Support Us

Join the Pirate Party
Donate to the Pirate Party
Bookmark and Share

Podcasts

Pirate Podcast

Follow Us

Follow us on twitter View our youtube channel Follow us on facebook

Get Involved

Powered by twitterLatest Tweets

Powered By Del.icio.usLatest Forum Posts

25th August 2009 10:35 | by Andrew Robinson

Related tags: BIS, P2P consultation

The Government moves the consultation goalposts

The Pirate Party UK has been encouraging people to respond to the Government's consultation on P2P filesharing, which threatens Britain's 7 million file sharers with a range of draconian penalties.

Today, the Government has moved the goalposts for the consultation. They have finally admitted that, as we suspected, their plans do include cutting off internet access for whole families if one member of that family shares files, in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's recently stated aim of "universal connectivity to broadband".

This is a massive announcement that threatens far more people than before, yet it has been hidden away in an update to a consultation document. We are only to be given 5 weeks to respond to this major announcement and defend our right to justice, a fair trial, and to defend the principle that collective punishments are wrong, despite the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills having a commitment to 12 week minimum consultation periods.

The other new announcement is that ISPs will be expected to share the cost of enforcement 50:50 with 'rights holders', a move which may well price independent artists and film-makers out of the process, and places an unjustifiable burden on ISPs who are a third party in disputes between file sharers and rights holders. 

Yet again the Government have done exactly what the big media cartel have told them. There is still no hint of a real discussion on the rights and wrongs of file sharing, or that the strong arguments in favour of legalistion will be given fair consideration.

Comments

Comments may take up to 5 minutes to appear on the blog.

Aug 25 2009 11:49 by dj_sudo | Reply?
rock on. where's some info on how we can respond to the consultation?
Aug 25 2009 11:25 by Philip Hunt | Reply?

The consultation is here

Sep 04 2009 11:13 by kbarry | Reply?

If theere any chance you can get this consultation in plain TEXT, rather than as a PDF file? I hate adobe and will not install their software for only periodic use.

Aug 25 2009 12:22 by jazz4ivo | Reply?
write to you MP and MEP to complain. How would they like it if their child or grand child happens to use their computer dor file sharing and the the ISP cuts of the internet to that MP/MEP's whole family. I bet they won't like that. Or would MPs be exempt from all this?? The film and music industry has failed to keep up with technology and global demand form media. If there was CHEAP legal way of downloading digital movies or TV shows for instance most people would not bother using illegal means to obtain digital copies of their favorite programs. How many US based shows/movies/TV series are not available in Europe or Asia due to copyright agreements??? What the heck is wrong with this picture? Here I am sitting in Sweden wanting to pay for a digital download but I can not because some dumb fat cat has decided that no this program will not be made available outside the USA.
Aug 25 2009 11:15 by AndrewTindall | Reply?
what do you expect, our Government and Legislature are of generations past, not suited to deal sensibly with the issues of today. Instead it's people like us who must act to get modern reforms.
Aug 25 2009 12:49 by copyrightgirl | Reply?
they're following the rest of the world's agendas - Australia are looking to be the first to clamp down on ISPs and the UK will follow suit in an effort to lock down P2P file sharing. It's probably seen as a 'quick fix' solution, but it will do more harm than good.
Aug 25 2009 12:49 by Philip Hunt | Reply?

If you don’t like this, here’s what you can do:

1. Join the Pirate Party

2. Join our Facebook Group

3. Join the Open Rights Group

4. Write to your MP. Lots of MPs don’t think this is an important issue that their constituents care about, because their constituents haven’t written to them about it. MPs aren’t psychic, they don’t know people feel strongly unless you tell them.

