by Lee Griffin

There’s a race on, and no it’s not the Cheltenham festival. Should the election be held on the 6th of May as is expected then parliament will be duly dissolved around the 6th of April, which leaves only 10 days of parliamentary time to debate all the remaining laws trying to be passed. It is this reason that when the Lords finally passed the Digital Economy Bill on the 15th of March they spent a significant portion of time discussing the issue of the “wash-up”, or a (relatively) clandestine period of legislative discussion that occurs in the twilight between an announcement of an election being made, and parliament being closed down for the impending election.

The Government here has one hope and one set of plans, get the Digital Economy Bill through to the “wash-up” in such a way that they can add bits and pieces to an already illiberal piece of legislation without the proper scrutiny of parliament. Instead of our elected representatives ensuring that we are protected from bad law, it would come down to the front benches and the party political whims of the main parties. In short, representation takes the back foot in place of backroom dealing to pass the bills, even if they are slightly watered down in the process. It’s for this reason that we have to stand our ground and ask our MPs to ensure this controversial bill receives proper scrutiny. If they do not provide that scrutiny, if the law goes through on the nod, then the government will have every power to do what they wish, opposed only by the minority Lib Dem party and the Tory party who are surely not the best example of a party beholden to public democracy over business interests.

For those that are writing to your MPs, specifically point them to the areas of the bill that are problematic (and do so in your own words, it has more impact!):



If you dislike the idea of OFCOM becoming a UK internet regulation body of any “editorially controlled” content “service” – see Clause 1 If you dislike vague law that would allow unscrupulous ministers to restrict your internet access without warning after ZERO warnings, if they so chose – see Clause 6 If you dislike the idea of being cut off from your internet because someone in your house/university/workplace allegedly broke the law – see Clauses 10 and 11. If you a) Don’t want the BPI to draft law for us or b) don’t want websites blocked by ISPs because the ISPs are blackmailed with threats of legal costs if they don’t block access to the site – see Clause 18 If you don’t want the government to have the power to take ownership of uk domain names on a vague concept of “fairness” – see Clause 19 If you dislike leaving the door open to require online games to be regulated – see Clause 41 If you’re concerned about new law being made (re: Orphan Works) that is weakened by old law not being enforced – see Clause 43

Here we have a shopping list of concerns that have still barely been touched by the lengthy debate in the Lords. The main problem that has been doing the rounds is clearly the issues posed by point 2, the “three strikes” law that is worded in such relaxed language that how often someone has to “infringe” copyright is able to be amended in a manner that receives almost no scrutiny in parliament. They may say 3 strikes now, or maybe 50…but it doesn’t mean that they couldn’t say NO strikes, in the future. We have to, as with the Coroners and Justice bill before it, take the law at it’s wording, not it’s intention.

It is for ALL of these above reasons that we need debate to happen, we need to ensure that there is contention…the reason is that where there is disagreement before the wash-up, there is unlikely to be any passing of those parts of the bill during the wash-up without serious amendment. That is if the bill even makes it in to the wash-up. Our best chance to ensure that these potential afflictions against our human rights, afflictions without proper due process and through collective punishment, is to make sure MPs stand up and show the Government that not passing bad law is the only outcome to not being able to discuss it and amend it properly.

Alas, wait! What was that? Internet is not a human right? Who says so?. Well if we put aside for a moment that it is clearly, legally, not an enforceable right…aren’t there other factors? First is public opinion about internet access being a right. Overwhelmingly the global populace believes internet access IS a fundamental right. So while the Government may be able to petulantly claim that they are right in a legal sense, they are still legislating against the general mood of the public. Normally this might be acceptable if it were “for the public’s own good”, but in this case it is clearly only for the good of big business.

My personal feeling is that the internet is only not a right in the same way that being able to walk out of your house is not a right. When I put this to twitter the response I got back from alexwilcock was: [Digital Economy Bill] penalties written by music biz are as if Thatcher brought in indefinite house arrest to stop home taping.

This goes along with a lot of feelings I’ve had about how the internet is dealt with for a long time. Is the internet a tool, or is it a “virtual environment”? I lean towards thinking the latter. Reading blogs are like participating in group get-togethers, going to the BBC news site is like buying a newspaper, buying some shoes online is akin to taking a trip to your highstreet, emailing your parents only a step away from sending them a letter. This duality is why it concerns me as to the prospect of the various points above coming in to fruition; cynically I might ask “what does it say about what our law makers would prefer they could do in the ‘real world’?”

Take point 1. OFCOM regulation. It may be the case that it won’t go as far as the law wording would seemingly allow (it is fairly vague, even after scouring the original Communications Act 2003)…but regulating blogs, youtube videos, podcasts isn’t the same as regulating the content that is broadcast on TV or through the radio, it’s like a guy with a clipboard being present with you down the pub to ensure that no-one strays in to too risque a territory.

Then there’s point 3. Would you appreciate being put under house arrest not because of any court determined guilt, but because of someone making accusations of copyright infringement against you for something that may or may not have occurred in your property at the time? Is it even remotely justified to put you under house arrest, to stop you from going to the library, to work, or to socialise with your friends because of those accusations alone?

Or how about point 4…how would you feel if the police were stopping you from accessing your local community centre because a single individual or organisation had threatened the local council in such a way that it is too much for the council to risk the financial cost of allowng it to continue functioning for the community? Imagine arriving at your local pub only to find it inaccessible to you, even though anyone that is visiting from another town can use it freely; not for anything that you or your town have necessarily done, but because of the implications made by an individual in a completely unscrutinised manner?

Finally, point 5 would be very interesting. Could you imagine the police coming and turfing you out of a building you’ve legitimately bought, and putting it back on the market without paying you a penny, simply because you knew it was in a good location and could make some money off of the future sale? Somehow I don’t think that’s all too likely!

Yet practices parallel to these are trying to be made law simply because what we’re talking about are the highways of the internet instead of the highways of our local ward, town or city. It’s about time that we showed the Government that, just like our every day lives when not sat next to a computer, it is not acceptable to over-regulate and over-police the every day lives of our more “virtual” selves. The internet is a part of this world now just as the roads and pavements are, and it’s time to start acting proportionately to the problems and challenges that brings. We already are lumped with a system that says that our every web page visit and email must be stored in a database “for the children”, yet if the government tried to pull a stunt like chipping us, recording every movement we make and storing every conversation we have with one another there would be nationwide uproar.

The Digital Economy Bill is a step back for all of us, and another shot in the foot for our very democracy; a heavy handed approach to a relatively small issue. So again, if you haven’t done so please write to your MP and let them know you simply want them to do their duty in representing you and protecting you against hastily crafted law that isn’t in your best interests. If we’re lucky then we may make sure that it is only the few uncontroversial parts of this law that make it on to the books.