Government panders to music industry in copyright debate

Rights groups are outraged by the latest developments

Controversial copyright proposals put forward by the House of Lords that will see certain web sites restricted are exactly the same terms that music industry lobbyists were campaigning for, leaked documents revealed today.

Last week the House of Lords added a new amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, Amendment 120A, that will 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.

Digital rights groups, ISPs and Liberal Democrat supporters have protested against the amendment, arguing that it has been rushed through without proper consideration and that it gives copyright holding companies too much power.

Prior to this leak, commentators noted their concern that the House of Lords may have pandered to the demands of copyright holders when voting through the amendment because of their lobbying strength.

There have been online protests against the amendment, but the lack of physical presence means that the protestors have exerted less pressure on parliament.

The Digital Rights Group published documents from the BPI today showing that the music industry body has been responsible for the proposals, and pretty much word for word.

"Now, amendments often come from lobby and campaign groups, including us, not least because it's the easiest way for them to show parliamentarians what they want," said the Open Rights Group on its web site.

"The fact that the BPI essentially got to write what they wanted and get it proposed more or less wholesale as law, in such a tremendously sensitive area and in such a one-sided manner, shows that something is very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted."

The amendment was proposed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and had already been rejected last summer when the Digital Economy Bill was first being consulted.

"Taking a major proposal from lobbyists from one part of industry and shoving it into a bill without consultation is totally irresponsible," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group.

"This proposal, drafted by the BPI, could produce backdoor web censorship and unjustified blocks on web sites. That's what happens when only one side of a problem gets to influence the debate, and that's why we also have disconnection proposed as a punishment."

The news of the leak follows a warning today from the British Computer Society that copyright holders may have too much power in the debate because of their lobbying presence.

It also follows concerns that the proposals will be adopted by the government without a thorough debate in the House of Commons.