Haha. Do you think I deserve loosing my internet because I refuse to pay in some circumstances around £12 for an album?

 

 

Well you should shop around. No-one should pay £12 for a CD album. I never pay more than £8.99 and very often less than that.

BT and TalkTalk granted judicial review of Digital Economy Act

 

BT and TalkTalk today won the right to a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act, throwing controversial government proposals to tackle illegal filesharing into uncertainty.

 

BT and TalkTalk, two of the UK's largest broadband providers, mounted their legal challenge to the Digital Economy Act in July, warning that it could infringe internet users' "basic rights and freedoms" and was given "insufficient scrutiny" in parliament.

 

Both broadband providers will now be granted a review of the act at the high court to clarify whether it conflicts with existing EU legislation.

 

The high court hearing on the judicial review is expected to take place in February 2011.

 

The judge, Mr Justice Hickinbottom, ruled that BT and TalkTalk have grounds for a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act on three of the four contested points.

 

These are whether the government gave the European Commission enough notice to properly scrutinise the legislation, whether the act complies with existing EU legislation on data protection and privacy, and whether it is compatible with existing EU legislation on e-commerce.

 

The fourth point is understood to relate to "proportionality" – described as a mixture of EU free movement law and laws on human rights. Hickinbottom is expected to announce his decision on Friday.

 

Andrew Heaney, the TalkTalk executive director of strategy and regulation, said the act "was rushed through parliament" in the dying days of the Labour administration in April with only 6% of MPs attending the brief debate and "has very serious flaws".

 

"The provisions to try to reduce illegal filesharing are unfair, won't work and will potentially result in millions of innocent customers who have broken no law suffering and having their privacy invaded," Heaney added.

 

He said the high court hearing would "properly assess whether the act is legal and justifiable", ensuring "all parties have certainty on the law before proceeding".

 

A BT spokeswoman said: "It is important for everyone involved – copyright owners, consumers, ISPs and institutions like libraries and universities – to have certainty on the law before proceeding."

 

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "The government believes the Digital Economy Act is consistent with EU legislation and contains sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of consumers and internet service providers.

 

"The Digital Economy Act sets out to protect our creative economy from the threat of online copyright infringement, which industry estimates costs them £400m a year."

 

TalkTalk has been fiercely critical of the act's measures for tackling illicit filesharing since the launch of the Digital Britain white paper in June 2009. The broadband provider's "Don't Disconnect Us" petition against the so-called "three strikes rule" gained support from tens of thousands of signatories, including Stephen Fry and Alan Davies.

 

A number of MPs and pressure groups voiced concern following the controversial bill being given royal assent in April after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

 

The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said at the time that the act "badly needs to be repealed and the issues revisited".

 

The Lib Dems later said that they would "take it off the statute book and replace with something better".

 

However, in July the coalition government said it had no plans to repeal the act.

 

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the UK music industry trade body, said BT and TalkTalk's legal challenge against the act is "misconceived and will fail".

 

A controversial amendment to the draft bill was drafted by the BPI in April, allowing the government to block sites such as YouTube without due judicial process.

 

A spokesman for the BPI said: "Parliament enacted the Digital Economy Act to encourage innovation on the internet and to protect jobs in the creative industries, which are a key area of growth for the economy. It's disappointing that a couple of ISPs are trying to frustrate this and resist any action being taken to reduce illegal filesharing on their networks."

 

However, Jim Killock, the executive director of internet freedom organisation the Open Rights Group, welcomed the judicial review of the "legal mess caused by the Digital Economy Act".

 

"The act is being challenged on grounds including privacy and human rights. It is unworkable, and needs to be scrapped," Killock said.

 

Communications regulator Ofcom, which was ordered to draw up a code of practice for tackling illegal downloading under the Digital Economy Act, is understood to be in finalising its proposals.

 

An announcement on the Ofcom code of practice is expected in the next few weeks, following the draft version put forward in May.

 

Under the draft proposals, internet service providers with more than 400,000 subscribers will start collecting the details of customers suspected of sharing copyrighted content next year, in order to send them warning letters.

 

Any internet user who receives three warning letters in the space of 12 months will have their personal details handed over to rights owners so they can be sued. ISPs will be compelled to suspend the internet connection of persistent offenders.

 

Robert Hammond, the head of digital communications at Consumer Focus, said the decision meant the act will now be given "much-needed extra scrutiny".

 

"While the judicial review is ongoing, the government should take the opportunity to reconsider whether the act is the best way to encourage the use of legal online music and film services," he said.

