Peter Handley's Blog Organic Search Engine Marketer, Portsmouth, Hampshire
  • Digital Economy Bill – My MP Mike Hancock’s Response

    4
    scissors
    March 28th, 2010ismepeteInternet Good Deeds

    I recently emailed my MP Mike Hancock,of the Liberal Democrats as like many Internet aware users, I have been very concerned about the rushing through of the Digital Economy Bill.

    The bill is wide ranging, although I’m not going to go into great detail here as there is a good start to information about this on the BBC.

    I raised some specific concerns as well as using the Digital Economy Bill letter template from 37 Signals – particularly in relation to the methods that would be used to determine who file sharers are – for instance, as I write this blog, there are a number of unsecured networks that I could use to go online with, and download copyrighted material. Then there are issues with business and schools being responsible for any downloaded copyrighted material.

    I was also concerned that websites accused of breaching copyright, could with no due process be blocked from being accessed. In short a hell of a lot of power, with very little accountability to prove infringements.

    My MP’s response was as follows:

    Dear Mr Handley,

    The Digital Economy Bill is wide ranging and covers issues such as a new remit for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV as well as the issue of illegal downloading.

    The Liberal Democrats support the creative industries and believe that many aspects of this Bill are vitally important to the continuing success of our radio, television and content industries.

    We are also concerned about the financial implications of illegal downloading of copyright material and recognise the importance of protecting intellectual property.

    A report published on 17th March 2010 predicted that a quarter of a million jobs in the UK’s creative industries could be lost by 2015 if current trends in online piracy continue.

    Commenting on it, Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, said: “The results of the study stress that the growth of unauthorised file-sharing, downloading and streaming of copyrighted works and recorded performances is a major threat to the creative industries in terms of loss of employment and revenues. The scale of the problem is truly frightening now – let alone in the future if no firm actions against illegal file-sharing are taken.”

    For these reasons we do believe that some action is needed and must form part of the Digital Economy Bill.

    However, we have opposed – and helped defeat – government proposals (contained in Clause 17 of the original Digital Economy Bill) to give itself almost unfettered powers to act against copyright infringement.

    Further, as a result of debates instigated and amendments passed by the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, the government’s original proposals relating to illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing have been significantly improved.

    As a result, no action to introduce “technical measures” (whether temporary account suspension, bandwidth throttling or whatever) can be introduced until;

    1. soft measures (letter writing) have been used
    2. an evaluation of their effectiveness has been undertaken
    3. an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical measures has been undertaken
    4. further consultation has taken place
    5. proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and
    6. there is an explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty

    The Liberal Democrats remain concerned by some aspects of the system for tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing being introduced in the Bill and will take further action in the Commons to scrutinise and improve the legislation. In particular, we are concerned that there will not be enough time for in-depth consultation on the initial code that Ofcom will draw up. We also feel that there is currently inadequate protection in the Bill for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses offering internet access to the public.

    We are also unconvinced of the merits of the various technical measures that have been proposed, including bandwidth shaping and temporary account suspension. For this reason we have amended the Bill to ensure that any such measures cannot be introduced without proper consultation and not until evidence has been produced to prove that this is the best available option. We are further seeking to ensure that any measures brought before parliament will be subject to maximum scrutiny in both Houses and that it will be possible for changes to be made to them before a final decision is made.

    We are urging the creative music, film and video games industries to work more vigorously to develop new business models which will make it easier and more affordable for people to legally access their products. We hope that this combined with “soft measures” and an effective education campaign will mean that further action will not be required.

    Liberal Democrats have agreed at their Spring Conference to establish a working party to address these issues. With at least a year before there will be any attempt to introduce “technical measures”, this will provide an opportunity for the party to consider the outcome of research into the effectiveness of the early stages of the implementation of the legislation in the digital economy Bill.

    The Bill has now completed all stages in the Lords but cannot proceed unless it has, as a minimum, been debated at a “Second Reading” in the Commons. We believe that many of the measures in the Bill that do not relate to illegal file sharing are important and must be allowed to go into law. However, in respect of those that relate to illegal file sharing we will not support them in the Commons if we are not satisfied that the procedures in place are fair and allow for full consultation and scrutiny before their introduction in the future.

    Best regards,

    Mike Hancock MP

    ismepete (29 Posts)

    I'm an online marketer, specialising in Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). I write for theMediaFlow Search Engine Marketing blog, write my own personal blog covering online marketing and what's going on in my life and manage and contribute to a food blog.


  • Simon Frost

    It sounds like your MP has just rehashed this press release from Lib Dem central office, stating their new position to the #debill: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/03/29/uk-

    At least the Lib Dems now seem to be taking *some* kind of stance against the bill, however, which is more than can be said for the Tories or Labour.

  • http://www.peterhandley.com/ Peter Handley

    I thought that this was likely to be a stock response!

  • http://www.peterhandley.com/ Peter Handley

    I thought that this was likely to be a stock response!

  • Punky Spunksmith

    A responses from my MP, Angela Smith (Lab, Hboro, Sheffield. As you can see, she doesnt have a fucking clue.

    Dear Constituent,

    Thank you for your recent email concerning the digital economy bill and the prospect of this bill becoming legislation.

    Although I would have voted in favour of the bill at its second reading, none of the opposition parties provided any opposition to advancing the bill. As a consequence of this, no vote was held and so the bill progressed to committee stage unopposed. I do however feel compelled to explain the reasons why I was in favour of the bill’s passage at second reading.

    It is the case that businesses crucial to the UK’s media and technology economy will greatly benefit from the implementation of the bill. Such companies include Channel 4, whose main benefit would be an extension of its public service remit. The Bill will legally require Channel 4 to invest in film, thereby securing its already considerable commitment to this medium.

    The other provision I strongly support is that relating to the strengthening of online protection of children and young teenagers. There have been numerous cases of children downloading information, using internet gaming and using social networking sites without their parents’ supervision or permission. The internet is one of the most influential and therefore powerful tools in the world, and there is little doubt that this level of unregulated and free information can have dangerous consequences on an impressionable mind.

    A major area of controversy that the bill seeks to readdress would be the issue of online gaming. Rather than there being two regulatory boards examining and classifying the suitability of games, there would now be just one, avoiding the confusion on gaming suitability that currently exists. Secondly, the bill would put in place a strict procedure when games rated for ages 12, 16 and 18 are supplied to people under these ages, as it simplifies and clarifies the law on age-related status for retailers, parents and children, ensuring that children are not exposed to any material that is not deemed appropriate for them. Finally, it will create an age ratings system harmonised across 30 European countries so that children will not become exposed to offensive gaming material from other countries. Whilst the majority of research conducted on the internet is useful and informative, I believe that where we can take reasonable measures to protect children then this action should be taken.

    It is also the case that the Bill has been thoroughly debated in the Lords and amended in relation to the provisions on copyright. It is my understanding that a clear and effective appeal mechanism has been put in place and that before Regulations could be implemented there would be full consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny.