Repeal Digital Economy Act

While I agree that there should be *some* measures taken to limit or punish those who use the internet to steal, I feel that the current bill is highly flawed and has removed civil liberties that should remain, even if a household is caught.

As it stands, the Digital Economy Bill is too broad. It targets the bill payer of the family instead of the individual culprits. As a family is composed of many differing age groups and incomes, all using the same wireless or wired internet, it shouldn't be right that a mother, who does not use the internet, is punished because her son downloads an album illegally. 

There is also an issue that there is currently no way to go to trial over these allegations. As I understand the bill, you receive a letter from your ISP (internet service provider) saying you've been caught and either have to pay a fine or lose your connection. There seems to be no way to have a fair trial on these allegations, which is unrealistic, as many peer-to-peer sharing or torrenting CAN be used for legal practices, such as sharing large amounts of data through a business. However, they may flag up as illegal sharing and lead whole families into bankruptcy. 

Instead, Government should focus on educating the youth and fair warning systems. This would allow the parents to talk to their children if their household is warned.

I also feel that there should be technological experts on hand to give fully educated guidance to government, as there has been a lack of understanding in how the Internet works from both the House of Lords and House of Commons whenever the issue of the Internet has been raised. 

Why is this idea important?

While I agree that there should be *some* measures taken to limit or punish those who use the internet to steal, I feel that the current bill is highly flawed and has removed civil liberties that should remain, even if a household is caught.

As it stands, the Digital Economy Bill is too broad. It targets the bill payer of the family instead of the individual culprits. As a family is composed of many differing age groups and incomes, all using the same wireless or wired internet, it shouldn't be right that a mother, who does not use the internet, is punished because her son downloads an album illegally. 

There is also an issue that there is currently no way to go to trial over these allegations. As I understand the bill, you receive a letter from your ISP (internet service provider) saying you've been caught and either have to pay a fine or lose your connection. There seems to be no way to have a fair trial on these allegations, which is unrealistic, as many peer-to-peer sharing or torrenting CAN be used for legal practices, such as sharing large amounts of data through a business. However, they may flag up as illegal sharing and lead whole families into bankruptcy. 

Instead, Government should focus on educating the youth and fair warning systems. This would allow the parents to talk to their children if their household is warned.

I also feel that there should be technological experts on hand to give fully educated guidance to government, as there has been a lack of understanding in how the Internet works from both the House of Lords and House of Commons whenever the issue of the Internet has been raised. 

Constitutionally free internet access

Free internet access  in the UK, would allow everyone to share his ideas, to make this country like a swarm of effervescent new ideas and to share wisdom and  awareness. Two countries are pioneering this idea: Estonia and Finland have declared free internet access in their constitution.

Why is this idea important?

Free internet access  in the UK, would allow everyone to share his ideas, to make this country like a swarm of effervescent new ideas and to share wisdom and  awareness. Two countries are pioneering this idea: Estonia and Finland have declared free internet access in their constitution.

Copyright modification for internet use

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Why is this idea important?

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Replace Internet Watch Foundation

The Internet Watch Foundation deals with obscuring and hiding internet 'nasties' such as Child porn and terrorism. It should be replaced with a politically independent oversight committee made up of differing views and beliefs.

Why is this idea important?

The Internet Watch Foundation deals with obscuring and hiding internet 'nasties' such as Child porn and terrorism. It should be replaced with a politically independent oversight committee made up of differing views and beliefs.

Make uncensored internet access a legal right.

The government in Finland have just passed laws making broadband internet access a legal right – ISPs must provide a phone line capable of 1mbps speeds to every house in finland.

I believe that we should have a similar law, not only requiring internet access to be offered to everyone by law (not just by promise), but also making it law that the internet should never be censored, as we see in china, australia, and with the digital economy act, here.

Repealing the digital economy act, and introducing laws enshrining internet connections as a right, would be the first steps in acheiving this.

Why is this idea important?

The government in Finland have just passed laws making broadband internet access a legal right – ISPs must provide a phone line capable of 1mbps speeds to every house in finland.

I believe that we should have a similar law, not only requiring internet access to be offered to everyone by law (not just by promise), but also making it law that the internet should never be censored, as we see in china, australia, and with the digital economy act, here.

Repealing the digital economy act, and introducing laws enshrining internet connections as a right, would be the first steps in acheiving this.

Prevent foreign software companies monitoring computer programs

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

Why is this idea important?

