Digital Economy Bill Shoved Through With Minor Modifications

from the sorry-UK dept

Wed, Apr 7th 2010 3:33pm — Mike Masnick

As mentioned yesterday, the UK House of Commons came up with a bizarre plan to have a brief debate on the Digital Economy Bill in a "wash up" process, and then basically approve it and promise to come back and fix it later. It's a bizarre way of doing things. Charles Arthur did a nice job blogging the debate, which mostly consisted of a bunch of MPs pointing out how ridiculous it was that this bill was being rushed through without any real debate, followed by Digital Britain Minister Stephen Timms (who has been known to not even remotely understand this issue) got up and basically said "well, too bad." As you read through what happened, it's almost all people protesting what's in the bill as well as the lack of discussion on the bill, followed by Timms saying:

"My sense is that there is a pretty broad acceptance across the house... that legislation is appropriate for dealing with it. There is definitely significant harm to the creative industries... estimated at £400m for the music, film and TV industries in the impact assessment of the bill... this is a very serious problem."

That £400 number is totally made up (apparently, at yesterday's event various other numbers were thrown around as well). But the bigger point is that Timms is basically lying. There was not "pretty broad acceptance" in the house that the legislation was appropriate, or even that there is significant harm to the creative industries. The debate was almost entirely against the bill. Still, as with yesterday, the chambers were not particularly full for the debate, but a bunch of MPs who don't really understand or care about this issue showed up at the end and voted, so the final tally came to: 189 votes to shove it through, and only 47 against. The only real "concession" was the dropping of the hugely controversial clause 18, giving the gov't excessive powers to adjust copyright law in the future. Of course, when that first came out, I wondered if the whole point of clause 18 was to draw the fire of consumer groups, let it be dropped, while everything else got shoved through. It looks like that may be what happened. Update: Or not. Further analysis from folks suggests that while Clause 18 may not have made it into the bill, what was in the clause did, in fact, still make it into the bill. So it's even worse than before. Lovely.

Those who wanted a full debate on the bill basically had no chance. Despite criticizing the bill heavily, the gov't basically said the debate was over, and apparently those who had been debated started shouting "Nooo!!!" As Arthur writes in his live blog:

That big shout of "Nooo!!!" could have been a thousand souls crying out as one at the sight of the government shoving through 41 clauses of a bill

And there you go. The entertainment industry gets its ridiculous anti-consumer copyright law with no real attempt at debate or amendment in the House of Commons. Concerns raised about how this bill could force the blocking of Wikileaks or the shutdown of internet access at small business? Ignored.

Of course, as with every other country that passes such backwards legislation, don't expect it to do anything to actually help the entertainment industry as it continues to seek backwards looking legislative solutions, rather than forward looking business model solutions. The legacy entertainment industry will surely celebrate this "victory," but let's check back in a bit and see what it did to their bottom lines.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: digital economy bill, united kingdom

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

mrharrysan (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 3:41pm

I hope the consumers in Britain realize what an utter travesty this bill is and boycott the major content providers there. Buy used! It's perfectly legal and ethical and the Entertainment cabals don't see a penny from it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 3:42pm

Typical
In the United States (not all that long ago)--the 'Federal Reserve Act' was passed in just such a manner; secretively, furtively, maliciously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80, 7 Apr 2010 @ 3:49pm

I don't understand why they lock the doors 8 mins ater the voting started... The 200 MPs that didn't take part in the debate did not deserve a vote!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 3:50pm

I'm absolutely livid. There were some MPs doing a good job though: Tom Watson, Bill Cash, John Hemming (possibly others, but I forget).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 3:53pm

How much solace should I take in my MP being to lazy to vote for it, and given his record he would have voted for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beefcake (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:09pm

This passes in the U.K. the day after J.K. Rowling states "I'm quite sure in the not-too-distant future, I will bring out another book." When she was hungry, she was publishing a book a year. Then every other year. Now it's been 3 years since the last (and counting).

Yep, those Harry Potter copyrights have really encouraged her to keep contributing to the arts and sciences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan, 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:15pm

Party of 'No'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Barry Zubel (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:28pm

Is Flash that big a problem?
I'm reading the guidance notes from here (Originally linked from an article here)
The type of simple measures which can tackle infringement include:
...
Installing Firewalls that do not allow access to a number of sites, such as those containing Flash technology
Oops, bang go lots of websites then.... but... WHY? B.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:29pm

Diane Abbott
Just said on "This Week" that she voted against the DEB.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:32pm

I'm not a citizen of the UK. Do any of them think that passing legislation without a proper review process simply because the current party might be going out of power is a good thing? It seems like something that, when it's explained to you, could only be used for evil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:34pm

The Future
Somebody one day will start creating an internet only , unsigned artist only, top 40. Hopefully they will create something that grows as facebook or Google have grown. Then the radio stations must get on board and start airing the internet top 40. At this point the recording studios will go bankrupt and music will be free again as it was before their greed made it all about money in their pockets and not the artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:35pm

Remember, remember the fifth of November...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Dickinson (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:44pm

I just can't believe such an important bill had so little discussion and what discussion there was, was those objecting to the bill trying to convince an otherwise empty house. Both the conservatives and labour just whipped this bill through - utterly depressing. Why there isn't a rule that if you don't come to the debates you cannot vote is beyond me.

This bill is going to cause major headaches for the digital economy it is supposed to support and only serves give the lobbyists a hollow victory. I know law has to play catch up most the time, but this one pushes the laws further away from the needs and rights of the public than where they started from.

I hope the Dark Prince Mr Mandelson gets enjoys his free holidays off the back of this. Ugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
theskyrider, 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:51pm

Content Industries, before you start to celebrate:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:05pm

Re:

This passes in the U.K. the day after J.K. Rowling states "I'm quite sure in the not-too-distant future, I will bring out another book." When she was hungry, she was publishing a book a year. Then every other year. Now it's been 3 years since the last (and counting).

