Debate the Digital Economy Bill
The Digital Economy Bill has been something i've been *meaning* to get a handle on. Finally this morning I got a chance to do some reading, and frankly i'm horrified to learn that the impending general election means that this steamling pile of anti-privacy anti-creativity poo could get rushed through Parliament without a proper debate. The BPI would be very happy if this were the case, since they recognise that such a debate would likely stop the DEB in its tracks: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/12/leaked-uk-record-ind.html#previouspost There are some very enlightened comments on this article calling for us UK citizens to get the finger out. http://boingboing.net/2010/03/02/brits-tell-the-libde.html An important point was raised that simply copying and pasting forms letters and popping them off to MPs by the bucket load isn't going to gain any traction. However one commenter suggested that his letter might inspire the rest of us: http://penllawen.tumblr.com/post/452280362/digital-economy-bill So thanks to Richard Gaywood for enabling me to understand some of the key issues and develop this missive to my own MP.Dear Mr Robinson, I am an internet consultant and partner in a fledgling music business.
I strongly believe the Digital Economy Bill requires a full
Parliamentary debate before it should be passed into law and I would
like to know your views on the subject. I have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, namely: Privacy
This Bill aims to turn our ISPs into listening stations monitoring
every transmissions of every internet user on the off chance they might
be breaking the law. This is beyond the pale in our
innocent-until-proven-guilty society. Controls regarding wire-tapping
phone calls and physical bugging require stringent judicial review and
consent, yet the DEB simply proposes to open the floodgates to
litigious copyright holders. Economy
At a time when the economy is still in a most fragile state, it is not
sensible to impose the wholesale monitoring that the bill proposes. The
huge cost associated with this will likely be passed on by the ISPs to
their customers. "Government research as part of the Digital Britain programme
(http://www.ipa.co.uk/Content/Digital-Britain-broadband-initiative-could-boost-British-e-commerce-by-%C2%A314-billion)
has suggested that the British economy would be £1.4 billion better off
if the target of 100% broadband access by 2012 is achieved. Making it
more expensive for businesses and consumers isn’t going to help that
goal." Liability
By making account holders liable for transmissions the DEB will naively
open an entirely different can of worms. The vast majority of
law-abiding residential internet users would be appalled to know their
their home wireless security can easily be exploited by determined
hackers - something they can do little to prevent without incurring
huge expense. They will be even more appalled when they are held
responsible for the actions of malicious hackers. Similarly, public access in libraries, hotels, cafes, which had enabled
internet culture to become embedded in our way of life and helped many
close to the poverty line to get online, is equally vulnerable. Few
people have finances to truly secure their network in such as way as to
avoid third-party liability, nevermind the IT know-how to do it
themselves. The DEB has the potential to wipe out this vital aspect of
internet culture. The DEB does not reflect the reality of how the internet works and how
quickly technology and usage practices have evolved in the last ten
years. It is attempting to protect the unprotectable. Sites like Google
are now lynchpins of the global economy, yet the DEB would make
provision for taking them down simply because they index links to
alleged infringers. It is fair to say that the DEB will be used as a
weapon to penalise the smaller and defenseless whilst overlooking those
with the legal and financial power to make a stand. It is telling that Google, BT, the British Library and many others
oppose the DEB. I have been a website designer consultant since 1997 and I have worked
all my life in the digital sector. As such, I feel qualified to
understand some of the issues around this Bill, and I feel strongly
that it is overly broad and overly vague. I am also involved in the grass-root music sector, producing new music
for 20 years and helping young people understand how the music industry
has evolved. The DEB does not represent my interests as a musician or
copyright holder. The internet has enabled me and many like me to
develop sustainable creative businesses, something that was formerly
impossible without the distribution offered by the internet. The DEB
will stifle this new wave of creative businesses by applying the rules
of the 'old' and dying music industry. That old industry, represented by the BPI has a right to protect its
own interests, but not at the expense of my privacy, right of access,
free speech or creativity. It is frightening that in a recent official
memo, the BPI gladly anticipates that the DEB to be slipped through
Parliament before the election without a proper debate. In the new internet era it is true that the core issues of privacy,
piracy and copyright need new legislation. However it is not necessary
to effectively criminalise the many for the financial gain of the few. As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you, please: do all
you can to ensure the Government doesn’t rush the bill through without
granting us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate. Please contact me if you require further information. Yours sincerely, Richard Dale
I strongly believe the Digital Economy Bill requires a full
Parliamentary debate before it should be passed into law and I would
like to know your views on the subject. I have concerns about several aspects of this Bill, namely: Privacy
This Bill aims to turn our ISPs into listening stations monitoring
every transmissions of every internet user on the off chance they might
be breaking the law. This is beyond the pale in our
innocent-until-proven-guilty society. Controls regarding wire-tapping
phone calls and physical bugging require stringent judicial review and
consent, yet the DEB simply proposes to open the floodgates to
litigious copyright holders. Economy
At a time when the economy is still in a most fragile state, it is not
sensible to impose the wholesale monitoring that the bill proposes. The
huge cost associated with this will likely be passed on by the ISPs to
their customers. "Government research as part of the Digital Britain programme
(http://www.ipa.co.uk/Content/Digital-Britain-broadband-initiative-could-boost-British-e-commerce-by-%C2%A314-billion)
has suggested that the British economy would be £1.4 billion better off
if the target of 100% broadband access by 2012 is achieved. Making it
more expensive for businesses and consumers isn’t going to help that
goal." Liability
By making account holders liable for transmissions the DEB will naively
open an entirely different can of worms. The vast majority of
law-abiding residential internet users would be appalled to know their
their home wireless security can easily be exploited by determined
hackers - something they can do little to prevent without incurring
huge expense. They will be even more appalled when they are held
responsible for the actions of malicious hackers. Similarly, public access in libraries, hotels, cafes, which had enabled
internet culture to become embedded in our way of life and helped many
close to the poverty line to get online, is equally vulnerable. Few
people have finances to truly secure their network in such as way as to
avoid third-party liability, nevermind the IT know-how to do it
themselves. The DEB has the potential to wipe out this vital aspect of
internet culture. The DEB does not reflect the reality of how the internet works and how
quickly technology and usage practices have evolved in the last ten
years. It is attempting to protect the unprotectable. Sites like Google
are now lynchpins of the global economy, yet the DEB would make
provision for taking them down simply because they index links to
alleged infringers. It is fair to say that the DEB will be used as a
weapon to penalise the smaller and defenseless whilst overlooking those
with the legal and financial power to make a stand. It is telling that Google, BT, the British Library and many others
oppose the DEB. I have been a website designer consultant since 1997 and I have worked
all my life in the digital sector. As such, I feel qualified to
understand some of the issues around this Bill, and I feel strongly
that it is overly broad and overly vague. I am also involved in the grass-root music sector, producing new music
for 20 years and helping young people understand how the music industry
has evolved. The DEB does not represent my interests as a musician or
copyright holder. The internet has enabled me and many like me to
develop sustainable creative businesses, something that was formerly
impossible without the distribution offered by the internet. The DEB
will stifle this new wave of creative businesses by applying the rules
of the 'old' and dying music industry. That old industry, represented by the BPI has a right to protect its
own interests, but not at the expense of my privacy, right of access,
free speech or creativity. It is frightening that in a recent official
memo, the BPI gladly anticipates that the DEB to be slipped through
Parliament before the election without a proper debate. In the new internet era it is true that the core issues of privacy,
piracy and copyright need new legislation. However it is not necessary
to effectively criminalise the many for the financial gain of the few. As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you, please: do all
you can to ensure the Government doesn’t rush the bill through without
granting us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate. Please contact me if you require further information. Yours sincerely, Richard Dale
