I can't find the bill. I must be at the wrong end of the duck.
However, I have (easily) found the amendments, and it's a right carve-up. It's here, if you want to read it. And it's dull.
"Leave out Clause 18".
I think Clause 18 said "it is a criminal offence punishable by death and buggery, and not necessarily in that order, for anyone to knowingly, unknowingly, accidentally or otherwise, to take the piss out of a government minister especially Mandelweasel"
But it probably didn't. I have no idea. It's gone, anyway.
I don't agree with infringing copyright. I am by trade a programmer and I write software sometimes. I'd like to be an author; I occasionally write books but they're rubbish, mostly about talking haggises, but sometimes they are action thrillers with helicopters. Sadly they never have endings, because I can't do endings. Do feel free to ask if you want one, it will be a word document so I can email you it, then you can ignore it. I'd also like to be a composer and performer of music, but I have less than adequate talent in that direction so I stick to playing cockney songs on the piano in the pub. For beer.
If my livelihood depended on these things, as it probably will in the near future, I would be distressed if I found that people nicked more copies than they bought. I don't have a problem with people who do good stuff, whatever it is, being paid for it. Even handsomely - if it's that good, then it's worth it.
Wht confuses me is the kerfuffle about the DEBill though. Did everyone pirate software? No. Music? No. Books? No. I see the point about the "innocent until proven guilty" paradigm. Does anyone honestly think that's applied to the legal system in Britain in the last ten, if not twenty, years? Per-lease.
And yes, the MPs let us down, 40 of them turned up. It's not unusual. I have visited an MP, one who does a blog, actually, very much in the mention today. It was in his office in Portcullis House, across the road (or through the bunker) from the Westminster Gasworks. He was in the middle of talking to us when the "bell" went on his telly, and he just left and went next door to vote. A "whip", I think. Most of the time they don't. He hadn't heard ANY of the debate, as he had his back to the telly (which I was watching, as it was more interesting than him) but the sound was off. That's even more stupid than not voting at all. Hello, democracy.
But now, what I'm reading is going on about blogging, and connected purposes. Sorry, been reading too many Bills.
There doesn't need to be a law preventing people from badmouthing people who, quite honestly, need some badmouthing. There already is one, and it is a criminal offence, and it is part of the Telecommunications Act, and they can easily "prove" it was "you" and jail you for it. No, of course they can't, any more than the DEBill will allow. But I don't think there's cause for concern, any more than there was yesterday. And yes, there was cause for concern then, in spades. But nobody noticed?
The same Telecommunications Act makes it a heinous crime for you to flash you lights at an oncoming motorist to indicate that there's a speed trap ahead, incidentally.
Now, can we stick to the point? Or am I all over the place, as usual?
[expects posts from someone who thinks illegal filesharing is a Good Thing, oh, how jolly]