Off-topic chat. May contain offensive language or images.

How did your MP vote on the Digital Economy Bill?

Voted for
2
29%
Voted against
No votes
0%
Didn't bother to vote
5
71%
#408965
As we are talking politics now its election time...thought I'd post this nice website someone showed me a few weeks ago. Basically go to this address: http://www.votethemout.co.uk/ type in your postcode, then tell us the result!

My result is...My MP Andrew Robathan didn't vote on #debill.

I think the website is also a disturbing reminder of how politicians usually only show up at parliament to vote on things in their own interest or when its mandatory!
#408966
I happen to know that mine didn't because I emailed him about it a few weeks ago and I got a response back in which he gave his views on it.

If you happen to to be in an area in which one of their 10 candidates are being fielded, it may be a good idea to look into The Pirate Party, who are planning to fight the Digital Economy Bill.
#408970
The Digital Economy Bill is basically legislation the government wants to make Law focused on illegal downloading etc. It's controversial though as the government is calling for internet service providers to cut off the connection of people accused of illegally downloading/file sharing. It also got rushed through parliament quite quickly, and they added 'amendments' which people worry may be open to abuse. The main concerns is that dodgy law firms might threaten innocent people with closure orders simply hoping they will pay up, and also that the government might use the broad 'amendments' to the bill to give it the power to close down websites it objects to, like Wikileaks.

To sum up...its a freedom of information thing, people are worried the government may be trying to push through 'Big Brother' legislation under the guise of protecting music/film/TV from piracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010
#408972
English Bob wrote:The main concerns is that dodgy law firms might threaten innocent people with closure orders simply hoping they will pay up


That was already the case. What the bill does it make it far easier to do so because you don't have to prove the person you're suing is the one that downloaded the materials, just that they provided the Internet access, and there is no presumptive innocence (you get cut off and then you have to go to court if you want to get back on). This is particular worrying when it comes to open WiFi points like at coffee shops and libraries.

The bill also gives powers to the copyright holders to force the ISPs to cut-off Internet access to the alleged copyright infringers as well as making the ISPs pay for the pleasure of doing so - they have to pay 25% of the costs the copyright holders incur in finding the infringers.