5. Suggest to all your friends to do the same.

Aug 25 2009 02:15 by Gavin Sibley | Reply?
I used http://www.writetothem.com/ last time to write to my MP, very simple and very useful for anyone who doesn't know how to contact their local MP.
Aug 25 2009 12:02 by brindy | Reply?
People need to be made aware that this could affect everyone, not just the people perceived to be doing something wrong. For instance, before we know it the ISPs will be forced to implement 'automatic' approaches, otherwise it will cost them too much to manage. Thus, I foresee incidents of people being cut off incorrectly because they are download game patches, etc which often use the Bit Torrent protocol. And just because people are using Bit Torrent (to continue the example) does not mean they are illegally file sharing. :(
Aug 25 2009 12:29 by EdmundRW | Reply?
Yes, we should be trying to rally support to respond to this. any ideas?
Aug 26 2009 01:25 by Merc_with_a_Mouth | Reply?
How about starting a Downing Street e-petition? http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/
Aug 25 2009 12:45 by canadiancat | Reply?
The UK government's consultation process sounds like a complete joke. They've already made up their minds in regards to ensuring that UK citizens do not benefit from "universal connectivity to broadband". A completely new approach to copyright is needed for the Digital Economy; they can't just go on believing that if they satisfy only the stakeholders (i.e., the rights holders) than they've done their job. Look at Canada for a prime example of listening to the people - currently undergoing a copyright consultation process which has lasted much longer than five weeks and is travelling right across the country: http://www.speakoutoncopyright.ca/ http://copyright.econsultation.ca/
Aug 25 2009 12:38 by Merc_with_a_Mouth | Reply?
Here's where you can find out who your local MP is: http://www.writetothem.com/
Aug 25 2009 01:07 by Vanders | Reply?
Having read the consultation document (& the amendment) and the list of questions, I'm not sure I could even formulate appropriate responses to many of the consultation questions. If I was the paranoid type I'd even go so far to suggest that the consultation process is generally intended for individuals to respond to. What might be helpful is if PPUK could provide a guidance for responses that would help us to complete the consultation questions in a way that generally matches PPUK policy.
Aug 25 2009 02:04 by xXedixXx | Reply?
I've contacted my local MP. Lets see if she'll respond...
Aug 28 2009 10:30 by SimbaLogical | Reply?
I contacted my MSP's too. Perhaps one of the seven of them will reply.
Aug 25 2009 04:52 by jifish | Reply?

The Pirate Party UK has been encouraging people to respond to the Government's consultation on P2P filesharing

Next time could you post on the blog about it? This is the first I have heard of it!

Aug 25 2009 07:34 by Andrew Robinson | Reply?
Sorry, our blog is moving very fast, so the original post 'dropped off the bottom' a few days ago. It's here: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009/aug/11/you-can-make-difference-right-now/
Aug 26 2009 12:33 by jifish | Reply?

Ah, that post was from before I was subscribed to the blog. My mistake!

Aug 25 2009 06:22 by John McKeown | Reply?
Anyone can contribute blogs for submission, to Philip(Cabalamat).
Aug 25 2009 07:20 by angryratman | Reply?
Fuck Mandelson. He'll never stop me!
Aug 25 2009 08:28 by domquark | Reply?
I doubt writing to your MP will do anything, apart from wasting paper and a stamp. The only thing your (our?) MP's are doing, are figuring out new ways to fiddle their expenses. What we (the PPUK) need to do is start lobbying specific groups, who could become allies. The TV companies (BBC, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky) could be first. Why? Because any future TVOD will need P2P to operate successfully. If the TV companies suddenly discover that they cannot roll out TVOD because the ISP's will cut off the end user's connection if they dare to think about using it. How about the telecoms companies? This is going to cost them - and loose them customers. BT Wholesale will probably lose 1/3 of their customers.
Aug 26 2009 01:47 by anderspersson | Reply?
May i suggest a more old-fashioned and possibly more effective way of showing we will not simply lie down and accept the government's proposal. I think we should have demonstrations outside whitehall, no.10 and the major TV and internet companies (maybe not all at the same time) If we have enough people we can probably get coverage from a national newspaper, this, coupled with a sensible statement could boost our support significantly and show both the government and the isp's we are serious
Sep 02 2009 10:22 by lord_peregrine | Reply?
good idea
Aug 26 2009 08:56 by dj_sudo | Reply?
I found section 4.14 worrying:----------------- 4.14 The standard of evidence required from rights holders should, as a minimum, establish an infringement on the balance of probabilities. The template used by the BPI in the MOU trial should serve as a model for this as it has proved satisfactory to all the ISPs in the trial and has not provoked any particular concerns by consumers affected. This will need to be defined by the code. ----------------------- it was followed by question 4: Question 4: Does this need to be set out in any more detail in the legislation, or is it sufficient to require it to be set out in the code? ------------------------- I think this an area of major concern - what standards of evidence are "enough". I can't find a record of the BPI/MOU model referenced, any pointers?
Aug 26 2009 12:57 by Merc_with_a_Mouth | Reply?

I've had a response from the office of my local MP. They will forward on my comments and opinions to the Shadow Minister responsible with the issue, since we didn't elect a Labour MP from the constituency where I am. They have also asked whether Lord Mandelson should be contacted.

I say express your views. It's your MP's job to listen. My 'short' message was about 4 pages long, but I don't think it should be that detailed for every message sent. They do however asked for your name and address. So I wouldn't write anything libelous or admit to anything potentially imcriminating! http://www.writetothem.com

Aug 26 2009 12:05 by Merc_with_a_Mouth | Reply?
The government should know about file-sharing anyway. Didn't they download a PhD thesis so they could create their 'Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction' dossier and go to war?
Aug 26 2009 02:23 by Sheinen | Reply?
As I understand it, it's very difficult for an ISP to distinguish between perfectly legal P2P sharing and that which infringes any copyright law. The current parameters are not adequate to impliment this system at all. I agree that renting a DVD, copying it to your HDD and sending it out to thousands of people around the globe should not be allowed and certainly needs policing/regulating. So, when these institutions finally bow to public demand and create an affordable, realistic method of online distribution they're going to have caused themselves some serious trouble.
Aug 26 2009 05:23 by Sly | Reply?
---- How IFPI handle 'infringements' ----- This is speculative, I've contacted the IFPI by email before asking about the process of internet identification but as you can guess they weren't forth comming, but it goes a bit like this. 1) They load up freely available torrent/P2P software 2) Begin a download of 'infringing' content 3) Look at the list of connected peers' IP address 4) request Name & Address of said IP address 5) Claim owner of said internet connection as a copyright pirate Even if copyright wasn't a ridiculous and useless piece of worthless paper, the majority of counter measures used in it's protection are immoral and unjust. ---- Secondly... Is it possible for the Pirate Party to look at putting up or point us in the direction of some helpful guides for younger voters, e.g. how to become registered voters. The target audience of the PP isn't well prepared when it comes to politics and information isn't readily available in my opinion.
Aug 27 2009 02:48 by Dwelf | Reply?
The goverment rejecting all the peditions agianst thier new anti-piracy not one has got through http://search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1159&sr=0&sf=&qt=piracy&sc=number10
Sep 02 2009 10:16 by lord_peregrine | Reply?
OH MY GOD! They are too!
Aug 28 2009 12:48 by domquark | Reply?
Found this over at P2P Forums - http://www.p2pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32307&p=199296&hilit=vpn#p199296 - which makes for very interesting reading. True, it dates back to last year, but it is only last year. And it beggers the question: Just HOW are the ISP's supposed to filter illegal P2P sharing? How does Mandelson (nee. Geffen) propose to distinguish between legal and illegal sharing, when the current technology can't?
Aug 28 2009 06:29 by martinbudden | Reply?
If anyone is interested, you can read my response to the government consultation at: http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/consultation-on-legislation-to-address-illicit-p2p-file-sharing-my-response/ I will be responding to the revised proposals. When I do so, I'll post a link on this blog. Martin
Aug 28 2009 06:50 by martinbudden | Reply?

If anyone is interested, you can read my response to the government consultation here

I will be responding to the revised proposals. When I do so, I’ll post a link on this blog.

Martin

(This is a repost with correct formatting)

Sep 05 2009 10:34 by kbarry | Reply?

I'd rather not fuck mandelson - let's leave that to Deripaska and company!

Please login to comment