Sign In:
Login with Facebook
54609

House of Lords pass Digital Economy Bill

The House of Lords (the people who sit on red seats, not the green ones) has passed the Digital Economy Bill, a wide-ranging piece of legislation, but one which has particular significance for the future of the internet and its users, as well as the music industry, in this country.

The most controversial issue at the bill's heart is that of illegal file-sharing and copyright infringement, specifically that the punishment for illegal filesharers would be a cut internet connection.

There has also been further change, made last night, to the DEB. An amendment was made by the Liberal Democrats earlier this month, with peers rejecting a clause which allowed ministers the power to change online copyright laws - to keep up with changing technology - without the necessity for any additional legislation.

However, that tweaking of Clause 17 also attracted criticism, as it gives High Court judges the power to force ISPs to block websites which have a "substantial" amount of material which infringes copyright, of which there are many, notably YouTube.

A further modification was made - by the Liberal Democrats themselves, somewhat amusingly - before the bill was passed by the Lords which would allow websites the right and opportunity to appeal against any decision, and the chance to claim legal costs and any damages which are incurred. "Clarifications and improvements" were made by Lib Dem media spokesman Lord Clement-Jones, during the bill's third reading last night.

The original proposal, put forward by Peter 'Mandy' Mandelson, wanted the punishment for persistent illegal file-sharing and copyright criminalities to be the severance of an internet connection, as well as the ol' "three strikes and you're out" rule.

Unsurprisingly, various Internet Service Providers were less than ecstatic about this, along with the likes of Google and Facebook, who claimed that a fine would be a more appropriate punishment. Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that the original Liberal Democrat amendment to Clause 17 was almost identical to one suggested by the British Phonographic Industry. Hmmmmmm. Blueprint?

What this now means is that the DEB will most likely be put to the House of Commons for approval before the General Election takes place, which will be, at the very latest, in early May.

The bill almost certainly won't pass without further criticism, and Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group done so already. He said that Mandelson was:

"Preparing to rush through this draconian legislation without democratic debate. We are calling for massive campaign of citizens to demand that their MPs debate this dangerous bill."

Geoff Taylor, of the BPI is one such person in favour of the DEB, he told The Guardian:

"It is vital for the future of the UK's creative sector that the digital economy bill becomes law before the dissolution of parliament. We are pleased that it has passed successfully through the Lords and will continue to work closely with all parties as it progresses."

So who should I vote for...

to get this turned around? Or is it a lost cause entirely?

You'd be best off

writing to your MP, and encouraging others to do the same. Best thing to do with legislation that's already in the pipeline is kick up a stink and make it a particularly obvious one.

Tbh I think the biggest UK political party that is opposed to this sort of Big3-fellating shit are the Greens (Caroline Lucas opposed a similar EU bill a few years ago, f'rex).

This is very depressing

Lilian Edwards has some sensible thoughts on the subject. It's also worth reading the bits she's quoted from Lord Whitty's speech here:

http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2010/03/yesterday-in-lords-deb.html

What's the point of voting, if it's much more effective to buy legislation?

and...?

What infurates me is HOW will isps know that what files are illegally downloaded and what files are not? Music blogs for example, mostly work with PR agencies and bands / djs themselves to post promotional teasers in the form of mp3s to their readers. Is that considered "illegal file sharing " as well? I ask because it is not uncommon for blogs to get DMCA notices DESPITE having beern given permission (in writing as well) to post them. Will this bill mean that websites like blogs will be banned indiscriminately? I understand what this bill is trying to get at but to alienate a whole country's citizens for the capitalist interests of the few corporations is shocking. Its like saying "so you won't buy our products? Then we'll punish you until you have no choice".

and...?

What infurates me is HOW exactly will isps know which files are illegally downloaded and which files are not? Music blogs for example, mostly work with PR agencies and bands / djs themselves to post promotional teasers in the form of mp3s to their readers. Is that considered "illegal file sharing " as well? I ask because it is not uncommon for blogs to get DMCA notices DESPITE having beern given permission (in writing as well) to post them. Will this bill mean that websites like blogs will be banned indiscriminately?
I understand what this bill is trying to get at but to alienate a whole country's citizens in favor of capitalist interests of the few corporations is shocking. Its like saying "so you won't buy our products? Then we'll punish you until you have no choice".

what about competition laws?
our right to (access) freedom of information?
are the isps willing to cover the costs of implementing these "policing" strategies by way of illegal privacy invading devices?
and WHO is going to bear the costs of compensation when an individual is wrongly accused? the TAXPAYER again?

if they're going to ban websites, they might as well ban Google and all the other search engines out there because they're the ones that made searching for illegal files possible, isn't it?

cutting off internet supply to one individual is not as easy as one may think. hardcore filesharers will STILL be able to get on the internet by various ways using proxies, prefix hijacking and all that kinda shit while innocent people who has got nothing to do with it get fucked.

You don't really get it, do you?

One member of a househould is filesharing, the rest of the members of the household (who are not filesharing) lose their internet connection.

Free internet hotspots will be too much of a liability and will close down.

One the one hand, the Govt wants to ensure that govt services are delivered through the internet. On the other hand, they are trying to make it easier to take away.

All the above, without any reference to whether "filesharing" is wrong or not, which is another question entirely.

So, yes, innocent people will "get fucked" even if they are not filesharing.

And for anyone who understands encryption and proxies, it's a piece of piss to hid your filesharing activities from the ISPs anyway.

Last week The Music Void met with Lord Lucas in the House of Lords. He wanted to have a chat about what the Lords could do to help artists and music creators. As soon as we sat down, he brought up the Digital Economy Act. Read more here about his discussion...

http://www.themusicvoid.com/2010/07/will-the-house-of-lords-block-the-digital-economy-act/

Add your comment

Reply


 or Abandon