 

thank f*** this is happening, the DE Act really showed how curropt politics is, i hope BT and TalkTalk are successful.

The BPI and DE Act disgust me to my very core

BT and Talk Talk still haven't given up! From Torrentfreak dated Oct 7th 2011:

 

 

BT / TalkTalk Obtain Permission To Appeal Digital Economy Act Judicial Review

 

 

 

Two UK ISPs have obtained permission to appeal a High Court judicial review of the country’s Digital Economy Act.

 

The ruling, in favor of ISPs BT and TalkTalk, comes this morning from the Court of Appeal.

 

The ISPs, who believe that the legislation impinges on the rights of Internet users, lost a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act back in April, but pressed on with their legal challenge.

 

In June this year, BT and TalkTalk were refused permission to appeal that decision.

 

In a comment the Open Rights Group described today’s decision from the Court of Appeal as “excellent news.”

BT and Talk Talk still haven't given up! From Torrentfreak dated Oct 7th 2011:

BT / TalkTalk Obtain Permission To Appeal Digital Economy Act Judicial Review

Two UK ISPs have obtained permission to appeal a High Court judicial review of the country’s Digital Economy Act.

 

The ruling, in favor of ISPs BT and TalkTalk, comes this morning from the Court of Appeal.

 

The ISPs, who believe that the legislation impinges on the rights of Internet users, lost a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act back in April, but pressed on with their legal challenge.

 

In June this year, BT and TalkTalk were refused permission to appeal that decision.

 

In a comment the Open Rights Group described today’s decision from the Court of Appeal as “excellent news.”

 

Weren't the Fib Dems supposed to be getting rid of this bill.....?

 

Oh, of course, that would be before the "Coalishun Agreement" when they actually had principles...... -_-

Weren't the Fib Dems supposed to be getting rid of this bill.....?

 

Oh, of course, that would be before the "Coalishun Agreement" when they actually had principles...... -_-

Tim Clement-Jones (a Libe Dem peer) has been working and campaigning on this since before the election.

 

As for your main point, you are as bad as some Tories. The Lib Dems did not win the election. They came third. Therefore, they cannot enact every dot and comma of their manifesto.

Tim Clement-Jones (a Libe Dem peer) has been working and campaigning on this since before the election.

 

As for your main point, you are as bad as some Tories. The Lib Dems did not win the election. They came third. Therefore, they cannot enact every dot and comma of their manifesto.

 

The Govt cant function without their support though, therefore they should be pushing a lot more... They sold the young generation out with tuition fees (which WAS an election pledge) and the scrapping of EMA grant, and pussied out on the PR referendum and gave us a vote on the wretched AV system instead (PR has been a pledge of the Lib Dems for about the past several decades since their inception, so they're basically going back on one of their founding principles....). Every time you hear the likes of Clegg, Cable, Alexander and Huhne they sound more and more like Tories.. They are a set of turncoats and traitors, end of story.... No one likes a Tory, but people like a sell-out wimp like Clegg even less....

I'm sure Clegg et al would've gladly had a PR referendum, but they couldn't exactly get their own way on that!

I'm sure Clegg et al would've gladly had a PR referendum, but they couldn't exactly get their own way on that!

Precisely. There was no way that Clegg could have insisted on a referendum on anything other than AV.

 

The whole tuition fees saga was very badly handled. Lib Dem candidates should not have signed the pledge (David Steel was always fond of saying "You should never say never"). Coalition government means having to renege on some manifesto commitments (a concept some people still seem to find hard to grasp). It is rather more difficult to explain why you have not honoured a personal commitment.

I'm sure Clegg et al would've gladly had a PR referendum, but they couldn't exactly get their own way on that!

 

 

Nahh, I just dont buy that, he didn't push hard enough for it and just jumped very hastily at a pathetic compromise which nobody in the country liked (or even really undestood)... And look what happened, an absolute disaster and I seriously doubt we'll ever have a referendum on voting reform again in our lifetime... Cheers Nick. You c'unt..... <_<

Precisely. There was no way that Clegg could have insisted on a referendum on anything other than AV.

 

The whole tuition fees saga was very badly handled. Lib Dem candidates should not have signed the pledge (David Steel was always fond of saying "You should never say never"). Coalition government means having to renege on some manifesto commitments (a concept some people still seem to find hard to grasp). It is rather more difficult to explain why you have not honoured a personal commitment.

 

No, Suede, I get "Coalitions", but as Bill Hicks would probably say "A Coalition is when you have TWO parties making decisions".... Germany has a real Coalition, for example, what we have is a joke... And selling out the single most fundamental principle of your party's whole ideology is not merely "reneging on a manifesto commitment", it's a betrayal of everything the Liberal Democrats ever stood for.... No one will EVER vote for these clowns again.... And why should they...?

No, Suede, I get "Coalitions", but as Bill Hicks would probably say "A Coalition is when you have TWO parties making decisions".... Germany has a real Coalition, for example, what we have is a joke... And selling out the single most fundamental principle of your party's whole ideology is not merely "reneging on a manifesto commitment", it's a betrayal of everything the Liberal Democrats ever stood for.... No one will EVER vote for these clowns again.... And why should they...?

Plenty of people have done in local byelections every week.

 

There are two major differences between the UK and Germany. Germany are used to having coalitions. Not only are the electorate used to that, the parties are as well so they are more used to the negotiation process. German elections also generally deliver a result with more than one plausible coalition.

 

That brings me to the second point. I am sure the Lib Dems were expecting a hung parliament - I know I was. However, i suspect they had anticipated a result which would have left the possibility of a deal with Labour as well as the Tories and with more Lib Dem seats than in the last parliament. They were caught unawares by the result and, I suspect, were also surprised when Cameron publicly offered a coalition on the Friday morning. That was a smart strategic move by Cameron (which means he won't have thought of it himself) which put the Tories firmly in the driving seat.

 

Oh, and it's not "my party". I am no longer a member.

Nahh, I just dont buy that, he didn't push hard enough for it and just jumped very hastily at a pathetic compromise which nobody in the country liked (or even really undestood)... And look what happened, an absolute disaster and I seriously doubt we'll ever have a referendum on voting reform again in our lifetime... Cheers Nick. You c'unt..... <_>

If people didn't understand AV there's not much chance of them understanding STV. The Yes campaign in the referendum was very poor (although at least it was mostly honest which is more than can be said of the No campaign). Too much of the argument was more relevant to STV than AV which meant it became rather confused.

 

There is no way Clegg could have made a referendum on STV an essential part of the Coalition Agreement any more than Cameron could insist on a cut in Inheritance Tax as a top priority. How do you think the other parties would have portrayed the Lib Dems if that had happened? There would have been a fresh election within months with both Labour and Tories saying that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for instability and that they had turned down the chance of a place in government for the sake of their "pet project" which most people don't care about.

 

If the economy had been in a healthy state, the Lib Dems may have been in a better position to stand firm on STV. However, with an economy in deep shit, they would have looked ridiculous.

Plenty of people have done in local byelections every week.

 

There are two major differences between the UK and Germany. Germany are used to having coalitions. Not only are the electorate used to that, the parties are as well so they are more used to the negotiation process. German elections also generally deliver a result with more than one plausible coalition.

 

That brings me to the second point. I am sure the Lib Dems were expecting a hung parliament - I know I was. However, i suspect they had anticipated a result which would have left the possibility of a deal with Labour as well as the Tories and with more Lib Dem seats than in the last parliament. They were caught unawares by the result and, I suspect, were also surprised when Cameron publicly offered a coalition on the Friday morning. That was a smart strategic move by Cameron (which means he won't have thought of it himself) which put the Tories firmly in the driving seat.

 

Oh, and it's not "my party". I am no longer a member.

 

Well, if they were expecting a Hung Parliament, why were they making promises and pledges about tuition fees anyway...? Did they think f**king Nu Labour were going to do away with them, seeing as how they were the party who introduced them in the first place...? PMSL.... Westminster Labour is nothing like Scottish Labour, the Lib/Lab pact was a fairly good fit in the Scottish Parliament (until Wendy Alexander messed things up), it maybe wouldn't really have been so in Westminster so much...

 

I'm sorry, but just saying "the Germans are more used to Coalitions" is no real argument... Perhaps we need to be more like Germany in that case then, at least their economy seems to be doing fairly alright, despite having the pressure of bailing out Greece....

 

I wish we were more like Germany in many ways. However, I can't see that argument going down very will with most of our press.

 

I've already said that the tuitions fee pledge was a mistake. The manifesto commitment was fine. After all, a manifesto is about what the party would do if they formed a majority government.

 

The political commentators covered the last election in the same way as previous elections, as if the only possible outcomes were a Tory majority or a Labour majority. They should have entertained the possibility (or likelihood) of a hung parliament. That should have meant that all three parties were asked which of their policies would be priorities in the event of a coalition being formed. That's why it is relevant to say that the Germans are used to coalition government.