Last night I was fortunate enough to find myself addressing the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Digital Economy Act.  Eric Joyce MP managed to bring together a diverse group of people from all sides of the debate for a (mostly) civil discussion on the Act, its limitations, and potential problems.

MPs and Musicians in Perfect Harmony

This was exactly the sort of discussion which should have taken place before the bill became law.  Sadly, we’re left with trying to correct an extremely illiberal and technically infeasible piece of legislation.

I’ll recount the highlights to the best of my memory – any corrections or clarifications gratefully received.

Representatives of the BPI – a trade group who claim to be the “voice of the UK recorded music business” – were in attendance.

The BPI made an extraordinary claim that this act isn’t even needed.  They were confident that existing laws would be enough for them to pursue copyright infringement.  They weren’t challenged on this statement – why lobby for a bill if you don’t need it?

The BPI also claimed that their methods or evidence gathering are robust and proven in the high court.  I can’t find a good source for this claim – but, again, why lobby for a bill they didn’t need.

The representative from FAST seemed to say that they were speaking for the entire software industry. Many of us don’t mind our code being shared freely.  Having said that, FAST did make some good points about how Open Source derived a lot of its protection from strong copyright laws.

Representatives from libraries made an excellent point about their liability.  There seems to be no definition of responsibilities – are libraries communications providers? Are they liable for what their users get up to?

I love the smell of democracy in the evening...

Taking On The BPI

Not being a professional lobbyist – nor representing anyone other than myself – I was surprised to be allowed to address the room.

I made an unprepared and impassioned speech about the one sided nature of the bill.  Others will corroborate or correct, but the gist of what I said was…

• This bill is massively one sided.
• There has been no lobbying (or donations) by regular citizens – only by corporate interests.
• The bill contains no penalties for incompetent or malicious prosecution.
• ACS Law has already drawn the ire of many consumer groups for sending threatening letters with no apparent basis in fact.
• If I can be cut off the Internet after three accusations, why wont BPI members be cut off after three incorrect prosecutions?
• Given the criminal nature of the BPI, why should we trust them to bring prosecutions in a fair or just manner?
• Rather than relying on private enterprise to pursue these cases – why can’t the alleged copyright holders go through the normal legal channels?

One of the ways you know you’ve hit a nerve in a conversation is with the ferocity of the reply…

The response from the BPI was swift and harsh. To he best of my recollection they said

“if you were to write those allegations in a newspaper, we would sue you.”

In my haste, I had (erroneously) stated that the BPI was guilty of massive abuses of trust and had operated an illegal cartel which had been convicted of price fixing.

Crikey! Was I about to rely on Parliamentary Privilege extending to random blokes sitting in a committee room?

In 2002 the following record companies were fined a combined $143 million for illegal activity:
Sony Music – member of the BPI
Warner Music – member of the BPI
EMI Group – member of the BPI
BMG Music – now a part of Sony. I’m reasonably sure BMG were a member of the BPI at the time.
Vivendi Music Group – not a member of the BPI, although its subsidiary Universal Music is a member.

So, I had erred. The BPI has never sent a threatening letter. The BPI has never engaged in price fixing. The BPI – which is entirely funded by its members – has never engaged in illegal activity.

I am happy to set the record straight.

Furthermore, I am sure that my concerns about the standard of evidence which will be presented by these upstanding corporations are entirely unfounded.

Best view from any bar in London?

Next Steps

1. Please, respond to Ofcom’s consultation.
2. Write to your MP and tell them of your concerns.
3. Join the Open Rights Group.

You can find out more about the day at Eric Joyce’s Blog, Kerry McCarthy’s blog, Martin Brown’s Digecon, and no doubt more blogs to follow.

Huge thanks to Eric Joyce, Steve Lawson, James Firth, Hadley Beeman, Paul Clark, and all others who contributed.

Bootnote

As I was taking the photos you see in this piece, a very polite policeman told me photography wasn’t allowed.  While normally one to argue the toss on such matters – who knows what crazy laws protect Parliament.  As it happens, as soon as his back was turned, everyone started snapping pictures anyway.

Here are the brief facts of the case.

