3 strikes plan on track, UK tells Hollywood
p2pnet news view Movies | Politics:- Under the What Does This Tell You? heading, UK intellectual property minister David Lammy (right), “has defended the government’s revised proposal to include suspension of Internet accounts as an option to tackle illegal file-sharing, while calling on industry to help develop new services …”
A statement made to the House? An official press announcement?
Nope.
Lammy was giving the good news to the Motionless Picture Association of America (MPAA) in Washington, “although his comments apply to both the movie and music industries,” says Billboard, from whence came the quote.
“The speech coincided with public opposition to the proposals today from various quarters. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) including Talk Talk, Orange U.K. and BT joined with consumer rights organization Consumer Focus in signing a letter to the Times, which described any obligations to suspend consumers’ accounts as ‘misconceived’ and a threat to consumers’ rights and the development of new services,” says the story.
That’s probably why Lammy picked Hollywood. Much safer than the UK.
Not only but also, A rift has opened between music`s creators and its record labels, with a broad alliance of musicians, songwriters and producers fiercely criticising the business secretary Lord Mandelson`s plans to cut off the broadband connections of internet users who illegally download music,said p2pnet last Friday, quoting The Guardian.
Mandelson`s plans aren`t Mandelson`s plans, however, we pointed out, continuing:
“They`d be more properly attributed to Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music who, together with the major Hollywood studios, Time-Warner, Fox, Disney, Columbia, Paramount, MGM, have intimidated weak-kneed governments such as those in the UK, France, New Zealand and Australia, into trying to implement what`s euphemistically called the Three Strikes Law.
“It`s anti-P2P, anti-file sharing and anti-consumer designed to turn countries where it`s adopted into virtual copyright enforcement divisions, with ISPs acting as the fall guys.
“But the entertainment cartels are are failing, and they`re failing dismally.”
Billboard has Lammy saying he favors “freedom” but, “that it didn’t mean free,” and he called for, “more effective law enforcement as well as cooperation between the U.K. and U.S.
“He said that the new option to suspend accounts was proof that the government is ‘not standing still’ on the issue of P2P.
Understandable. God forbid Hollywood or the Big 4 record labels should ever have reason to think the UK government isn’t doing its very best to comply with entertainment kartell demands, even if they are against the interests of the British public.
“New work against illicit P2P file-sharing, including possible suspension of Internet access for persistent infringers” shows the government is, “sending a clear message: when it comes to piracy and infringement, ‘digital is not different’,'” says the story, adding:
“However, Lammy also said the industry had to work to ensure consumers turned away from illegal services.”
How?
“Partnership and innovation by businesses can help consumers understand the problems illegal downloads cause creators and performers, giving them the knowledge and confidence they need to act within the law,” reckons Lammy.
“If we provide the right combination of enforcement, education and forward-looking policy we can build a culture that provides consumers with legitimate access to the content they want.”
No need to stay tuned. Lammy is as good as gone.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Billboard – U.K. Minister Defends Internet Suspension In MPAA Speech, September 3, 2009
p2pnet – UK `Three Strikes` plan under heavy fire, September 4, 2009
are failing BSA endorses three strikes plan, September 3, 2009
failing dismally UK anti-file sharing move angers ISPs, August 26, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I think 3 strikes is the way to go.
After so many thousands get their net turned off, this will raise a peoples anger and foce a vote in favour of the pirate party.
I endorse & condone 3 strikes.
Fuck the people over. Thumbs up by me.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
RW has an interesting point- If the corporate shills get their way, the resulting fallout would be fatal to any political movement or (possibly but hopefully not literally) to any individual in support for them.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
” I think 3 strikes is the way to go.
After so many thousands get their net turned off, this will raise a peoples anger and foce a vote in favour of the pirate party. ”
You would think so, but that it probably wouldn’t happen that way.
Once a law is in place, no matter how lousy, it’s almost impossible to get rid of it.
Any law that allows a corporation to decide guilt without ANY oversight or due process must never get on the books,
because it will never leave them.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I think the three strikes law would only come back to bite the parasites in the ass later on. Statistically, P2P users spend the most money on legal downloads as well. Cut their internet connection for unauthorized filesharing, and you’ve lost a huge chunk of sales in the digital download market. They may think they’re just screwing the consumers, but in the end, they’re only screwing themselves.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:25 am
What’s the difference now between big business and extremists Muslims? In sharia law, Muslims cut off a hand of a thief which is totally extreme and unnecessary because people need their hands for many more things than breaking the law, like: dressing, showering (turning on the water), shaving, brushing teeth, eating, driving, etc. To deprive a thief permanently of a hand for breaking the law which is a temporary act is barbarous!
So too is big business attempting to have governments of the world pass into law the penalty of permanently removing a person’s access to an Internet account because he/she was file sharing a movie or music! Just like with sharia law, this type of bullying tactic by big business to intimidate people from file sharing is barbaric! Just like cutting off a thief’s hand, preventing a person’s ability to ever use the Internet just because he/she was filing sharing is no different; the groups in charge (Muslims or big business) are so incredibly weak all they have is the power to threaten in order to keep everyone else in line (or else). And file sharing is just only one application people can do using their Internet account, I see E-mail soon being a citizen’s right because so many people communicate via electronic mail than snail mail (paper and a postage stamp); cutting off a person’s access to the Internet is the 21st century equivalent of cutting off of a person’s hand.
I say that any government that is cowed into instituting laws that threaten to take away peoples’ access to the Internet just because of file sharing are no different than governments in the third world that adopted sharia law due to threats being made at them by violent Islamic extremists! Think about that the next time you hear your government talk about passing laws on file sharing that threaten violators with the ultimate penalty of permanently preventing those convicted from ever having access to the Internet. If that is being considered than you’d better ask your local politician(s) if they’re planning on instituting sharia law anytime soon because of the problems of worldwide Islamic terrorism?
Do you cherish your hands? Do you appreciate you ability to have Internet access?
September 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
How dare they take away peoples enshrined law to steal , how dare they . Larry you are one step away from mentioning Hitler , its only internet access fer gawds sake , grow up and make a real case , not stood on a box spouting rubbish . Anyone using the phrase “Think about that….” in any argument is a pathetic argument maker , ill judged metaphors and “its like…” do not make a good argument .
September 10th, 2009 at 12:27 am
To D7sre223:
Your ridiculous sarcasm shows your inability to understand the greater evil of governments giving into intimidation rather than protecting the rights of their citizens which they’ve been elected to do! Look at Britain, the British government epitomizes my argument, Britain represents what good government is supposed to do–established the rights of its citizens, uphold and enforce the law. Britain once was a shining light to all free people via the establishment of the Magna Carta. This was the foundation which sprung forth common law so if Britain is a nation of laws then tell me why did the British Parliament approved the formation of a parallel legal system based on sharia law just for Muslims!
By British politicians allowing 7th Century sharia courts to judge and apply separate laws to only Muslims living in England, these parliamentarians just threw away the entire reason why common law was established! Common law is based so that all subjects will be fairly and equally held accountable to the law of the land. Before the establishment of the Magna Carta, feudal warlords made their own laws and peasants from other parts of the country would be treated differently based on the noble lord who they served. Also before common law, there were separate codes of conduct and rights between the nobles (including the knights who served them) and the peasants. Common law threw all that crap out and made the law equal to all people so by the British allowing sharia courts, they single handily destroyed the foundation upon which Britain rests!
The only people pushing for sharia law are Muslim men because by Islamic law, women are chattel–essentially they have no rights! Establishing sharia courts in Britain only serves the rights of one class of people, Muslim men! Muslim women have no voice, they can’t do a damn thing regarding a husband beating them (or forcing sex upon them) and with divorce, men automatically get custody of the children. Sharia law in no way supports the rights of women so the British have just ironically destroyed the reason why common law came into existence. In sharia law, one can reasonable argue that men are essential treated as nobility, they have all the rights and privileges to life while women are nothing!
So D7sre223, British politicians cowed into male (only) Muslim intimidation and threw females under the bus just because of an angry hostile minority! If these politicians were worthy of being representatives of all citizens they would have told these male Muslims to go to hell! They should have said that in England we are the protectors and guardians of ever citizens’ rights, if you want to live under sharia law then go back to your country!
And with my argument, the same goes for politicians changing the laws of the land in order to satisfy the angry and money grubbing corporations! By what right do these mega corporations have to intimidate the elected representatives of the citizens and order politicians to crack down on only one specific type of crime that is affecting their bottom-line! Not only this but these mega corporations are trouncing on common law and are demanding other rights and privileges of citizens be revoked as well! If someone is file sharing that’s one thing but rewriting the law which allows the prohibition of citizens’ rights to ever use the Internet ever again is fascist!
The same type of government that gives into male Muslim aggression and allows sharia courts is no different than a government giving into the intimidating tactics of mega corporations and rewriting common law (and the fines/punishments)! Once this happens, there’s no point in having a government if it won’t protect the rights of its citizens uniformly. Then anything is possible, look how Nazi Germany progressed from in just a few short years after passing the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 (look it up), soon Jews hand no rights left (to work, to travel, to live in any area of Germany they liked, etc.) and all this led up to the European Holocaust of the Jews as well as the liquidation of the other undesirable peoples (gypsies, Catholics, gay, Poles, etc.) to the Aryan race!
So laugh it up now D7sre223 but if enough people hate your kind (whichever race, religion, skin colour, etc.) and intimidate the politicians of your country, they might just throw your kind under the bus in order to temporarily satisfy the anger of the mob. Then at time, maybe just maybe you’ll remember my comment about why it’s essential for politicians to be the guardians of the common law because if the law is changed to satisfy one party/group at the expense of other citizens’ rights than what’s the point in having a government (of the people…cough)?
See you in the future!