UK MPs Questioning Digital Economy Act: IP Address Does Not Identify Individual
from the oh,-now-they-notice? dept
We all know how the UK Parliament rushed through the Digital Economy Act with little debate (and few votes), and it appears that some MPs are finally realizing just how problematic the law is. Apparently MP Julian Huppert gave an interview where he claims that the Digital Economy Act "is deeply worrying." He's specifically concerned about the idea of kicking people offline, saying that the "blocking and disconnection issues" are part of what's so worrying. He's also quite concerned with the misguided idea that an IP address automatically identifies an individual:"Firstly, there are people hacking into Wi-Fi -- what will the consequences be for open Wi-Fi? What do you do about a cafe that gives it away free? Realistically, they can't know what someone is doing on it," he says. "This may not be an issue though, as the latest proposals seems to suggest they'll be exempted if they're not too big. But it's the idea that you can simply identify who it is that's wrong."It's great to see such concerns get attention, but will Parliament actually do anything?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, digital economy act, ip addresses, julian huppert, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/23/digital-economy-bill-commons-debate
But none of these are really the right objections.
When they should be questioning the role of trademark, patent and copyright, they are debating the finer points of how to keep them as they are, without upsetting the average citizen too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ip addresses
Does the fact that this might be possible provide reasonable doubt in law? The IP address would still be tracked to the router doing the downloading but person owning the PC would be completely innocent - in fact a wronged party because someone would have stolen his bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ip addresses
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
if you go through a proxy you are given an ip address, who's to say it wont be your one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ip addresses
and who's to say it will be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ip addresses
May? Absolutely, and if it happens, you'll have no idea until you start getting warnings or cut off by your ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ip addresses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police state
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/vaizey_dea/
guilty until proven innocent and only if you can pay for your legal representation. it also may be worth noting that the appeals panel are to be paid for, and hand picked by the media industry. what the media industry want to avoid is our legal system, as there are already laws in place to deal with copywrite infringement but they dont want to pick up the bill, they want as they are getting the tax payer to foot the bill which is why they have continually tried to turn a civil matter into a criminal one.
the corporations/government, as they are one in the same, have effectively rewritten our rights on, guilty until proven innocent and we have the right to be judged by 12 of our peers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course not, when it is harming the public there is no need to do anything.
People not in the 1% top income bracket are not human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are the corporations behind the bill, the MPAA RIAA
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:
# Sony BMG
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
And these companies are all owned by these few, these are the companies that dictate our culture by promoting theirs & blocking indie artists:
# BMG (sony)
# Time Warner
# Viacom
# News Corp (Fox)
====================================================================
If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
police state
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/21/mpaa-actas-censoring.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: police state
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/21/mpaa-actas-censoring.html
Heh. You do realize the source for that BB post is a Techdirt post? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, they'll do something: BIG increment of "Real ID".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Julian Huppert is a new MP (since the 2010 election). He is also a Lib Dem backbencher (i.e. not part of the government) so can say what he likes without the burden of "collective responsibility" that falls on government ministers. Currently the best way to get change in government policy on DEA is to ensure that Lib Dem backbenchers articulate party policy on it, and get them to influence the Lib Dems in the government to move the government policy towards opposition to the DEA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple People Behind One IP Address
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small Point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]