The Digital Economy Bill: What you need to know

 

The murmuring in parliament is that the digital economy bill will get its second reading on Tuesday 6 April – the day that Gordon Brown is expected to hop into a car and head over to the palace to ask for the dissolution of parliament. The timing is precise: by getting its second reading in the Commons, the bill becomes eligible to go into the "wash-up" – the dirty process by which bills that have run out of proper parliamentary time are hurried through to royal assent via a series of backroom deals.

 

But what shape is the digital economy bill in now, compared to what we were offered by the Digital Britain report (DBR) last June, and the first reading of the digital economy bill (DEB) in the House of Lords last December?

 

Let's examine what we were promised, and what we seem to have. This is not easy: the bill tends to add bits to other existing acts, such as the Communications Act of 2003 and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. You can see an explanation of its contents at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills's DEB page.

 

Ofcom

 

Extension of role to include reporting on communications infrastructure and media content, and power to determine who gets access to which airwaves. The Conservatives aren't keen on Ofcom, whose powers they want to curtail. So far mostly untouched by amendments.

 

Status: Extension may survive wash-up, but probably not a Tory administration.

 

Minimum broadband speed of 2Mbps

 

Doesn't actually require legislation. (Neither "broadband" nor "megabit" appears in the bill.) This becomes a new Ofcom responsibility, watched over by the secretary of state for business.

 

£6 annual levy on fixed phone lines

 

Shifted in the Queen's speech to the finance bill, because it requires new tax measures.

 

Status: Will find out in the budget on Wednesday.

 

Regional funding for local news consortiums, funded from licence fee

 

Digital Britain said that £130m annually now spent helping people shift to digital TV could fund ITV regional news programmes. Ofcom would appoint "providers of regional or local news". The Conservatives oppose it; it would probably get deleted in the horse-trading of the wash-up.

 

Status: Dead.

 

Analogue radio switchoff by 2015; re-organisation and merger of some local DAB ensembles

 

Still in the bill, but now at the discretion of the secretary of state. A new clause (97A) would be added to the Broadcasting Act 1990.

 

Status: Alive.

 

Tax breaks for video games industry

 

Suggested in the DBR, not in the DEB, possibly in the budget next week.

 

Status: Missing in action.

 

Video games age classifications

 

The DBR said that rules should make it illegal to sell a video game rated 12 or over to an underage buyer, and take away games classification from the British Board of Film Classification, and give it to the Video Standards Council. That part of the DEB has sailed through virtually untouched.

 

Status: Alive.

 

Internet domain names

 

UK government could intervene directly in the use and registration of .uk internet sites, currently the responsibility of the independent Nominet, to prevent sites being registered for "illicit use". After commissioning a report from Ofcom, the secretary of state could take away registration powers and give it to a different organisation.

 

Status: Alive.

 

Channel 4

 

Specifically told to support "people with creative talent", particularly through film, and to produce "high-quality digital content". Failure to do so could lead to sanctions from Ofcom, including a fine.

 

Status: Alive.

 

Electromagnetic spectrum

 

More Ofcom powers – this time to let it enforce licences and impose fines on operators who misuse or abandon spectrum, and set new pricing systems on previously auctioned spectrum.

 

Status: Unclear if a Tory government would let this continue; but alive.

 

Adding PLR (Public Lending Right) to e-books and spoken books

 

Every time a library lends an audio book or e-book the copyright holder gets a small payment. Sailing through: the text is essentially untouched from its introductory form.

 

Status: Alive.

 

Reducing online piracy and copyright theft

 

By far the most contentious part of the bill and the source of huge popular opposition. The DEB adds a clause to the Communications Act 2003 that says that ISPs must provide "copyright owners" (defined murkily in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act's section 173 with details (though not identities) of copyright infringers. Quite possibly, anyone could claim to be a copyright owner.

 

As altered, the bill now allows for ISPs to be required to block access to sites that allow "substantial" infringement. One of Lord Mandelson's principal targets here – urged on by the BPI and Federation Against Copyright Theft and Federation Against Software Theft – is "cyberlocker" sites that let people store files, or move them between two people easily, which, lobbyists argue, allows widespread copyright infringement. The argument then becomes how you tell whether a cyberlocker is being used for substantial infringement. But as they don't publicise their contents (they are like safe deposit boxes for the web), how can it be determined whether they are substantially infringing?

 

One site that would immediately be trapped by this provision is Wikileaks – which exists solely to republish leaked, and hence copyrighted, work. Would a Trafigura-like company in the future use the DEB to shut off UK access to the site if something embarrassing appeared there?

 

The bill allows for the "temporary suspension" of internet connections for those deemed to have allowed multiple copyright infringement after warnings from their ISPs (who are required to maintain "copyright infringement reports" on users, anonymously). Hotels and businesses that offer free or paid-for Wi-Fi have expressed serious concerns that they would have to shut such services down.

 

The record industry is happy with the proposals, but many citizens aren't: in two days more than 10,000 people had contacted their MP via the 38Degrees site to express concern and demand proper debate of the proposals.

 

A "proper" debate would take so long it would kill the bill – although Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, did suggest in a tweet that it will get "debate". The Tories, however, seem to be in favour.

 

Status: Alive, and likely to survive wash-up.

 

Orphan works; extension/licensing of copyright/performers' rights

 

"Orphan works" are copyrighted works whose owner is unknown; this would create a means to license them. The extension of copyright/performers' rights proved controversial in the Lords.

 

Status: Orphan works may survive the wash-up; copyright extension is less clear.

 

So will it pass? The campaign against the anti-piracy provisions may rouse MPs to try to get the bill examined properly in the Commons on its second reading. But with an election looming, and many MPs preparing to leave the House for the last time, some may feel it's not worth fighting over – especially as a potential Tory administration may rip it up anyway. It's going to be a very close-run thing.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/2...al-economy-bill

 

 

Rush to pass digital bill will 'sidestep democracy'

 

A group of senior public figures have called on the government to abandon its plan to push through controversial digital economy bill before the election, amid claims that the move could "sidestep" the democratic process.

 

Earlier this week the government revealed that it wants to force the digital economy bill - which includes the controversial "three strikes" rule to cut off the internet connections of those accused of illegal file sharing - into the statute books in the next few weeks.

 

While it usually takes far longer to create an act of parliament, thanks to the public debates held by MPs, the secretary of state for business, Lord Mandelson, plans speed up the process by making use of a controversial parliamentary technique known as the "wash-up".

 

Under those rules, party whips bypass the usual debating process and make a series of horse trades in order to get proposals into law before parliament dissolves ahead of a general election.

 

That proposal has already caused concern, but today a coalition including a cross-party group of MPs and peers - as well as figures from the business world and entertainment industry - said that short circuiting the democratic process could have disastrous side effects.

 

In an open letter the group suggests that the controversial nature of the legislation - which it says "threatens to severely infringe fundamental human rights" and could introduce "website blocking" measure that impede free speech - must face the full scrutiny of parliament before it becomes law.

 

Among the signatories are musician Billy Bragg, human rights activist Peter Tatchell and writer Graham Linehan, who helped create comedy series including Father Ted and The IT Crowd. They are joined by a number of activists and campaigners, as well as politicians drawn from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party.

 

"Our worry today is that none of this will be properly debated by parliament," says the letter. "Last week Harriet Harman failed to give the Commons any reassurances that this important, complex and controversial bill will be properly scrutinised by our elected MPs."

 

"Democracy and accountability will be sidestepped if this bill is rushed through and amended without debate during the so-called 'wash-up' process. The thousands of people we know to be contacting their MPs with concerns will find their faith in politicians even further undermined."

 

The plans, which first became public last autumn, have caused controversy at almost every turn.

 

As well as the three strikes rule and measures to take down websites accused of infringing copyright - which could potentially result in the closure of major web destinations such as YouTube - Lord Mandelson has also sought the power to alter copyright law without the assent of parliament.

 

In addition, it has also been suggested that the bill's measures to prosecute the owners of internet connections used for illegal file sharing could hit anybody who provides web access - such as universities, libraries and cafes, as well as those individuals who leave their home Wi-Fi connections open.

 

While the made it through three readings in the House of Lords, it was not without serious objections. Lord Puttnam, the film producer, said he had faced "an extraordinary degree of lobbying" over the proposals, while others questioned the revelation that an amendment used language British music industry body the BPI.

 

Earlier this week BPI chief Geoff Taylor said that it was imperative that the legislation is passed before the election.

 

"It is vital for the future of the UK's creative sector that the digital economy bill becomes law before the dissolution of parliament," he said.

 

However, the open letter suggests that the bill's most controversial elements must receive proper debate or be removed from the bill entirely and left until after the forthcoming election.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/...ill-open-letter

 

 

'Is the music industry trying to write the digital economy bill?' (extract)

 

Here's the thing I can't work out: are these entertainment cartel overshoots the result of arrogance, or are they calculated losses? Is the BPI willing to turn the LibDems from an ally into an enemy if they can get a couple of amendments into the digital economy bill? Was it worth burning this bridge just to move the goalposts on censorship by a few inches? Or did they really believe that there would be no consequences for their actions?

 

I try to credit them with the "calculated loss" theory when I can, but the evidence really points to an unrealistic view of the world born of the arrogance of power. After all, how else to explain the BPI's contention (in the leaked secret status update) that MI5 may be responsible for the opposition to its plans to undermine Britain's global IT competitiveness, the rule of law, free speech and innovation (MI5 is said to be worried that monitoring online activity will get harder when people take up tools to evade copyright enforcement)?

 

It really seems like record execs find it easier to believe that their opposition is being propped up by a cabal of spies than that the people of Britain really just don't want to be spied upon, harassed, and deprived of fundamental liberties in order to give a small clutch of entertainment companies slightly higher profits.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/...calculated-loss

 

 

 

What does everyone think of the digital economy bill? For or against? What do you think about the fact it would mean any websites or services that help infringe copyright (one website being YouTube) could be blocked in Britain?

 

 

 

I have used quite one-sided articles and all from one institution if anyone wishes to post views from the other side of the arguement please go ahead.

 

I think it is quite appauling that this isnt actually getting palrimentary debate and more just being pushed through before the next election, as one article I posted above suggets, it sidesteps democracy which we supposedly have in this country. The final paragraph in the last article I posted sums up my feelings about it mostly.

 

 

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

I'd hardly claim it sidesteps democracy, seeing as it would almost certainly have passed despite debate - it's just that this will now get passed in altered form.

I am very firmly against this disgusting law.

 

I do not think that the government should legally be allowed to tell me what i can and can not view on the web, and the reprimand me for looking at the wrong thing.

 

They can f*** off.

 

 

If this passes with the "Reducing online piracy and copyright theft" section alive, i'm out of this f***ing country the minute i get my diploma. I'll go to either the US or Australia, depending on which has got the more lenient piracy laws.

 

I'm all for saving the music industry, but banning f***ing Youtube and cutting off someone's internet connection for illegal downloading is taking the p***. I want to be able to watch TV at US pace [if our broadcasters got their ass in gear and showed it a reasonable amount of time after it had aired in the states nobody would have to download the tv shows] and i want to be able to download radio rips and rips of my favourite artists in the live lounge.

 

This law takes the whole nanny state bull$h!t too far. Any party who promises to tear the bill up in it's entirety gets my vote in may.

This law takes the whole nanny state bull$h!t too far. Any party who promises to tear the bill up in it's entirety gets my vote in may.

 

vote The Pirate Party UK then.

I am very firmly against this disgusting law.

 

I do not think that the government should legally be allowed to tell me what i can and can not view on the web, and the reprimand me for looking at the wrong thing.

 

They can f*** off.

If this passes with the "Reducing online piracy and copyright theft" section alive, i'm out of this f***ing country the minute i get my diploma. I'll go to either the US or Australia, depending on which has got the more lenient piracy laws.

 

I'm all for saving the music industry, but banning f***ing Youtube and cutting off someone's internet connection for illegal downloading is taking the p***. I want to be able to watch TV at US pace [if our broadcasters got their ass in gear and showed it a reasonable amount of time after it had aired in the states nobody would have to download the tv shows] and i want to be able to download radio rips and rips of my favourite artists in the live lounge.

 

This law takes the whole nanny state bull$h!t too far. Any party who promises to tear the bill up in it's entirety gets my vote in may.

 

Agreed, this is the biggest threat to civil liberties that I've ever heard of tbh... Oh and how typical that it's the Lord Of Darkness himself, "Lord fukkin' Mandelson" who's the main architect in pushing this bullsh!t through... I mean, seriously WHO THE FUKK VOTED FOR THAT C'UNT ANYWAY????? <_<

Agreed, this is the biggest threat to civil liberties that I've ever heard of tbh... Oh and how typical that it's the Lord Of Darkness himself, "Lord fukkin' Mandelson" who's the main architect in pushing this bullsh!t through... I mean, seriously WHO THE FUKK VOTED FOR THAT C'UNT ANYWAY????? <_<

Well, nobody :P We need the House of Lords scrapping ASAP...

vote The Pirate Party UK then.

I'm not sure if they'd bother fielding a candidate in North East Fife. You either vote Torie or Lib Dem where i'm from

 

Agreed, this is the biggest threat to civil liberties that I've ever heard of tbh... Oh and how typical that it's the Lord Of Darkness himself, "Lord fukkin' Mandelson" who's the main architect in pushing this bullsh!t through... I mean, seriously WHO THE FUKK VOTED FOR THAT C'UNT ANYWAY????? <_<

Exactly! The c**ts not a democratically elected representative so why the f*** should he be allowed to push through a law that benefits him and his gentleman's club friends.

 

I think we should replace the undemocratically elected house of lords with an elected upper house like the United States and Australia have. Ensuring that the House of Lord's are more concerned with listening to the public and keeping us happy than looking after their investments and keeping the fat cats fat.

its ridiculous.... take youtube for eg, its a great way of downloading forgotten/rare/old tracks that you simply CANNOT BUY, thanks to someone posting a vid. and heres another example... last year i bought an album by 'capetown' on the strength of the music i heard on youtube... only to find that the extended version of my fav track wasnt on the album! but it is on youtube... so not only could this ban on youtube reduce sales because we wont get the exposure... but i cant buy the version i wanted anyway!

I'm not sure if they'd bother fielding a candidate in North East Fife. You either vote Torie or Lib Dem where i'm from

Exactly! The c**ts not a democratically elected representative so why the f*** should he be allowed to push through a law that benefits him and his gentleman's club friends.

 

Mandelson has NEVER been voted into Public Office... EVER... And yet he enjoys this almost "untouchable" status in "Nu Labor", he symbolises everything that I detest about "Nu Labor".. I really dont blame the Unite Union for now hinting that they'd like to see the Labour Party dragged back to its real Working Class roots and dumping Blairism/Brownism (they're only actually saying what ex-Labour supporters actually think)... Over the past decade, the Labour Party has seen its membership desert them in droves, ie, their traditional grass-roots supporters, who have grown disillusioned with them....

 

Sometimes you have to go backwards in order to go forwards... I think if Nu Labor loses the election badly, they'll realise just how bad they messed it all up, and will go back to basics and be the REAL Labour Party again....

its ridiculous.... take youtube for eg, its a great way of downloading forgotten/rare/old tracks that you simply CANNOT BUY, thanks to someone posting a vid. and heres another example... last year i bought an album by 'capetown' on the strength of the music i heard on youtube... only to find that the extended version of my fav track wasnt on the album! but it is on youtube... so not only could this ban on youtube reduce sales because we wont get the exposure... but i cant buy the version i wanted anyway!

 

It's more the torrent/file sharing sites for that one mate... But yeah, I take your point anyway.. God knows, I've downloaded THOUSANDS of rare and deleted tracks that I had on vinyl... And, really, what's the big deal about file-sharing anyway? I dont really buy that it's significantly damaged the music industry any more than Home Taping did in the 70s and 80s...

Mandelson has NEVER been voted into Public Office... EVER... And yet he enjoys this almost "untouchable" status in "Nu Labor", he symbolises everything that I detest about "Nu Labor".. I really dont blame the Unite Union for now hinting that they'd like to see the Labour Party dragged back to its real Working Class roots and dumping Blairism/Brownism (they're only actually saying what ex-Labour supporters actually think)... Over the past decade, the Labour Party has seen its membership desert them in droves, ie, their traditional grass-roots supporters, who have grown disillusioned with them....

 

Sometimes you have to go backwards in order to go forwards... I think if Nu Labor loses the election badly, they'll realise just how bad they messed it all up, and will go back to basics and be the REAL Labour Party again....

 

 

......Then they'll never ever get elected again. Blair got the part elected, 3 times didn't he?

And this is a bad thing?

 

'Nu Labour' have been disastrous for this country, and now for democracy by pushing through what might be one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation ever.

It's more the torrent/file sharing sites for that one mate... But yeah, I take your point anyway.. God knows, I've downloaded THOUSANDS of rare and deleted tracks that I had on vinyl... And, really, what's the big deal about file-sharing anyway? I dont really buy that it's significantly damaged the music industry any more than Home Taping did in the 70s and 80s...

 

which is why i said 'for eg' .....

I think I can make it. Never been to a political demo before. Should be fun. Where'd I put that duct tape?

And this is a bad thing?

 

'Nu Labour' have been disastrous for this country, and now for democracy by pushing through what might be one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation ever.

 

Probably the most unpopular piece of legislation since the Criminal Justice Act.... So, they've come full circle in being just a set of wannabe Tory b'astards..... <_<

......Then they'll never ever get elected again. Blair got the part elected, 3 times didn't he?

 

Because there are too many ignorant people like you in the country too dim to realise that Socialism is actually in the best interests of the real Working Classes and swallow the propaganda of the Scum and Daily Heil hook, line and sinker... -_-

Probably the most unpopular piece of legislation since the Criminal Justice Act.... So, they've come full circle in being just a set of wannabe Tory b'astards..... <_<

I don't remember that one. If it's gone through in the past 20years it could be that i was too young to notice/care

 

 

 

I want to see the Lib Dems in. It's about time we got some fresh blood in charge of this country rather than the same old two horse race

I don't remember that one. If it's gone through in the past 20years it could be that i was too young to notice/care

I want to see the Lib Dems in. It's about time we got some fresh blood in charge of this country rather than the same old two horse race

 

The Criminal Justice Act was basically where suspects lost their right to silence... The Police Caution (basically the UK equivalent of the US "Miranda Law") actually changed in this country twenty years ago due to the Tories...

I thought you still had the right to remain silent :unsure: or have the Bill been getting it wrong?

I thought you still had the right to remain silent :unsure: or have the Bill been getting it wrong?

 

Well, yes and no, it's very subtle mate.... The wording's changed to "...If you fail to mention something which you may later rely on in court, it may be used against you".. That wasn't there before, so basically, it puts pressure on suspects to make a statement during interviews, before you could just answer "no comment" to any question the Police asked and it wasn't used against you later in court, just like in the US where suspects can "take the fifth", they're under no obligation or pressure to answer any questions, or incriminate themselves, and can ask for a lawyer immediately...