Thus, it is passed...
The Digital Economy Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and now races on to the third reading in the House of Lords:
Tech Crunch puts it like this:
"The law will of course have many “unintended consequences”, as Watson put it in his speech against the bill.
In trying to support the old music industry models and tackle illegal file-sharing, the #DEBill, as it’s known on Twitter, is poised to produce a new culture. That of legal letters from music industry bodies to ISPs, bewildered householders and, no doubt, an manner of Internet companies.
In the past the lawyers had to go after the infringers, with actual proof. Now, the holder of the Internet account (Mum, Dad, Grandparents and the small startup that can’t afford the legal fees) will be held to account for what happens over their connection.
Parents who have no idea their teenage children, neighbours, or even someone parked outside their house, has been slurping their WiFi and downloading the latest movies and music, will now be up in court.
During the debate there was a farcical moment when Stephen Timms, the Labour government’s Finance Minister said, with a throw away line, that people could simply password protect their WiFi. Of course, this shows a staggering lack of knowledge of how easy these are to break. More importantly the Bill does not even afford any guaranteed legal protection for people who try to put security measures in place.
A new way for lawyers to create another ambulance chasing industry? How’s that for unintended consequences.
So let’s just rack this up.
• Media regulator Ofcom, say our sources, doesn’t want to enforce this new law and has no idea how it will.
• Twitter is awash with people saying they are going encrypted and will now use a Tor or anonymity network to go online.
• The wave of civil disobedience started within minutes of the Bill being passed. e.g. See Whatdebill.org
• Legislation based on misconceptions about the cost of file-sharing, when file sharers are already 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don’t.
• Spotify, which is providing a free music alternative to file sharing, is actually owned by the record labels which wrote much of this this legislation. So on the one hand it bleets about piracy, while on the other forgets to mention it’s giving away music with ads. How many MPs know this?
• And even while the UK is one of the best places in Europe to start an Internet company, if one of your employees goes rogue you’ll be in the frame for it.
All this while more enlightened governments across the planet are starting to talk about Internet access as a human right. How does that sit with withdrawing it without any presumption of innocence?"
Full article here:
http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/04/08/doublethink-the-digital-economy-bill-against-the-digital-economy/
Tech Crunch puts it like this:
"The law will of course have many “unintended consequences”, as Watson put it in his speech against the bill.
In trying to support the old music industry models and tackle illegal file-sharing, the #DEBill, as it’s known on Twitter, is poised to produce a new culture. That of legal letters from music industry bodies to ISPs, bewildered householders and, no doubt, an manner of Internet companies.
In the past the lawyers had to go after the infringers, with actual proof. Now, the holder of the Internet account (Mum, Dad, Grandparents and the small startup that can’t afford the legal fees) will be held to account for what happens over their connection.
Parents who have no idea their teenage children, neighbours, or even someone parked outside their house, has been slurping their WiFi and downloading the latest movies and music, will now be up in court.
During the debate there was a farcical moment when Stephen Timms, the Labour government’s Finance Minister said, with a throw away line, that people could simply password protect their WiFi. Of course, this shows a staggering lack of knowledge of how easy these are to break. More importantly the Bill does not even afford any guaranteed legal protection for people who try to put security measures in place.
A new way for lawyers to create another ambulance chasing industry? How’s that for unintended consequences.
So let’s just rack this up.
• Media regulator Ofcom, say our sources, doesn’t want to enforce this new law and has no idea how it will.
• Twitter is awash with people saying they are going encrypted and will now use a Tor or anonymity network to go online.
• The wave of civil disobedience started within minutes of the Bill being passed. e.g. See Whatdebill.org
• Legislation based on misconceptions about the cost of file-sharing, when file sharers are already 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don’t.
• Spotify, which is providing a free music alternative to file sharing, is actually owned by the record labels which wrote much of this this legislation. So on the one hand it bleets about piracy, while on the other forgets to mention it’s giving away music with ads. How many MPs know this?
• And even while the UK is one of the best places in Europe to start an Internet company, if one of your employees goes rogue you’ll be in the frame for it.
All this while more enlightened governments across the planet are starting to talk about Internet access as a human right. How does that sit with withdrawing it without any presumption of innocence?"
Full article here:
http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/04/08/doublethink-the-digital-economy-bill-against-the-digital-economy/