Apathy and ignorance from dying UK Parliament

The UK Parliament has just put in place legislation demonstrating clearly that its members largely do not understand the way that knowledge and culture is fostered.

While they still apparently support the rights of creators to receive legal protection for their work, they do not understand that this right – copyright, in other words – is not something that is best either defined or policed by corporations who market such work (aka ‘publishers’).

They also showed that themselves happy to take the easier path, ignoring the vast body of complaints they have received from constituents, rather than the harder path of conscientious scrutiny. Most MPs were absent from the debate, which itself was rushed through on the last day of business. I was shocked by the complacent ignorance of Sion Simons, the minister responsible for the Bill, and sad to see so few of his colleagues take an interest.

But there were exceptions – Tom Watson MP, John Redwood MP and Fiona Mactaggart MP prominent amongst them – who took the time and trouble to explain clearly (if only to those of their colleagues who were present) the flaws in the Bill and to highlight the foolishness of rushing it through. Let’s hope that the electorate returns a new Parliament that has more conscientiousness, more intelligence and a better understanding of the society that surrounds it.

Otherwise the UK is going to lose out.

Fiona Mactaggart MP sums it up

Letter to Harriet Harman about the Digital Economy Bill

Dear Harriet Harman,

I am writing to express my concern about the Digital Economy Bill.

I am worried by reports that this Bill will be rushed through the Commons without the scrutiny it deserves. I do not believe that the allegations about undue influence from commercial lobbyists can yet be refuted, since clauses drafted by such lobbyists remain in place in the Bill as it stands. Such unquestioning acceptance of lobbyists' material is disappointing and at a time when politicians are under such grave suspicion of corruption it does not help to restore confidence.

The current provisions of the Bill (especially clauses 11-18) also threaten to have a severe negative effect on the freedoms we currently have in the UK to use public internet access and public file transfer services, while also threatening users with disconnection following allegations of copyright infringement: both these objectives represent a massively disproportionate response to the offences purported to occur.

It should not be possible for a conviction for infringement of copyright to result in curtailment of the defendant's access to something as fundamental as the Internet now is. That is like switching off the water supply to someone who has not paid their TV licence. Copyright is extremely important but this is not the way to encourage society to understand and respect it.

It is very difficult to prove accurately who is responsible for a copyright-infringing file transfer and this might lead to the most vulnerable users - those who do not understand the technology - being exploited by unscrupulous individuals who use their networks to perform such infringing file transfers. The passing of the bill will certainly drive determined individuals to make more concerted efforts to cover their tracks and it seems likely that innocent people will suffer at the least the pain of being unfairly charged and having to fight their case, even if they are not eventually convicted.

In addition, disconnection seems to restrict fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression. Such rights can not be infringed by a democratic government without exceptional reasons. The infringement of copyright has not attracted such draconian penalties since the days of the Court of Star Chamber - a long-past era of oppression in which freedoms were not valued as we value them now.

Please take note of these concerns, which I share with so many others, and resist the call to rush through this inappropriate Bill.

Yours,
Ben Weiner

The Digital Economy Bill: a letter to Lord Puttnam

Dear Lord Puttnam,

In response to the proposed Digital Economy Bill, on 25 November you said:

'I also add a broad welcome to the proposals that throw a spanner in the proliferation of online piracy.' [1]

I agree that legislation is appropriate in an area that is forming an increasingly significant part of our working and social lives.

I also strongly support the concept and practice of copyright as a pillar of the economy, although I reject the somewhat natural urge to extend the terms. I support copyright because I know that it gives me the ability to allow people to benefit from my work under the terms of permissive licences (thus ultimately benefiting myself), and because I recognise that unregulated copying will undermine a creator's ability to support themselves -- which ultimately means that our society in its current economic form will not be able to create new and original work in any field.

But I feel that to describe the proposals for curbing piracy [the distribution of material subject to copyright without permission] as 'throwing a spanner' is about the best that can be said for the accuracy and effect of the proposed Bill. From what I have read it seems as though there will be very damaging outcomes from the application of its clumsy provisions, but ones which may not harm the offenders at all.

Perhaps your statement tacitly acknowledges that the Bill in question needs much more work in this area. I would urge you to take a look at some of the objections listed by the Open Rights Group before you decide [2]

Yours sincerely,

Ben Weiner

References:
[1]http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-11-25a.377.5&s=digital+economy+speaker%3A13699#g417.0

[2] http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2009/write-to-the-lords-today

Lord Puttnam, former film maker, is deputy chairman of Channel 4.

Edit: reformat due to abysmal HTML from Blogger :-(