Comments on: 25 Lib Dem PPCs sign letter asking Lib Dem Parliamentarians to think again on Digital Economy Bill http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:36:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Watford Lib Dem Candidate, Sal Brinton’s (@SalBrinton) Response – Disconnection and Web-blocking | WaFiTz! http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-117192 Watford Lib Dem Candidate, Sal Brinton’s (@SalBrinton) Response – Disconnection and Web-blocking | WaFiTz! Wed, 05 May 2010 05:38:42 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-117192 [...] candidate for Watford. This is a much better response and I’m pleased that Sal has signed an open letter to rethink the Digital Economy Act. Sal’s response is one of the reasons I’m 99% [...] [...] candidate for Watford. This is a much better response and I’m pleased that Sal has signed an open letter to rethink the Digital Economy Act. Sal’s response is one of the reasons I’m 99% [...]

]]> By: Paul Burstow: Liberal Democrats won’t support the Digital Economy Bill http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-112785 Paul Burstow: Liberal Democrats won’t support the Digital Economy Bill Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:30:12 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-112785 [...] is the latest in a series of events within the Liberal Democrats, which began with an open letter by Bridget Fox and 24 other PPCs. This expressed concern at amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat [...] [...] is the latest in a series of events within the Liberal Democrats, which began with an open letter by Bridget Fox and 24 other PPCs. This expressed concern at amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat [...]

]]> By: Lib Dems and the #debill http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-110470 Lib Dems and the #debill Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:59:04 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-110470 [...] Bridget Fox, one of our party’s more impressive prospective MPs, was alerted to the problems by angered Islington constituents. She leapt into action and rousted 25 fellow PPCs into expressing the concerns and anger to the party’s parliamentarians. [...] [...] Bridget Fox, one of our party’s more impressive prospective MPs, was alerted to the problems by angered Islington constituents. She leapt into action and rousted 25 fellow PPCs into expressing the concerns and anger to the party’s parliamentarians. [...]

]]> By: 17 – Piracy and the Digital Economy Bill | House of Comments http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-110165 17 – Piracy and the Digital Economy Bill | House of Comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:10 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-110165 [...] Digital Economy Bill is currently being debated in the Lords, but many Lib Dems are unhappy with an amendment put forward by Lib Dem Lords Tim Clement-Jones and Tim Razzall. Bridget Fox [...] [...] Digital Economy Bill is currently being debated in the Lords, but many Lib Dems are unhappy with an amendment put forward by Lib Dem Lords Tim Clement-Jones and Tim Razzall. Bridget Fox [...]

]]> By: Bridget Fox http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109807 Bridget Fox Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:27:24 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109807 An emergency motion has gone into LibDem conference. You can read the text at http://bridgetfox.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/that-emergency-motion-in-full/ Conference reps going to Birmingham, please support this motion being prioritised for debate; and then please support it in the debate! An emergency motion has gone into LibDem conference. You can read the text at http://bridgetfox.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/that-emergency-motion-in-full/

Conference reps going to Birmingham, please support this motion being prioritised for debate; and then please support it in the debate!

]]> By: Dewi Morgan http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109623 Dewi Morgan Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:53:15 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109623 Glad to hear (as an ORG member and LibDem voter) that the LibDems are taking advice on their approach to this issue from ORG. I really love this party. Sure, some can do silly things sometimes, like the two Lords' amendment, but compared to the other parties, seems to me that the LibDems manage far more often to have the right approach to things. Glad to hear (as an ORG member and LibDem voter) that the LibDems are taking advice on their approach to this issue from ORG.

I really love this party. Sure, some can do silly things sometimes, like the two Lords’ amendment, but compared to the other parties, seems to me that the LibDems manage far more often to have the right approach to things.

]]> By: Lee Griffin http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109460 Lee Griffin Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:48:40 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109460 Lol, Tom...with these theatrics where can we next see you in pantomime? Lol, Tom…with these theatrics where can we next see you in pantomime?

