This is... patently ridiculous. I'll get my coat.

Unless it's Fair Use/Dealing... They really need to change those laws so that they take into account consumer rights a bit more - for example, I have trouble using some software because of the stupid DRM, so it should be considered fair use for me to rip the CDs purely so that I can actually run the software.

In a way he is right, but for two key reasons: 1) Users who don't understand or care about internet privacy, and applications such as Facebook make you share by default. 2) Users who do care about privacy cannot change all of the privacy settings on applications such as Facebook. Basically, yes, we do default to sharing, but only because we are forced to share even if we don't want to.

So, it violates child protection laws, meaning that if they are implemented children will not be allowed to be scanned, so terrorists will just use children. By the admission of the Home Secretary, it would have had at most a 60% chance of catching the guy who attempting the bombing on Christmas Day. It's taking "naked pictures" of people against their will. We have no idea as to the safety of the devices, the concequences of repeated exposure. Why are we implementing these, again?

But if the actual content is not a threat to national security, couldn't any attempts to arrest the leaker for distributing the document be appealed?

What about MyFace and, god forbid, BookSpace?

Or a squirrel its nuts. Hmmm, maybe when he said "consumers" he didn't mean "customers" but rather "those who will consume the purchasers of our products" (i.e. themselves.)

Personally, I blame the rap music.

What of DRM in general, where if you resell the physical goods or the liscense the person buying it won't be able to run the software? I'd love it if someone could set a precedent making DRM essentially illegal.

Only one word springs to mind here: Why? I had a sim card that didn't support MMS. Did it cripple my phone with MMS capabilities, by imposing restrictions? No, it just didn't work because the service wasn't supported as a feature. What's wrong with that system?

All of those go to the HM treasury, maintained by the government, and are then distributed accordingly. That is tax.

The Licensing Fee goes to the BBC and License company, and then is distributed accordingly. This is not tax, unless you are saying the BBC is part of the government, which according to the laws of the UK, it is not.

That seems incredibly close the the "home taping is killing music" or "home taping is killing tv" arguments, which have always (AFAIK) proven to be false. Why should I buy a DVD boxed set if I've already watched the shows on tv, HD or not? The companies involved have already squeezed money out of me by virtue of my paying the Tv license which goes to the BBC, allowing them to buy the show in the first place. One also has to question what the damn point in this is - the BBC is free to watch, paid for by the license. Everyone gets it. So why put DRM in broadcasts that everyone is going to receive? I can only see two options: 1) They will restrict the HD streams so that only people who pay extra for them get them (unlikely since it's the BBC) 2) They don't want people to rip the shows and share them on the internet (when the shows tend to be available on the iplayer anyway, or broadcast in a different country well before they are broadcast in the UK)

Ah, but getting Gordon Brown to actually admit to a mistake, even if it wasn't his own, is an achievement in itself.

It is insane - they seem to believe that even when you buy a CD in a physical shop you are signing some legal contract restricting what you can do with that music. I don't know about you, but when I buy something from the shop I've never been given a contract to read or sign, only the receipt.

So they would still feel physical pain, but won't care about it? If they react to painful sensations negatively, then at least they still seem to have some self-preservation mechanisms working... But even if painful sensations are not unpleasent, it is still pain, which is still cruel in a way. Harming a masochist is still cruel to a degree, no matter how much they enjoy it. Then of course behaviouralists would probably want to argue that the fact that they react negatively to pain is what defines them as having an unpleasent experience. So really, what difference does this make? Do they just forget that pain hurts or something?