Amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill was voted through by the House of Lords on Tuesday
Protests greet new Digital Economy Bill amendment
/v3-uk/analysis/1999707/protests-greet-digital-economy-bill-amendment
05 Mar 2010, Rosalie Marshall , V3
The Digital Economy Bill has created yet another storm of protest after the proposed legislation gained a further controversial amendment in the House of Lords this week.
Amendment 120A would give copyright holders the power to pressure internet service providers (ISPs) into restricting certain web sites. If the ISP fails to cut off the internet access, the copyright holder can apply to the courts to force the ISP to comply. The ISP would then be liable for legal costs.
The amendment has been proposed to replace the already contentious Clause 17, which is supported by the Labour Party and would give future ministers the power to introduce new rules without going through the parliamentary process.
Protestors against the clause include Google, Facebook and Yahoo, all of which argue that the powers could be used to introduce additional technical measures to monitor the internet, which would impose unnecessary costs for ISPs and discourage innovation on the web.
However, the amendment now replacing Clause 17, put forward by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, is likely to cause even more of an outcry. The restriction of web sites by ISPs has more draconian implications than the removal of parliamentary restrictions from future ministers, according to detractors.
The amendment had already been rejected last summer when the Digital Economy Bill was first being consulted on. Digital rights groups, ISPs and even Liberal Democrat supporters are now protesting against the changes. Only lawyers have given their support to the amendment, believing it to be safer to hand more power to the courts than government ministers.
Jim Killock, executive director at the Open Rights Group, said that the amendment would give copyright holding companies too much power.
"Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive 'copyright attacks' that could shut them down, just by the threat of action," he said.
"The Liberal Democrats have tried to find an alternative to Clause 17, but its proposals are even more damaging. People will be able to send threatening letters to ISPs telling them to block a service, and if they don't comply they will be taken court.
"This will result in ISPs blocking services that may be completely legal. Music companies could take sites like Pirate Bay to court, and they could even make arguments to take legal action against sites like YouTube or RapidService.
"Because no-one has been consulted on this amendment or thought it through, it could be extremely damaging. It is certainly not the way to draft laws. The problem now is that Clause 17 is a really bad approach and now we have another. The Liberal Democrats have got us out of the frying pan and into the fire."
The amendment was put forward by the Conservative Lord Greville Howard and the Liberal Democrat Lord Tim Clement-Jones.
However, because the Liberal Democrats drafted the amendment before the Conservative Party voiced its support, the wrath from protestors appears to be falling on the former more than the latter.
Lord Clement-Jones has responded to criticism of the amendment in a post on his party's own web site, the Liberal Democrat Voice. However, the post has generated negative comments, showing that the policy does not even have the support of many Liberal Democrats.
The ISP Association (ISPA), meanwhile, described itself as "outraged" by the amendment.
"Whilst we appreciate the concern of opposition front benches to Clause 17, we regret that this amendment has been hastily constructed and rushed through at the report stage without due consideration of the implications or consultation with the interested parties that would be affected," the organisation said.
"The many associated legal, technical and practical issues have simply not been debated in nearly enough depth. For a policy of such gravity, this is negligent.
"ISPA is particularly disappointed that the lords supporting this amendment drew parallels with the model of network-level blocking administered by the Internet Watch Foundation.
"The suggestion that a framework developed to fight the distribution of criminal images of child sexual abuse is appropriate to tackle allegations of civil copyright infringement is incomprehensible."
The Digital Economy Bill will enter its third reading in the House of Lords next Monday evening. There will then be two further readings, followed by the Bill's committee and report stages, before it enters its final reading in the House of Commons.
However, because the amendment has the support of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, the government can be voted down.
The Digital Economy Bill has also proposed 'three strikes' legislation to tackle illegal file-sharing, which would see culprits kicked off the internet after multiple attempts to download copyrighted material. The web site restriction policy would work alongside the three strikes legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones argued that both policies are needed to fight illegal file sharing.
"The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 35 per cent of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services. Particular threats concern 'cyber lockers' which are hosted abroad," he said.
"There are web sites which consistently infringe copyright, many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Many of these web sites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.
"The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.
"Unlike Clause 17, amendment 120A depoliticises the process. The amendment will ensure that any action will be heard before the High Court. The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact, allowing both sides to make their case before a judge, not by appeal to the secretary of state."
Tony Ballard, partner at London media and entertainment law firm Harbottle and Lewis, said he supported the new amendment.
"Clause 17 would have given the executive powers to change the rules with little or no opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny,” he said.
"Rather than swallow such a constitutional anomaly, the House of Lords' ingenious solution yesterday leaves the substantive law unchanged but gives the courts a procedural remedy to combat infringement by requiring ISPs in appropriate circumstances to prevent access to ‘online locations’ where the accessible content, or some of it, infringes copyright,” he said.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
Civil Disobediance
Simple, if the Amendment passes, and all ISPs agree to not honor it - what will happen? will the government shut down ALL ISPs in the country, effectively killing the internet even for the greedy politicians? I say when ridiculous laws like this get near to the books, ISPs should band together and simply say they will not honor such stupidity. If ISPs are strong in numbers, such a stupid amendment will be taken off the books in no time. It's simple really.
Posted by John Rogers, 10 Mar 2010
Politician Don't understand Technology!!!!
Would this not mean to show a mockery if became Law you could protest against all the political parties sites, recording and movie sites to get them blocked I'm sure that would get a very quick change. Especially as quite a few have used unlicensed music or images on them, EMI being just one of the big companies to infringe and lily allen of course.
Posted by Matthew Gardner, 05 Mar 2010
bill amndment
please remind me, are we in nazi Germany
Posted by concernedalot, 05 Mar 2010
More Censorship by the Powers that Be.
There should be NO censorship of the internet AT ALL. Once they begin to fiddle about with it, restrict it and regulate it they will start a process leading to its demise. If left alone the powers that be who seek to take away yet more of our freedoms would find the internet is self regulating and therefore of no concern to them at all..
Posted by Mick, 06 Mar 2010
More Censorship by the Powers that Be.
There should be NO censorship of the internet AT ALL. Once they begin to fiddle about with it, restrict it and regulate it they will start a process leading to its demise. If left alone the powers that be who seek to take away yet more of our freedoms would find the internet is self regulating and therefore of no concern to them at all..
Posted by Mick, 06 Mar 2010
1984 arrives a few years late
and the UK continues its journey to police statehood, ruled by greedy lying dictators called 'politicians'!
If you vote, you must be a moron, because when your only choices are self-interested lying greedy waste of DNA 1 or self-interested lying greedy waste of DNA 2, whatever you do you still get a self-interested lying greedy waste of DNA, who will continue to do whatever is in their own interests regardless of what effect this might have on the country or its population!
Posted by Astaroth, 06 Mar 2010
So what's the diffference between the UK and China? or Iran?
Seems that our political class just want to control what we think and do in every way and all times. And you can bet that, as usual, the small guy will have his collar felt while the world's real villains will avoid the law. Orwell got it right.
By the way, I have never downloaded music or video in my life. I am a senior citizen! but I fear it when our rulers give themselves widely defined and uncontrolled powers to control our thoughts and speech
Posted by Hamish Turner, 08 Mar 2010
animal farm by george orwell? or house of lords?
all men are equal but some are more equal than others "BOLLOCKS"
Posted by mick - miksmatrix@yahoo.co.uk, 08 Mar 2010
Don't let incompetent governments near our lovely www
The NET has grown without restriction and is as safe, polite and powerful as anyone could ever have dreamt. Governments predicted anachy abuse and chaos? Now the beautiful net exists they want to be captain. Government interference will drag the whole thing down to their gutter level (where they like things). Most of them probably don't even know what www is anyway. Ludites that want to drag us back to the middle ages. They should concentrate on sorting out the mess in the world: famine, war and oppression that THEY have created first.
What has the www proved? We don't need regulation!
Posted by andyarry, 09 Mar 2010
Politicians are still too corporate.
Politicians these days (and generally have always) have seen to protect the corporations and conglomerates and care less about the common man.
Parliament should not pass bills that primarily focus on making Corporate Giants richer. It's undemocratic, and we always bail out the fat cats.
We bailed out the banks (which seemed sensible), but it's the CEO's that profited from the bailout.
They mess up, and we pay for it.
Posted by Jaime Walker, 17 Mar 2010
Jobs for the boys
This bill isn't anything to do with protecting an industry and Protecting the funding of new talent! This is about a meeting Peter Mandleson had with Paul Geffen a music BILLIONAIRE who wants the little people to stop taking small pieces of his very large pie! In fact if all of the music execs and overpaid artists put 2% of thier grotesque wealth back into the industry there wouldn't be a problem! In fact more money would be available fir artists!!! So Mr Mandleson and Mr Geffen and the rest of you self serving parasites who think the entire public population are F**K WITS, some of us are not and I would ask if there are any multi-millionaires out there who want to put a bit back, give some money and fight this law in the courts because we all know in a digital age this law is ILLEGAL!! If I want to give something of mine too somebody else that is my right to do so!! Whoever seriously challanges this law will have the backing of MILLIONS of people and governments don't ignore that kind of power!
'Power to th people' has never meant as much ad it does in these early years of the digital age! Protect it!
Posted by Stephen Lee, 19 Mar 2010
Jobs for the boys
This bill isn't anything to do with protecting an industry and Protecting the funding of new talent! This is about a meeting Peter Mandleson had with Paul Geffen a music BILLIONAIRE who wants the little people to stop taking small pieces of his very large pie! In fact if all of the music execs and overpaid artists put 2% of thier grotesque wealth back into the industry there wouldn't be a problem! In fact more money would be available fir artists!!! So Mr Mandleson and Mr Geffen and the rest of you self serving parasites who think the entire public population are F**K WITS, some of us are not and I would ask if there are any multi-millionaires out there who want to put a bit back, give some money and fight this law in the courts because we all know in a digital age this law is ILLEGAL!! If I want to give something of mine too somebody else that is my right to do so!! Whoever seriously challanges this law will have the backing of MILLIONS of people and governments don't ignore that kind of power!
'Power to th people' has never meant as much ad it does in these early years of the digital age! Protect it!
Posted by Stephen Lee, 19 Mar 2010
Back the f*** Up!!
The more the public scrutinize this antidemocratic, antediluvian Bill and the totalitarian powers of censorship now proposed by this amendment, the more obvious it becomes that this is one of the most idiotic and harmful pieces of legislation ever conceived. It is so clearly the product of corporate lobbying and self-interest that it really is sickening to consider the lengths to which our elected representatives have gone to get it through.
I have no doubt that the key sections of the bill concerning redress of suspected copyright infringement are in breach of the European Court of Justice's recent pronouncements on this issue. It would be a catastrophe for all of us, however, if this frankenstein Bill was passed into law and had to be countermanded in this way. Furthermore, millions of struggling artists prepared to embrace the opportunities of new internet media will suffer financially for the sins of big business and its continual inability to adapt.
The www is potentially the single greatest instrument for the promotion of peace and furtherment of global knowledge and talent in the history of the human race. We will not allow vested interests and fascist politics to corrupt and censor it for everyone. The internet is simply further along the path of evolution than either the philosophy of copyright, the Law or the Law-makers themselves. Leave it alone and go legislate yourselves.
Posted by Vaughn Swift, 26 Mar 2010