]]> By: Tom Thomson http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109459 Tom Thomson Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:39:50 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109459 About a decade ago I resigned from the party on account of the disgraceful behaviour of one of the party's representatives in the Lords. I was thinking of coming back to the fold again, until I saw this amendment. It is now impossible for me to consider supporting the party, because it is clearly somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan in it's technology policy. Lord Clement-Jones, with his well-known ignorance of computer science, information technology, and indeed oif the world wide web has perpetrated an idiocy which will not be forgotten. Why throw away the safeguards incorporated in the 1988 act and decide that ISPs are guilty even if not adequately informed of any copyright concerns? Is this compatible with the EU directive which provides immunity to ISPs when they simply transmit information provioded by others and have not received adequate advice of any copyright problems (I've talked to a couple of competent lawyers, and the advice I get is that it is not - what a wonderful source of income for lawyers this amendment is). Who will benefit from this nonsense? Certainly not the British people as a whole! Perhaps the plutrocrats of the various media industries, who seem to be completely unable top reconcile themselves either with modern technology or with fair use rights; or perhaps with the lawyers whom I suspect are the only peolple who will benefit from this nonsense (the colleagues of Lord Clement Jones, although I'm sure that's just a coincidence). About a decade ago I resigned from the party on account of the disgraceful behaviour of one of the party’s representatives in the Lords. I was thinking of coming back to the fold again, until I saw this amendment. It is now impossible for me to consider supporting the party, because it is clearly somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan in it’s technology policy. Lord Clement-Jones, with his well-known ignorance of computer science, information technology, and indeed oif the world wide web has perpetrated an idiocy which will not be forgotten. Why throw away the safeguards incorporated in the 1988 act and decide that ISPs are guilty even if not adequately informed of any copyright concerns? Is this compatible with the EU directive which provides immunity to ISPs when they simply transmit information provioded by others and have not received adequate advice of any copyright problems (I’ve talked to a couple of competent lawyers, and the advice I get is that it is not – what a wonderful source of income for lawyers this amendment is). Who will benefit from this nonsense? Certainly not the British people as a whole! Perhaps the plutrocrats of the various media industries, who seem to be completely unable top reconcile themselves either with modern technology or with fair use rights; or perhaps with the lawyers whom I suspect are the only peolple who will benefit from this nonsense (the colleagues of Lord Clement Jones, although I’m sure that’s just a coincidence).

]]> By: Alix http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109456 Alix Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:05:51 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109456 *Sigh* John Barron, if you'd care to look at the first trackback link you'll see that, thanks in part to the pressure put on them by this party's activists and commenters from the Pirate party amongst others, we have actually succeeded in getting the lords in question to listen to us. Discussions are going to take place to reassess both the amendment and (I hope) our whole strategy on the DEBill. To the best of my knowledge the discussions will involve ORG, some of the PPCs who signed this letter and Cory Doctorow amongst others. This process will be what we make of it - we can all see the names of the people involved, we can all lobby them directly with our particular objections whether we're Lib Dems or not. It would have been far better, of course, had such advice been sought before drafting the amendment. But we are where we are. And I sigh in your general direction because now that discussions are actually happening and we all have a chance to stick our oar in with the knowledge that parliamentarians are listening, the considered contribution of some (though by no means all) in the Pirate Party appears to be to call for defectors. Shouldn't we, you know, concentrate on the legislation, seeing as there are, you know, actual politicians paying attention to us at the moment? Or is the Pirate Party not really interested in the possibility of influencing a legislative outcome when it comes to it if they can make a narrow political point instead? (And for what it's worth, I'm sure people can make up their own minds perfectly well about which party they support without being assured they will be welcomed if they have political experience. You may need to rethink your language there because I'm getting more complacent conservative than radical liberal.) *Sigh*

John Barron, if you’d care to look at the first trackback link you’ll see that, thanks in part to the pressure put on them by this party’s activists and commenters from the Pirate party amongst others, we have actually succeeded in getting the lords in question to listen to us. Discussions are going to take place to reassess both the amendment and (I hope) our whole strategy on the DEBill. To the best of my knowledge the discussions will involve ORG, some of the PPCs who signed this letter and Cory Doctorow amongst others. This process will be what we make of it – we can all see the names of the people involved, we can all lobby them directly with our particular objections whether we’re Lib Dems or not. It would have been far better, of course, had such advice been sought before drafting the amendment. But we are where we are.

And I sigh in your general direction because now that discussions are actually happening and we all have a chance to stick our oar in with the knowledge that parliamentarians are listening, the considered contribution of some (though by no means all) in the Pirate Party appears to be to call for defectors.

Shouldn’t we, you know, concentrate on the legislation, seeing as there are, you know, actual politicians paying attention to us at the moment? Or is the Pirate Party not really interested in the possibility of influencing a legislative outcome when it comes to it if they can make a narrow political point instead?

(And for what it’s worth, I’m sure people can make up their own minds perfectly well about which party they support without being assured they will be welcomed if they have political experience. You may need to rethink your language there because I’m getting more complacent conservative than radical liberal.)

]]> By: John Barron http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109453 John Barron Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:15:52 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109453 Would make sense for you to reconsider your direction on this, with a view to a wide reform of copyright (and patent, BTW), law, and the impact of increasing restrictions and enforcement of "intellectual property" on the basic freedoms of communication, speech, and expression in a liberal society. I already see that you have members and activists who are sympathetic to our aims in the Pirate Party; and of course we welcome defectors with political experience who are dissatisfied with their present party view on these issues, and wish to "jump ship". Would make sense for you to reconsider your direction on this, with a view to a wide reform of copyright (and patent, BTW), law, and the impact of increasing restrictions and enforcement of “intellectual property” on the basic freedoms of communication, speech, and expression in a liberal society.

