The House of Commons voted last night to push through Labour’s latest bit of legislative authoritarianism, the Digital Economy Bill. The Lib Dems were united in opposing it, but Labour brooked no opposition, while the Tories supported it with vague words of change, later, maybe. The Bill was passed by 189 votes to 47.
Alix Mortimer has tallied the scores of how the parties voted:
Of the 189 Aye votes, I make it 185 Labour and 4 Conservatives. Plus the two tellers were Labour.
Of the 47 Noe votes, I make it 23 Labour rebels, 16 Lib Dems, 5 Conservatives and 3 others (DUP, PC, Ind). Plus the two tellers were Lib Dem.
In total 240 MPs took part in the vote: 98% of MPs who voted for the Digital Economy Bill were Labour MPs.
The opposition to the Bill comprised 49 MPs (including the two tellers). As a percentage of the major parties’ representation in the House of Commons that means:
- 29% of all Lib Dem MPs voted against the Bill (100% of those present);
- 6% of all Labour MPs voted against the Bill (11% of those present); and
- 3% of all Tory MPs voted against the Bill (56% of those present).
Here is the roll-call of honour – the Digital Economy Bill ‘saints’ – who stuck up for internet freedom in the Commons last night:
-
Abbott, Ms Diane (Lab)
Amess, Mr. David (Con)
Barrett, John (Lib Dem)
Beith, rh Sir Alan (Lib Dem)
Breed, Mr. Colin (Lib Dem)
Burgon, Colin (Lab)
Burstow, Mr. Paul (Lib Dem)
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Lib Dem)
Cash, Mr. William (Con)
Challen, Colin (Lab)
Chope, Mr. Christopher (Con)
Corbyn, Jeremy (Lab)
Davey, Mr. Edward (Lib Dem)
Davies, Mr. Dai (Ind)
Davis, rh Mr. David (Con)
Dismore, Mr. Andrew (Lab)
Drew, Mr. David (Lab)
Fallon, Mr. Michael (Con)
Featherstone, Lynne (Lib Dem)
Foster, Mr. Don (Lib Dem)
Gerrard, Mr. Neil (Lab)
Grogan, Mr. John (Lab)
Hancock, Mr. Mike (Lib Dem)
Harris, Dr. Evan (Lib Dem)
Hoey, Kate (Lab)
Howarth, David (Lib Dem)
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hughes, Simon (Lib Dem)
Jones, Lynne (Lab)
Joyce, Eric (Lab)
Keetch, Mr. Paul (Lib Dem)
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter (Lab)
Lazarowicz, Mark (Lab)
Love, Mr. Andrew (Lab)
Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert (Lab)
Mitchell, Mr. Austin (Lab)
Öpik, Lembit (Lib Dem)
Paisley, rh Rev. Ian (DUP)
Palmer, Dr. Nick (Lab)
Price, Adam (Plaid)
Reed, Mr. Andy (Lab)
Russell, Bob (Lib Dem)
Simpson, Alan (Lab)
Thurso, John (Lib Dem)
Todd, Mr. Mark (Lab)
Truswell, Mr. Paul (Lab)
Watson, Mr. Tom (Lab)
Tellers for the Noes:
John Hemming (Lib Dem) and
Mr. John Leech (Lib Dem)
Well done, all of you.
* You can read the Diary of the Very Fluffy Millennium Dome, Elephant here, which Richard occasionally assists Millennium in writing.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dundee Chess Congress 2024 #dundeewestend
GUEST POST No sign of an end to defections in local government
Monday night is Parish Council night...
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Welsh Labour hospitality row
Steve Trevethan
Nonconformistradical
Jenny Barnes
Mick Taylor
Mark Frankel
52 Comments
Just wish the other 70% of Lib Dems had shown up.
Did anybody else notice that this bill passed with less than half the MPs even present?
Standard turnout, especially in the middle of an election campaign.
Well done Ian Paisley
There are 63 Lib Dem MPs, and 16 felt it worth their time to show up and vote against.
That’s 25% rather than the 29% you stated. It’s also pitiful – labour rebels were doing more to oppose this bill than the party I and many others were looking to to lead the debate against.
Phil J – to be fair you have to include the tellers as well. Which makes 18 and is 29%.
Even if the other 70% of Lib Dems had shown up, it still would have passed… given that, I’m not suprised that many of our MPs chose to spend their time getting more Lib Dems into the next Parliament to oppose stuff like this.
Chris – my mistake, cheers.
Dave – not doing their job this time around isn’t a very strong argument in favour of voting for them again. In the past I’ve voted Lib Dem, but their halfhearted (quarterhearted, even) opposition this time around has persuaded me not to do so this time.
Phil J – your choice, but not voting Lib Dem is the surest way possible to make sure this legislation isn’t ever repealed. You can bet the Labservatives won’t. Ed Davey for the Lib Dems has already said the Bill would be repealed by the Lib Dems.
Well, he’s said it *should* be added to the Freedom Bill list, which is a great start, but we need to support him if we’re actually going to make that happen.
Plus, I imagine we’d be talking controversial provisions only (disconnection etc). There’s a raft of stuff about Channel 4 and local news which *apparently* is totally uncontroversial.
Phil: so Labour deliberately chooses a debate time that is hard for MPs to make, all the Tory frontbench present vote with Labour but, um, the Lib Dems are to blame?
Mark: Can you honestly say you feel the Lib Dems opposition to this bill was adequate?
Do you feel the single LD MP present for the second reading was enough to represent our views?
Do you think the 16 votes in opposition the Lib Dems managed was anywhere close to the best they could do? Listening to the debate, did you feel it was the Liberals making the best points in opposition? Do you think the Lib Dems did all they could do these past couple of days?
I don’t mind them losing, I’m very angry that they didn’t try, and my disappointment is such that I’ll vote for someone else this time around.
I’m not sure you’ll find that Don Foster considers disconnection is at all controversial: he indicated in both the 2nd and 3rd reading that he’s in favour of it, albeit with a longer process than the DE Bill proposed.
And didn’t he suggest that only photos taken within the last 50 years (as if they’ve all got the date stamped on the back) should be protected against orphan theft?
But what really gets my goat is his repeated spouting of bogus filesharing “cost” statistics pushed by the BPI and friends when they’ve been comprehensively debunked many times. As if Lord Tim’s financial connections weren’t bad enough…
What a missed opportunity for the LibDems to engage with the youthful and relatively non-committed internet-friendly community.
I’m getting very tired of people criticising MPs – of whatever party – for ‘not being at the second reading’. It’s a Bill that’s gone through the Lords, there wasn’t a vote expected, everyone knew that the Third Reading was going to be the important one, and it was scheduled at an awkward time in the first days of a general election campaign.
As for the number of Lib Dem MPs at the Third Reading, many of the same things apply, but I consider it a decent turn out given it was absolutely plain to everyone that the government was going to ram it through.
I’m a bit disappointed the 2nd Reading wasn’t disputed to be honest. It might have affected turnout for the 3rd Reading, although that is speculation from someone new to the methods of politics.
I do intend to vote LD in the GE, dependant on how satisfactory the reply from my prospective MP is.
On that matter, is there a website/email for the West Norwood/Dulwich/Herne Hill LD Party? I have a bit of a bone to pick with them.
The fact that only 16 LibDem MPs even bothered to turn up on such a controversial bill shows how much contempt our ‘elected’ officials, LibDem in particular, hold the public. Democracy fail indeed. I was going to vote LibDem in the General Election, but the pathetic turn out means I won’t be voting at all. We live in occupied Britian, bought and owned by major corporations, and if the LD arn’t going to be part of the solution, they are part of the problem. None of our political “representatives” even bother to show up to vote on anything. It’s disgusting.
Fraser, um, where to start. Many many Lib Dems, especially in the candidate base, want to be part of the solution.
It’s what the party was formed for, and most certainly why I joined it a few years back. Am I annoyed that not enough were there? Hell yes. Is repealing this POS a pledge they’ve made? Yes.
My local candidate is completely on board on this issue; I’ve made sure of that. Many many Lib Dems, especially candidates, are furious about the whole thing. Feel free to not vote.
But by not voting, you’re helping the otehr side win. Not all the Lib Dem MPs took the issue seriously enough. Some of them knew it was important but knew they couldn’t win the vote regardless, so concentrated on getting reelected.
Contact your candidate, make them promise to vote to repeal it, impress upon them how important it is to you and friends.
If they take it on board, then, if you really feel the country is in such trouble (and I’m not disagreeing with you), then why not help get better MPs elected that will do their jobs, will make a difference? Meet your candidate. Make the decision based on them, not the behaviour of a bunch of people who are, overwhelmingly, very worried that they lose their jobs in 4 weeks.
I think they were wrong to underestimate the importance and level of feeling on this. I think that not turning up has lost them votes and potential activists. But they made a judgement call, and I can'[t blame them for making the wrong decision; the vote would’ve been lost anyway, and far far better we get them re-elected so they do the right thing when it’s up for review/repeal.
The liberal democrats need to realise what a massive opportunity they have here, as the only major party promising to repeal the act they have the potential to reach a massive base of voters who havn’t or have rarely voted.
‘vote lib dem or lose facebook and youtube’
‘vote lib dem or lose your access to the internet’
push the statistics on the false accusations of piracy on people due to the massive difficulty in determining who is actually pirating and that people could get their internet cut off because someone else used it, or because of error.
As a 21 year old in college who hasn’t yet voted, I actually now have a reason to and will be voting lib dem.
They actually have an opportunity to get in, if they get off their asses and make a move.
I agree with Greg. Which is why it’s important now for the Lib Dems to develop a strong strategy for tackling the Digital Economy Bill. Although repealing it in it’s entirety would be the best course of action.
If Internet Piracy is to be tackled in any meaningful way (which means targetting those who profit only, for various reasons), then it requires piecemeal reform of current laws, especially copyright laws, before the addition of ‘super laws’ like the Digital Economy Bill.
Proper consultation is needed between Copyrights/copyleft groups such as Creative Commons and the operators GNU GPL as well as internet industries such as Google, and Internet bodies such as ISOC, IETF, W3C, etc.
The Lib Dems should also call for an international body to tackle commercial piracy and copyright infringement. Anything else will fail as miserably as DEBill did.
Can’t fault Harley’s position.
A good way to demonstrate that LibDems ‘get it’ would be to acknowledge that non-commercial file-sharing costs the creative industries virtually nothing.
” Is repealing this POS a pledge they’ve made? Yes.
My local candidate is completely on board on this issue; I’ve made sure of that. Many many Lib Dems, especially candidates, are furious about the whole thing.”
Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, or in this case, inaction. LibDems can ‘promise’ and ‘pledge’ until they are blue in the face but by doing nothing here they have shown they are no better than the Conservatives and Labour.
Basically my point is this: The Liberal Democrats party lied to and betrayed the nation by idly standing by and doing nothing while the corporations and facists decided to put the internet genie back in the bottle because it was a threat to their corporatocracy. Who would I vote FOR? There are no political parties in the UK that represent the wishes of the people, unless by people you mean Hollywood, military industrial complex or whackjobs like the BNP. There will never be “proper consultation” as long as big business runs the country and the entire democratic process is a sham.
@ceedee (supplemental) The Open Rights Group, Pirate Party UK and TalkTalk would tell you that NFP internet piracy actually increases sales because people get to ‘try before they buy’ and that some ‘pirates’ may have originally bought the product but downloaded it to defeat copy protection to put it on platforms they want it on or, as has been my case on various occasions, to replace damaged/faulty discs without having to repurchase.
@Fraser Whilst I agree that the LD turnout was a major disagreement, I wouldn’t class it as a betrayal. Any betrayal would have been during 2nd Reading when Don Foster (although understandibly) let off on several sections of the bill to focus on others. Whilst on reflection it seems he never intended those amendments to be made to attain his support, it was quite misleading and hurtful at the time. I’m happy to vote for Liberal Democrats, but they’d have to make DEB an election campaign policy (there’s 4 weeks to go, it can be done) and clearly outline how they’ll tackle it whether elected or not.
Remember, Lib Dems aren’t messed up in the Ashes to Ashes controversy either, that’s a pretty powerful argument seeing as it was the opponents to DEB that first pointed out the hypocrisy there and indeed highlighted the infringement.
When? What lie was made, where, by who?
Nothing? The entire party did nothing?
Apart of course for campaigning against it, leading a media campaign against it, being the only party to not have a single MP vote for it and have a third vote against it.
FFS man, if you decide not to vote at all despite all the evidence because the vote was lost, then we’ve got no hope. The LDs opposed it, will oppose it, and will repeal it. But only if enough people vote for them so they can do so.
You can decide they did “nothing” but that’s palpably, and demonstrably, not true. I don’t think they did enough, but not good enough is by no means the same as nothing, and it’s you who’s lying. So either turn of the hyperbole for effect or go check your facts.
“Do you feel the single LD MP present for the second reading was enough to represent our views?”
Just on a point of information, this isn’t true. I don’t know why Eric Joyce (for it came from he) has been peddling it, because it’s so easy to check. Lynne Featherstone was there, so was John Hemming who asked a question. David Howarth I’m sure was there at the start because he’s been sitting in for David Heath. And someone mentioned seeing Richard Younger-Ross (can anyone confirm?)
I find myth-making processes like this fascinating. Someone actually wrote a blog post (forgotten where it is now) ranting about the fact that there was only Don Foster in the House for the Lib Dems, and illustrated it with a picture – showing Lynne Featherstone sitting next to him.
Me and a friend have started up a facebook page to support the lib dems and get the word out, help get the word out and support it/link it around.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-Lib-Dem-or-Lose-Your-Internet/109798435718283?v=wall#!/pages/Vote-Lib-Dem-or-Lose-Your-Internet/109798435718283?v=wall
@Alix – For most of the 2nd reading, Don was on his own.
During last night’s performance, I don’t think he was ever the only LibDem but others came and went. I’d say most of the time there were 3 or more.
But by then it was academic: ask more questions and reduce the number of clauses examined or add another vote that they knew they were going to lose without Labour or Tory support.
Let’s keep this focussed on opposing DEB, rather than wholesale reform of copyright. If people want to only view copyright as a matter of commercial vs noncommercial and ignore the other aspects of the copyright laws, that’s their prerogative, but it’s a seperate debate.
OTOH, I do agree with challenging the BPI-produced numbers about the alleged financial harm done to UK industry, and by extension the laws those figures seek to justify. I hope that we can all keep up pressure on Don Foster from both outside and within the party on this.
This is bill is typical of MP’s who think they represent their voters and they clearly haven’t a clue about how the internet works. One virus and everyone in the world (bar a few exceptions) will have no internet. Plus why do you need fast broadband if you can’t download. Tell me how you prove it legal. I law or at least until this bill you have a right to trial but not now it seems.
People will have their say I suggest the Labour party and those Conservatives who voted start to wake up the expenses scandal will seem like a walk in the park after the internet get hold of this piece of unworkable junk (few lawyers are going to get very rich).
It would be interesting to note how many of the MP’s who voted are now not encumbent and standing down Lib Dems you may have gained a few million extra votes!
I am also extremely disappointed by the number of MPs showing up for the debates and votes, regardless of their party. It seems somewhat hypocritical to expect anyone to turn out and vote on election day when MPs don’t even do their job. I wonder how many MPs even read the bill. Ok, so the Lib Dems could not have stopped the bill, but does that mean they just won’t turn up for the next parliament if they don’t win a majority?
Some people in the Lib Dems clearly understand the issues and are passionate about protecting the internet, unfortunately the message from the parliamentary party was, and still is, not clear enough. I was not at all reassured by Don Foster’s comments for example. The suggestion that the law will be repealed doesn’t really ring true and, even if it were true, I think that more positive action is required to extend the protection given to postal and telephone communications to digital communications.
So, given I am still waiting for a reply from my Lib Dem MP (Chris Huhne) on the Digital Economy Bill, the fact he did not vote on the bill, and the lack of a clear Lib Dem policy in this area means I am just as likely to vote Conservative at this point, which I am sure they would appreciate in their number 11 hit list constituency. I will be writing to Chris again to ask for clarification on his position, as well as the other candidates, and will decide based on their responses… if I get any.
I don’t know about many of the parliamentary majorities of the MPs listed who are standing again in May, or how far most of them were from their constituencies. But David Drew, majority 350, from Stroud in Gloucestershire, voted against the bill.
Not that I’ll be voting for him – a colleague LibDem councillor is also standing – but I’m impressed.
I completely agree with James, I don’t think the message has been clear enough, and Don Foster certainly wasn’t railing against the bill as hard as Tom Watson or any of the other opposed MPs that spoke for the two Readings.
Bearing in mind that at least TWENTY THOUSAND votes theoretically swing on this issue, does it not make sense to have a far clearer message on this? And perhaps to make it a substantial point of the election campaign?
My Labour candidate (Kate Hoey) voted against this bill. My Lib Dem candidate (Caroline Pidgeon) didn’t even turn up, despite my emails to both.
I was voting Lib Dem. Now I’m not sure what to do.
Um, Felix? Hoey is your MP. You have one MP. Caroline couldn’t vote as she’s not an MP, but would like to be one insrtead of Hoey.
Given you have one of the rare LAbour MPs sound on this issue, I suggest you check voting record on other issues and decide what else matters to you; I’ve met Caroline a few times, and she seems good, plus does a good job as an AM.
But holding against her not voting as an MP when she’s not an MP is, um, a litle unfair.
Well, in Caroline Pidgeon’s defence she’s not an MP, so couldn’t vote! Who you vote for’s your call – I quite like Kate Hoey, who’s voted against her party on many of the dumb things they’ve pushed through, but then Caroline seems a decent candidate too.
Liberal Democrat opposition to this bill would be more impressive if it was not for the disgraceful record of your peer Lord Clement-Jones who introduced profoundly illiberal and anti-democratic amendments which actually made the bill more draconian even than the Government had intended. His questionable relationships with Big Media organisations make this even worse.
And it is also unimpressive that so few LD MPs could be bothered to turn up to vote let alone participate in the vote.
John, that’s hardly fair.
As I understand it, that Lib Dem was pretty much only serving his own interests when he tabled those amendments. That’s why the whole thing was brought up at the LD conference.
Here’s a really simple amendment to make:
It would be both liberal and democratic to thus exempt individuals from an 18th century privilege intended for the likes of publishing corporations.
Harley, as I suggested in my original post, it makes it worse that he was “only serving his own interests”. Do the Liberal Democrats appoint peers to “serve their own interests”?
But congratulations to the LD grass roots on getting their MPs turned round the right way on this issue. Maybe though the next time you do this the conference motion could mandate them to actually bother to turn up for the critical vote if not for the whole debate! The astonishing ignorance and irrationality on display in this debate was quite mind-blowing.
Granted you could not have made a difference due to the rank hypocrisy of the Tories, but a determined and committed show of force might have earned you a few extra votes come the election.
Phil, re appointment of peers, no, they’re not appointed to serve their own interests by the party, but he was made a Peer over ten years ago under a different appointments system. The biggest problem in the HoL is that the few peers we have are unnaccountable once appointed, and the number preprared to actually take on an active party role is reduced. If the HoL was in any way accountable after appointment, they’d be much more under control.
However, to be fair to him (and note this is hard for me, I’m trying to be fair to him rather than ripping him to shreds which is my instinct), the amendment he put forward was the result of a compromise negotiated with the Conservative Peers, who wanted the BPI text. It was absolutely essential that MAndy’s enabling powers to allow him to rewrite copyright law at whim were blocked. LDs on their own didn’t have the votes in either house to do that, so they negotiated a compromise with Tories. Why they then put the agreed compromise forward under just their own names as a Lib Dem amendment is completely beyond me (at the moment), and after the GE a bunch of us will be pushing for this to be dealt with further (I’ve already had discussions with some senior Lords on it, but we’re too busy currently unfortunately).
I think the biggest problem on the whole thing is generatational; Parliamentarians generally don’t get the web, how important it is or how those that do care really care on it. Even those that do have other priorities, and have to balance them.
To be frank, Jo Swinson, one of the few that do get this instinctively, had a very tough choice to make; attend a vote in Parlt that was certain to be lost, or campaign in a very tight marginal to get reelected. I want Jo back in the house. The vote was already lost.
I regret that she chose to campaign rather than rush back to London, but I can’t blame her for making that decision; getting reelected is vital in order to sort this out post-election. It might have earned a few votes being there. Emphasis on the might. Campaigning heavily in constituency will earn votes.
If it weren’t for the stupid electoral system putting all the emphasis on tight marginals, and the daft, outdated and already supposed to be replaced House of Lords, this wouldn’t be an issue.
And there is a bit of me that’s frustrated with the overreaction of some on this; people so disappointed that our Parliamentarians weren’t perfect on this issue that they’re planning to vote Labour instead, etc. Because voting for the party that proposed the legislation will help…
Also, not sure Conference could mandate sitting MPs, even if it wanted to, it’s just not a liberal thing to do. Conference in general agrees the policies we’ll run for election on; sitting MPs are mandated by policy at the time they were elected, to be honest, the idea that party conference can override voters post election is something I’m not happy with the idea of.
The whole thing is a massive messup, and I don’t think either side of it really gets it; it’s a very small number of very vocal people who care about this, and it’s one issue (one I care about a lot as well). Some of the histrionics make it look as if the sky is falling, there’re loads of legal hoops to go through before this finally begins to take effect, and there’re HRA concerns with some of them anyway (I think a strong freedom of association/communication case could be made to deal with some of the egregious bits).
OTOH, those that care could, and would, have not only voted, but would likely have actively gone out and campaigned if the Parliamentary team had played their hand better; I suspect we’ve lost a couple hundred potential activists over this vote, and that upsets me, we so need activists, we’ve not got any money liek the other two with their corporate donors.
Ah well. Still everything to play for over the next 3 weeks, hopefully we’lll get enough MPs in, including several who really do get this one (like my candidate) that this can be overturned.
The Peers thing was John, not me, but while I’m here:
I don’t think it’s an overreaction to not vote Lib Dem over this, it’s the only thing I can do to balance out the arithmetic that says Jo Swinson should go campaigning instead of voting on an important bill. The only defence I have against my vote being taken for granted is to make it so that you can’t take my vote for granted.
I wanted sixty Tom Watsons. I wanted Lib Dem MPs leading the debate on what was wrong with this bill, I wanted the largest ever internet audience for a commons debate to see the party that I voted for standing up for them. I wanted a vote on the second reading both to show the government they were serious and to show us who was going to vote for the bill in advance of the third reading (I know there was no vote expected. Heaven forbid the Lib Dems do something unexpected). I wanted the LD MPs to be articulate and speak intelligently on the issue. I wanted to be proud.
I got a party which was, on average, absent.
So I’m voting on performance on a single issue. That’s all I can do to try and make that issue matter a bit more next time around. And in the meantime, the Greens are very close to getting their deposit back so I’ll try and help them out. They may be a bit nutty, but they really do try.
I must say that the Lib Dems appear to be pretty absent in my constituency. In fact, the only part that seems to care where I live is the Conservatives, which I find quite amusing.
In fact, I reckon the Conservatives are going to be split over this issue, it seems that they have no direction as a party on the Digital Economy Act, and should they actually get into power this time round they look like there may be a bit of an internal conflict when it comes time to re-address this.
Thanks MattGB for that detailed explanation which helps me understand a little. However I think the real difference the LibDems could have made is to have a few people who really understood the issues present through the debate. There is some chance they could have shamed the Tories into simply voting this down. It is ironic that the biggest block of votes against was actually from Labour rebels!
The real villains here are the Conservatives who spoke against the bill, called it outrageous that it was being rushed through at the last minute and them promptly voted for it. There is absolutely no justification I can see for the rush and no reason this could not have waited for proper process in the new parliament. I think the Tories have given the nod and the wink to their friends and sponsors in Big Media – “don’t worry boys if we say some nasty things about the bill, we’ll vote it through in the end”. I predict there will not be any further opposition to the bill after the election when they can safely forget the people for another four years and concentrate on pleasing their paymasters. Note that the only part of the bill they voted down was the one bit that might (arguably) have benefited ordinary people – the broadband subsidy from a levy on fixed lines.
It was this:
that really got me fired up on this issue. If our parliamentarians really cannot see that “substantial amount” does not mean the same thing as “substantial proportion” they certainly cannot be trusted to make laws! A billion pounds is a “substantial amount” of money, but it is not a “substantial proportion” of the national debt!
hi – I’ve never visited this site before but the bent of the author on this issue is fairly obvious from the title of the article. I’d like to ask – what would your alternative to the DEB be? I’m assuming as intelligent adults that you are not all hiding behind the unfounded fantasies used by the majority of copyright infringers on the internet and understand that all industries are part of an economic system that, when attacked, needs to defend itself.
