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 Kurz on 12/29/2009 3:13:19 PM , Rating: 0
In the UK they will not treat a child if they are born before a certain time the the womb. Even though the USA they can be treated and survive here.

Socialized Medicine is based around Price controls.
They have to or it'll cost too much money to save everyone.
In our system we don't have it, however the government has meddled in everything (Tax subidies, Breaks, stuck with employer's insurance) so costs go up instead of the opposite. Don't forget about people jumping out of the bill (Those people lived), those people cause the most rise in rates.

If you look at cancer Surviablity you have a better chance here. Think of an illness and treatment Majority of the time you'll have a higher survival rate here in the USA.

Look at Lasik and braces those treatments have actually gone down over the years. The government should just get the hell out of my Private health care if they want costs to go down.

RE: I'm glad
By Lerianis on 12/29/2009 4:29:39 PM , Rating: 3
LIE! I have seen plenty of cases where children born at 28 weeks are treated and survive in the U.K.... that is a LIE, and if I could reach through this computer...... I would SLAP YOU FOR IT, bluntly!

Socialized medicine is NOT based solely around 'price controls'.... it is also based on getting a better 'bang for your buck' while still treating everyone equally and trying to make sure that everyone survives.

There are times when the doctors 'give up' in the U.K... but there are times when they do that here in the United States, it's called pulling the plug on terminally ill patients.

As to cancer survivability? Uh, duh... of course you are more likely to survive over here, not because they 'spend more on you' but because we have THE NEWEST TREATMENTS.... and treatments for some things that Britain and the E.U. DON'T have ANY treatment for, or at least none that WORKS.

No, you do not have a 'higher survival rate' here in the USA... in fact, comparing us to other states including Canada where we both have the SAME TREATMENTS for the things in question, and take out the people who get EXPERIMENTAL treatments....... it's pretty much the same survival wise in Europe as in America!

As to the government getting out of health care and prices going down.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is the STUPIDEST thing I have heard or seen since the jackass who jumped off a mountain without a parachute!
If government would 'get out of health care'.... the prices would be going up EVEN FASTER than they are right now.

RE: I'm glad
By karielash on 12/29/2009 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 2

Dude, there is no point in getting mad at one of Mick's Monkeys... just take them for what they are, generally uneducated with no clue about anything outside their own back yard.

RE: I'm glad
By Kurz on 12/30/2009 11:07:26 AM , Rating: 1
At least I dont Live in a fantasy world where the government provides with everything. Of course by providing for everything they run up the debt.

Do you even know how much the Government Owes?

RE: I'm glad
By Kurz on 12/29/2009 6:47:19 PM , Rating: 2

The child was born 2 days before the 22 week cut off date.
You were right however the fact they make that decision is disrespectful of a parent that wants the child to live.
Especially since it could be possible the child could make it.

I like to say where do the newest treatments come from.
If you say USA I rest my point, we develop a majority of the newer treatments.

Price controls are not about penny pinching.
Its about setting the price. Lets say a company says it costs 40 dollars for this drug. The government says no way and will only pay for 5 dollars. There is a cost to develop/market/Clinical Trials/FDA approval/. And the company figured 40 dollars to pay for all those costs was worth it. The government looks it took you 5 dollars to make that box of pills and will only pay that much.

That is price control.

Reasons why Healthcare would be cheaper if the government got out of it.

First allow me to buy health insurance from any company in the country. (Reason Lack of Competition)

Second I shouldn't be stuck with a few health care providers my employer has business deals with. (Reason lack of Competition)

One of many links

Medicare is a Broke system, as well as most Public option like systems.

I can go on, but I feel what I've stated is pretty good.
I stated my reasons why don't you?

RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 4:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
In the UK they will not treat a child if they are born before a certain time the the womb. Even though the USA they can be treated and survive here.
I don't agree with the guideline one bit, but I also don't agree with your reasoning, and you make it out as though any premature baby is left to die. The cutoff is 22 weeks, or about 4 months premature. At that point the survival rate of any baby is very low, and even if they were to survive they would most likely have deformities and/or health problems.

Also the big thing here is that its a guideline, not a law, it is up the doctor/hospital to enforce it, which leads me to believe that your penny pushing theory is very much so incorrect. Its more of a pretective mechanism than anything, and once again while I don't agree with it, it really has nothing to do with socialized medicine. It just happens to be the guidelines set out by experts on the subject.
Socialized Medicine is based around Price controls.
You say this as though it has a one dimentional meaning, you are 100% correct, but these price controls are across the board. Just as with any government service, they have to make every penny count, but I don't see how that suddenly equates to lack of service. When I say across the board, I mean drugs cost less (which is as a result of government control) services cost less, pretty much everything costs less.. While you may have insurance, ever pick up your bill to see what the insurance company covered you for? I would bet my house that the exact same treatment in Canada vs the US would be much less money.

In other words, everything to do with medicine in the United States has overinflated pricing. Its just the circle of greed that is your Health care system. Just because you guys are terribly inefficient with all the money you use does not make socialized medicine a bad thing.
If you look at cancer Surviablity you have a better chance here. Think of an illness and treatment Majority of the time you'll have a higher survival rate here in the USA.
* For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada. * For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
3-4% difference with 100% public healthcare (which would not be the case with US healthcare reform). One could also argue that the fact that cancer rates are also much higher in the US than anywhere else, resulting in more funds being pooled that way. That being said, its well known that the US does have top notch cancer care, but with careful management there is no reason that this cannot continue.

RE: I'm glad
By karielash on 12/30/2009 4:46:10 AM , Rating: 3

highest infant mortality rate of all industrial nations = USA
highest under 5 mortality rate of all industrial nations = USA
lowest Life expectancy of all industrial nations = USA
Death rate in hospital for poor 60% greater than for insured = USA
Cause of majority of US bankruptcy filings = Medical debt

US Health system is horribly broken, riddled with abusive practices by the Health Insurers and manipulated by politicians.

RE: I'm glad
By Solandri on 12/30/2009 2:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Read the link a couple posts above. The US has the highest infant mortality rate because it classifies each live birth as an infant. In most other countries, infants born premature by a certain amount are simply labeled as miscarriages, regardless of whether they're born alive. That's what causes this seemingly contradictory statistic: the U.S. has the highest survival rate of premature births.

A year ago, working on the premise that women around the world have basically the same miscarriage rate, I added up the miscarriage rate + infant mortality rate based on UN figures. The U.S. ends up about average for industrialized nations if you do that. An interesting thing was, you could tell which countries were padding their data to make their health care systems look good on paper. Cuba had a phenomenally low infant mortality rate, well within the range of developed nations. But their miscarriage rate was the highest reported by any country. And the sum of the two puts them well into the range of undeveloped nations.

The lower life expectancy (it's not the lowest of industrialized nations btw) as has been explained in other posts is simply due to Americans being less healthy than other people (generally, more obese). Foreigners are always ranting about how stupid Americans are. But when it comes to life expectancy, suddenly it's all caused by the health care system, and not by stupidity?

RE: I'm glad
By karielash on 12/30/2009 11:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Horrible system is Horrible.....

Links... help yourself.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki