backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Jan 4 at 4:14 AM

Movie and record labels are overjoyed at the support they're receiving from the British government

Late in October DailyTech reported on the new three strikes piracy legislation proposed in the United Kingdom by Britain's majority Labour Party.  Under the legislation those caught pirating would receive two warnings, then would be cut off from the internet.  The real headache, though, is how to police the traffic and enforce the provisions on ISPs and consumers.

Despite mass objections from telecoms, citizens, electronics experts, law enforcement officials, and members of the minority conservative and socialist parties, Labour Party officials have blazed ahead with a framework to allow the legislation to be enforced.

According to Labour Party leaders, the government is planning on handing the expense of the Digital Economy Bill down to taxpayers.  That expense is estimated to be approximately £500M (approximately $800M USD).  On average, that works out to more than £25 more a year ($40 USD/year) per internet connection.

And that's considering that the government is counting on the bill reducing piracy enough to increase media revenues by £1.7B ($2.72B USD), leading to £350M ($560M USD) extra in VAT tax revenue.  If that increase isn't realized, British taxpayers could find themselves on the hook for over $1B USD in enforcement expenses.

The initial letter writing campaign is predicted to cut off 40,000 citizens from the internet and cost £1.40 ($2.20 USD) per subscription.  The government appears to have purposefully neglects to include possible economic losses based on citizens being taken offline in its estimates.

Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone Warehouse, whose subsidiary TalkTalk is the biggest consumer provider of broadband in UK, is flabbergasted at how the punitive bill is gaining so much traction.  He states, "Broadband consumers shouldn’t have to bail out the music industry. If they really think it’s worth spending vast sums of money on these measures then they should be footing the bill; not the consumer."

Still the media industry is cheering the British government's decision to obey their commands, despite the taxpayer expenses and objections.  Writes the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, an industry trade group, "The overall benefits to the country far outweigh the costs."

They argue that movies like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek have been pirated millions of times, amounting to millions in lost revenues.

And it certainly helps their argument that in the UK, like in the U.S., the media industry spends enormous sums on legal representation and government lobbying efforts.  As the growing conflict in Britain is proving, if there's one lobbyist power in the UK and U.S. that's perhaps greater than telecommunication firms, it's the media industry trade groups.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I'm glad
By GaryJohnson on 12/29/2009 3:06:54 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
If you have a headache, you can get a doctor to look at it for you instantly.

If you have money. If you don't you either:
A) don't get it looked at
-or-
B) wait for a time on par with the waits in canada at a free clinic


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 3:15:09 PM , Rating: 5
-or-
C) wait for an hour at the emergency room in a hospital (where nobody can legally be turned away).

Also, based on the comments here, it seems that non-Americans are oblivious to the fact that the poor in the United States do get free healthcare.


RE: I'm glad
By Solandri on 12/29/2009 3:34:45 PM , Rating: 4
That's one of the arguments for government-run health insurance though. Since we insured folks are paying for healthcare for the uninsured anyway, what difference does it make if we just formalize it and have the government handle it? Right now the extra cost is just being passed on in the form of higher bills the hospital charges the insured people.

But I agree, too many clueless people outside the U.S. think the health system here is from the middle ages or something. The problem isn't one of quality of care, the problem is cost of care per person per year. Based on what I've read up on this debate, I think the U.S. has the best treatment for health care problems in the world, but its preventative care is woefully lacking. Most people in the U.S. won't go to the hospital for a small cut because they don't want to pay for it or (if they're insured) pay for the deductible. Then it flares up into full-blown infection requiring hospitalization and maybe even surgery. In other countries, the person would've just gone in for the small cut, gotten it cleaned by a professional, taken some antibiotics for a few days, and that would've been the end of it.


RE: I'm glad
By sprockkets on 12/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm glad
By weskurtz0081 on 12/29/2009 8:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is only a small part of the overall problem, there is much more to the over inflated health care costs in the US than just this. Because of that, changing who pays for it won't fix the problem of high costs.


RE: I'm glad
By Spuke on 12/29/2009 4:31:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, based on the comments here, it seems that non-Americans are oblivious to the fact that the poor in the United States do get free healthcare.
And you don't have to go to the emergency room to get it either. Since I was in the poor part of the population for half of my life, I can attest to the "free" healthcare that the poor get. There are tons of clinics and even programs that the poor can get on to get healthcare. When growing up, we even had our own "family doctor"!!! The problem with US healthcare is BS lawsuits and those that make too much money to qualify for the free programs that the poor get.

But even the people paying ridiculous amounts of money ($700 a month average) for healthcare aren't interested in government run healthcare. They don't mind paying for it, they just want it cheaper and making it "free" for everyone won't make it cheaper. Taxes will be raised. Would you rather pay $700 a month to the gov and hope that money goes to your healthcare or pay $700 directly to your doctor?


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 7:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Emerge != free clinic. If you are in need of serious medical attention, you don't go to a clinic, you get brought the Hospital.

The reason most clinics (free or not) exist is to take the stress off of hospital ER's for people who shouldn't be going there in the first place.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 7:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you can't be turned away, but you are stuck with a massively overpriced bill that you more than likely won't be able to pay.
quote:
Also, based on the comments here, it seems that non-Americans are oblivious to the fact that the poor in the United States do get free healthcare.
Ha free.. by free you mean you are liable for the expenses incurred... yes.. free...

Unless you are going to a free clinic, its not free, so going to the emerge does not fall under this category.


RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 7:47:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ha free.. by free you mean you are liable for the expenses incurred... yes.. free...

No, free as in many poor individuals in the U.S. are covered under Medicaid. And in a sad bit of irony these people often get BETTER health coverage than your average working Joe on the street.

These are not the people that suffer most under the U.S. health system. The worst off are those that are working full time for little more than minimum wage and who have a health plan but their plan is crap. Unfortunately, for a very large variety of reasons, there are TONS of useless health plans in the U.S., full of deductibles and co-pays, limitations and fees.

An absolutely obscene amount of money is wasted on administrative overhead in the U.S. health insurance system and somehow I'm sceptical that the recently passed health reforms will do much to change this.


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 10:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ha free.. by free you mean you are liable for the expenses incurred... yes.. free...

Free, as in a nice chunk of each of my paychecks is withheld to pay a Medicaid tax, which is used to pay for poor people's healthcare. And no, Medicaid recipients are not liable for the expenses incurred.


RE: I'm glad
By zxern on 12/29/2009 11:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
An hour that must be nice. I had to wait 6 hours to see a doc when I broke my arm and since I had waited so long they had to re-break it. And 2 months later I got a nice $1200 bill in the mail after insurance.

Great system we have here.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki