So, the UK Digital Economy bill was finally passed over the Easter holidays, albeit slightly amended from the initial versions which were discussed previously. Nonetheless, the document is still fairly long - and sometimes a bit confusing - so the consequences of it for UK web users, businesses, and the government will surely not fully emerge for some time. However certain central key issues are already evident and certainly worthy of discussion - which is why we're here...
Firstly there is the matter of if your MP bothered to turn up for the vote - which incidentally took place in a late session thus ensuring a total minimum of fuss, in which only around 20 non-Labour MPs were present (mine was not present I was sad to learn). It is possible to check if your MP was in attendence - and how they voted - online at this page. If the complete indifference (or support) for this bill provokes a desire to attempt to voice your objection over the bill/your MP - you can do so at the Open Rights group online (which is campaigning against the bill and especially its clauses on disconnection of users over copyright infringement).
But we're getting a little ahead of ourselves - what of the actual bill itself? Well, the 76-page document generally involves a number of pretty uncontroversial measures such as those relating to domain name administration or radio and regional TV news matters. However - the most significant question, and the one which has caused the most extensive debates is of course the points on illegal file-sharing and the potential sanctions (including disconnections and fines) for users.
(N.B. A handy summary of the 45 measures can be found on the Guardian website).
So, what can we say about this controversial aspect of the new legislation? The degree of opposition to these laws seems to extend to every single person you can find - apart from those who belong to a copyright protection body (or liase with one) and the hundred or so Labour MPs who felt obliged to by the party whip to turn up and cast their 'yes' vote in parliament this month.
Now, maybe this is stating the obvious (after all, it's hardly surprising that a music-downloading web user would oppose the bill, while a company with vested financial interests should support it) - but perhaps we need to question whether legislation that is decided purely by the corresponding might/numbers of the opposing vested interests makes sense? Would it not be better to strive for a solution that is supported by a majority on the grounds of common sense and a viable compromise, rather than selfish self-gain?
Put simply, have we passed a law that suits only the interests of a single industry sector (perhaps harming others) just because they have a very prominent lobbying voice? It's like asking only a smoker what he/she thinks of the smoking ban and then introducing legislation off the back of it... rather than consulting a wide range of people and treating all their interests and views equally.
Like most, I agree that copyright infringement is a problem that hurts important industries and damages job prospects, gov't tax receipts and all the rest of it. However I'm also very aware of the fact that very often those who are guilty of supporting this piracy - are also those very same people who otherwise legitimately support the industries at the same time.
To give an example - those who really, really like music tend to try and access it as much as possible, buying many cd's, concert tickets and merchandise where possible and affordable, and at the same time also downloading illegal mp3s from the internet. I myself have on a few occasions downloaded an album illegally when unsure of whether or not I would like it. If the result was positive, I then went on to buy it in a shop (or another one from the same band) and would also look to go to a gig if possible. Sometimes I simply decided it wasn't for me and that was the end of it.
These days Spotify or MySpace can often (legally) fill this role, though not always, and it is here that the central point lies - disconnect an illegal downloader from the internet and you also simultaneously disconnect a Spotify user, an iTunes customer, an Amazon cd and lp buyer (and so on) thus damaging in the long-term the industry you seek to protect with these short-term measures (not to mention causing other broader problems discussed in this blog previously) - surely there has to be a cleverer solution to the problem based on a more complex understanding of it?
Dejan Levi
