Digital Economy Bill: Proposed By The Unelected, Debated By The Ignorant, Voted On By The Absent

from the buffoonery-in-action dept

With the UK's Digital Economy Bill rushed through with little real debate, it's worth looking at the ignorance behind those who supported and pushed through the bill. The more you look, the more you realize they didn't even understand the very basics of what they were talking about. As some have noted it was "a bill proposed by the unelected, debated by the ignorant and voted on by the absent."

And yes, it was proposed by the unelected Lord Mandelson, who has had to resign from the Government twice before due to accusations of corruption or influence peddling. And, of course, as many have noted, he only became interested in the whole Digital Economy Bill thing after vacationing with David Geffen, the former recording industry and movie industry mogul. After that, he suddenly pushed through the bill which went directly against the recommendations of the Gov't's own Digital Britain committee.

Then we get to the ignorant. Perhaps the most stunning is that, via Kevin Marks, we now learn that Digital Britain Minister Stephen Timms, who was in charge of pushing the bill through, didn't even understand what an "IP address" means. In a letter to an MP, he explained "IP" as an "Intellectual Property Address." Now, yes, IP is used for both Intellectual Property and Internet Protocol, but if you actually know what you're talking about, you don't mix up the two. And Carlo points us to a message from Will Tovey noting that the Digital Economy Bill originally called an IP address an "Internet Portal" address. These are the people you want deciding the basic internet setup in your country?

And the folks involved in the debate don't seem to be too keen on understanding details either. During the debate, one MP, Michael Connarty had a bizarre take on the situation:

"People are not talking about co-operating and sharing their own thoughts and content, but are stealing someone else's content and sharing that. There is an Armageddon, which has partially arrived in Sweden, where the Pirate Party, whose leader is in jail, won seats in the European Parliament on the basis that everybody's work--including MP4's--should be free."

Can you count the number of mistakes there? Of course, the big one is the idea that the leader of the Pirate Party in Sweden is in jail. He's not. My guess is that Connarty thinks The Pirate Bay and The Pirate Party are the same (they're not even connected) and that the jail sentences handed down to some of the folks who worked on The Pirate Bay applied to The Pirate Party's head and that someone was actually in jail (they're not). But, you know, who needs details when you're just setting the framework for all internet connectivity and rights across your country?

And, finally, there are the absent. During the little time put forth for debate -- where many were vehemently opposed to the bill, notice that the House of Commons was basically empty: But when it came time to vote? Suddenly over 200 MPs showed up. It makes you wonder why they're allowed to vote if they haven't even heard the debate. Especially when the guy in charge of convincing them to vote on this bill doesn't seem to even understand what's in it or what it will do.

Filed Under: digital economy bill, stephen timms, united kingdom

UK Digital Economy Bill Concession Is To Allow In A Smidgen Of Due Process, After You've Been Declared Guilty

from the guilty-until-appealed-innocent dept

As the debate continues in the UK over the Digital Economy Bill, Stephen Timms, the minister for Digital Britain, is trying to appease critics of the bill, by promising to include an appeals process for those who are accused of copyright infringement and threatened with having their internet access removed. This is mind-boggling for a few reasons. First, the admission shows that such an appeals process hadn't been in the plan already. More importantly, it shows the general thinking: this is a guilty-until-proven-innocent process. You get accused and you're guilty until you "appeal" and can prove that you were falsely accused. That doesn't seem like reasonable due process. That seems like stacking the deck in favor of copyright holders against the public.

Filed Under: appeals, copyright, digital economy bill, due process, stephen timms, uk

Digital Britain Minister Insists No One Is Creative If They Don't Earn Money

from the oh-really,-now? dept

Andrew Dubber does a nice job taking Digital Britain minister Stephen Timms to task for claiming that "If people can't be paid for their creativity, they're going to stop being creative."

On the face of it, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say, and is amazingly offensive to the vast majority of people in the world who are creative amateurs.

Note: I did not say "the vast amount of creative people in the world who are amateurs", though this would also be true. Most people in the world do creative things for no money. The vast majority of music in the world is made for cultural reasons that are not economic. To suggest that the only reason to be creative is with the expectation of payment is utterly offensive.

Beyond stupidity
But it's not just stupid and offensive -- it's corrupt. It's so manifestly and obviously false that it could not possibly be the considered belief of a rational human being.

The alternative (and indeed, the only plausible conclusion) is that it's a deliberate falsehood in order to support something that is utterly indefensible when examined with any intellectual honesty.

