Most Britons against P2P file share ban
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Most people in Britain believe anyone accused of sharing entertainment cartel ‘product’ online without permission deserves the right to go to trial.
The movie and music studios, with the labels to the fore, are trying to browbeat governments around the world in to implementing a 3 strikes policy under which alleged copyright transgressors received two warnings and if they fail to stop whatever it is they’re said to be doing, they’re thrown off the net.
Furthermore, the entertainment industry wants governments to act as taxpayer-funded agents, with local ISPs performing duties as copyright cops with their own clients as the targets.
But, “Plans to force internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect suspected illegal downloaders have been roundly rejected in a new YouGov poll, the first time public opinion has been tested on the issue,” says the Guardian.
And in a finding which will certainly make politicians sit up and pay attention, with younger voters, “the threat of internet disconnection for online copyright infringement might be a vote-changing issue,” says the story.
Nearly 70% of those surveyed said people suspected of illegal downloading, “should have a right to a trial in court before restrictions on internet use were imposed,” it says, pointing out only 16% were in favour of “automatic curbs based on accusations by copyright holders such as musicians, as is proposed by the business department.”
“This poll shows people rely on the internet, and an overwhelming majority think that access should only ever be withdrawn as the result of court action,” the Guardian has Jim Killock (right), executive director of the Open Rights Group which commissioned the YouGov poll, saying, going on.
“Nearly a third would be much less likely to vote for a party that supports disconnection proposals.
“Clearly Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, is out of step with public opinion and should think again.”
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Guardian – 70% oppose internet ban for filesharers, poll shows, October 19, 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.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Proposal by Indiana Gregg is now seconded by Russian antivirus chief Eugene Kaspersky, in order to cancel whistleblowers’ abilities to denounce wrongdoings in corrupt governments worldwide:
If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security, what would they be?
Internet design–that’s enough.
That’s it? What’s wrong with the design of the Internet?
There’s anonymity. Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people–hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong to introduce it in the same way.
I’d like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation–Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement–about following Internet standards. And if some countries don’t agree with or don’t pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm
October 19th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Reader’s Write, you don’t worship Adolf Hitler in your spare time do you (not a flame, a genuine question since RW is all for totalitarian style control of everything to do with music and the net)?
The original design of the internet is now irrelevent and has been since the dawn of the World Wide Web. No country has any claim to it as a whole anymore and enforcing some kind of “net passport” is doomed to fail, since people are entitled to their privacy online without having their every move subject to scrutiny or having to obtain permission just to do something. If we wanted to live in 1930s Germany we’d ask for it, thanks.
We as a people (and as nations) have a right to disagree about anything we choose. To answer a disagreement by simply cutting them off is a gross violation of rights, something I’m guessing you don’t care about at all.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The proposal in the first comment is the most self-defeating one ever for the internet age. Fuck that proposal.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
The threat is real, because Kaspersky guy is working close with KGB and similar services. He is also selling his antivirus in Canada (just look at Future Shop and Bestbuy).
October 19th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
The original RW is a quote from another news site.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:56 am
@Reader’s Write no. 1 : even Indiana Gregg IS AGAINST banning file-sharing. Duhh
http://indianagregg.blogspot.com/2009/09/solutions-for-copyright-p2p-and-civil.html
Your remarks are incredible. Although, I’ve heard that there has been a lot of talks within
governments to establish that kind of system. It doesn’t mean it will happen.
http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/a-discussion-with-indiana-gregg-setting-the-record-straight/
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 am
Eugene Kaspersky,” Consumers generally have no clue, but they don’t need to understand.”
um yeah, sure. How about you go use any person’s computer without making sure its clean 1st and be sure to check your log in to your bank account, email account, and also be sure to order some things using your credit & debit cards. Be sure to visit alot of forums & post your home addresse, tel #, email addresse, complete family tree, & last but not least write about everything you do & publish it on fa$ebook & also have live video feeds into your estate publically accessable on the net. See how long you last….
Since consumers have no clue, how about you set an example 1st of what not 2 do.
Eugene Kaspersky
“That’s why I always talk about the need for not just cyberpolice, but Internet police–Internet Interpol.”
dumb a$$, they already have that. Interpol is on the net. You should also research echlon & the other bs that is out there now. Ever heard of deep packet inspection too? You call yourself a guru but you know so little. I guess being so rich has its downfalls for some eh? It sems you are too buisy 2 keep up to whats out there & saying that there should be such when there already is is foot in mouth big time. I don’t agree with your proposals either. Keep the internet open.
That’s why I always talk about the need for not just cyberpolice, but Internet police–Internet Interpol..