New laws governing Internet security, digital property, and file sharing are trudging through the U.K. political system, and could be passed before the general elections in May.
Controversial segments of the bill are tighter control of illegal downloading and file sharing by having the holders of copyright materials be able to force Internet service providers to shut down Web sites which use copyrighted materials without permission.
Google, Yahoo, Talk Talk, eBay, Facebook, Orange, and BT signed an open letter to the Financial Times which said, “Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the Internet in the U.K. and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open Internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended.”
A Talk Talk sponsored survey on March 12 showed that 71 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds would continue downloading illegal material despite the bill and would use undetectable methods.
This led to the consideration that surveillance of the Internet for terrorist links could be hampered as terrorists followed suit on the net and encrypted all messages.
In a leaked e-mail from record-industry lobbyists the British Phonographic Institute (BPI), there was speculation that U.K. intelligence agency MI5 may have paid for the Talk Talk survey.
The Digital Economy Bill reached the final House of Lords stage on March 15 with little time to digest the small flurry of amendments before it makes its way to the House of Commons for six more processes.
Labour peer Lord Whitty called it, “A bad bill” during the debate in the Lords on Monday.
“It is bad for the digital rights holders to press their interests in this way, when there are alternatives, and it is bad for the government to risk alienation of a very significant part of the population by enforcing these measures,” Whitty said.
“There are alternative ways of moving to a different system of accessing copyright material on the Internet. Lawful systems of file sharing exist in the music industry and elsewhere; it is just that they have a very low recognition by the public,” he said.
According to Whitty, a survey conducted by Consumer Focus indicated that “75 percent of the population do not understand what is lawful and unlawful” regarding copyrighted material on the Internet and that a “rather higher proportion, when told what is lawful and unlawful, do not support those laws.”
The survey also showed that of the 20 or so lawful systems of file sharing existing in the music industry and elsewhere, none have received an awareness level above single figures in percentage terms. “Yet, ultimately, at various points in this debate, we have all agreed that a move to lawful systems of file sharing is the aim of this measure,” Whitty said.
The oddness of the U.K. legislation-making system means the bill could be changed after the Lord’s debate and before it comes to the House of Commons (called The Other Place by Lords).
The Earl Of Errol, secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications, reminded the House that other material would be “inserted somehow between here and The Other Place.”
“We’ve got no idea what it looks like ... it’s a complete and absolute abuse of parliamentary process—I’m not sure why we sit and debate at all,” he said.
Controversial segments of the bill are tighter control of illegal downloading and file sharing by having the holders of copyright materials be able to force Internet service providers to shut down Web sites which use copyrighted materials without permission.
Google, Yahoo, Talk Talk, eBay, Facebook, Orange, and BT signed an open letter to the Financial Times which said, “Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the Internet in the U.K. and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open Internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended.”
A Talk Talk sponsored survey on March 12 showed that 71 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds would continue downloading illegal material despite the bill and would use undetectable methods.
This led to the consideration that surveillance of the Internet for terrorist links could be hampered as terrorists followed suit on the net and encrypted all messages.
In a leaked e-mail from record-industry lobbyists the British Phonographic Institute (BPI), there was speculation that U.K. intelligence agency MI5 may have paid for the Talk Talk survey.
The Digital Economy Bill reached the final House of Lords stage on March 15 with little time to digest the small flurry of amendments before it makes its way to the House of Commons for six more processes.
Labour peer Lord Whitty called it, “A bad bill” during the debate in the Lords on Monday.
“It is bad for the digital rights holders to press their interests in this way, when there are alternatives, and it is bad for the government to risk alienation of a very significant part of the population by enforcing these measures,” Whitty said.
“There are alternative ways of moving to a different system of accessing copyright material on the Internet. Lawful systems of file sharing exist in the music industry and elsewhere; it is just that they have a very low recognition by the public,” he said.
According to Whitty, a survey conducted by Consumer Focus indicated that “75 percent of the population do not understand what is lawful and unlawful” regarding copyrighted material on the Internet and that a “rather higher proportion, when told what is lawful and unlawful, do not support those laws.”
The survey also showed that of the 20 or so lawful systems of file sharing existing in the music industry and elsewhere, none have received an awareness level above single figures in percentage terms. “Yet, ultimately, at various points in this debate, we have all agreed that a move to lawful systems of file sharing is the aim of this measure,” Whitty said.
The oddness of the U.K. legislation-making system means the bill could be changed after the Lord’s debate and before it comes to the House of Commons (called The Other Place by Lords).
The Earl Of Errol, secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Communications, reminded the House that other material would be “inserted somehow between here and The Other Place.”
“We’ve got no idea what it looks like ... it’s a complete and absolute abuse of parliamentary process—I’m not sure why we sit and debate at all,” he said.
