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.

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.

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:

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.

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.