Banned from the net?

[Dragonfly]

Seen this when I was signing into my emails.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080212/ten-entertainment-britain-internet-film-a56114e_1.html

[gadfium]

Hilarious. Another fantastic idea from HMG.

How the hell do you police something like that?? They ban you from having ADSL? OK, I'll use dial up.
They ban you from using a PSTN line? OK, I'll use Wifi.
They ban you for holding an Openzone/The Cloud account? OK, I'll buy a pay-as-you-go Openzone scratch card...or more likely I'll just leech bandwidth off a neighbour's unsecured wireless router.
They ban you from having a PC? OK, I'll use a mobile/internet cafe.

The only way this will work is if they make you live in a damn cave up the side of a Scottish mountain (even then, I bet that you will get some sort of signal).

This is nothing but standard bullsh1t generated by uninformed politicians/scaremongerers. FFS, cities like Manchester, Birmingham, London, Liverpool are trying to Wifi enable the whole cities.....how the hell can they stop access?

Dumb asses!

<rant over>
____________________
Those who risk nothing, do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing.

[SoND]

They're not going to stop until the internet is under their control and censored appropriately.

www.savetheinternet.com

[Kris]

This is one of many excuses (others include paedo activity / trrrrsts etc ) they will use to bring in Internet 2, a restricted service using China's internet as the model. China's web service is the one where you can't access any site that criticises the 'state' or 'authorities'.

Further reading for those interested....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/18/nxeno18.xml

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/11/euro_thought_police_criminalize_impure/

They don't give a monkey's about films being copied Look at the bigger picture and the finer details of the legislation they pass...
____________________
NSR125RR - ZXR750H1 - ZX9R E1 - GSF600S - GSF600SK3 - VFR400-NC30 - SV1000N - ST1100-R - CBR900RR-R - GSF1200SK5 - GSF600SK1 - VFR1200FA - GSXR1000K2 - ZZR1400 D8F
www.prisonplanet.com

[Phil.]

I can't see them pulling this one off myself, seems a complete breach of the DPA. Even if they do make it possible for ISP to packet sniff they would need to know the checksums for ALL the copyrighted stuff in existence as reference, Which is easy enough to change.

Employ some eyes to monitor users traffic? Higher internet prices to catch and make example of casual pirates.

Lets say your network is open and all kinds of stuff has been downloaded through your IP. Debating one of these emails will end up a common experiance, there will need to be a massive number of people handling these cases and who would pay for all this? Would the ISPs really want to cut off the majority of their subscribers? Would cutting people off the internet really encourage them to legally buy a dvd or would they just buy a copied dvd instead.

The whole idea is flawed from every way i look at it. I hope someone can on here can come with some positives for this idea because im completely subjective on this.

[Dom]

I totally agree with SummY. Seems to me that politicians are pulling this out of the air with no regard to its feasibility (imagine that!). The infrastructure required would be immense, and if ISPs had to foot the bill then I can imagine broadband prices skyrocketing. I can't see it happening.

Anyway, £2.50 extra a month to add SSL to my usenet account should do the trick.
____________________
Photos and that

[Kris]

[Dom]

[lllN30lll]

it's all bollocks.


all ISP's had the same part in their terms and condition about downloading ilegal content blah blah blah.

but nothing ever gets done about it, and it never will.


you reckon ISP's will cancel cutomers accounts? or do you reckon they'll keep them because of the money.
____________________
Turbo R1
CRF450R

[V2]

[Itchy]

They wanna go via Singapore/China route,

Also they will employ 100000s of people in offices to spy on people , which should reduce the unemployment stats a fair whack.

On top of this , a big company has given a fat brive to certain ministers which means they are pushing it through on their own interest.


David Blunkett is the classic example he was super pro ID cards as the company he is a director or and or holds a ton of shares in , was to be chosen as the provider,
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.

[Dom]

[Itchy]

[V2]

The point i was trying to make is all of those "someones who didnt consider the smoking ban to be a particularly Bad Thing" lets see if you "dont consider it to be a particularly Bad Thing" as the government ban more and more things that you do/like doing and all of your freedoms just melt away into the ether.

Also you are forgetting:-

The smoking ban pissed off a lot of people.

I bet all of those peak time adverts and campaigns and signs didnt come for free.

And the impact on economy, ive seen 2 of our locals close since the ban came in.

It was more a general post on our new 'ban culture' and im just thinking 'What next?' and when are we going to say 'Fuck off Brown you have gone too far'

[Phil.]

Smoking ban i wasn't best happy with (even though i don't smoke) for the same reasons mentioned, let proprietors and people decide these things. But i think it can be justified when you look at the Stats on smoking related illnesses. In the long run it costs tax payers a fortune to treat the effects of smoking so to cut smoking now will save billions upon billions in the future 'if' smoking is reduced. So fair enough that's in the governments best interests i can accept it.

Congestion charges i also wasn't pleased about hearing, even more so when it was suggested for Manchester. But i don't know sod all about that.. What effect did it have on Businesses in London?

These proposals are not to benefit public health, will not reduce organised crime, i can't think of anyone this will benefit other than the media distributors.

I see the bigger problem being the lack of good, fairly priced legal services out there for films and music. iTunes is a rip off when you take into account all their overheads are bandwidth costs and where can you go download a movie in the UK? Lovefilm.com are going to start the service soon but that will be full of DRM and no mention of how much it will cost. Meanwhile there are loads of ways to get streaming good quality films so there's already alot of Differential Reinforcement / Association [Deviant Behaviour: A Social Learning Approach - R. Akers 1977] at work there. It will be MP3's all over again and the government want to put a stop on it now by reinforcing the definition that pirating is bad (Also Akers theory).

There are so many incentives for consumers to buy physical media still, you can legally rip a CD and put it on your mp3 player or you can easily play the CD in any player and not worry about DRM. The price is about the same but bonus is you can legally sell the CD. Personally i wont get in the car and go buy a CD or wait for one to come in the post because i don't have a CD player. I wont buy MP3s online because i feel there's less value to them compared to CD's. Also while the industry was worried about putting their music online less it be stolen/ wanting as much money as they could get or just happy with the way things were, myself and millions of others were using napster and thought, wow this is so easy...

So it's time they caught up to the consumer driven piracy with some good cheap alternatives if they want MY money.

If this new law really goes through i expect it will be another one of those illegal things that is easy to get away with; change the checksum, split the rar and encrypt it.

[Didge]

[Phil.]

[Itchy]

[Phil.]

Good points, yet are you surprised they sometimes look out for the best interests of the population rather than what it will all cost?

Comparing a nation wide ban on cigs to a nationwide fast food advertisement ban which will be phased in this year to all programs aged at under 16s. I assume this ban, however it's negative effects to a free economy may be, is in the best interest of the people. Would you really want our kids to be as fat as American kids or try and stop the influence TV has on some families?

Even if the country can afford to treat pre pension people on the NHS for smoking / obesity illnesses, there will be a hell of alot of businesses paying sick pay, or will have to manage their illness. So i'm going on a limb and saying a healthier population is a more productive one.