Digital Economy Bill: ‘a bad day for democracy’

The controversial Bill was passed by MPs last night, 189 votes to 47, following its third reading in the House of Commons, after two hours of debate.

It has been processed so speedily as it is being pushed through in the political wash-up process - which takes place between an election being called and Parliament being dissolved.

However, many companies and organisations affected by the Bill, which has caused ripples across the technology world, most notably because of its proposals regarding the suspension of repeat filesharers’ internet connections and also the measures that will allow politicians to block websites which contain pirated material without primary legislation, have criticised this rushed process.

TalkTalk’s director of regulation, Andrew Heaney, said the way in which the Bill had passed through the House of Commons had been “undemocratic”.

“It’s a bad day for democracy, bordering on disgraceful, when such a complicated bill, which could negatively affect many people, gets shoved through the Commons so quickly. It’s an appalling indictment of our democracy that this can happen with a bill which requires a great deal of understanding. Surely our MPs need to scrutinise the Bill for a longer period than two days – and take some time over the process like the Lords did.”

The ISP has spoken out against the Bill’s proposed measures for dealing with persistent filesharers since its inception. It has no issue with sending out warning letters to internet pirates as long as the letter is educational in tone, but refuses to be forced by the Government to comply with the technical measures such as capped bandwidth or broadband disconnection The company said: "TalkTalk will continue to battle against these oppressive proposals – they will require secondary legislation before they can be implemented.

“After the election we will resume highlighting the substantial dangers inherent in the proposals…In the meantime we stand by our pledges to our customers: Unless we are served with a court order we will never surrender a customer's details to rightsholders. We are the only major ISP to have taken this stance and we will maintain it. If we are instructed to disconnect an account due to alleged copyright infringement we will refuse to do so and tell the rights holders.”

It will also lobby the Government to reduce the percentage ISPs will be forced to pay to cover the cost of the warning letters- which currently stands at 25 per cent from ISPs and 75 per cent to be covered by rights holders.

The Bill has also faced criticism from internet freedom campaigners, the Open Rights Group, whose executive director Jim Killock said: "This is an utter disgrace. This is an attack on everyone's right to communicate, work and gain an education.

"Politicians have shown themselves to be incompetent and completely out of touch with an entire generation's values.” Killock had also been responsible for spear-heading a campaign over the last week which saw over 20,000 voters write to their local MPs lobbying against the Bill being rush through in its current form.

The Pirate Party UK expressed similar concerns about the internet pirate-curbing measures, saying: “The law will not stop copyright infringement, it will simply drive it behind encryption and obfuscation techniques, and will effectively criminalise over six million Britons, children, teens and adults alike, all for a protectionist attempt to protect a dying industry.

“Parliament does not need to protect, or even encourage analogue-age business models if it wants a Digital Britain; they must either engage with new technology or suffer the consequences, as with any other business. This is an adapt-or-die situation: the struggling sectors of the content industries have failed to conform to the digital revolution, and should not be rescued for clinging to their antiquated business model.”

Former Labour Minister Tom Watson and Labour MP Kate Hoey are concerned that the Bill will be pushed into law by a “stitch-up” between the leaders of three main parties.

Watson said he was worried that innocent internet users will be caught in the crossfire by the Bill's internet piracy-curbing clause by simply living in the same building as infringers.“There might be a deal with the Tory front bench and the Lib Dem front bench but there are 20,000 people who have taken the time to e-mail their MPs about this in the last seven days alone,"

One clause which was dropped from the Bill was number 43, which would have allowed organisations to use or digitise for public use ‘orphan works’ whose copyright owners can no longer be found. Despite the removal of this clause being welcomed by many rights holders, especially photographers who feared being uniquely disadvantaged, it has also prompted further criticism of MPs from libraries, archives and galleries.

Toby Bainton, Secretary for the Society of College, National and University Libraries, said: “We are very disappointed about the abandonment of the orphan works provision in the Bill. The digital age allows us to make these very interesting works, many of which are old political pamphlets, photographs, films - which would be so useful for many people’s research, more widely available through digitisation and now we will not be able to obtain a licence to do so.”

As the Bill originated with the House of Lords, it has now gone back to the Lords today for final approval – which it is expected to get through as this procedure is a largely viewed as a formality. After this stage the Bill will have completed all of its parliamentary processes and is expected to receive Royal Assent before passing into law.