Yep, those Harry Potter copyrights have really encouraged her to keep contributing to the arts and sciences.

This just in: writing something new takes more time and effort than writing more installments in a series you've already planned in detail.

On another note, I see nothing unjust at all about an author being able to live in substantial comfort of the rest of her life on her earnings from a series as successful as Harry Potter, and the possible prospects of such success certainly can't discourage other authors.

Copyright is "supposed" to be a system that, overall, maximize the progress in the arts and sciences. It's not supposed to maximize the output of J.K. Rowling in particular (and while I did enjoy the Harry Potter books, it wouldn't surprise me if there's nothing further that J.K. Rowling would write under any copyright regime that I would find worth reading).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:25pm

Wait....
So the way I understand this discussion is that those of you in the US are upset about this sort of thing happening, regardless of where, right?

Yeah cuz that doesn't EVER happen here...
:::cough:healthcare:cough:::

Oh sure, that had TONS of "debate"....

Debate:a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints
Discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions

Every video clip I've seen has just been of Pelosi or some other progressive mocking Republicans and threatening Democrats who were against it.

I don't mean to imply that these things happening in UK's Parliament are unimportant, quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that if you're going to complain about it happening overseas, complain about it happening here, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:41pm

healhcare vs copyrights
one is about cmpassion and civilization and caring for your fellow man , the other as its being legislated is about greed , coruption , laziness and doing as much harm to society before they get pissed off and revolt.

GUESS which is health care and copyright.
my bet is 99.99999999 % of you know the rest are shills that won't admit the truth.

IM glad this ahppened cause now we have a few countries that will utterly destroy themselves. WHILE the rest of us invent , innovate and caringly allow for disabled and poor to have access to works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:47pm

This makes me glad I departed the UK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:50pm

Re:
Welcome to the US, where we used to do things different than the UK just because it's the way the UK did it (e.g. spelling "gray" vice "grey"), but where we now screw things up in the same fashion and claim it's the new, improved method.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JackSombra (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 6:07pm

Re: Wait....
"Every video clip I've seen has just been of Pelosi or some other progressive mocking Republicans and threatening Democrats who were against it."
And nearly every clip I have seen is Republicans talking about death panels, socialism and comparisons to Hitler

But I will agree with you, there was not much debate on healthcare because for the last year republicans were more interested in saying no to everything, spouting talking points and trying to score political points instead of actually debating anything

Difference in the UK on the DEB is there zero debate nor even really attempt at one, this really was 'shoved down the peoples throat'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:15pm

Re: Wait....
apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andy (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 10:03pm

Re: healhcare vs copyrights
Judging by your description, I would have to say that both the US healthcare legislation AND the UK DEB are about "greed, corruption, laziness and doing as much harm to society before they get pissed off and revolt".

Only the naive could possibly believe the healthcare legislation is about "compassion and civilization and caring for your fellow man" and only a complete idiot would argue the UK DEB is about that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 11:01pm

already
UK people getting VPNs proxy addresses outside the UK and verious other methods to keep free this will make no differance what so ever. We wait for the first letter to go out This country is a dictatorship along the same lines as China in fact China is freeer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2010 @ 3:03am

I watched the entirety of this travesty live. It was sickening, but not unexpected, when several hundred MP's trot in right at the end to vote who didn't even bother to listen to the debate.
There were in the region of 30 MP's present during the 2 hour or so debate, and nearly all of those who spoke disagreed with the bill, or said that it at least needed much more proper debate and scrutiny before it should be passed, with the exception being Stephen Timms, who was in favour of the bill, even when he plainly doesn't understand the technology behind it.
Just because the bill contains the word 'Digital' doesn't mean we should treat laws like software i.e. push out half assed broken crap now, promise to patch later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ethorad (profile), 8 Apr 2010 @ 4:49am

Re:
I think those royalties have encouraged her to contribute to the arts and sciences. By slowing down her writing so much the average level of authorship has increased.

Next up is Dan Brown ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ady, 8 Apr 2010 @ 6:09am

Next up... Time Police, Mind Reading detectives and A crack team of dogs that will be trained to stop anyone going invisible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Apr 2010 @ 7:06am

Re:
hey guy is that you ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 8 Apr 2010 @ 7:10am

Re: already
Hey it will only get worse wait till its big brother (ACTA) is implemented in the UK
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn, 8 Apr 2010 @ 9:02am

Wow...
I haven't known Parliament to be this inept since the 1700s. (Just keep telling yourself: it's only a movie, it's only a movie, ...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
isabel (profile), 8 Apr 2010 @ 9:35am

Clause 43
I read that there seemed to be one clause that was meant to remove copyright protection from orphan works, so people could use something when nobody was there to claim copyright, but for some reason this was withdrawn. Seems a shame that the one good thing that could have come out of this was removed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2010 @ 7:18pm

Why didn't the collective UK just kneel down and suck the MAFIAA cock? Wankers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jai (profile), 8 Apr 2010 @ 7:39pm

things to remember
EVERY TIME PERSON TAKE BILL.... IT HELPS GOV..IN MANY WAYS caravans hello members please reply on this topic..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jai (profile), 8 Apr 2010 @ 7:43pm

things to remember
http://www.techdirt.com/comment_process.php
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ethorad (profile), 9 Apr 2010 @ 4:51am

Re:
Depends who you mean by "them". As an ordinary voter I'm fairly sure that lame duck sessions shouldn't be used to pass new legislation

(OK, it's not quite a lame duck session, since the guilty are still MPs, but it certainly looks that way. If it quaks like a duck, and walks with a limp ...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]