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

Limit copyright to 15 years

Copyright terms have been extended over and over again. Corporations and sucessful (not to mention rich) artists claim that it is to protect their "right" to make money from something decades after it was produced. This is to the direct detriment of the public domain and our culture.

More than 95% of copyrighted material is out of print and thus largely unavailable, depriving us of knowledge and cultural heritage simply because the copyright holder is either not inclined to re-publish it or cannot be found. This material could be used by others to generate wealth for the economy, e.g. by re-issuing out of print books formatted for electronic readers or re-mixing music into something new.

The reality is that having a long copyright term harms artists and stifles creativity. There is less incentive for artists to produce new work when they can milk their old material for the rest of their lives (and probably their childrends.) Furthermore artists draw on popular culture for inspiration. They benefit from the public domain but expect not to have to contribute back to it for 70+ years. 15 years is more than enough time to exclusively exploit work.

Why is this idea important?

Copyright terms have been extended over and over again. Corporations and sucessful (not to mention rich) artists claim that it is to protect their "right" to make money from something decades after it was produced. This is to the direct detriment of the public domain and our culture.

More than 95% of copyrighted material is out of print and thus largely unavailable, depriving us of knowledge and cultural heritage simply because the copyright holder is either not inclined to re-publish it or cannot be found. This material could be used by others to generate wealth for the economy, e.g. by re-issuing out of print books formatted for electronic readers or re-mixing music into something new.

The reality is that having a long copyright term harms artists and stifles creativity. There is less incentive for artists to produce new work when they can milk their old material for the rest of their lives (and probably their childrends.) Furthermore artists draw on popular culture for inspiration. They benefit from the public domain but expect not to have to contribute back to it for 70+ years. 15 years is more than enough time to exclusively exploit work.

We want the way MPs vote on the internet

The way MPs vote of legislation is embarrassingly old fashioned.  The fact they've got to physically go through the lobby is dated.  

My proposal: I would like an enhanced electronic system to record MPs' votes. 

This will provide seven benefits:

  1. Modernise the image of parliament
  2. Allow all MPs to vote stopping the practice of covering for each other
  3. Means an MP, who is ill, or a minister, attending a meeting abroad, can still vote on legislation
  4. Constituents can see how their MPs are voting
  5. Will allow the public to raise their concerns, or support, as legislation is processed
  6. Will act as an educational tool
  7. It will be a good reference for individual MPs to remind themselves how they voted.

 

Basic Electronic Voting

Many democracies have an electronic, secure voting system that allows their representatives to electronically record their vote, which can then be instantly displayed. 

The basic procedure is that a representative has either a card, like a swipe card, or password and then enters their vote into their system.  I would give them the option of For a motion, Against a motion or Abstain.

If this can be done remotely then an MP does not have to be in parliament and therefore someone who is ill, is in a meeting or travelling abroad can still vote.  

This avoids the embarrassment of forcing very ill MPs to attend parliament if a vote is close or forcing a minister, at public expense, to fly back to London for an important vote. 

Enhanced Voting System

I would like to go a number of steps further and have in Britain the world's leading electronic voting system.  I would like to have displayed on the internet a service that displays all legislation that is to be voted on section by section.  

At the bottom of each section there will be a link to each MP.  In this area an MP can set up whether they are going to vote For, Against or Abstain.  There will also be an area where the MP can explain why he or she is voting in a particular way.  

Underneath each MP's area will be a comment section for the public to enter their comments. 

After a vote has taken place the individual MPs voting action will be recorded.  

This will allow an MP or an individual, to check the voting pattern of the MP.  

Why is this idea important?

The way MPs vote of legislation is embarrassingly old fashioned.  The fact they've got to physically go through the lobby is dated.  

My proposal: I would like an enhanced electronic system to record MPs' votes. 

This will provide seven benefits:

  1. Modernise the image of parliament
  2. Allow all MPs to vote stopping the practice of covering for each other
  3. Means an MP, who is ill, or a minister, attending a meeting abroad, can still vote on legislation
  4. Constituents can see how their MPs are voting
  5. Will allow the public to raise their concerns, or support, as legislation is processed
  6. Will act as an educational tool
  7. It will be a good reference for individual MPs to remind themselves how they voted.

 

Basic Electronic Voting

Many democracies have an electronic, secure voting system that allows their representatives to electronically record their vote, which can then be instantly displayed. 

The basic procedure is that a representative has either a card, like a swipe card, or password and then enters their vote into their system.  I would give them the option of For a motion, Against a motion or Abstain.

If this can be done remotely then an MP does not have to be in parliament and therefore someone who is ill, is in a meeting or travelling abroad can still vote.  

This avoids the embarrassment of forcing very ill MPs to attend parliament if a vote is close or forcing a minister, at public expense, to fly back to London for an important vote. 

Enhanced Voting System

I would like to go a number of steps further and have in Britain the world's leading electronic voting system.  I would like to have displayed on the internet a service that displays all legislation that is to be voted on section by section.  

At the bottom of each section there will be a link to each MP.  In this area an MP can set up whether they are going to vote For, Against or Abstain.  There will also be an area where the MP can explain why he or she is voting in a particular way.  

Underneath each MP's area will be a comment section for the public to enter their comments. 

After a vote has taken place the individual MPs voting action will be recorded.  

This will allow an MP or an individual, to check the voting pattern of the MP.  

Repeal Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

UK-wide equality of broadband, telephone and TV

All areas of the UK, no matter whether rural, semi rural or town/city should have the same rates of broadband access and should be able to access the same commerical low-cost telephone and broadband packages (which requires their telephone exchange to be "de-bundled" or enabled in a special way).

Any government scheme to roll out faster broadband must give and require wholly equal treatment and timing to all areas of the UK.

All areas of the UK should be able to receive the full range of digital TV services via the Freeview system when required to switch over to digital. At present, many areas on "relay transmitters" will receive a significantly limited Freeview service indeed. The Government must ensure that the switchover does indeed, as advertised, enable all TV licence-payers to receive free of charge the full Freeview service, and switchover of remaining areas must not occur until this guarantee can be 100% applied.

Why is this idea important?

All areas of the UK, no matter whether rural, semi rural or town/city should have the same rates of broadband access and should be able to access the same commerical low-cost telephone and broadband packages (which requires their telephone exchange to be "de-bundled" or enabled in a special way).

Any government scheme to roll out faster broadband must give and require wholly equal treatment and timing to all areas of the UK.

All areas of the UK should be able to receive the full range of digital TV services via the Freeview system when required to switch over to digital. At present, many areas on "relay transmitters" will receive a significantly limited Freeview service indeed. The Government must ensure that the switchover does indeed, as advertised, enable all TV licence-payers to receive free of charge the full Freeview service, and switchover of remaining areas must not occur until this guarantee can be 100% applied.

Enact broader safe harbours for internet businesses

  • Initiate a consultation into whether current protections for internet business are adequate;
  • Consider how compliance costs for ISPs, search engines and other online intermediaries might be reduced;
  • Consolidate existing safe harbours into a single regime that is simpler, fairer and technology neutral;
  • Consider the enactment of broader immunities in respect of third party defamation, copyright and trade mark infringement, negligence and other misconduct;
  • Make network neutrality (not discriminating against network traffic on the basis of source, destination or content) a condition of immunity;
  • Engage with UK internet businesses and consumers to determine legislative priorities in the upcoming parliamentary term.

Why is this idea important?

  • Initiate a consultation into whether current protections for internet business are adequate;
  • Consider how compliance costs for ISPs, search engines and other online intermediaries might be reduced;
  • Consolidate existing safe harbours into a single regime that is simpler, fairer and technology neutral;
  • Consider the enactment of broader immunities in respect of third party defamation, copyright and trade mark infringement, negligence and other misconduct;
  • Make network neutrality (not discriminating against network traffic on the basis of source, destination or content) a condition of immunity;
  • Engage with UK internet businesses and consumers to determine legislative priorities in the upcoming parliamentary term.

Repeal the digital economy act

Repeal the act as it operates badly.  It's known to be bad law.

 

Several people have suggested this.  it's unfair.  There are 19 entries if you search here for digital economy act and all are against it, but it is not possible to vote on any.  The system on those is broken.  Interesting! Just on an act about IT!   So I am suggesting it again as it is also not possible to comment now on any of the others.

 

And yes I do know how to vote and have done so on other items.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act as it operates badly.  It's known to be bad law.

 

Several people have suggested this.  it's unfair.  There are 19 entries if you search here for digital economy act and all are against it, but it is not possible to vote on any.  The system on those is broken.  Interesting! Just on an act about IT!   So I am suggesting it again as it is also not possible to comment now on any of the others.

 

And yes I do know how to vote and have done so on other items.

Scrap “Digital Economy Act”

The digital economy act is a porrly designed attempt to reduce internet piracy. Yes, internet piracy is a problem, however the Act is poorly designed and wont do what it intends.

Under the act you will be found guilty if your network has been used for piracy… what if someone is stealing your wi-fi internet? What if a child or tennant that shares your network donloads ilegally? What if your computer is illegally accessed for partial download through new Pier 2 Pier software (beyond your control)….. If any of these happen, in the eyes of the act, it is YOUR fault and YOU will be punished.

This act also goes completly against logic. We are told it will help the LEGAL download market, however, research has shown that 70% of downloaders buy everything they downloaded later on, and use their illegal downloads as a trial or preview to test the product… think about it, why part with money for an album if you might not like it? Downoload it first, and if you like it buy it!

This Act was also pushed through in a blur with MPs not even looking. My local MP, when asked, told me that he had never even heard of the ACT!

Why is this idea important?

The digital economy act is a porrly designed attempt to reduce internet piracy. Yes, internet piracy is a problem, however the Act is poorly designed and wont do what it intends.

Under the act you will be found guilty if your network has been used for piracy… what if someone is stealing your wi-fi internet? What if a child or tennant that shares your network donloads ilegally? What if your computer is illegally accessed for partial download through new Pier 2 Pier software (beyond your control)….. If any of these happen, in the eyes of the act, it is YOUR fault and YOU will be punished.

This act also goes completly against logic. We are told it will help the LEGAL download market, however, research has shown that 70% of downloaders buy everything they downloaded later on, and use their illegal downloads as a trial or preview to test the product… think about it, why part with money for an album if you might not like it? Downoload it first, and if you like it buy it!

This Act was also pushed through in a blur with MPs not even looking. My local MP, when asked, told me that he had never even heard of the ACT!

Internet Integrity through Legislation

Internet / Website hosts have both legal and moral responsibilities as does the State and the User. Website hosts and the State enjoy commercial reward and the user benefits in principal from the spend. Legislate the minimum realistic requirements on the three (3) parties.  

The Website Host must:-

  1. publish their "Terms & Conditions" pursuant to legislation
  2. publish their "Protection of Children" pursuant to legislation
  3. publish their "Privacy Policy"  pursuant to legislation
  4. provide for "Users" to report offences and to make this information available to the State in a defined structure
  5. give automated notice to the offender through their "declared e-mail" address on receipt of a report
  6. maintain a record for "X" years of reports and transmit to the State the reports………….

 

The State must:-

  1. provide the infrastructure to receive the reports and translate into meaningful information
  2. make available the legal structures to assist Website hosts to restrict undesirable users such as the prohibition of "Users" employing pseudo names when registering to use a Website host's service

 

The User must:-

  1. conform to the expected behaviour on the internet as it is a public forum
  2. report offenders
  3. be aware of the "Terms & Conditions", "Protection of Children" and "Privacy Policy" of the Website host and that offences may be reported to the State

Why is this idea important?

Internet / Website hosts have both legal and moral responsibilities as does the State and the User. Website hosts and the State enjoy commercial reward and the user benefits in principal from the spend. Legislate the minimum realistic requirements on the three (3) parties.  

The Website Host must:-

  1. publish their "Terms & Conditions" pursuant to legislation
  2. publish their "Protection of Children" pursuant to legislation
  3. publish their "Privacy Policy"  pursuant to legislation
  4. provide for "Users" to report offences and to make this information available to the State in a defined structure
  5. give automated notice to the offender through their "declared e-mail" address on receipt of a report
  6. maintain a record for "X" years of reports and transmit to the State the reports………….

 

The State must:-

  1. provide the infrastructure to receive the reports and translate into meaningful information
  2. make available the legal structures to assist Website hosts to restrict undesirable users such as the prohibition of "Users" employing pseudo names when registering to use a Website host's service

 

The User must:-

  1. conform to the expected behaviour on the internet as it is a public forum
  2. report offenders
  3. be aware of the "Terms & Conditions", "Protection of Children" and "Privacy Policy" of the Website host and that offences may be reported to the State

digital economy bill readressed

This draconian bill was rushed through parliment by Lord Mandelson to appease the film studios regardless of peoples human rights, this should be redressed.

 

This was rushed through in April of this year just before the election,  the bill was not correctly addressed and processed  by the commons.

Why is this idea important?

This draconian bill was rushed through parliment by Lord Mandelson to appease the film studios regardless of peoples human rights, this should be redressed.

 

This was rushed through in April of this year just before the election,  the bill was not correctly addressed and processed  by the commons.

