Letter to the FT (Financial Times) – Amendment 120A Digital Economy Bill

Dear Sirs,
We regret that the House of Lords last week adopted amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill. This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in Internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences which far outweigh any benefits it could bring.
Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other Internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option.  In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.
The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the Bill to date.  It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences.  Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the Internet in the UK and elsewhere, threatening freedom of speech and the open Internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a Parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor law making.
We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain.  This debate has created a tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities.  All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Allan, Director of Policy EU, Facebook
Neil Berkett, Chief Executive, Virgin Media
Matt Brittin, Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland
Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Talk Talk Group
Jessica Hendrie-Liaño, Chair, Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA)
Jill Johnstone, International Director, Consumer Focus
Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group
Mark Lewis, Managing Director, eBay UK Ltd
Ian Livingstone, Chief Executive, BT Group
Professor Sarah Oates, University of Glasgow
Dr Jenny Pickerill, University of Leicester
Mark Rabe, Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland
Dr Paul Reilly, University of Leicester
Jess Search, Founder, Shooting People independent film makers
Professor Ian Walden, Queen Mary, University of London
Tom Watson MP

18 thoughts on “Letter to the FT (Financial Times) – Amendment 120A Digital Economy Bill”

  1. I dont see a letter to the FT causing Mandleson to fret over his boat trips.

    Seriously, this is another example of ‘New’ Labour being completely in thrall to big business.

  2. I see even Brendan Barber is today being swept away by the ludicrous claims being perpetuated by ‘independent research’.

    The poll tax was a useless law. People should fight this even if its imposed on us.

  3. Thanks from Sweden to all of you in UK who stands up for democracy and against the movie and music industry who clearly wants to kill the freedom of speach and all other values of importance to democracy!!

  4. Byers, Hewitt, Mandleson…

    Five grand, three thousand or a trip on someones boat? It’s all the same, but no less galling that Labour dances to the pipers tune.

    I cant stand the thought of the Tories getting in, but Labour needs reminding of its supposed core values.

  5. Buried in DEB is a section that will have a significant impact on businesses that have web sites. Section 43 (was 42) relates to Orphan works. When the act comes into power any image on a website that cannot be traced back to the copyright holder is an Orphan Work. This means that:
    a/ The images must be removed, or
    b/ The copyright holder must be traced and a licence to use the image obtained.
    c/ In the event that the copyright holder cannot be traced after a diligent search the image must be registered with a Licensing Body and a Market Rate fee paid possibly with an additional amount for the Licensing Body and a cut for the government.

    There are significant penalties for non-compliance.

  6. all credit for standing up against a ridiculously ill-conceived and hastily rushed Geffen-Mandelson act. I only wish my own MP ( the so-called minister of Justice) had bothered to read and digest my email last month. If he had, he may well have joined you and the 46 others!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *