The Digital Economy Bill: A Washed Up Bill from a Washed Up Government

Like many in the tech community I followed yesterday’s debate on the Digital Economy Bill. This Bill is being sponsored by Lord Mandelson, who developed an interest in clamping down on copyright infringement after he had dinner with David Geffen on his Corfu yacht.

The Bill confers heavy sanctions (to be finalised) for illegal filesharing, yet the Government seems determined to rush it through at the tail end of this Parliament without proper debate.

The turnout was poor; perhaps this was apathy, or the fact that Brown and Mandelson chose to announce the General Election on the same day. (My MP wasn’t there.)

We were initially told by Harriet Harman that the Bill would be dealt with through “super-affirmative” actions, as part of the Parliamentary washup. This means that a committee would look at the Bill and make any necessary amendments. As was pointed out by John Grogan (Labour), pushing through a contentious bill like this without proper debate is unprecedented (all other bills that have been handled in the washup have had broad agreement). Fiona Mactaggart also noted later that “secondary legislation Committees [are] not places where scrutiny occurs; they are another example of pathetic oversight by Parliament.”

On the Labour side John Robertson and Sion Simon were firmly in favour of the Bill. In one exchange, Tom Watson stated that as copyright infringement is theft, infringers should be allowed their day in court; Simon replied indignantly that they would (by appeal at a tribunal), which is completely different thing.

Other notable points:

  • Bradshaw states that the “technical measures” that may be imposed on repeat infringers would “not involve permanent disconnection“. These measures are covered by Clause 18 of the Bill, and Fiona MacTaggart pointed out later on that most MPs hadn’t yet seen the revised clause.
  • John Redwood asked a perfectly reasonable question of what someone could do with, for example, a downloaded song; copy it to another PC, let others listen to it. Stephen Timms told him he was “barking up the wrong tree”, with Bradshaw scornfully following up “not for the first time”; Timms replied that rights owners wouldn’t need to do that. Redwood restated the question and Timms again misinterpreted the question, refusing to allow any further comeback.
  • When Adam Afriyie challenged Tom Watson that it was the latter’s party who were introducing the bill, Watson shot back that the Tories had the power to stop it. (Afriyie coined the phrase “a washed up bill from a washed up government”.)
  • Fiona MacTaggart gave an impassioned and informed speech, pointing out that sharing intellectual property (IP) can create a market for that IP, something that many of the other MPs seem to miss.

I find the Conservative Party’s argument (via Jeremy Hunt), that something needs to be done to prevent damage to the economy, rather weak. The assertion that hundreds of millions of pounds are lost every year is presumably an extrapolation of the figure from the British Phonographic Institute mentioned in the Digital Britain Report. Hunt said that the Tories reserve the right to return to the Bill and make appropriate amendments after the next election, but that pre-supposes that they are actually elected.

When Blair was Prime Minister it was terrorism that was used to justify unreasonable measures. Now it’s the economy.

Yesterday the Government again showed its contempt for democracy in this country. Remember this on May 6th.

The full text of the debate is available on Hansard: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100406/debindx/100406-x.htm

Update: As the Bill has evolved it has gradually strayed from the original intent of the Digital Britain White Paper. Tom Watson and others proposed a number of amendments last night, including tightening up the definitions, e.g. focusing on peer to peer file sharing instead of general online infringement, and challenging the starting assumption of liability on the part of the internet connection owner. Ultimately, Timms wasn’t having any of it. The only significant change in the Bill was to drop clause 43, which would allow for unclaimed (orphaned) works of copyright to be used by others. The Bill was passed, with numerous Labour MPs filing in who hadn’t bothered to turn up for the debate, and very few Conservative MPs voting. Stephen Timms has lost whatever geek credentials he had, as he apparently doesn’t know what an IP address is. And it looks like the Bill is going to meet with a fair amount of resistance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: