Silkroad Online Forums

The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading - which means it will get royal assent and become law - after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: "The UK Government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. THEY HAVE FAILED," said the site set up to oppose the proposals.

But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed.

Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister who resigned in mid-2009, voted against the government for the first time in the final vote to take the bill to a third reading. However the vote was overwhelmingly in the government's favour, which it won by 189 votes to 47.

Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

The Labour MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech - but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could apply to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

The Lib Dem opposition to that amendment prompted the first vote - known as a division - on the bill, but the Labour and Conservative whips pushed it through, winning it by 197 votes to 40. The next 42 clauses of the bill were then considered in five minutes.

Numerous MPs complained that the bill was too important and its ramifications too great for it to be pushed through in this "wash-up" period in which bills are not given the usual detailed examination.

However the government declined to yield - although it had already done a deal with the Tories which meant that a number of its provisions, including clause 43 and the creation of independent local news consortia, would not be part of the bill.

cpinney wrote:that and it seems it can block any site that has copyrighted content, so ones like wikileaks.

Deadsolid wrote:Net Neutrality

Deadsolid wrote:Net Neutrality

MrFudge wrote:umm
most civilized countries have ISPs that block you if you illegaly do shit
do they actually do it? no, but they send warnings and may slow down your connection for a couple of hours.

Sovereign wrote:TBH, this isn't gonna stop anything, it might catch out the basic torrent user, but for the serious users, there is always a way around, so gg government, yet again you can't stop us.

Ichimaru420 wrote:

Sovereign wrote:TBH, this isn't gonna stop anything, it might catch out the basic torrent user, but for the serious users, there is always a way around, so gg government, yet again you can't stop us.

QFT

[SD]Master_Wong wrote:

Ichimaru420 wrote:

Sovereign wrote:TBH, this isn't gonna stop anything, it might catch out the basic torrent user, but for the serious users, there is always a way around, so gg government, yet again you can't stop us.

QFT

why?

if i recall its the casual users who get away with it while the ones who download mass even if they do it smartly who get caught why qft that?

although your right it may not stop much at all but it will do some good i mean i download dont get me wrong but i understand that even if i download a shit movie the actors, producers, chefs, office workers all involved in that movie rely on its revenue same with the music and game industry so i see it been good even if it does effect me in some way, piracy isnt exactly a good thing dont try defend it if i download hundereds of movies and cant defend it im damn sure you cant defend it either. although the companies who fund the movies/games/music are rich as hell they wouldnt be if it wasnt for them making money from the movies/games/music and again yes i download but i dont see why the governement and companies effected shouldnt try to stop it. on a double edged sword i could argue im doing a good thing by helping to push the issue by downloaded thus forcing these people to stricter regulations on it but thats just a self serving way of saying im doing wrong.

i digress so il sum up
piracy = bad
control = gray area
so something inbetween is nice where we get a good deal of freedom but there is control on piracy/pedo sites/scamming sites and so on