05 Mar 2010
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.
Latest stories from Public Sector
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What will be the biggest change to corporate technology in the future?
TFL director of Games transport Mark Evers discusses how the public transport network is preparing for this summer's event
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
Presales Consultant - Storage and Virtualisation - Netapp...
Virtualisation Architect / Principal Consultant - VMware...
Project Manager - Microsoft, Vmware, Data Center, IT...
Microsoft Consultant x4 - Server 2008 AD Exchange 2010...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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