Open Wi-Fi 'outlawed' by Digital Economy Bill

Why are these minority copyright holders ruining it for for billions of others.
It seems everywhere in modern life minorities rule.
Copyright is not god given but parliament given & that's what needs to change first, to address this unequal balance of power.
Copyright holders do NOT own the Internet but are being allowed so to do.

Look you have all been making money by allowing thieving to be done on your networks and you don't care because it pulls in the punters for you but really your piggy backing on others rights to make a profit and just want no responsibility to what service you provide preferring to turn a blind eye all you want is no strings the profits,

Wake up if you want to supply a service then you have to run it properly and not allow it to be used illegally and then you will know if its a real business of just a way to make money from other peoples loss.

And its not outlawed its actually being made legal for those who respect a legal business model

Mark Ryder the copyright holders association shill. Please just go away. Your point is invalid, you sound like a fascist.

How can the pos for the wifi be held responsible for what the people inside it do, I bet your one of these people who think that pubs should also be charged because people can't handle their drink, how about laws which actually allow people self control.

Many years of Labour nanny state have removed the need for self control and put the onus on whoever decides to sell/distribute anything. This is not 1935 Germany and the police are not a gestapo organisation, here to enforce your unworkable laws.

I would also like to hear your idea on how this could be run "with a legal business model". If your trying to say you would block torrent traffic or other illegal traffic then your wrong as their are more than a few workarounds.

People like you (I really don't know why you choose to protect copyright holders) and ip copyholders themselves are a stifle for innovation, thank goodness theres still people like the first poster around because if it was only your protection racket buddies the world would be heading for a very slow period of innovation.

I don't understand. Sion Simon MP assured me that it's "still possible to have open networks whose settings protect the host from unlawful activity on the network":

http://twitter.com/sionsimon/status/5951557332

while acknowledging that some torrent activities are legal:

http://twitter.com/sionsimon/status/5951733756

Ah so you believe householders & local councils owning roads should be taken to court for allowing thieving to take place on such. What about car manufacturers having to vet all customers in case they use 'getaway cars.'
I guess not, you'd close the lot!

Copyright should involve responsibility to publish.

I've tried buying various items which the copyright holders refuse to sell. And yet cry 'loss' when downloaded, what loss?

In case you wonder I have very many copyrights which I've freely assigned once paid for the work.
I'm not idly sitting back living on past glory.
I've only once taken a company to court & won or at least they gave in just before the case, for using my work, which they commissioned, without paying.

I don't understand. Sion Simon MP assured me that it's "still possible to have open networks whose settings protect the host from unlawful activity on the network" (Twitter status 5951557332) while acknowledging that some torrent activities are legal (Twitter status 5951733756).

(I previously posted this comment with Twitter URLs, but they've been blocked by ZDNet)

recent history says otherwise.

The world is full of people wanting to protect their copyright while not having to do any work to achieve that. I really like the poster below who makes the mighty fine analogy with roads, because that is bang on the money. "A thief moved stolen property along a road that you own, why didn't you search his car or get his registration number?" It's just a ridiculous concept.

Work on laws that let people shut down foreign servers who host illegal content. Just because that is blummin' hard does not mean that people should be allowed to pursue the soft option of blaming people in this country just because illegal happenings passed through their network.

Where will it stop? If I get an email from the son of the Foreign Minister for Nigeria wanting my help to move several million dollars out of his country, can I sue my email provider for delivering the email, if I lose money to the con-men?

How can an organisation just supplying access be guilty of infringing IP? Surely only the person doing the infringing can be guilty. It is like saying BT is guilty for every crime one of it's land lines is used to organise.

Aaah that would be one of those classic cases of: "Ahh, but this law doesn't apply to you. I know the words cover you in their scope, but don't worry, that's not what it is for. It'll never be used that way."

The law covers what the words of the law say it covers. End of. Any MP who tries to say that it will never be applied in some benign case, is either incompetent or lazy. They either know full well that the law is, as usual these days, drafted in an extremely broad and sloppy manner and can't be bothered to get it fixed; or they really think that what they say to someone has even the merest hint of an effect on how it will be used once it is on the statute books.

Recent history is littered with such promises and subsequent stories about how that law has been applied entirely out of context from it's original intent once down in stone.

In one case, the *first *time the law was used in the South East of England was to do something that several MPs had promised on their lives would never happen.

If your MP says something like this, he is no longer worthy of your trust or respect.

Oh dear Andrew, you have slipped to No. 72 and your comments are always so pithy and accurate.

In the Sun last Saturday there was an article about the Dad who took his son to the mall and gave him a ride on a kiddy's train. Like any proud father (or any other proud relation) he went to take photo of his son. First comes the security guard, then the mall manager and finally the police. He couldn't 'prove it was his son', so it wasn't alright to take a photo (he might be a paedo) but he was still able to leave with his son after a heated confrontation.

Guess who won't go back to that mall.

The internet is supposed to be open and free yet due to people (mainly media companies) complaining about copyright infringement our government is messing everything up for everybody (whats new)!

I have not yet had one response back from media companies as to why they cannot install their own copyright protection at object level. E.g. using MS RMS you can now protect word documents etc. however, they are distributed...why can't media companies and the like incorporate this type of protection...I say its greed and a business model thats too out-dated for todays society.

Too bad the government are weak and do things for big companies (who probably donate to them) instead of looking after the tax payers.

Mark makes no valid point what so ever. Why don't companies apply suitable protection to things they release (knowing full well the world we live in)?

Copyright holders that don't apply protection are asking for trouble and shouldn't be allowed to complain unless they are implementing suitable safeguards in the first place.

Not applying protection is like driving your car into a rough neighbourhood and leaving it with all doors open, the keys in the ignition and the engine running...and then being suprised when it gets stolen.

If you loose your credit card you have to prove that you weren't an idiot with regards protecting your pin etc.

Who is naive enough to release something onto the web etc. and not include protection!!! Oh yes thats right...copyright holders.

Recent Government research has shown that practically all violent criminals, trrrrrsts, paedophiles, drug pushers and even MPs, were aided in their criminal activities by the use of clothes. It is therefore the opinion of this government that in order to hamper the efforts of these people that the use of clothes should outlawed. If anyone has an issue with this, just bear in mind that if only one child is saved from harm, it will have been worth it and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Dont uses cars and roads and clothes? as examples of an argument ?and think your being clever?. Come on you are just making your self-sound ridiculous. We

We all have responsibilities and if you want to provide access to the world you have a responsibility to stay in the law so wake up this is what the LAW is saying and you might moan about people who have to lock their cars well internet providers have to lock their business also from thieves even if those thieves are stealing something else but using their service to do it!

yes you should lock your car also to stop thieves no matter what they want to steal your car for ..

So the internet needs to not be a free access to stealing it needs also to have checks and balances on who is using your servers thats a common sense business approach but currently no one wants that because no doubt you are all stealing online music films and god knows what else?

The law is being put in because there needs to be a law ( set of fair rules to guide) this is not a free state online or off line people have to BUY their cloths ( and they can not run around naked because there is a LAW against it and people have to PAY to drive on the roads (car tax) and BUY their car (and pass their test before they can use it on the roads) . And even then there are LAWS telling them what is acceptable thats why we have police. And once this law is in place then with a LAW the providers can be policed and be alowed to run a fair business that does not include allowing thieves to use their networks for illegal activity.

Make an argument thats got some substance people
We live by laws and currently there needs to be some to protect us from those thieving losers who don't want to pay for anything and if your providing the access you need to also provide some security

Where most of these large company's where all found to be infringing on other's copy rights, one rule for them another for the rest of us, the only reason why government ministers are carry this crap forward is plain and simple because they have being bought.

Fonero and BT supply an open wifi access router to plug into your broadband called FON. EVERYONE should obtain one ASAP. Let them then sue 7-8 million people. Ridiculous laws can be brought down. History is full of inspiration.
Also these laws are so out of kilter with modern technology we now see freeview boxes with usb recorders in Tesco for instance. Attacking You Tube is a nonsense as you can download music vids from other sources now. These people are puting an ignorant finger in the hole in the dyke and must surely be overwhelmed.. very similar overractions occurred with photocopying in libraries....now where was that article on ssh tunneling and overseas vpn,s....
now Italy and China showed that filtering out specific sites on the web is impossible and Sweden and Netherlands have found it impossible to extinguish a modus operandi that is socially acceptable. stable door is well open in this scenario.

So, Mark Ryder, you think that arguments about cars and clothes are silly...

let's stick to communications, shall we.

If I post copied DVDs to my friends, would you expect Royal Mail to be prosecuted for transporting the stolen copyrighted material to their homes?

If I set up a telephone conference call and invited a group of 10 friends to dial in, then proceeded to play Robbie William's "angels", would you expect British Telecom to be prosecuted for carrying the voice signal to each of their homes?

This legislation is a bleak and terrible thing which wide reaching implications for our civil rights and freedoms... and bimbo cheerleaders like you have helped it all along. You are helping to kill freedom in this country. happy yet?

It's a bit like removing the burglar alarm on my house because I EXPECT the police to stop anyone from unlawfully entering because it it their responsibility. Mmm....SIMPLE!
Amanda
www.letsgowifi.co.uk

Mark - it is up to the music industry to put their own security measures in place, NOT the ISP's - exactly the same reason I have a burglar alarm on my house. I don't hold the police responsible should someone break in. Surely you can see the logic here? Amanda, Ormskirk

Parents who are not systems administrators and who have one or more children between the ages of 14 and 24 will be the demographic that this crazy Bill punishes the most - myself being one of them.

I'm giving serious consideration to having my Internet connection voluntarily shutdown before the US style litigation begins over here (in America a third of the music industry's revenue is generated from litigation).

anyone sensible running a wi-fi hotspot blocks P2P already as it eats all the bandwidth

I know this is late but

I understand what your saying mark
"and people have to PAY to drive on the roads (car tax) and BUY their car"
But even though people pay, they still do illigal things on the road, and the road owners or providers dont get fined.
Should be the same with the internet
I PAYED for my internet connection (same as your road tax) and PAYED for my computer (buying a car) so i should use the internet how i want without it being taken away. If i drink and drive, the road isnt taken away from me, i can still use and access it.