consumer makes mistake in setup. Royal Mail, although not once what it was is far more reliable albeit slightly more costly.

As I have stated previously most copyright infringement does not occur using peer 2 peer any longer and it seems to be this the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley refers to time and again.

The Government benches seem extremeley confused on a lot of issues and the Bill appears a mess to interpret.

The Government put forward at the start of the debate that routers and perhaps PC`s should block certain software or sites, as I stated this would be beyond normal capabilities of the consumer. Later when Lord De Mauley put forward to block certain sites, known as filtration as I believe Australia has introduced, the Government stated this could not and would not be done, referring in most part only to peer 2 peer filesharing. They certainly seem confused on this issue and it needs clarity.

Peer 2 Peer sharing is not only for illegal purposes, Spotify praised just yesterday is legal and got the accolade it deserves from the Music industry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/01/music_spies_a_spotify_sunrise.html

On the subject of Infringers lists the Government state these would NOT follow an infringer and would not contain names or addresses, simply the ISP account and details of infringement. This leaves open a door to escape any technical action by leaving your ISP before the third and final letter stating technical measures are to be implemented. The slate is then wiped clean.

The Lords for the Government are confused and are very unsure of facts some of which seem hypocritical. I would be very unsure about any accusation they at present could make regards infringement and that is without hearing what technical measures to catch possible infringers would be foisted on ISP`s at a cost of 25% to the ISP. The noble Lords for the Government having stated that ISP`s would legally still only be seen as a conduit requiring the ISP by law to make judgement of a criminal offence based possibly on equipment they have not tested seem`s absurd. This appears to be stating the ISP is neutral yet also expecting it to legally police.

If the ISP has knowledge of a criminal act it, of course, has a duty to act. The ISP cannot be neutral if this bill is implemented, if it has the equipment to detect crime, to not do so puts it in peril of legal action

My noble Lord Young states that the measures used to find copyright material downloaded cannot discern legal, illegal or the type of files. He states quite clearly “Deep Packet Inspection ” will not be used so not infringe data protection. If this is so then most illegal downloads will not and cannot be found, being in compressed “Zip” or “Rar” files.

The noble Lord Young and Davies state that Libraries and schools will not be exempt in anyway, they may however get help to block such illegal use. Education & Library institutions are exempt from copyright as in the copyright law covering education purposes.

There appears no real technical measure from the Government to discern what maybe quite legal downloads from illegal. As I have previously stated it is not illegal to upload for backup purposes onto a server and then download at a later time. Presumably these will be picked up as illegal downloads.

Relating to the Appeal process, the Government do not state what level of evidence will be acceptable to clear your name nor if there will be any help in technically being able to get the evidence. Having put a music CD on your computer, legally one may not keep the receipt for “x” years. Backing that up to a server which sometime later you download after your CD is ruined may result in an accusation of illegal download, however proof of your legal ownership will be difficult if not impossible.

There may also be, as in the case of child pornography, the defence of a virus or trojan downloaded it onto your machine. This has been a successful defence in child porn cases before. NO anti-virus to my knowledge is 100% successful nor is any person immune to accidently pressing the wrong key at times, indeed as we grow older we all tend tp do it. Once on your machine these things can completely take over, your machine can become a “bot”.

After 3 hours and 38 minutes I am convinced there is not enough technical knowledge or clear design in the Government Bill. Ultimately if it moves forward we face hikes by ISP`s in cost, hikes in professional help required for security and the professional pirates will still thwart all measures.

Digital Economy Bill 2009 seeks to crush UK Internet Domain Registry industry with bureaucratic red tape and unfair legal costs

http://spyblog.org.uk/2009/12/01/digital-economy-bill-seeks-to-crush-uk-internet-domain-registry-industry-with-bu.html

The Digital Economy Bill 2009 Clauses 18 to 20 try will damage or destroy the UK domain name registration system, and perhaps that of some other countries as well:

[...]

If this Bill passes, then there is no technical reason why the UK Domain Name Registration industry will not simply pack up and move abroad, out of the clutches of Mandelson and his cronies, or else be destroyed by competition from foreign domain name registries – precisely the opposite of what the Digital Economy Bill should be trying to achieve.