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 Reclaimer77 on 12/29/2009 7:03:48 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
Lets make this simple, Canada's current health structure = 10.1% of GDP (or 16% government revenue), existing US health care, 16% of GDP (or 18.5% government revenue). So yes, please, do the math..


Lucky for Canada you border the United States and don't need a large defense budget. GDP percentage arguments are nice, but you didn't actually counter my point. In fact, you are being completely dismissive of the massive financial burden your system places on it's population to cover such a small number of people.

quote:
Don't you get it? It should have never been 1/6 of your private economy in the first place.


That's an opinion, spawned by your socialist loving frame of mind that making money in health care is essentially wrong, and that people are being taken advantage of somehow by all the "greedy" corperations and insurance companies. Yeah, I get it. Doesn't make you right though.

quote:
FACT is, health-care reform will result in reduced care for a small percentage of people in exchange for much better care for a heck of a lot more people.


Oh I completely agree. Except the bill being proposed won't do that, and it's not reform. Again, you don't live here so stop assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, I know a shit sandwich when you try and hand me one, and I want none of it.

quote:
oh and guess how much I paid...


You paid out the ass, idiot. Just because you didn't personally hand them money doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. I hate that I have to do this, but you don't seem to understand how your system actually works. I'll dumb it down for you.

The government taxes the living crap out of you and everyone else, then puts all that money in a pot for health care. Except, of course, there's not enough money in the pot to cover everyone for whatever they need, whenever they need it, so the government has to RATION health care.

You do NOT have free health care. Do you understand that, for the love of god, before we go any further ?


RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 8:08:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In fact, you are being completely dismissive of the massive financial burden your system places on it's population to cover such a small number of people.

In Canada each and every one of the 33M citizens pays approximately $3,200 (U.S. dollar equiv.) for the public health care system and another $1,350 for additional private health care (dentist, eye glasses, company drug plans, etc. that are not covered by the public system).

In the U.S. each and every one of the 310M citizens pays approximately $3,650 for public health care (Medicare, Medicaid and other State and Federally funded programs) and another $3,700 for private health care.

Feel free to interpret those numbers anyway you like.


RE: I'm glad
By eddieroolz on 1/3/2010 12:07:10 AM , Rating: 1
I recently had a painful boil on my face that needed intervention.

I went to an walk-in clinic, where I do not need to make appointments. Went there early in the morning, and the doctor took one look and referred me to the emergency.

Now, in the US that would have cost you some cash. In BC, all I had to do was show them my CareCard and it was done.

Then I went to the Emergency ward. I was served in 10 minutes, and referred to a specialist in a further 10 min. I waited in the room for another 10 min and the doctor drained the boil in question. I was then told to come back for a week for daily IV, and prescribed medicine.

Now, that in the US would have cost you additional money. Here in BC, all I did was show them my CareCard. Deja vu.

All this is covered by taxing the population no more than what you get taxed in the US.

So being a citizen in this "socialized medicine" land, I would say that it is YOU that does not have a clue how the system works here. No, I was not rationed health care. I was given care as was everyone else waiting at emergency. The government does not allocate me certain number of visits and then outright refuses to see me after I exceed it. No. They care for you when you need it.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














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