Pretty fucked up news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... rd-reading

Yea, I've been following that bill, actually. It's one of the many ways in which Britain's government is actually more fascist than the US government. Democracy? Hardly. A government by the corporations, for the corporations. Ultimately, power is still held by the masses, but only if they get pissed off enough to turn off the tv and get up off the couch.

*sigh*

Too many coulds and mights in there. For a regular Joe nothing much changes. Nothing can stop the porn.

You should give Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" a read. It's got a pretty leftist slant which may not be entirely to your likings, but it's a scary vision of corporations blending in with the state, enriching the rich and creating (in the long-term) a class based society. It's very well researched and extremely frightening. The first part of the book focuses mostly on the US-supported installation of many S-American regimes (and economic policies) and the subsequent imposition of ultraliberal free market rules on nations like Russia and S Africa, but the last part is about the pathology of the Iraq war and how the government outsourced insane contracts to big business to in fact do their job (crappily). Even the army is nothing but a shell of what it used to be, operating in facilities set up by contractors and using mercenaries to do jobs that used to be their turf. Those big businesses include top ranking members of the government on their boards and as major stockholders, making it a lucrative transaction for both parties.

It ends with the complete hollowing out of government and humongous (tax dollar) contracts being paid out to external companies which are effectively training shadow armies and more or less setting up a shadow state for the 'chosen'. (this isn't her wording, it's mine) Brilliant book, totally recommended.

@ Peltz: To me, the fact that it's vague with many mights and coulds is exactly what is scary about this bill. The British government can effectively bar a citizen from having access to the internet at home based on their 'intent'. That's a really really slippery slope...

Yea, well you know its like squeezing water. The harder you squeeze the more of it escapes. Besides the interest here is not to limit a law abiding citizens options, for instance if someone downloads porn for personal use they are pretty much invisible to the government. Its the illegal dealers that are the problem since no tax income is generated which would go into pevs pension funds .

The problem here is not limited to torrents only. Lately ive heard on the news that our government has taken steps to block access to internet casinos and poker websites. And i cant blame them. Basically they operate outside the law which creates a legal vacuum and the justified question of how are the companies submitted to law supposed to compete with these since they aren't playing on a fair ground.

The idea is Ox that the cost of going after a single porn addict is too high whereas the government will go to extensive lengths to protect their tax income.

I understand what you're saying and I think that the law will probably be used as such, but for me it's just scary that, the way it is worded now, it could be used to pwn the solitary John Porn Downloader Smith. I wholeheartedly support the fight against the people who profit (dealers, crackers, people who offer illegal software/goods) instead of against their customers. But this law seems to overshoot that.

As for online casino's and poker sites and whatnot...on the one hand I know that they're rigged and money sinkholes and operating in questionable legal space, on the other I think people should be able to decide for themselves if they frequent these sites or not. I don't really know where to draw the line between protecting people from themselves and allowing them to choose for themselves (even if it's an incredibly dumb choice). I mean where would it end? Ban the lotteries? They may not be rigged, but they are equally unlikely to yield profits vs investments. So I dunno.

Yes but a local bricks and mortar casino is subjected to gambling tax and "insert random tax here which is used by the government to compensate the reduction of other taxes." The online non-registered casinos are not hence they can offer the service at a lower cost. Even if the local casino were to open a web-based casino they would still be subjected to the tax.

In every European legislation there is some kind of term about equal treatment principle. And currently lots of countries cant uphold that and if i were a owner of a casino-like establishment i could take this matter to the EU court and file for compensation based on unfair competition. And the gambling tax is one of the cores of the tax mechanism so they will use the biggest hammer possible at first and then sort out the single case scenarios later.

Either way, you are worrying about something that is only of a marginal importance from the governments point of view. And even if they block some torrent site, well so what, we were supposed to pay for that in the first place and it was fun while it lasted. Pay for it and move on.

Fair enough @ the casinos. From a tax perspective it makes sense to shut them down.

As for the law...yes, obviously, I'm not saying that piracy should be allowed to run rampant. But that argument is kinda like the "if you're doing nothing wrong you shouldn't be worried about these cameras on every street corner" way of thinking that leads to scary consequences.

I buy my games and movies and don't torrent them, so I'm not personally opposed to the law being used to shut down torrent sites (for example). But the law is much broader than that.



What is an 'activity that infringes copyright?' exactly? Yes, blatant piracy fall under this, but so do a lot of other things that are in much more of a grey zone than that. The internet is in fact almost an entirely grey zone legally speaking, what with image linking and online resources like wikipedia (which heavily borrow from copyrighted materials). You could also shut down youtube because it is constantly breaching copyrights left and right. And what is 'likely to be used'? Who determines who is likely to breach copyrights, and by what measure?

Say what you will, but it's a very scary law. I don't think it's likely to be used in the far-reaching ways I just highlighted, but I'm just saying that it's so vague and broad that it could effectively be used to ban almost anyone or any site from the web in the UK. And that's just fucked up.