1. A local councillor (John Dixon) has a Twitter account “CllrJohnDixon”
2. Last year, he tweeted: “I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”
3. Someone in Scientology didn’t like this and raised an official complaint.
4. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales investigated and found there was likely to have been a breach of the code of conduct local authority members must follow.
5. The ombudsman referred the case to Cardiff council’s standards and ethics committee. They will take a look at this case later in the year.

Are more detailed account is on The Guardian.
You can see John Dixon on Newsnight (40 minutes in).

So, is this an evil cult trying to repress free speech?  I don’t think so.

Imagine if John had tweeted “Going past a Synagogue – better watch my wallet.” or “Near a Church – hope they don’t molest me” or… well, pick a religion of your choice and a slur.

People are free to hold these opinions.  I don’t believe in thought crime.  If an elected official chooses not to socialise in her free time with Mormons, Hindus or Agnostics, that’s their choice. 

What is totally unacceptable is for an elected official to publicly say, in an official capacity “this group of people are totally unworthy of my respect.”

When I go and see my local councillors, I don’t want to think that I’m being badly treated because I’m an Apathist.  As stupid as Scientologists are, I’m sure once in a while they need to go to their council for planning permission or complain about noisy neighbours, etc.  How can they go to John Dixon knowing that he thinks their church is “stupid”?

The democracy we practice in the UK means that all people are equal in the eyes of officialdom.  Whatever views an elected official may hold, constituents must have faith that they will receive a fair hearing.  The (hypothetical) Scientologists in John Dixon’s ward now know that their representative publicly denigrates their faith through his official publications.

John Dixon needs to make it quite clear that his personal opinions will not affect how he treats people when he is acting as their democratically elected official. He also needs to understand that – for some people – separating their professional and personal Twitter accounts is a prudent measure.

For the record, I think Scientology is a devious, manipulative, lying, shallow front for a group of disreputable people who are only interested in money, power and control.  It’s no different to any other religion.

Using data from The Guardian, we can see if the Lib Dems cost Labour a majority.

In how many seats did a Labour candidate lose to a Conservative? 137.

But this doesn’t tell the whole story. In Clacton, even if all the 5,577 Lib Dem votes had gone to Labour, the 16,376 is still well short of the Conservative’s 22,867.

So, in how many of those seats, would the Labour candidate have won if every single Lib Dem voted Labour? 92.

Conclusion

If every Lib Dem voter in a Lab/Con marginal had voted Labour, the result would be
Con = 214
Lab = 350
Lib = 57

So, the Labour Party would have ~3% majority in Parliament. Only 24 seats. A majority, sure, but not a hugely useful one.

Remember, that’s assuming every single Lib Dem voter in a Lab/Con constituency voted Labour.

Would you call that the Lib Dems costing Labour the election?

The Stats

This table show every Conservative won seat where Labour came 2nd.
What would have happened if 100%, 75%, or 50% of the Lib Dem vote went to Labour.
As some have mentioned in the comments, there is no guarantee that Lib Dem voters would automatically vote Labour.
Given that support for the Lib Dems only went up 1% nationally, it’s hard to credit Labour’s defeat to the Lib Dems.



I want to explain why – without resorting to attacking the other parties.

Voting Reform

As I’ve said, I was raised in a Labour household.  I went to university expecting to vote Labour.  Yet in ever constituency I’ve ever lived, the Labour Party haven’t fielded a viable candidate.  It costs a lot of money to run an election, so naturally parties only focus on where they think they have a realistic chance of winning.

Because of the ridiculousness of “First Past The Post” any vote for a minority party would be wasted.  So I never got to vote Labour.  Instead, I read the Lib Dem and Conservative manifesto and picked the LibDems.

I dare say I would like to vote Labour again in the future, but I want to do it when my vote will matter.  If the only thing a LibDem coalition / government bring about is voting reform, I’d be happy.

Tax

I was always taught that you shouldn’t vote for the party that benefits you personally – you should vote for the party that provides the best for society.  I would probably be financially better off under a Conservative government.  Their plans for tax (assuming they or any other party stick to their promises) would help me out.

But this election isn’t about me.  It’s about everyone.  I am a big fan of reducing the tax burden on people who aren’t as lucky as me.  Essentially, the LibDem plan would eliminate income tax for anyone who was making the minimum wage (£5.80 * 35 hours a week * 52 weeks a year = £10,556. The LibDem plan is for the starting rate of income tax to be £10,000).

While I may profit slightly from this tax break – imagine how it would benefit hundreds of thousands of families who could then afford the things I take for granted.  Better educational opportunities, entertainment to keep their kids from running wild, the occasional holiday, better and fresher food, a computer, broadband, and reduced stress from financial hardship.

Digital Economy Act

So much has been written about the Digital Economy Bill / Act, it feels pointless to rehash it.  Despite the best efforts of some brave Labour politicians, the bill passed.  The Conservative front bench said how much they despised the bill – yet they voted for it anyway.  The LibDems were the only party to fundamentally oppose the bill. I felt they could have been stronger.  Their performance in the House of Lords was very dispiriting, with LibDem Lords inserting a clause written by the BPI.

The bill was written and debated mostly by people with no grasp on modern technology.  The LibDems are the only party that I have seen who have embraced the Internet and are trying to find positive solutions for some of the challenges it presents.

Nuclear Armageddon

As a child of the eighties, I was spared most of the horrors of “Protect and Survive”.  I don’t want to live in a country where – by accident or design – we could kill billions of people with a push of a button.  Maybe I’m a softie with no experience of how the real world works – but I think the world would be safer without a nuclear deterrent.

Traditionally, the Labour Party has been closely allied with CND – the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – but you wouldn’t know it from their actions.

The LibDems are committed to not renewing Trident. However, they do want to replace it with a smaller nuclear arsenal.  I don’t think they  are going far enough. We should join South Africa and completely disarm.

Regardless of whether Trident is scrapped or replaced with a cheaper option, the money saved can be better used for other things.

In October 1952, Britain successfully tested a nuclear bomb. It can be argued that our nuclear “deterrent” has been in place ever since. We cannot know which countries haven’t attacked us because of our bomb, but we do know it hasn’t deterred….

• Korean War (1950–1953)
• Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
• Cyprus Emergency (1955–1959)
• Suez Crisis (1956)
• Brunei Revolt (1962)
• Dhofar Rebellion (1962-1975)
• Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation (1962–1966)
• Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
• Northern Ireland Troubles (1969-mid 1990s)
• Cod War Confrontation (1975–1976)
• Falklands War (1982)
• The First Gulf War (1990–1991)
• The Bosnian War (1995–1996)
• The Kosovo War (1999)
• Sierra Leone Civil War (2000)
• The Global War on Terror (2001-Present)
• The Afghanistan War (2001–Present)
• Iraq War and Iraqi insurgency (2003–2009)

In each of those conflicts, our nuclear arsenal hasn’t been enough to stop British troop being killed, British interests being attacked and infringement on our sovereignty.

With the rise in Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism, there is a strong argument that we have no one to use these weapons against.  Would we ever be justified in staging a nuclear attack on a location from which terrorists may have originated?

Etc.

I could fill another several pages with my thoughts on ID Cards, civil liberties, libel reform, press freedom, sustainable energy, the environment, the recession, the wider economy, live music, Europe, Parliamentary reform, expenses.  Suffice to say, after reading and comparing the manifestos, I feel more closely aligned with the Liberal Democrats on most – but not all – issues.

What Do I Want?

Because of our unfair voting system, I think it’s highly unlikely that the LibDems will form a majority – I doubt they’ll even be hugely strong minority.  I want them to govern but – more than that – I hope newspapers, politicians, people and institutions will realise that there’s more than two sides to every argument.  That the UK deserves the best government possible.  That our votes must be counted fairly.  That there is another way of doing things than flipping between two parties again and again and again.

I want the next government to set politics in a new direction.

I think that the Liberal Democrats are the only realistic choice for me. Both in the area where I live and nationally. This isn’t a protest vote – this is a commitment.

I Agree With Nick.

“It may seem surprising but there simply is no single listing for all prospective parliamentary candidates. We want people to make an informed choice and that’s difficult because so many new people are standing this time – and a record number of incumbent MPs are standing down because of expense scandal,” said Edmund von der Burg from YourNextMP.

One recent poll (PollLab 10/3/10) found nearly half of voters cannot name their MP and three quarters have no idea who their candidates are.

The message from four independent groups which collect and display candidate data online (YourNextMP, hustings.com, iElect UK & ivote2010) is a simple one – don’t leave the decision about who to vote for until polling day – check out the candidates first and make them work for your vote.

In recent weeks, the British media has touted this election as the “first truly digital election.” Online tools such as myconservatives.com and its Labour counterpart membersnet are being used in local campaigns to recruit volunteers and collect donations. But, Frances Harrison from iElect UK argues that the Internet’s greatest impact is in empowering the ordinary citizen and allowing undecided voters to learn more about candidates.

“The much-touted digital election campaign is not just about new communication channels for the big parties – it’s just as much about empowering ordinary citizens and giving them a voice to disseminate information,” said Harrison.

YourNextMP, which is affiliated to DemocracyClub, allows any member of the public to upload candidate names, photos and details online. Hustings  compares candidates in much more detail in the key marginal seats. While iElect UK is an iPhone app with candidate data and iVote2010 is aimed at any mobile phone with a web browser.

WHO WE ARE IN DETAIL

YourNextMP is a comprehensive list of candidates for the general election which is made freely available as a website (http://www.yournextmp.com) and as data downloads for others to build on. The details are editable in a wiki-like manner and many of the contributions are from members of the public. By ensuring that their details are on YourNextMP candidates can be sure that they will appear on all the services built on the data that it shares.

Contact: Edmund von der Burg, mobile  07903 420 689.
Email: hello@yournextmp.com
Site: http://www.yournextmp.com/

iElect UK is a new, free iPhone app that helps you know who to vote for. It allows users to find their constituency, using GPS or postcode, and then view a list of candidates as well as the MP. The user can ask to be contacted by any of the politicians. The idea being to promote a conversation between the electorate and their representatives. It’s been developed by two London women: an ex BBC journalist & promotional marketing manager.

Contact: Frances Harrison, 07764355260 or Nerissa Martin
Email: info@crowdspeak.co.uk
Site: www.crowdspeak.co.uk

Hustings gives links to sites being used by candidates for their online campaigning, e.g. twitter, facebook, youtube, flikr, winkball etc. It also collates news on candidates and offers candidates the option to upload their own data such as podcasts, photos and videos.

Contact: James Evans, mobile 07770 852 858.
Email: james.evans@hustings.com
Site: www.hustings.com

iVote2010 is a mobile site that allows any phone with a web browser to find their prospective parliamentary candidates.  The site has been tested on over 250 of the UK’s most popular phones.  Visitors can use iVote2010.co.uk to contact their PPC’s by phone, text or email. It also provides help in registering to vote – with the phone number and address of their local council.

Contact Terence Eden 07717512963
Email:  ivote2010@shkspr.mobi
Site: http://iVote2010.co.uk

I’m not just putting my money where my mouth is.  I’m also standing for the Board of Directors.  I was nominated by the wise and talented duo of Suw Charman-Anderson & Basheera Khan.

As part of the election, I have to produce a 400 word statement.  I want to make ORG more member lead – and I’m starting as I mean to go on. Here’s my first draft – I want your crowd-sourced contributions!

(BTW, If you think I’m talking a load of old rot, feel free to vote for Emma Byrne, Felix Cohen, Neil McGovern, or Christi Alice Scarborough.  All of whom seem like fine people to me.)

This statement has to be ready by Tuesday 12th January – so get your oar in quickly!

ORG

The Internet is no longer a wild frontier.

The hurds of wild GNU have been safely corralled. Every uncharted port has been nmapped.  Huge sums of money are being made in the 24 carat data-mines.

Where there’s money, immorality and new ideas – Governments lay their heavy hands.

Our Problem

We have a technologically literate population – but we don’t have a technologically literate governing class.

Like a teenager to pornography – Governments are irresistibly drawn to the Internet. In much the same way, they don’t really know what to do with it once they get their hands on it.

Our Solution

Government in the UK is run by those who bother to show up.  At the moment that’s only the army of industry lobbyists and the 45% of the population who votes*.

I want to make sure we are listened to and our needs are met with Government action – or inaction.

The ORG must be seen as the de-facto commentators on digital life in the UK.

The “Taxpayers’” Alliance have managed to get their organisation into the front pages of the papers.  I believe our digital civil liberties are just as important as how our taxes are spent.

Striking The Balance

I want the Government to get out of our way.  I don’t want to register my blog with the state. I don’t want my traffic monitored on spurious pretexts.

I want the Government to keep us safe from [cr|h]ackers.  I want tough penalties for spammers.  I want those who breach our privacy to pay the consequences.

How do we reconcile these two opposing views?  By being member lead.  I want to see a much stronger community built around ORG.

I want to use you to shape our message and help us disseminate it.

Members should decide our priorities and be responsible for executing our campaigns.

0. Our Problem

We have a technology literate population – but we don’t have a technology literate governing class.

1. Our Solution

We need to urgently redress this problem.  Government in the UK is run by those who bother to show up.  At the moment that’s only the 45% of the population who vote* and an army of industry lobbyists.

ORG must be seen as the de-facto commentators on digital life in the UK.

I’m amazed at how The “Taxpayers’ Alliance” have managed to dominate the front pages of British newspapers.  I believe our digital civil liberties are just as important as how our taxes are spent.
We need to ensure our message is widely heard.  We have to demand that our needs are met with Government action – or inaction.

10. Striking The Balance

How do we target our resources effectively?  By being member lead.  I want to see a much stronger community built around ORG.  You fund it – you should have a strong say in how it is run and on what it campaigns.

I want to use you to shape our message and help us disseminate it. ORG will lobby Parliament & chat with civil servants if you write to your MPs & stick up posters in your workplace.  Deal?

Members should decide our priorities and be responsible for executing our campaigns.

This means finding better ways to involve all of you.  A members’ web forum, open conference calls, and regular blogging where you can help shape the message.
ORG’s website needs to be kept up to date and be seen as the premier resourse for journalists writing about digital rights.

Finally, I’d like to experiment with a member-get-member scheme. If you can help recruit people, we’ll make sure you are rewarded.

11. About Me

My name is Terence Eden. I got my first 14.4K modem when I was 15. I never looked back.
I have a degree in Applied Computing from the University of East Anglia.
For the last 6 and a half years, I’ve been working for Vodafone.  I currently look at mobile Internet trends.
My blog – http://shkspr.mobi/blog – covers a wide range of technology and political topics.
I am not a registered member of any political party.

*UK Voter Turnout 2005 – http://www.ukpolitical.info/2005.htm

This is my response to your consultation “Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing“. I believe that the paper “GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED P2P FILE-SHARING LEGISLATION” is dangerously flawed.

In this response, I shall outline four general areas of concern. Practical, Philosophical, Technical and Cultural. I also will provide a series of solutions which I believe will have a positive impact for the creative industries of the UK.

Practical

There are several aspects of this proposed legislation which need to be considered carefully if they are to make any impact.

Justice

In this country we believe that the accused should be able to see the evidence presented against her and be able to challenge it. As it stands, your proposed legislation enables an alleged copyright holder to accuse an alleged sharer without giving the alleged sharer the ability to see or challenge the accusation.

I say “alleged copyright holder” because your proposal contains no method to verify whether the complaint originates from the correct copyright holder.

Proof

What standard of proof will a copyright holder have to produce? In conversation with your department you indicated that the proof presented to an ISP would be to the same standard as would be presented in court. This raises some very important questions:

1. How is an ISP to judge if a complaint made against one of its customers is valid? Are ISPs expected to interpret legal documents and make judgements in law?
2. If a copyright holder believes that they have proof which would stand up in court – why don’t they go to court?
3. How will an ISP or their customer be able to verify that the complaint has come from the genuine copyright holder?

Mistakes

Inevitably, there will be mistakes in this process. What redress does a user have if falsely accused?

What punishment will there be for those who accuse falsely – knowingly or unknowingly? The way the proposal is written, it would only take three complaints from Political Party X to knock a competing Parliamentary candidate off the Internet. A handful of bogus requests would be enough to cripple any business.

Without a strong disincentive against false or malicious accusations, this proposal could result in large scale problems for honest citizens, businesses and organisations.

Will a false accusation be considered libellous? What options will a customer have against an ISP who responds to a bogus request?

Responsibility

Many people make their wireless Internet connections (WiFi) freely available to anyone who passes. I see sharing my WiFi as a civic duty as do many others. Are WiFi sharers expected to police everyone who uses their connection? If so, how would this work given that WiFi networks are very difficult to secure? Will a WiFi sharer be liable if they do not know that their Internet connection is being used illicitly?

If a user is kicked off from an ISP, the proposals are unclear as to whether they will have to pay for the remainder of their contract. If the user is not required to pay for the remainder of their contract, who will compensate the ISP for lack of custom? Given that ISPs subsidise their hardware and connection fees – will we see British businesses forced to close because they are forced to cut off their paying customers?

Mobile

(In the interests of fairness, I should point out that I work for, and own shares in, Vodafone Group. These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer)

All mobile telephone networks now offer 3G data across the country. 3G networks currently offer speeds of up to 14Mbps – much faster than the 2Mbps minimum mandated by the Digital Britain report.

Anyone can buy an unregistered SIM card, plug it into their laptop and have an instant, high speed connection to the Internet. Assuming that your proposed legislation covers mobile ISPs (again this is not clear in the proposals) how do you suggest that a mobile ISP contacts a customer who does not give her address? If the user is cut off with no warning (ignoring the legal and contractual issues resulting from this) what is to stop her buying another SIM from that, or any other, network provider?

Technical

Everyone’s connection to the Internet is assigned an IP (Internet Protocol) Address. This is the globally unique number that defines them on the Internet.

Most ISPs assign Dynamic IP Addresses. This means that a user’s IP Address may change several times a day.

At the point when an accusation is made, an error of a few milliseconds could mean the difference between targetting one user and another. How would it be determined that an IP address was assigned to any particular user? What level of accuracy will be used to make an accusation?

Every item connected to the Internet provides a unique MAC (Media Access Control).

Given that most home computers allow a user to change the hardware’s MAC on demand, how is a copyright holder able to prove that the computer they allege was involved in the possession of a particular user?

It is reasonably easy for any Internet user to pass their traffic through a Proxy. This allows a user to route their entire internet connection via another user’s computer. This Proxy may be located anywhere in the world. How would a copyright holder determine whether the illicit P2P traffic they see is or is not via a proxy. This proposed legislation would only cover the UK – what is to stop a user proxying their traffic through Europe?

Given that the traffic between P2P users can be encrypted, how will a copyright holder be able to intercept and analyse the contents of the traffic? Assuming that they have the ability to break the encryption (which is highly unlikely) would this not be a breach of RIPA?

This legislation specifically discusses P2P traffic. Many forms of downloading copyrighted content do not use P2P protocols. How does this legislation address people who share copyrighted works via Email, FTP, or sneakernet?

Philosophical

I do not believe that downloading a DVD without the copyright holders’ permission is the same as stealing it from a shop.

• Copyright infringement is defined separately from theft. They are very different crimes as their position in statute makes clear.
• In the case of theft, the owner of the goods loses them. Downloading merely makes a copy, it does not destroy or remove the original.
• There is no difference between reading a book in a shop before deciding to purchase it, than there is watching clips on YouTube before deciding whether to purchase a film. Many larger bookshops have coffee shops and other reading spaces specifically to encourage customers to read the material prior to purchase.

There are many activities that millions of citizens do which deprives a copyright holder of potential revenue – yet we don’t criminalise them.

• Lending a book or DVD to an acquaintance. Just because the way we lend now involves computers, does not mean it needs to be treated differently from our traditional methods of sharing culture.
• Selling a second-hand DVD, CD or book. P2P sharing does not have any profit element for the sharers – yet selling second hand does.
• Church fêtes and school jumble sales rely on the donation of copyrighted works in order to raise money. Given the amounts of money these generate without returning anything to the copyright holders – why are they exempt from this proposed legislation while the sharing that does not generate any revenue is so punitively targeted?
• Donating second-hand DVD, CD or book to a charity shop. In this case, the charity shop is given copyrighted work for free and then sells them at an inflated price. Yet charity shops are seen as an important lifeline for those unable to afford retail priced works – not to mention the sums raised for worthy causes.

Cultural

Studies have consistently shown that those who download the most also buy the most. There has been no correlation shown between increasing number of file-sharers and decreasing profits made by the creative industries. What we are seeing is a new way for people to express their enjoyment and involvement with popular culture.

With an estimated 7 million file sharers in the UK, it is obvious to me that there has been a massive failure in the marketplace to provide people with what they want. Businesses are faced with the unenviable task of changing their decades-old business models. Rather than having buggy-whip manufacturers petition the Government to ban Horseless-Carriages, the Government should be assisting businesses to adapt to this new world.

To this end, the Government needs to consider what changes it can bring about to the culture of the country which makes it more attractive to copy than to pay.

• The most common cause for British shows like Doctor Who, Top Gear and Coronation Street being copied from abroad is the fact that they are shown months or years after their UK transmission. The Government should work with British content producers to ensure that they are able to quickly sell their content abroad at a fair price.
• The same is true of television copied in the UK – if fans did not have to wait, they would not have to illicitly copy. The Government can liberalise television market and the available transmission spectrum to allow allow overseas shows to be cheaply and legally broadcast.
• British cinema is enormously popular throughout the world. Delays in distribution encourage people to download rather than wait and pay. The Government should encourage co-production and simultaneous release of British works shown abroad.
• Subsidise the conversion of cinemas to fully digital projection. Digital cinemas are cheaper to run, do not require pollution producing lorries to deliver heavy rolls of quickly degrading film and provide a more pleasant experience for the customer.
• Broadcast TV is giving way to IP television. The Government and Ofcom should ensure that ventures like Project Kangaroo get the backing they need to provide a legal alternative to P2P file sharing.
• If an artist – independent or otherwise – wishes to release their work in Europe, they have to deal with separate licensing bodies. The Internet ignores geographic boundaries. The Government should spearhead the creation of a pan-European licensing body to allow artists and companies to market their works easily and without excessive cost. We live in a large trading block – there is no reason why a digital download should cost more in one EU state than another.
• VAT on cultural products. Books and printed music are exempt from VAT as are cultural performances. Are DVDs and video games any less culturally worthy? Cutting VAT on creative works produced in this country would encourage cheaper prices.
• Live performances. The Government should make it easier for venues to get licences for live music. Many artists and venues have complained about the difficulty of obtaining the permission necessary to stage live music. The experience of live music cannot be replicated via file sharing.
• Encourage the Metropolitan Police to drop Form 696. Barriers to live performances discourage artists and dent the ticket and album sales they need to thrive.
• Encourage the production and manufacturing of creative works in this country. There is a growing sense that businesses are able to outsource their manufacturing to countries with lax labour laws – why then shouldn’t a citizen purchase music from a country with lax copyright laws?
• Increase funding for libraries and extend their remit to cover CDs, DVD and the digital distribution of books.

Finally, if the Government wants to increase the penalties for copyright infringement, it must reduce the length of copyright terms.

The Statute of Anne originally set copyright to a length of 14 years. This has subsequently been increased to the extent that we may never have the same access to the work of The Beatles as we do Beethoven. The popular song “Happy Birthday To You” cannot be sung in public without paying a fee to Warner Chappell Music. This is despite the fact that the music was originally composed in 1893 and the lyrics in 1912.

A short copyright term encourages artists to create new work. With a potentially infinite Government backed monopoly, what incentive is there to create new art? A popular image or song only need be created once to provide a lifetime of revenue – including revenue for the creators’ descendants. What incentive does copyright give to the creation of new art?

A short copyright also allows works to fall into the public domain. Think of the amount of new art which has been created on the basis of Dickens or Shakespeare. Hugely profitable – and copyrightable – derivative works have been created without having to pay anything to their respective estates.

Copyright provides specific protection in return for their eventual return to the public domain. This is an incredibly important part of the copyright equation which is often forgotten. Unless works are eventually placed into the public domain, they are effectively stolen from us. Our culture thrives on sharing stories freely. Laws which prevent us from freely enjoying our culture robs us and future generations of their heritage. Imagine a United Kingdom that forbade people from performing Romeo and Juliet, or from singing Handel’s Messiah.

With copyright being such a poor deal for the public, it’s easy to see why it gets so little respect.

Conclusion

The Internet provides citizens with many opportunities and business with many challenges. It is an enormous, technically complicated organism – perhaps the largest creation humans have ever assembled. The Government should not attempt to regulate the use of this new marketplace without first fully understanding it. From the proposals given, it seems clear that the Government is out of step with technology and with the culture of many of its citizens.

The Prime Minister recently stated that “The internet is as vital as water and gas“. In this context, it’s hard to see what can be gained from cutting off a vital service on the basis of unchallenged accusations.

It has been nearly 10 years since A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Yet the creative industries have prefered to bury their heads in the sand and refused to innovate while people have grown used to the idea that they can download what they want, when they want it, without having to remunerate the copyright holders.

The Government must help business explore this new frontier and help business find new models which are profitable. It must do this without criminalising customers.