It's the direct result of corporate lobbying, it's entirely disingenuous, and it's a bald-faced lie echoed to support the interests of powerful and moneyed multinational organisations.

He goes on to suggest that a statement like that, so revealing in how Timms views the world, should get Timms fired, as he's basically admitting that he's only there to protect corporate interests, rather than actual creativity.

Filed Under: amateurs, business models, copyright, creativity, money, music, professionals, stephen timms

UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support

from the nice-try dept

Just as the leaks predicted, the UK government has offered up its Digital Economy Bill, which includes massive changes to copyright law, including the power of the government to effectively change the law at will with little to no oversight. Basically, it would let the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, change copyright law through secondary legislation, which requires no Parliamentary approval. As people are noting, Mandelson has had to resign from elected positions twice in the past in disgrace, and is now in an unelected position. And he's the guy who gets to change copyright law at will? That does not seem right. On top of that, the bill doesn't even specify "three" strikes for users. Instead, it requires ISPs to notify users with warnings -- and to notify copyright holders that they did notify users -- and if file sharing is not reduced by 70% in a year (with no indication of how this is measured), then the government will tell ISPs to start kicking people off the internet.

Furthermore, Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms, who introduced the new bill, claimed that 99% of ISPs are "broadly supportive" of the bill. That's funny because BT and TalkTalk -- two of the largest ISPs in the UK -- have loudly complained about the plans (with TalkTalk threatening to sue, and BT saying that this solution is "not the way forward") and the ISP Association, which represents ISPs in the UK has loudly slammed the bill as unworkable and backwards looking:

"ISPA members are extremely concerned that the bill, far from strengthening the nation's communications infrastructure, will penalise the success of the internet industry and undermine the backbone of the digital economy," the industry group said.

Nicholas Lansman, ISPA's general secretary, said in the statement that the government's proposals were "being fast-tracked... and will do little to address the underlying problem".

"Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the government should be asking rights holders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding," Lansman said.

So, where exactly are the 99% who are supportive of the bill? Or is that RIAA/IFPI/BPI math?

Filed Under: copyright, peter mandelson, stephen timms, three strikes, uk

UK Gov't Now Supporting 3 Strikes: Lobbyists Win Again

from the the-will-of-the-people? dept

Ah, those pesky lobbyists. It seems that the UK gov't really has a way with doing a detailed report on what should be done on the music industry, which gets some of the important points right... and then it all gets tossed out the window once the recording industry lobbyists jump into things. Remember a few years back when the gov't commissioned the Gowers Report, which said copyright terms should not be extended (and Gowers himself later admitted that all of the evidence actually suggests it should be shortened)? Yup, well, then the lobbyists took over, and suddenly the government's Cultural Secretary Andy Burnham is singing the praises of copyright extension. These days, it looks like extension is almost certainly going to happen in the UK despite all the evidence as to why it shouldn't.

Looks like the same thing is happening again. Earlier this year, the UK gov't "Digital Britain" report clearly said that a three strikes regime, whereby ISPs would be responsible for kicking file sharers offline, didn't make sense. While there were other problems with the report, at least it knew better than to drag ISPs into things as copyright cops.

But... then the lobbyists took over. Entertainment industry lobbyists have been working overtime in the UK (the stories we've been hearing are pretty nuts...), and a few weeks ago the British press was noting that UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson had vacationed with David Geffen (who has ties to both the recording and the movie industries) and suddenly showed an immense interest that hadn't been there before, on changing Digital Britain to make the rules tougher.

So, surprise, surprise... suddenly ISPs are finding out that three strikes is back on the table even after being promised it wouldn't be. The original report had given regulators until 2012 to consider what technical measures ISPs should take -- if any. But Mandelson's department has suddenly declared that timeframe is "too long." The minister for Digital Britain, Stephen Timms, practically comes out and admits that they were lobbied hard:

"We've been listening carefully to responses to the consultation this far, and it's become clear there are widespread concerns that the plans as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights holders."

So, expect three strikes to show up in the UK. Of course, it will be a dreadful mistake. I still can't understand why the recording industry thinks this is a good idea. You may kick people off the internet, but does anyone honestly think that will actually get people to buy again? It seems like a strategy designed to piss more people off. And when has that ever been good for business?

Filed Under: andy burnham, copyright, digital britain, peter mandelson, stephen timms, three strikes, uk