The main reasons that this bill purportedly addresses aren't even really valid governmental concerns.

1. Copyright enforcement. This isn't a government's job, enforcing private entity copyrights. It's a government's job to register them, but enforcement is left to the copyright holder and the courts. Suing all your customers is the 'proper' way to handle that, though we know that's a ridiculous way to go about it. In the end, the government is supposed to be a manifestation of the will of the people. If a large percentage of the population violates copyright on a daily basis (and they do), then there's something wrong with copyright. The government shouldn't be trying to shore up business profits, they should be looking at what's wrong with copyright. There may be 'dealers' that profiteer from violation of copyright, but that requires customers. The same argument can go for drugs. If a sizable portion of your populace does drugs even though it's illegal, perhaps you should revisit your laws.

2. Banning online casinos. Why? A brick and mortar casino isn't about just gambling. It's about the whole experience. An online casino doesn't have hot waitresses and amiable dealers. It doesn't serve cheap/free booze in a never-ending torrent and it doesn't include the same social aspects that are present in a real version. Rather than rely on the government to enforce a business model that the internet has made obsolete, the brick and mortar casinos need to figure out how to exploit their advantages to continue competing. The US has banned online casinos and the WTO has repeatedly slapped our hands. Not that it matters to the US, but if the WTO actually had teeth, it might make a difference.

Anyway, I'm a proponent of small government. This is another example of the government expanding their mandate. Government intervention is not needed in either of these cases. Additionally, this could be a doorway to a 3-strikes situation.. and how is it within anyone's right to say that if a citizen violates copyright law 3 times, they can never get on the internet again? In today's world, no internet is like not being allowed to watch tv or own a phone or read a newspaper.

Well, the British government at least knows what it's talking about:

Im guessing you were tired and didnt bother to read through the previous discussions so here goes. Currently the situation is that you and I compete on the same market but I don't pay taxes and you do. That is not fair on any standard i can think of. The role of the government is to ensure that the legal framework around businesses is the same for everyone. These casinos are not using a competitive advantage they are in fact breaking the law and therefor will suffer the consequences sooner or later. Its like playing poker only one of the players has a machine that prints out Ace cards on demand.




Again, you have to look at this from the tax point of view. Every item that can be sold is taxable either through Value Added Tax or Income tax down the road. The internet piracy in UK must have reached some kind of critical level where the lost tax money caused the government to intervene.

Regardless of this single law, the constitutional rights still apply to every human being, well at least in Europe and civilized countries, so theres always the opportunity to take the matter up with the supreme court.

I understand what you're saying about casinos, but I disagree. An online casino != a regular casino, in more than just taxes. They may offer the same general service, but they're two different business with two different business models. I think comparing the two as equivalent is a mistake. It's like comparing walmart to amazon, or ebay to a thrift store. There are resemblances, but they're not the same thing. Amazon doesn't pay sales taxes either, but you don't hear Walmart complaining about it. Besides, what's the point of sales taxes? It's to pay the local government for infrastructure costs, like roads and police and crap like that. There are no infrastructure costs for the internet, not one that the local government has to pay for, so why should they get income for it?

*shrug* I won't argue the point, because there's probably no convincing either of us. That's just my opinion. If you disagree, I respect it. Btw, I did read your rant, mostly.

Regarding copyright and taxes, the two aren't really related. I have copyright on all the text on clankiller.com, but I don't make a dime off of it. If someone copies my website and puts it on bittorrent, the UK government technically has the ability to kick anyone off the internet that's part of the bittorrent swarm. Hell, I need not even necessarily complain. But it's copyright infringement. I just don't think the government has any business meddling in that.

Two different models indeed but that is irrelevant since the law clearly dictates what is gambling. Below you will find the Estonian gambling cost:



Now one may argue that there are no physical slot machines and tables on the internet but that is debatable since gambling as an activity can take place regardless of place and space. Furthermore the slot machines in todays casinos are computer screens where virtual cards are dealt and wheels are spinned.



And gambling is subjected to tax, regardless if it is virtual or physical. And the government wants the money and takes the money. The law doesn't understand the concept of virtual and real and it doesn't need to. The internet casino falls under gambling taxation not because it is virtual or real, it falls under taxation because of the activity itself.


And who is going to pay for your pension

EDIT: btw, i do not defend the government, when i look at our politicians i am ashamed, vast majority of them are fat and arrogant and use their job resources for private stuff. However, when it comes down to the law, I do expect everyone to be fairly and equally treated regardless of their expertise and business model. We are discussing two different aspects of the same thing. I am trying to look at the problem from "what it really is" angle and you look at it from "how it is really done" perspective. So essentially we are not trying to convince wether i am right or you are right, rather we want to point out the different perspective here.

yea, I'll agree with you. Looking at it from a purely law perspective, I can see entirely your point and would agree. I think the laws are mistaken here, but that's just a point of view.