[dundee] Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

[Kris Davidson]

So a bit of an update on my activities, I've written to my local MP,
to my local newspaper and called in favours and markers for everyone I
know to do the same.:

* The letter to the local paper was published in quite prominent place
(page 4, about the fold, top left quarter)
* My local MP John Thurso (Lib Dem) replied and I've posted his reply below
* I seem to have motivated some others on a local message board to do
the same http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=681523

I disagree with the first few paragraphs and hes kind of ignored some
of my points but he seems to have more knowledge on the subject than
most MPs still it does read like a party briefing written by a
researcher, plus government could still try and pass it with a 'Rump
parliament'.

Just wondering what everyones thoughts were, and if anyone else got a
reply. I'm guessing its a form letter.

==============================
Reply from John Thurso MP (Lib Dem)
==============================

Dear [Me],



Thank you very much for your recent email about the Digital Economy Bill.



This is a very wide ranging Bill and covers issues such as a new remit
for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for
switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV as
well as the issue of illegal downloading.

My Party supports the creative industries and believes that many
aspects of this Bill are vitally important to the continuing success
of our radio, television and content industries. We are also concerned
about the financial implications of illegal downloading of copyright
material and recognise the importance of protecting intellectual
property.

A report published on the 17th of March 2010 predicted that a quarter
of a million jobs in the UK's creative industries could be lost by
2015 if current trends in online piracy continue. Commenting on it
Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, said: "The results of
the study stress that the growth of unauthorised file-sharing,
downloading and streaming of copyrighted works and recorded
performances is a major threat to the creative industries in terms of
loss of employment and revenues. The scale of the problem is truly
frightening now - let alone in the future if no firmm actions are
against illegal file-sharing are taken."

For those reasons we do believe that some action is needed and must
form part of the Digital Economy Bill. However, we have opposed - and
helped defeat - goverment proposals (contained in Clause 17) of the
original Digital Economy Bill) to give itself almost unfettered powers
to act against copyright infringement. Further, as a result of debates
instigated and amendments passed by the Liberal Democrats in the
Lords, the government's original proposals  relating to illegal
peer-to-peer file-sharing have been significantly improved.

As a result, no action to introduce "technical measures" (whether
temporary account suspension, bandwidth throttling or whatever) can be
introduced until:

1. Soft measures (letter writing) have been used;

2. An evaluation of their effectiveness has been undertaken;

3. An evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of,
technical measures have been undertaken;

4. Further consultation has taken place;

5. Proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and

6. There is an explicit assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

We remain concerned by some aspects of the system for tackling
peer-to-peer file-sharing being introduced in the Bill and will taken
further action in the Commons to scrutinise and improve legislation.
In particular, we are concerned that there will not be enough time for
in-depth consultation on the initial code that Ofcom will draw up, We
also feel that there is currently inadequate protection in the Bill
for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses offering
internet access to the public.

We are also unconvinced of the merits of the various technical
measures that have been proposed, including bandwidth shaping and
temporary account suspension. For this reason we have amended the Bill
to ensure that any such measures cannot be introduced without proper
consultation and not until evidence has been produced to prove that
this is the best available options. We are further seeking to ensure
that any measures brought before parliament will be subjected to the
maximum scrutiny in both Houses and that it will be possible for
changes to be made to them before a final decision is made.

We are urging the creative music, film and video games industries to
work more vigorously to develop new business models which will make it
easier and more affordable for people to legally access their
products. We hope that this combined with "soft measures" and an
effective education campaign will mean that further action will not be
required.

The Party agreed at our Spring Conference to establish a working party
to address these issues. With at least a year before there will be any
attempt to introduce "technical measures" this will provide an
opportunity for the party to consider the outcome of research into the
effectiveness of the early stages of the implementation of the
legislation in the Digital Economy Bill.

The Billl has now completed all stages in the Lords but cannot proceed
unless it has as a minimum been debated in a "Second Reading" in the
Commons. We believe that many of the measures in the BIll that do not
related to illegal file sharing and important and must be allowed to
go into law. However, in respect of those that relate to illegal file
sharing we will not support them in the Commons if we are not
satisfied that the procedures in place are fair and allow for full
consultation and scrutiny before their introductions in the future.

With very kind regards,

John Thurso

==============================