Digital Economy Bill, spiralling downwards.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by NewGenAdam, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. oscillatewildly macrumors 68000

    Jul 17, 2007
    23 Railway Cuttings
    A tad re audio quality, it was getting bad with increased compression, but picking DAB is less than half-arsed. They clearly don't give a monkey's about quality, nor the cost to the consumer; multiple purchases to get to the system they should, if they 'have' to go digital, employ from the start - DAB, then DAB with the ability to upgrade to DAB+, why not DAB+ from the beginning? DAB was already rejected by most of mainland Europe. The TV is no better; Freeview - standard picture worse than analogue, then a retune meaning older boxes lose stations - those affected buy a new tuner only to be told a short period later that Freeview HD is here. Again why not Freeview HD from the start?

    All before you get to file sharing.

  2. Queso Suspended

    Mar 4, 2006
    The nonsense with Freeview HD says it all. Why, when the rest of Europe has decided on MPEG4 over DVB-T for HDTV transmissions, does the UK decide to go with DVB-T2? All that achieves is everyone having to replace their existing Freeview equipment. It also means the replacements are far more expensive because the chipmakers don't have the same economies of scale on the components :rolleyes:
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4


    Nov 3, 2005
    The biggest flaw with the bill is that it wasn't discussed properly.

    For starters WEP is hackable with a legitimate download from Sourceforge and WPA isn't uncrackable.

    Alternatively you can use a proxy server, and one and/or the other can be built into torrent software.

    So unless the government is going to educate us all about that you should only use WPA2 for your wireless security (at the cost of hundreds of millions of money we could spend better) or ban proxy servers - both of which are basically not going to happen.

    So the law is really pretty outrageous, and its unlikely to stand up in court anyway.
  4. NewGenAdam thread starter macrumors 6502

    Jun 29, 2008
    It's unbelievably shoddy law. The Guardian's right that the "debate that was initially concerning because of the impositions it placed on internet users quickly became about the problems of the parliamentary process." One MP called p2p "person to person"; another worried that people might cause problems by not alerting their ISPs to a change of address etc etc... But profound problems still remain with these industries in Britain and around the world.

    "The record industry for one is no longer in the business of creating" and instead they're "tying artists into five-album contracts that can be traded between labels. Meanwhile, bands are sitting in garages, recording singles on their Macs, publishing their music on MySpace and selling albums for as much as people are prepared to pay ... the economics are slowly moving in favour of the artists, not the middle men."

    But, perhaps understandably, the industries want to protect themselves despite the evident costs to many. O2 have come off the fence in support of the public; in a statement they spoke up:

    "Some people vainly try to prop up the old system - like the Luddites who smashed up the mechanical looms during the industrial revolution – while others recognise that change is inevitable and adapt to a new model."
  5. ethical macrumors 68000

    Dec 22, 2007
    I've been following it loosely. I really don't like the fact it was voted in during the wash-up period! Way too important of a bill to be just skipped over, with only 2 hours of debate!
  6. NewGenAdam thread starter macrumors 6502

    Jun 29, 2008
    Exactly. It's an insult to the public, thousands of whom objected; it's also an insult to the Commons. Perhaps two dozen MPs were debating the Bill and almost knew what they were talking about. Then hundreds of MPs materialised out of nowhere to ignorantly force through the Bill. Downward pressure from the top of the Government. why?

Share This Page