A number of times talking about the Digital Economy Bill, we have found MPs have been briefed by others to expect us to defend ‘freeloading’ copyright infringement.
But we don’t. As far as this Bill is concerned, copyright infringement is barely relevant.
The fact is that our concerns with this Bill have nothing to do with civil copyright infringement: except that attempts to deal with infringement are threatening to erode our basic rights.
In the potential scheme to apply internet disconnections or restrictions, people will be punished without a guarantee of a prior hearing, and punishments may be imposed without regard to their consequence.
The government front bench says copyright infringement is theft and that only the worst offenders will be punished.
People stealing CDs are taken to court. If domestic copyright infringers are thieves, they should be taken to court.
They should make sure the right person is punished, and punished appropriately.
Why is it so difficult to give these people a proper hearing? And why is it not possible to use a more proportionate punishment like a small fine, based like all fines, on the scale of the offence and their ability to pay?
We sympathise with MPs and Lords who are concerned that artists get paid, and can get a fair return for their work. Copyright has a part to play in that, but copyright should never be placed above more basic civil rights.
The Bill contains other very threatening proposals. Clause 11, as both lawyer Francis Davey and Liberty detail, contains a general power to restrict or censor any content on the internet for any reason at all. This is being done in the name of powers to prevent copyright infringement – but the wording allows any use at all.
We hope Lords oppose this clause in its current form.
Clause 17 has been given the widest attention, as it grants powers to impose new duties of copyright enforcement on new services, undermining the stability of copyright, and making the case for investment in innovation much worse in the UK.
We should be astounded if a Digital Economy Bill is used to undermine its basic functioning.
Finally, the privacy threats of Data Retention are coming home to roost. Data collected for the narrow purpose of dealing with serious crime such as terrorism will now be used to aid copyright enforcement agencies. Databases of accusations about copyright infringement will be built – with no guarantee of access to this information by those who are accused.
These issues, again, need serious debate in order that law enforcement is proportionate and fair.
When you talk or write to an MP or Lord: make sure that they understand that copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the problems in this Bill. The industry and government have a right to make copyright work – but not at the expense of our basic civil liberties.
Rapidshare SE:
Feb 08, 2010 at 07:11 PM
I agree that the point of copyright is very important. but it seems to me the goverments of any country should help their people to get access to any information they want. To have Internet and not to be able to download or read a book, watch a film or listen to music. It is nonseless and the users should defend their rights if the government refuses to do so as they do not understand that it is not they whom the future depends on but younger generation which must be healthy and clever.
Trevor:
Dec 15, 2009 at 01:39 PM
The big problem here is that copyright infringement is NOT theft. The concept of copyright infringement being the theft is utterly ridiculous. Saying that the artists should get paid doesn't have to mean equating copyright infringement to theft.
Also, its a very good point to draw attention to the fact that the legislation introduced to fight terrorism is going to be hijacked to serve the interests of the content industry.
Jim Killock:
Dec 15, 2009 at 02:01 PM
Hi Trevor, you are quite right, but it's most important now to focus on the problems with the Bill: due process, free speech, indiscriminate punishments. On these issues, we and Lords can hopefully agree, whatever their attitudes to copyright infringement.
Jim Killock:
Dec 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Hi Sam,
Private companies that would hold lists of IP addresses with accusations of infringements, as well as ISPs once given the data. So both ought to have those DPA obligations, but especially the third party companies, who have an interest in examining the data, and many people will not be aware of.
Sam Stokes:
Dec 15, 2009 at 05:10 PM
> Databases of accusations about copyright infringement will be built – with no guarantee of access to this information by those who are accused.
I'm concerned about this angle as well, but if my ISP holds a list accusations of copyright infringement made against me, doesn't the Data Protection Act guarantee me access to those records, and the right to ensure they're accurate? If I think an accusation was false, can I write to my ISP citing the DPA and get them to remove it?
It's still ridiculous that there's no standard of evidence required to record that accusation in the first place.