I already see that you have members and activists who are sympathetic to our aims in the Pirate Party; and of course we welcome defectors with political experience who are dissatisfied with their present party view on these issues, and wish to “jump ship”.

]]> By: Mike Richards http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109439 Mike Richards Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:34:29 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109439 The interview conspicuously failed to ask his Lordship about his relationship with IP lawyers DLA Piper. He takes money from people who represent media companies, he should have never proposed the amendment. The interview conspicuously failed to ask his Lordship about his relationship with IP lawyers DLA Piper. He takes money from people who represent media companies, he should have never proposed the amendment.

]]> By: View From Planet Jamie » Blog Archive » The Road From Legitimate Suspicion To Rampant Paranoia http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109406 View From Planet Jamie » Blog Archive » The Road From Legitimate Suspicion To Rampant Paranoia Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:04:04 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109406 [...] and self-serving.  I have no hesitation in branding Lord Clement-Jones a disgrace to his party.  25 other Liberal Democrat PPCs have made their opposition to the Amendment clear in an open letter.  Another open letter is a little more direct.  Equally I have no hesitation in branding Lord [...] [...] and self-serving.  I have no hesitation in branding Lord Clement-Jones a disgrace to his party.  25 other Liberal Democrat PPCs have made their opposition to the Amendment clear in an open letter.  Another open letter is a little more direct.  Equally I have no hesitation in branding Lord [...]

]]> By: Aaron Trevena http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109374 Aaron Trevena Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:51:48 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109374 I've posted a blog with my own suggested for amending the Digital Economy bill instead or Lord Razzle & Clement-Jones amendment 120a http://liberalprovocateur.vox.com/library/post/an-alternative-to-the-two-tims-amendment-to-the-de-bill.html I’ve posted a blog with my own suggested for amending the Digital Economy bill instead or Lord Razzle & Clement-Jones amendment 120a http://liberalprovocateur.vox.com/library/post/an-alternative-to-the-two-tims-amendment-to-the-de-bill.html

]]> By: Mark Wright http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109345 Mark Wright Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:01:26 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109345 I would add myself also to this letter. A good strong reaction from candidates. My suspicion is that the average age of candidates being younger than MPs and much younger than Lords means that actually PPCs understand this issue of how people use the internet much better than Parliamentarians. I would add myself also to this letter. A good strong reaction from candidates. My suspicion is that the average age of candidates being younger than MPs and much younger than Lords means that actually PPCs understand this issue of how people use the internet much better than Parliamentarians.

]]> By: Digital Economy Bill: Parliamentarians reply to prospective candidates http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109342 Digital Economy Bill: Parliamentarians reply to prospective candidates Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:56:27 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109342 [...] we covered an open letter from 25+ Liberal Democrat prospective Parliamentary candidates (and see also this comment from ex-MP Richard Allan), expressing concerns over the line the party [...] [...] we covered an open letter from 25+ Liberal Democrat prospective Parliamentary candidates (and see also this comment from ex-MP Richard Allan), expressing concerns over the line the party [...]

]]> By: Kate http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109323 Kate Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:35:43 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109323 Absolutely shameful amendment. It needs to be overturned as fast as possible. Absolutely shameful amendment. It needs to be overturned as fast as possible.

]]> By: Henry Vann http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109321 Henry Vann Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:27:25 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109321 I would happily add myself to this letter. The amendments are well intended, but the courts are already used enough to stifle free speech. I would happily add myself to this letter.

The amendments are well intended, but the courts are already used enough to stifle free speech.

]]> By: Richard Allan http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109310 Richard Allan Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:20:18 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109310 Our last major work on IT policy is still available online at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/ As well as being interesting for what were very innovative consultation methods back in 2002 (is it that long ago?) largely thanks to Martin Tod who is a signatory to this letter, the contents I think stand the test of time pretty well. It would be really helpful to do a similar exercise again now with all the benefits of 2010 techniques for engagement. Richard Allan - former LD IT Spokesperson. Our last major work on IT policy is still available online at http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/

As well as being interesting for what were very innovative consultation methods back in 2002 (is it that long ago?) largely thanks to Martin Tod who is a signatory to this letter, the contents I think stand the test of time pretty well.

It would be really helpful to do a similar exercise again now with all the benefits of 2010 techniques for engagement.

Richard Allan – former LD IT Spokesperson.

]]> By: Jock http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109308 Jock Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:13:48 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109308 No, no, it's just all the intellectuals, who don't want to be anybody's property! Sorry - bad joke :) No, no, it’s just all the intellectuals, who don’t want to be anybody’s property!

Sorry – bad joke :)

]]> By: Jo http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html#comment-109306 Jo Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:10:09 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=18185#comment-109306 Not many PPCs outside the South East is there? Lib Dem post not go that far? Not many PPCs outside the South East is there? Lib Dem post not go that far?

]]>