BT ordered to block piracy site

[chrisso]

Andrew Orlowski is an extremely controversial commentator, and pretty much one sided in his views.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Andrew Orlowski is an extremely controversial commentator, and pretty much one sided in his views.

I agree, although in this case he appears to be fairly even handed.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

An analysis of the changes:

Digital copyright: Not much action, lots of talking shops ? The Register

Apparently this is coming from a "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization", or in other words a bunch of bureaucrats with no actual legal standing who are simply saying "We don't wanna do it!"

I can't imagine that they will be allowed to get away with such nonsense. My guess is that the BPI is filing suit as we speak to force enforcement.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

I agree, although in this case he appears to be fairly even handed.

You WOULD say that.

As usual, he's fronting for the piracy faction.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Apparently this is coming from a "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization", or in other words a bunch of bureaucrats with no actual legal standing who are simply saying "We don't wanna do it!" ...

There you go again, showing your ignorance of governmental systems in other countries. Go away and do your homework.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

There you go again, showing your ignorance of governmental systems in other countries. Go away and do your homework.

I did. I seems to me that a "quango" is simply a bunch of bureaucrats with no official standing who simply serve to much things up by interfering with duly passed legislation.

How does any "non-governmental organization" have any right or standing to determine if THE LAW is enforced or how it will be? They're not the friggin' government! It's like if the RIAA set enforcement policies, except in reverse.

It's crazy.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I did. I seems to me that a "quango" is simply a bunch of bureaucrats with no official standing who simply serve to much things up by interfering with duly passed legislation.
.

Bureaucrats? There's some truth in that. Have you ever watched "Yes, Minister?" They do have official standing, though.

Think of a quango as "outsourced Government". The Govt says, "Doing (x) is not our core business. Here's the necessary money and authority, go and do (x) for us."

Edit:
Here's a list of UK quangos, including the Copyright Tribunal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...er-review.html

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

I agree, although in this case he appears to be fairly even handed.

Really?

His article punchline seems completely one sided, controversial, and I imagine not very true:

Academics generally speak as one on copyright – they can't stand it

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Think of a quango as "outsourced Government". The Govt says, "Doing (x) is not our core business. Here's the necessary money and authority, go and do (x) for us."

Edit:
Here's a list of UK quangos, including the Copyright Tribunal:

Quango cuts: full list of bodies under review - Telegraph

Actually, many of those 'quangos' are advising government on matters they are not expert in. eg Chemical weapons.
It's NOT 'outsourcing government' to seek advice from people better able to understand and advise on complex issues.
Really, you're trying hard to sound like a tea party member.
The Telegraph is a right wing newspaper, with friends in the conservative party - which recently came to power.
Just as in other countries like America, the UK conservatives have always hated committees and advisory councils. So it's absolutely zero surprise they want to kill most of them off, with the Telegraph cheering on from the sidelines.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... His article punchline seems completely one sided, controversial, and I imagine not very true:

I see it as being dismissive rather than supportive.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... Really, you're trying hard to sound like a tea party member.
The Telegraph is a right wing newspaper, with friends in the conservative party - which recently came to power.
Just as in other countries like America, the UK conservatives have always hated committees and advisory councils. So it's absolutely zero surprise they want to kill most of them off, with the Telegraph cheering on from the sidelines.

Any political implication you try to read into my source choice is in your mind only. I just picked one at random. I could have picked one of these:

Quango cuts: full list of bodies affected | News | guardian.co.uk

BBC News - Quango list shows 192 to be axed

192 quangos axed in coalition cull: 10,000 staff face the boot | Mail Online

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

I see it as being dismissive rather than supportive.

Huh, he's making a wild claim that most likely has no truth to it.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Any political implication you try to read into my source choice is in your mind only.

Regardless of source, you claimed it was 'outsourcing government', quite a political statement on it's own.
Any implication that quangos are a waste of money and useless is hardly supported by the Tories getting rid of them. That's what Tories do.

[Don Hills]

One final time: I intended no political bias or statement. Any such that you choose to read into my statements is in your own mind only. Please bear that in mind when reading my posts in future, unless I preface my remarks with something like, "In my opinion...", or "I see it as...", in which case there may be partisan political comment included. If you're not sure on any occasion, I'll be happy to clarify.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Bureaucrats? There's some truth in that. Have you ever watched "Yes, Minister?" They do have official standing, though.

Think of a quango as "outsourced Government". The Govt says, "Doing (x) is not our core business. Here's the necessary money and authority, go and do (x) for us."

Edit:
Here's a list of UK quangos, including the Copyright Tribunal:

Quango cuts: full list of bodies under review - Telegraph

Then the government is abdicating their mandate and authority and needs to be replaced.

Otherwise they should DO THEIR F*CKING JOB!

You don't allow a bunch of lazy (or even worse, unelected a-holes with an agenda), naysaying bureaucrats to negate legislation outside the legal system. If you do that you have no legal system at all.