The proposed legislation is the equivalent of gas companies threatening citizens who dare light their homes via electricity. I oppose it and hope you take my response under consideration.

Many thanks

Terence Eden

This work is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales

You are free:

• to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
• to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:

• Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.
• Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
• Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights.

They’ve released a document entitled GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED P2P FILE-SHARING LEGISLATION.  It’s only 5 pages long, I really suggest you read it.

Being part of a democracy means you’re allowed to talk to the decision makers, so I called the number at the end of the document and had a very interesting call with Adrian Brazier.

These notes are taken off the hoof – I didn’t record the call.

I asked a range of questions.

Q1) What are the punishments for copyright holders who make false claims about an Internet user (whether malicious or not

A1) None. Yet.  A good point that they hadn’t thought of.

Q2) What standard of proof will a Copyright Holder have to provide an ISP?

A2) This will be worked out by Ofcom.  It will (probably) be of a similar level of proof as required by law. The standard of proof has not yet been published because it is up to Ofcom to formulate.

Q3) I pointed out that if a Copyright Holder had the standard of proof required for court, why wouldn’t they just go to court?

A3) Save everyone the cost and trauma.  Going to court is an expensive and protracted business for all involved, if a simple letter will stop someone breaking the law, that’s probably better for all involved.

Q4) ISPs are not lawyers and judges – how can they tell if a claim is valid. If the claim is invalid – does their customer have the right to sue them (or the Copyright Holder)?

A4) A good point not yet addressed.  If a user is falsely accused, they should have the power of redress.

I was highly impressed with the thought given to the answers – even if I disagree with their conclusions.  Full credit to Adrian for taking the time to listen to my points.  The above is my interpretation of his answers – any mistakes are mine and mine alone.

Please – if you care about Digital Britain, respond to the consultation. An simple email to adrian.brazier@bis.gsi.gov.uk or mike.klym@bis.gsi.gov.uk will do, you can telephone them on : 020 7215 1295/4165.  If you’re feeling old-skool, write to Communications & Content Industries Unit, BIS, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET.

It only takes a few minutes of your time to ensure that the Government don’t make a massive mistake.  If you are going to phone or email – please remain polite.

Dear Humfrey Malins,

I understand that MPs plan to grant themselves the privilege of
exempting themselves from Freedom of Information requests concerning
their expenses.

Whenever I have a business expense, my employer asks for every receipt,
no matter how small. How else is it to correctly pay its tax and
protect itself against fraud?

I would like you to remember that it is MY money that you are spending.
I happily pay tax for the betterment of this country. I do not object
to paying your wages or any other reasonable expenses you may have as
you go about your business. What I object to is you hiding your
spending from me. How else am I to gauge whether you are defrauding me
or if you represent value for money?

As one of many people who is looking for a change of government at the
next election, you action on this matter will influence my vote.

Yours sincerely,

Terence Eden

A scant 2 hours later, I had a reply!

Dear Mr Eden, The House of commons authorities check our expenses to the
last penny, and I have no problem publishing mine. I wonder if you agree
that since Civil servants and the police are public servants whether
they too should publish all their expenses best wishes Humfrey Malins
CBE MP

So, I replied,

Dear Mr Malins,

Many thanks for your swift reply. It’s great to see an MP engaging
with their constituents. Do you have a blog or website where you will
be publishing these figures?

I do believe that all Civil Servants should publish these expenses to
the people who employ them.
If, for example, a Police Authority sees that a PC is claiming
extortionate or unusual expenses, they should be able to challenge
them. Ultimately, voters chose whether or not to employ an MP.
Therefore, I think their expenses should be visible to the public.
That said, the same should go for anyone who is employed by the state.
I come from the Open Source Software world – one of our mantras is
“Many eyes make all bugs shallow”. The more people you have looking
for a problem, the easier it is to spot and fix. It also means that
people are less likely to behave maliciously if they know there is a
good chance their misdeeds will be spotted.

Would you have any objection to me publishing this correspondence on
my blog – http://shkspr.mobi/blog – ?

Many thanks – and please encourage all those in your party to vote to
keep their expenses viewable by all.

Terence Eden

Bizarrely, I received a written response a few days later

So, full marks to Mr Malins for being on the ball with this one. It really is great to see what a bit of effort will get you.