Grooming law – inadequate

According to the local police, it is not a crime if a 23-year-old man asks a 12-year- old child if she wants to have sex, via the internet.

They say it is only a crime if the adult sets up a meeting for the 'purposes of sex' . And says so.

If a male adult stopped a child in the street and asked her if she wanted to have sex with him, then he could presumably be arrested.

So why is internet communication any different? Other than the problem of proving who made the suggestion.

The law should be changed to protect the child's rights. If the balance of probability is that the adult made a sexual suggestion, then it should be appropriate for the police to act.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

According to the local police, it is not a crime if a 23-year-old man asks a 12-year- old child if she wants to have sex, via the internet.

They say it is only a crime if the adult sets up a meeting for the 'purposes of sex' . And says so.

If a male adult stopped a child in the street and asked her if she wanted to have sex with him, then he could presumably be arrested.

So why is internet communication any different? Other than the problem of proving who made the suggestion.

The law should be changed to protect the child's rights. If the balance of probability is that the adult made a sexual suggestion, then it should be appropriate for the police to act.

 

 

 

Repeal the Digital Economy Act, an undemocratic

 

I believe one of the priorities of the new coalition government should be a free an open debate on the "Digital Economy Act". It's as simple as that. It was passed through parliament without a fair vote and any real scrutiny. By keeping this undemocratic and downright oppressive act  we are not only threatening the rights of UK citizens but in addition we are putting Britain's future growth at risk.

Why is this idea important?

 

I believe one of the priorities of the new coalition government should be a free an open debate on the "Digital Economy Act". It's as simple as that. It was passed through parliament without a fair vote and any real scrutiny. By keeping this undemocratic and downright oppressive act  we are not only threatening the rights of UK citizens but in addition we are putting Britain's future growth at risk.

Repeal the controversial changes to the communications act in 2009

To repeal the controversial changes to the communications act in 2009 that place the responsability for web usage of users in the hands of internet service providers essentially forcing them to police the web.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the controversial changes to the communications act in 2009 that place the responsability for web usage of users in the hands of internet service providers essentially forcing them to police the web.

The digital rental terminology act

We believe the term ‘pirate’ when referring to people who download The word ‘pirates’ when used to describe Internet downloaders should be replaced by the far more neutral ‘renter’, henceforth acts such as using Kazaa or TPB shall be known in the public domain as ‘renting’.

Why is this idea important?

We believe the term ‘pirate’ when referring to people who download The word ‘pirates’ when used to describe Internet downloaders should be replaced by the far more neutral ‘renter’, henceforth acts such as using Kazaa or TPB shall be known in the public domain as ‘renting’.

Abolish the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers act removes all rights of privacy in discourse by electonic means. It inverts the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty". Further and ridiculously, it requires one to prove before a court that one has forgotten something.

I refer you to this article from the Observer of 4th June 2000, shortly before the Act came into force.

The Home Secretary has the power to compel anyone to reveal encryption/decryption keys that are used to make electronic communication private.  If you can't, won't or don't then you can be imprisoned for two years.  If you tell someone else that you have been compelled to reveal keys then you can be imprisoned for five years. "You" might be any person or legal entity.

This act is a gross infringement of our rights to privacy and security and an accrual to the executive of  powers and rights of Stalinist or, possibly, Kafkaesque proportions.

Quote: "The news that henceforth all UK internet traffic will find its way to MI5
does not seem to have yet reached MPs, most of whom don't understand the
technology and assume that the Home Office must know what it is doing."

That'll be the Home Office that turned out "not [to be] fit for purpose".

Why is this idea important?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers act removes all rights of privacy in discourse by electonic means. It inverts the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty". Further and ridiculously, it requires one to prove before a court that one has forgotten something.

I refer you to this article from the Observer of 4th June 2000, shortly before the Act came into force.

The Home Secretary has the power to compel anyone to reveal encryption/decryption keys that are used to make electronic communication private.  If you can't, won't or don't then you can be imprisoned for two years.  If you tell someone else that you have been compelled to reveal keys then you can be imprisoned for five years. "You" might be any person or legal entity.

This act is a gross infringement of our rights to privacy and security and an accrual to the executive of  powers and rights of Stalinist or, possibly, Kafkaesque proportions.

Quote: "The news that henceforth all UK internet traffic will find its way to MI5
does not seem to have yet reached MPs, most of whom don't understand the
technology and assume that the Home Office must know what it is doing."

That'll be the Home Office that turned out "not [to be] fit for purpose".