The fact is, it would be wonderful to believe that the internet was still in the same idealogical place as it was when it was conceived: a free flowing exchange of ideas for the enrichment of the common good. But that was when it was mainly a tool of academia and, well, things have changed. And not even on the behest of the industries that this bill is now trying to protect.
Piracy has now spiraled into such a common place phenomena that a kind of ‘backwards’ justification has evolved around it. The idea of ‘freedom of information’ has been hijacked to justify the wholesale distribution of a product against the (majority) of the creative industries wishes. As technology has evolved, so to has the justification of piracy – and it’s just plain wrong. It’s irrelevant whether the industries in question are loosing money or not, really. It’s not even the point. People argue that discouraging ‘sharing’ (even hijacking what is a wonderful human act to better frame their activities) is against human nature, whilst completely ignoring the concept of exchange. The latter is as important a human trait as the former (even if the former were accurately used to define as piracy, which I do not believe it is) and the simple truth is, that aside from all the spurious justifications of piracy, the creators of works that can now be distributed digitally, receive no remuneration from the enjoyment of their works from those who enjoy them in this way. And yes, the creators of those works also include those who invest their time, money and livelihoods into these processes. And please don’t wheel out the old objection that these people aren’t stealing a physical product so they are not actually stealing anything – it displays a lack of understanding of the nature of intellectual property and the way the creative industries work. The raw materials have never been a significant proportion of the value of the product, and to argue in this way is naive.
For the first time, the mode of distribution has become seemingly more important in some people’s minds than the mode of creation, and that, surely, is wrong.
The fact is, that no one wanted this Bill, but unfortunately, due to the actions of a few selfish people, this Act has become a necessity.
So – if anyone has any better ideas I’m sure that they would be enthusiastically received, but I fear that once again the opposition to this Act is really just a self-justification to carry on getting what you want for nothing.
Paul, it’s not about an alternative. Why should we provide an alternative legislation to protect an economic system that is severely out of date? Disregarding that the original format of the Bill was totally ignorant of copyright law anyway (leading to the furore over Clause 43) it is completely immoral, and undemocratic, to rush through a bill in the dying days of Parliament on the basis of extremely dodgy figures. It is even worse when the technical measures being suggested will likely only criminalise the innocent, the poor, and the young. It doesn’t take into account that those who fileshare may be more likely to buy the music (or other ‘creative product’) after finding they like it or may already own the product in question but need to transfer it to another format. For the most part, it is the labels and the creative industries that are supporting this bill, not the actual people doing the creating.
This Act wont even stop the issues it’s supposed to be targeting, because it will drive people to using encrypted networks, the reason why the Security Services and the Met had issues with this bill.
Hey Harley – your response here is pretty typical of objections I’ve heard before, so I’ll take it point by point.
‘out of date economic system’ – the mode of distribution of music is not terribly out of date. One can hear music, for example, from a range of legal sources, make a decision on whether the music is to one’s tastes, and then go and buy the music. What the music industry, in this example, is against is the wholesale distribution of the products they have invested in (not just money, but time as well) illegally. And dress it up how you like, but this bill is about tackling the illegal distribution of music. Some argue that the current pricing models and systems of distribution are not attractive enough, despite the introduction of Mflow, Spotify, Pandora, etc. But the fact is, that no legal system of distribution can compete with putting ‘(act name) mediafire’ in to google and getting that product for nothing. That is what needs to be addressed, before more legal alternatives can be explored. We need to clear the ground of the illegal services to set the ground for legal ones. Some extremists argue that ‘all music/film/TV should be free’. This is just a nonsense created by the ability to get it free illegally – why should it be?
‘rushing the bill through’ – it’s not ideal, but that’s our political system for you. I think this bill should have had more scrutiny, and a chance to educate the public in why it is so necessary. I’m not sure that parliment would agree with that it is ‘not democratic’, though. Whether it’s immoral or not is a subjective matter. But I agree with you that it should have taken more time.
on whether those who fileshare buy more music – an irrelevant, illogical argument. Just because I steal one thing does not mean I can steal something else. It’s an argument that is constantly used, but in any other area of commerce would be dismissed. Again, try music out using one of the myriad of legal options, then make your decision. If you like something, buy it and support those who made it. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. It’s as simple as that.
On whom the bill will target – again, this is conjecture. There’s nothing to say this will be the case, and if you are not illegally downloading, you have nothing to worry about and you will not even feature in the process. If someone hijacks your connection and uses it to illegally download, you have plenty of time to say so. I should think these cases will be extremely rare.
‘not the actual people doing the creating’ who support this bill. Another groundless argument. Who exactly are you referring to? That chap from Radiohead who had the luxury of four years of record company support and marketing before selling millions of records? Whose band can command more money for one concert than many people will earn in twenty years of work? Who tested a ‘honesty box’ method of selling an album whilst charging £40 for a box set and releasing the album as well? By the way, I’m a fan of Radiohead’s music, but l think it’s a naive position. I work with writers, artists and record producers and not one think that wholesale online piracy is a good thing. Not one want to work and see nothing in return on the off chance that someone may come along to their show. What about their ‘rights’?
And lastly, the more ‘underground’ it forces these people to go, the better. There will always be those who justify their acquiring product for free – but the less there are of them, the better. What is being aimed for, in my mind, is a situation where people find it easier to contribute to the creative industries by paying in some way for what they enjoy, rather than getting it illegally and for nothing – and that is something that will be easier to achieve when these illegal methods are controlled.
Of course platforms like Spotify and Last.fm and Rhapsody and the rest aren’t attractive to labels. That’s because they still have to divide the share. Why do labels deserve any money at all? After all they’re not really doing anything a pro-active artist can (and usually does) do themselves. When it comes to distribution, the only costs in online distribution (that isn’t filesharing) is IP registration, website/app coding etc., and domain name registration. The cost of all this can easily be covered by charging a pitiful share of the income for every track played. Again, all the labels are really doing here is holding the rights and lying in wait with a particularly snarly team of lawyers.
There are numerous artists that are utterly unconcerned with their music being shared. Look at Nine Inch Nails as one example, who released an entire album of tracks for free in high-quality formats (another reason why people may resort to filesharing, even if they already own the single/album). These sort of artists see more sense in making money from merchandising and touring/gigs. You know, the way bands used to get themselves heard.
Next point. I’m going to make it clear that any controversial bill (and this bill was, no doubt about that) that is rushed through parliament should be repealed by any sane successor government and forced to redo the process again properly. If you resign to keeping it and then picking at it, it will just become a chaotic mutant that’ll be even harder to sort out in the future. The problem with this bill is it really requires wholesale reform of copyright law first, to make sure everything fits correctly (although it already may do so). According to some ISPs, it seems that the Communications Act 2003 would need to be reformed to clear up definitions. Then the Digital Economy Act (or Bill as it would again be) could be discussed again. And perhaps then it might not conflict with Clause 29 of the Magna Carta or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Next point. Filesharing is not stealing. Copyright infringement is not stealing. Theft is a criminal offence, copyright infringement is a civil law ‘offence’. Filesharing does not deprive anyone of their property, it just propagates it amongst the population of that filesharing community. As to your point of it being invalid… Does a library charge you to borrow books? No (unless you return them late, but that’s not really relevant). Does a library charge you to borrow music? Yes. Why? I’ll let you answer that one, because to me it’s probably one of the biggest justifications for downloading music (or any other similar ‘product’) to trial it.
Next point. Actually, this is the major issue with the bill. Currently, a rights holder would have to apply to take you through court to prosecute for copyright infringement, but they’d need some kind of evidence beforehand and ISPs aren’t obliged to give it (without a court order, which they’d need the evidence for). This presents a steep hurdle that I presume few rights holders really want to deal with. The Act as it stands only offers those accused of copyright infringement the right to appeal, not the human right to fair trial. The accused will probably have to pay to appeal. Furthermore, the only means that I can see being used to determine whether the accused did fileshare isn’t authoritative proof, nor is it proof beyond reasonable doubt. The only way I can see that being attained is by physically seizing the hard drive of the accused, which would require a warrant (from a court order). Furthermore, no wireless network is safe, not even heavily encrypted ones. There are some plans to allow for this in the Act, but then it opens a massive loophole for actual ‘pirates’ to exploit. There’s no winning. That is the way technology is these days, and government and big corporations MUST come to terms with that.
Next point. I wasn’t considering Radiohead myself, there are plenty of other examples. Cory Doctorow, Solo Bass Steve, amongst the plenty of other vocal voices throughout the online debate that I have forgotten.
Finally. No, driving fileshares further underground isn’t the solution. They tried it in Sweden and as a result filesharing traffic INCREASED. But worse, it was encrypted traffic and therefore untraceable to all extents and purposes. The Security Services have obviously caught onto this fact, and are allegedly concerned that it will make it far harder for them to trace more serious threats to the country if use of encrypted ‘dark nets’ becomes more prevalent throughout the UK’s digital infrastructure.
So no, this Act is in no way a good idea.
Hi Paul,
Here’s what I want:
Disconnection off the table – the internet has a hugely positive influence on employment, on education, on health, hell people with internet access are able to make better decisions when shopping. The internet’s a big deal, disconnection because someone infringed copyright on a couple of CDs is massively out of proportion, disconnection of a household because of the actions of one person living in that house is an injustice. What should the penalty be if not disconnection? Reasonable fines, and for anyone doing it commercially, prison.
The burden of proof to be on the accuser, not the accused. “Innocent until proven guilty” – we sorted this in the eighteenth century, copyright infringement is wrong, but it’s not so wrong we need to reconsider the presumption of innocence.
A revision of copyright to include some form of “fair use” – the Gene Hunt posters Labour and the Conservatives used shouldn’t be considered to infringe copyright. Nor should – for example – the downfall parody videos on youtube.
The bill shouldn’t include provisions to allow the Business secretary to make up new penalties or enforcement systems. Amendments to the bill should go through parliament.
Finally, I’d like for people who support the bill to stop dismissing everyone who opposes it as pirates. There’re serious problems with the bill, and as long as you continue to dismiss our concerns as those of people who just don’t want to pay for music those problems won’t get fixed.
This bill isn’t going to stop filesharing in anything but the very short term, a similar bill was passed in Sweden, and the result was a fairly dramatic drop in filesharing for a few months, followed by a dramatic rise in encrypted filesharing so that now there’s more than there ever was.
When we say this bill’s not going to do anything about serious copyright infringement it’s not idle speculation, the bill’s really not going to stop people who fileshare extensively. Who will it catch? Children, people who’re having their connection hijacked (and by the way, a talktalk survey in central london found 90% of connections to have no security or trivial security), people who’re falsely accused, and people who do very little filesharing.
Oh, and Wikileaks. Wikileaks hosts almost nothing but material it doesn’t own the copyright to. Is it really appropriate that this bill allows the government to block access to it?
I agree with Phil’s post. Although I might point out we’ve had the right to fair trial since the early 13th century, or the late 13th century, depending on which version of the Magna Carta first included the wording of clause 29.
Given that people have been telling each other’s stories and singing each other’s songs even before we learnt to copy each other’s cave paintings, you’ll find that it is the 18th century privilege that is wrong, not those wittingly or unwittingly infringing it. The publishers may be upset that their monopoly is no longer effective, but the abolition of copyright doesn’t mean the end of artists’ ability to sell their art in a consequently free market. It just means that artists sell their work directly to their fans, not for a 1% royalty to a publisher.
When it comes down to it, the problem isn’t the furious monopolists, but the people who simultaneously recognise that the Digital Economy Act is fundamentally unethical while failing to recognise that copyright is unethical. Either an unethical privilege is unethically enforced or it is ethically abolished.
Crosbie – come on, if you’re going to lay in to the music industry get your facts straight. 1% royalty? Where did that come from? Your credibility is somewhat reduced if you pluck figures from the air for your own convenience. And belive it or not, no one is going to stop you singing your favourite songs to your neighbour and no one ever had that intention. I think you’ve missed the point here somewhat.
Harley – most labels and music companies support Spotify and have licensed their music to it, so again maybe it would be a good idea to check your facts?
Phil J – some good points well made. I like the ‘fair use’ comment especially.
That may be so Paul, but it’s a pitiful income for the artists. And generally labels would certainly prefer iTunes where they can (or could as the case now is) sell DRM-locked tracks that they could charge for, and then force customers to buy it again for a different format.
In regard to Crosbie’s point, the exaggerated figure was for illustrative purposes only (bearing in mind that the BPI also used false figures in the reports used to support the bill), don’t be pedantic. I’m pretty sure there are some people that would love to enforce copyright to the level where you can’t hum a song out loud without paying licence to the rights holder. I mean, we accept 10,000 CCTV cameras in London [1] as a reasonable measure to prevent crime.
It’s a matter of principle. Most people would claim that creative works are works of culture. Most people think we have a right to freedom of cultural material. Allowing some method of free access to these materials will limit the amount by which they are acquired ‘illegally’. Which brings me back to my question about libraries.
Paul; you’re right, no one, yet, has tried to stop me singing songs. But mechanics have been stopped from listening to the radio in their workshops, right? (did that ever go to trial?)
The problem with this discussion is, all too often, it ends up being assumed that it’s an all or nothing position. I want to pay people, in some way, for producing entertainment I enjoy. Information wants to be free, but at the same time it wats to be expensive, etc etc.
What I want is a law that makes sense, is workable, doesn’t excluse new business models, and ensures creators are rewarded, not middle men, who need to get a new business model fast now that their old model is superflous.
I also want an acknowledgement that, for example, digital copies are less valuable than physical objects; I still own the first CDs I bought nearly 20 years ago, I don’t own the first MP3s I DLd, the harddrive they were on had to be wiped after an infection. I can resell my CDs, and in fact without that ability might have starved while I was looking for work in London a few years back, I can’t resell a digital copy of something.
The world is changing, we need to work with the change, not against it, and that’s my biggest problem with the bill; many creative artists, writers, musicians, etc were just as opposed to it as I was, if not moreso.
Here’s a recent example of copyright (via PRS enforcement of compulsory licensing) conflicting with all individuals’ natural right to sing songs they’ve heard: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm
And most know that a license is required (or compulsory license fee payable) upon ‘use’ of the Happy Birthday song, depending upon what uses you make of it. And even then, there is controversy over who are the current copyright holders and whether the song/music remains covered.
And people are wondering why copyright has so little respect these days…
Paul, I admit that royalties can end up less than 1% or even entirely unpaid, but only the likes of A&R guys will pretend artists can look forward to a lot more.
I listed a few articles by artists who’ve dared to reveal more accurate figures in a blog item of mine some time ago: Saving on A&R
[NB This comment was submitted earlier but did not get through moderation – 3rd time lucky]