Here's the necessary money and authority, go and do (x) for us.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that's THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what this quango is doing. They're given the authority and money, and they're blocking implementation of the law they're supposed to be enforcing. You really don't see something SERIOUSLY WRONG with this?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Actually, many of those 'quangos' are advising government on matters they are not expert in. eg Chemical weapons.
It's NOT 'outsourcing government' to seek advice from people better able to understand and advise on complex issues.
Really, you're trying hard to sound like a tea party member.
The Telegraph is a right wing newspaper, with friends in the conservative party - which recently came to power.
Just as in other countries like America, the UK conservatives have always hated committees and advisory councils. So it's absolutely zero surprise they want to kill most of them off, with the Telegraph cheering on from the sidelines.

And, as we know, digital pirates are shock troops for the far right.

Who is REALLY behind The Pirate Bay?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

One final time: I intended no political bias or statement. Any such that you choose to read into my statements is in your own mind only. Please bear that in mind when reading my posts in future, unless I preface my remarks with something like, "In my opinion...", or "I see it as...", in which case there may be partisan political comment included. If you're not sure on any occasion, I'll be happy to clarify.

Me thinks you doth protest too much.
You said 'outsourced government' which is the right's view of quangos, so it's hardly surprising I drew that conclusion.
Here's the official and oft repeated (on the web) definition:

Government created and funded organization (therefore held accountable to the government) but outside the civil service and enjoying operation independence. Quangos generally perform regulatory or watchdog functions, or engage in commercial and semi-commercial activities which a government usually may not. British broadcasting corporation (BBC) in UK and Federal Reserve bank (The Fed) in the US are the prime examples. Also called Quasi-Autonomous National Government organization. Coined in 1967 by Alan Pifer, the then president of Carnegie Corporation.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Me thinks you doth protest too much.
You said 'outsourced government' which is the right's view of quangos, so it's hardly surprising I drew that conclusion.

That illustrates the dangers of jumping to conclusions. In fact, I normally vote Green (left of centre).

Originally Posted by chrisso

Here's the official and oft repeated (on the web) definition:

Government created and funded organization (therefore held accountable to the government) but outside the civil service and enjoying operation independence. Quangos generally perform regulatory or watchdog functions, or engage in commercial and semi-commercial activities which a government usually may not. British broadcasting corporation (BBC) in UK and Federal Reserve bank (The Fed) in the US are the prime examples. Also called Quasi-Autonomous National Government organization. Coined in 1967 by Alan Pifer, the then president of Carnegie Corporation.

... in short, "outsourced Government", which proves my point. By that definition, copyright enforcement is a perfect role for a quango to perform.

In the end, it's a moot point. The UK Government asked for a review of copyright legislation and recommendations for changes. The quango they appointed to do the work has done so. Now it has to be written up as changes to the legislation and passed into law by Parliament. If you're a UK citizen, write to your MP.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

If you're a UK citizen, write to your MP.

What about? They're barely suggesting anything too controversial

I usually look to the Featured Artists Coalition to express the views of content creators in a pretty reasonable way, albeit from our perspective:

In light of the Government’s response to the Hargreaves Review, the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) is issuing the following statement:
“We welcome the Government’s response and hope that the next, more detailed consultation process doesn’t serve to dilute the strength of Hargreaves recommendations.

We also hope that even if existing rights holders find it difficult to put their content onto the Digital Copyright Exchange, there are a huge number of artists who control their own rights who will be very enthusiastic to sign up to it. The FAC is very interested to play a constructive role in making that a reality.“

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

That illustrates the dangers of jumping to conclusions. In fact, I normally vote Green (left of centre).

I didn't jump to a conclusion. I tied your comment to a political grouping that regularly makes similar comments.

you're trying hard to sound like a tea party member

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

That illustrates the dangers of jumping to conclusions. In fact, I normally vote Green (left of centre).





... in short, "outsourced Government", which proves my point. By that definition, copyright enforcement is a perfect role for a quango to perform.

In the end, it's a moot point. The UK Government asked for a review of copyright legislation and recommendations for changes. The quango they appointed to do the work has done so. Now it has to be written up as changes to the legislation and passed into law by Parliament. If you're a UK citizen, write to your MP.

Wait a minute - If a quango's task to perform jobs outsourced to them by government they should DO THE DAMN JOB THEY'RE ASSIGNED. It's not their place to set policy or modify the law. If they don't want to uphold the law as written they need to be replaced with someone who will.

If I have a company and I assign a subcontractor the task of taking care of my payroll I don't want them telling me that my pay structure for my employees is wrong. If I assign a subcontractor the task of building a subassembly for my product and they don't make it to my spec I'll find someone who will.

The tail is wagging the dog here.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The tail is wagging the dog here.

Not really.
Members of parliament have little expertise in music copyright, little experience in chemical weapons and no time to run the BBC. So they hire a group of people to advise on those matters, known as a Quango.
They could have rejected the recommendations of the copyright review.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Not really.
Members of parliament have little expertise in music copyright, little experience in chemical weapons and no time to run the BBC. So they hire a group of people to advise on those matters, known as a Quango.
They could have rejected the recommendations of the copyright review.

So the members of the quango have what expertise? It seems to me that their expertise is in protecting the pirates and the interests of the ISPs that cater to them.

They're not working in the interests of the content owners at all.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

So the members of the quango have what expertise? It seems to me that their expertise is in protecting the pirates and the interests of the ISPs that cater to them.

Chair and members:

Professor Ian Hargreaves holds the chair of Digital Economy at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies and Cardiff Business School.

As a distinguished academic, journalist and public servant, he has held senior positions at the BBC, Financial Times, The Independent, and New Statesman.

He was a founding non-executive board member of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and an executive board member, and Director of Strategic Communications at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The panel:

• Tom Loosemore has launched innovative internet services and has held senior positions in major media organisations, including BBC, Channel 4 and Ofcom. He worked on Martha Lane Fox's recent review of Government websites.
• Roger Burt is the IP Law Counsel for IBM in Europe. He brings a business background to the panel with particular expertise in patents.
• Professor David Gann is Head of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Imperial College. He has worked in the private sector as well as academia with a focus on the innovation process in organisations and how it is changing.
• Professor James Boyle of Duke Law School is an expert in intellectual property law, open source production processes and new digital business models.
• Mark Schankerman is a Professor of Economics, London School of Economics, Research Associate at the Centre for Economic Performance (LSE) and at the Centre for Economic Policy Research. His research interests include R&D, innovation, and intellectual property rights.

Important - Terms Of Reference:

Identification of barriers to growth in the IP system, and how to overcome them;
How the IP framework could better enable new business models appropriate to the digital age.

The Review will make recommendations on:

How the IP system nationally and internationally can best work to promote innovation and growth in the 21st century with a view to setting the agenda for the long term;
What short and medium term measures can be taken now within the international framework to give the UK a competitive advantage.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Chair and members:

Important - Terms Of Reference:

These people have no business whatsoever making decisions about copyright enforcement.

It's like having one team's coaches referee the game.

The foxes are guarding the hen house.

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

These people have no business whatsoever making decisions about copyright enforcement.

It's like having one team's coaches referee the game.

The foxes are guarding the hen house.

In that regard.. i'm glad we have the 'Register of Copyrights' (currently Maria Pallante) in the US, that can testify to congress and express her concerns. [ie.. someone who actually knows the issues, advocating for them]

Though, they hear from voices coming from 10 different directions* when having testimonies on The Hill

*including some members' voices in their heads...


I don't pretend to know how alot of other governments work, &/or what their processes are. Heck, i've been studying our own government over the past decade.. and i'm still quite baffled at some of the things that go on and get over... I will say though, i like watching the UK's House of Parliments. It's quite passionate, informed, heated, entertaining all at once!

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

It's like having one team's coaches referee the game.

Well I agree it's heavily weighted on business, tech and academia.
It would have been good to have a composer, a film-maker and a writer also on there.

[Don Hills]

Terry Hart's latest "Friday Endnotes" have some interesting links:

Friday’s Endnotes – 08/03/11 | Copyhype

One of the especially insightful links is to Barry Sookman:

UK proposals to modernize UK Copyright Act released | Barry Sookman


In turn, he points to the body doing the actual work:

Intellectual Property Office - Independent Review of IP and Growth

It links to the full article, which is well worth a read.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse-full.pdf

Plenty of points to inflame the hardliners, such as:

The finite public sector resources available should be allocated to meet the most serious problems, including but not limited to organised criminal activities.
...
Rights holders must continue to take responsibility for the exercise and protection of their rights and to educate and guide consumers.

and:

“Copying should be lawful where it is for private purposes, or does not damage the underlying aims of copyright…”

... but it's not all bad:

... In order to minimise the risk of the system being disrupted by vexatious or non bona fide appeals, we are introducing a £20 fee for subscribers to appeal. The fee will be refunded if the appeal is successful.

Some posters here have strong opinions on who should pay for enforcement activity. They may find these links interesting reading:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...f_Costs_Sl.pdf

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...instrument.pdf

http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...redactions.pdf

[jackaleks]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

I don't pretend to know how alot of other governments work, &/or what their processes are. Heck, i've been studying our own government over the past decade.. and i'm still quite baffled at some of the things that go on and get over... I will say though, i like watching the UK's House of Parliments. It's quite passionate, informed, heated, entertaining all at once!

we've got two houses, the commons and the lords. the commons is made up of the elected MPs and is hilariously biased when it comes to debates... i've sat in on a session and politicians literally act like kids; pulling faces, making snide comments, chatting amonst themselves, sleeping. makes me proud of democracy

the lords is supposed to be impartial, made up of unelected candidates who are specialists in a particular field (economists, chemists, lawyers). these days it's mostly filled with MP's mates so that they can push through legislation easier. ironic that the 'democratic' elected side of Parliament is the part that corrupts the unelected part.

iirc, when the commons rushed through the Digital Economy Act in wash up the lords tried to block it because it's just a hashed out scrap of a law that was made to keep rights holders from whinging too loud and interrupting lunch time.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Intellectual Property Office - Independent Review of IP and Growth

Background to the Hargreaves review:

IPO: Should stand for Intellectual Property Obliteration • The Register