Fsck 'em, and... OUR law?
My letter to Jeremy Hunt MP (Conservative), Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
Jeremy,
I enclose my reply to my Conservative MP Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) regarding the Digital Economy Bill. Since Laurence has been a party whip, I would not expect him to digress far from the party line. As you are shadow minister for Culture, Media and Sport, my understanding is that the party line on this bill is set by you.
As a Conservative party member for twenty years, I am shocked and disappointed (I mean really, knock-me-down-with-a-feather flabbergasted) that the Conservative party are making two fundamental mistakes:
1. Equating one internet connection to one person. This is wrong. Most internet connections are shared. Cutting off one internet connection will cut of entire families, entire companies, entire universities.
2. Conservative support for a bill which you yourself accept is bad law. It's not just a little bit off, it's broken, beyond repair, technical nonsense and judicially unfair.
We Conservatives will be forming the next government. Why the rush to make Labour's bad bill into law? Why can't we wait four weeks, then make a good one when we win next month?
How I'm expected to knock on doors and canvas for votes when my party supports this kind of utter codswallop - and dangerous, damaging codswallop at that - is beyond my comprehension. I mean, really, how am I supposed to defend this at the doorstep? I can't even defend it to my friends on Facebook, let alone contemplate explaining it to a neighbour.
Yours in disbelief,
--
Andrew Oakley andrew@aoakley.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Oakley
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:25:04 +0100
Subject: Re: FW: Dear Colleague letter from Jeremy Hunt on the Digital Economy Bill
To: "ROBERTSON, Laurence"
Thank-you for forwarding Jeremy Hunt's letter regarding the Digital
Economy Bill.
I am not clear whether you support or oppose the this bill. Do you
support it or oppose it?
Jeremy Hunt's letter makes a number of technical mistakes which
demonstrates that he is poorly informed. As well as being a local
Conservative party member, I am Head of Software for the Higher
Education Statistics Agency, so I am taking particular interest in
this train-wreck of a bill.
The biggest and most dangerous mistake is the idea that one internet
connection equals one person. Internet connections are usually shared
between whole households, whole buildings, whole companies or - most
important for my work - whole universities.
Disconnecting an entire family, entire household, entire company or
entire university from the internet based on the illegal action of one
member - or even a visitor, neighbour or passer-by - is so blatantly
wrong that I am shocked and disappointed that you have forwarded me a
letter defending it.
I am not clear whether you support or oppose this bill. Do you support
it or oppose it?
I was intending to volunteer to hand out your leaflets in the
forthcoming election campaign. However I will have to reconsider if
you do not assure me that you oppose this bill.
--
Andrew Oakley andrew@aoakley.com
On 07/04/2010, ROBERTSON, Laurence wrote:
> Dear Mr Oakley
>
> Thank you for your email. The Digital Economy Bill received its Second
> Reading in the Commons yesterday and completes all the remaining stages
> today. That is most unsatisfactory as virtually no time will be allowed for
> scrutinising and amending the Bill.
>
> You asked about my and the Conservative Party's approach to this Bill and I
> attach a letter which has been circulated by the Shadow Secretary of State
> for Culture Media & Sport which does, I think, explain our position. I hope
> you find this helpful.
>
> Best wishes
> Laurence Robertson M.P.
>
>
> ________________________________
> UK Parliament Disclaimer:
> This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received
> it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any
> unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has
> been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused
> by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
>
JEREMY HUNT MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Dear Colleague,
I know that a great many of you have been contacted about the Digital Economy Bill. I wanted to get in touch to set out our position on a number of its different aspects as I realise many of them are controversial.
Firstly I share a number of concerns about the constitutional aspects of rushing this Bill through in wash up. It is deeply regrettable that the Government was unable to prioritise Parliamentary time in the House of Commons. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward.
Despite these concerns there are a number of very important aspects of this Bill that are needed as soon as possible. Online piracy is a rapidly growing problem for our creative industries and one that we need to tackle. The measures within the Bill designed to block access to websites promoting illegal downloading and tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a relatively weak regime that could, following repeated warnings and due process, lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty.
Blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and therefore not something we are willing to do. However the substantive point to make to your constituents is that widespread concern over these measures would have been assuaged if a committee stage had been allowed for this Bill prior to wash up. I have no doubt such scrutiny would have improved these measures, a point I made strongly in this afternoon’s debate on the Bill.
There are a number of other aspects of the Bill that we do not find acceptable and we will be doing all we can to remove these during the wash up process. Clause 1 adds an unnecessary duty to the regulator Ofcom which will make little difference to the way they operate. Clause 29 will prop up regional news with tax payer subsidy when we should be looking at long term financially sustainable measures to support local news. Finally, clause 43 tries to create a system that would unlock a large amount of digital content primarily held by the BBC and the British Library whose ownership is unknown. Unfortunately this has been drafted so badly that many rights holders would find their content automatically defined as an orphan work - as such they would lose control over their content. We cannot support these provisions but will return to this issue after the General Election.
I am very happy to discuss any of these issues should you find it helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Hunt
Member of Parliament
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Jeremy,
I enclose my reply to my Conservative MP Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) regarding the Digital Economy Bill. Since Laurence has been a party whip, I would not expect him to digress far from the party line. As you are shadow minister for Culture, Media and Sport, my understanding is that the party line on this bill is set by you.
As a Conservative party member for twenty years, I am shocked and disappointed (I mean really, knock-me-down-with-a-feather flabbergasted) that the Conservative party are making two fundamental mistakes:
1. Equating one internet connection to one person. This is wrong. Most internet connections are shared. Cutting off one internet connection will cut of entire families, entire companies, entire universities.
2. Conservative support for a bill which you yourself accept is bad law. It's not just a little bit off, it's broken, beyond repair, technical nonsense and judicially unfair.
We Conservatives will be forming the next government. Why the rush to make Labour's bad bill into law? Why can't we wait four weeks, then make a good one when we win next month?
How I'm expected to knock on doors and canvas for votes when my party supports this kind of utter codswallop - and dangerous, damaging codswallop at that - is beyond my comprehension. I mean, really, how am I supposed to defend this at the doorstep? I can't even defend it to my friends on Facebook, let alone contemplate explaining it to a neighbour.
Yours in disbelief,
--
Andrew Oakley andrew@aoakley.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Oakley
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:25:04 +0100
Subject: Re: FW: Dear Colleague letter from Jeremy Hunt on the Digital Economy Bill
To: "ROBERTSON, Laurence"
Thank-you for forwarding Jeremy Hunt's letter regarding the Digital
Economy Bill.
I am not clear whether you support or oppose the this bill. Do you
support it or oppose it?
Jeremy Hunt's letter makes a number of technical mistakes which
demonstrates that he is poorly informed. As well as being a local
Conservative party member, I am Head of Software for the Higher
Education Statistics Agency, so I am taking particular interest in
this train-wreck of a bill.
The biggest and most dangerous mistake is the idea that one internet
connection equals one person. Internet connections are usually shared
between whole households, whole buildings, whole companies or - most
important for my work - whole universities.
Disconnecting an entire family, entire household, entire company or
entire university from the internet based on the illegal action of one
member - or even a visitor, neighbour or passer-by - is so blatantly
wrong that I am shocked and disappointed that you have forwarded me a
letter defending it.
I am not clear whether you support or oppose this bill. Do you support
it or oppose it?
I was intending to volunteer to hand out your leaflets in the
forthcoming election campaign. However I will have to reconsider if
you do not assure me that you oppose this bill.
--
Andrew Oakley andrew@aoakley.com
On 07/04/2010, ROBERTSON, Laurence wrote:
> Dear Mr Oakley
>
> Thank you for your email. The Digital Economy Bill received its Second
> Reading in the Commons yesterday and completes all the remaining stages
> today. That is most unsatisfactory as virtually no time will be allowed for
> scrutinising and amending the Bill.
>
> You asked about my and the Conservative Party's approach to this Bill and I
> attach a letter which has been circulated by the Shadow Secretary of State
> for Culture Media & Sport which does, I think, explain our position. I hope
> you find this helpful.
>
> Best wishes
> Laurence Robertson M.P.
>
>
> ________________________________
> UK Parliament Disclaimer:
> This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received
> it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any
> unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has
> been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused
> by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
>
JEREMY HUNT MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Dear Colleague,
I know that a great many of you have been contacted about the Digital Economy Bill. I wanted to get in touch to set out our position on a number of its different aspects as I realise many of them are controversial.
Firstly I share a number of concerns about the constitutional aspects of rushing this Bill through in wash up. It is deeply regrettable that the Government was unable to prioritise Parliamentary time in the House of Commons. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward.
Despite these concerns there are a number of very important aspects of this Bill that are needed as soon as possible. Online piracy is a rapidly growing problem for our creative industries and one that we need to tackle. The measures within the Bill designed to block access to websites promoting illegal downloading and tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a relatively weak regime that could, following repeated warnings and due process, lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty.
Blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and therefore not something we are willing to do. However the substantive point to make to your constituents is that widespread concern over these measures would have been assuaged if a committee stage had been allowed for this Bill prior to wash up. I have no doubt such scrutiny would have improved these measures, a point I made strongly in this afternoon’s debate on the Bill.
There are a number of other aspects of the Bill that we do not find acceptable and we will be doing all we can to remove these during the wash up process. Clause 1 adds an unnecessary duty to the regulator Ofcom which will make little difference to the way they operate. Clause 29 will prop up regional news with tax payer subsidy when we should be looking at long term financially sustainable measures to support local news. Finally, clause 43 tries to create a system that would unlock a large amount of digital content primarily held by the BBC and the British Library whose ownership is unknown. Unfortunately this has been drafted so badly that many rights holders would find their content automatically defined as an orphan work - as such they would lose control over their content. We cannot support these provisions but will return to this issue after the General Election.
I am very happy to discuss any of these issues should you find it helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Hunt
Member of Parliament
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport