Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill

[caveman_nige]

Legislation to tackle internet piracy, including bans for illegal file-sharers, has been passed by the Lords. The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to be rushed through the Commons before the general election.
Peers had earlier rejected a bid by ministers to include wide-ranging powers over future online piracy law.
But despite criticism, the government said it was still committed to giving courts the power to block websites which are infringing copyright.
The bill, put forward by Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, has been welcomed by the music industry because it includes plans to suspend the internet accounts of people who persistently download material illegally.
But firms such as British Telecom, Google and Facebook say that would be unfair and illegal file-sharers should be fined instead of cut off.
Earlier this month, peers defeated the government when they rejected a clause giving ministers the power to change laws on online copyright in future without the need for further legislation.
'Unintended consequences'
But their chosen replacement - a measure allowing courts to use injunctions to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites - also prompted criticism from companies, consumer rights campaigners and academics.
They argued it would lead to "blocking based on accusation rather than a court injunction" and could shut down sites like Google and YouTube.
Liberal Democrat media spokesman Lord Clement-Jones, who led the moves for the replacement clause, offered "clarifications and improvements" during the bill's third reading on Monday evening.


We are calling for massive campaign of citizens to demand that their MPs debate this dangerous bill


Jim Killock
Open Rights Group


He did not, however, put them to the vote.
Instead, junior business minister Lord Young of Norwood Green said the Lib Dem amendment was incompatible with the EU Technical Standards Directive.
He said it would "not be capable of being enforced" and could lead to "unforeseen and unintended consequences".
But Lord Young told peers: "It is our intention to try to bring forward, as the bill moves to the Commons, a clause that would seek to ultimately achieve the same effect."
This would include a power for the secretary of state "to bring forward regulations to achieve the desired effect of site blocking", he added.
And it would allow for "proper consultation and consideration of the evidence for the need and the proportionality of the measure".
Lord Young said his offer was a "sincere and constructive commitment" and he had "tried to address the genuine concerns that have been expressed".
Lord Clement-Jones, while warning of "many a slip between cup and lip", agreed to wait for the government's amendment.
Amendment wording
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said Lord Mandelson was "preparing to rush through this draconian legislation without democratic debate".
"We are calling for massive campaign of citizens to demand that their MPs debate this dangerous bill."
Last week, it emerged that the wording of the Lib Dem amendment was almost identical to a draft written by the BPI, which lobbies on behalf of the British music industry.
The BPI said opposition parties "saw it as a good framework for what they wanted to put down" .
Chief executive Geoff Taylor welcomed the bill's passing, adding: "It is vital for the future of the UK's creative sector that the Digital Economy Bill is adopted."
But Andrew Robinson, from Pirate Party UK, which campaigns on the issue, said: "The public will not respect a law that was quite literally written by the record industry, for the record industry.
"As it stands, the bill is fatally flawed, and fundamentally unjust."



Source:

 [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8569750.stm"]BBC News - Lords pass controversial internet piracy bill[/URL]

[barrowmanandrew]

it amazes me that a group of people (lords) who were not elected by the general public can sit and vote on issues which could affect every citizen in this country. are we still in the dark ages!!!!!

[chroma]

it amazes me that a group of people (lords) who were not elected by the general public can sit and vote on issues which could affect every citizen in this country. are we still in the dark ages!!!!!

Its actualy a decent system, believe it or not.

the dark ages dcommoners didnt have any say, the king decided what went and where, there was no opportunity for recourse and a king is far from elected, inbred yes, elected? hell no.

For a modern piece of legislature it has to get drafted by someone (in this case Sith Lord Mandelson)

Then it needs to get proposed for a reading.
Gets read in the house of lords, gets read again, a committee forms to discuss changes raised during both readings, then this gets reported back to the lords, then it gets a third reading in its ammended form before being proposed to the commons.

The commons follow the same process over again and then it goes to the ammendment stage where final changes get made before the Queen ascends it into law.

The really positive thing about the House of Lords is that they are NOT elected, so therefore dont give a toss about electioneering.
The major flaw with the elected commons is that every four years things get changed up, so the commons are only going to do things which will paint them in a positive light or face getting booted.

Take as an exampke the Phorm fiasco, i contacted several MP's over the scandal looking for some kind of justice and got bounced around by people that would either A: profit from the system or B: face taking a fall from making a stand.

Contacting a few lords however painted a very different picture, theyre in the game for the long haul and gave me the frank honest truth on the matter and made steps in the right direction, only because they had nothing to lose on the issue.

so yeah, id say its a decent system, faults in one camp are taken care of in the other, they keep each other in check and towing the line. So without having both the corruption would be even more rife than it already is.

As for the bill? its a load of tripe.
Even forgoing the disconnection issue regarding internet subscribers its readily apparent the bill is too wide and vague giving too much power to the secratary of state.

Take Copyright for instance, this year thanks to bills made in the USA regarding copyright extensions nothing came out on the public domain and wont for several years. As it stands nowadays in the states, a piece of work doesnt get opened to the public until the 75th aniversary of the artists death.
So any film, music, literature etc can be shelved for over a century making someones estate/company a tidy profit before being given to the public.
Take The works of J.D. Sallinger, the grapes of wrath and the catcher in the wry where set to be opened to the public domain (this means the public are free to download, copy, make changes, use charicters from a works in their own etc) in 2018, as it stands it wont see the light of day untill 2043... if the law stays the same and some politician doesnt get a bung for an extension.

The Digital economy gives Mandelson powers to do the same over here, if you want to keep a set of works safe (like catcher in the wry where schools teach it and therefore still turns a profit) you would need only hand a few million to manelson and voila the copyright will be extended indefinately.

The bill gives powers to an elected official to pass legislation without any other elected official being privy to it or even having a say in the process.

[alunfennell]

It should not bee up to the Lords to pass or dismiss this type of draconian laws, however much they elect to do so, The EU runs most of the communication laws set down across much of Europe from free trade, communications, financial regulation, Justice and law reform.

But Britian stand back from a lot of EU regulation including Communications and Finincial regulation and only concern themselves primarily with Free Trade & Justice, this leave Britian's communication's law regarding forms of censorship including electronic Piracy up to the House of Lords.

ISP's will fight back on this through the EU as everything including YouTube is a form of Piracy which ever way you look at it, listening to music from a none official source is Piracy, where does one draw the line when nearly everything sourced online is of a questionable nature & noboday knows its source.

It would be more in the nature of the House of Lord to deal with ~~~~ sites and Popups, spammers, clone or fraudulent websites and protect use consumers for a service we subscribe to through our ISPs.

Artists, Movie Companys, Music Companys & Software developers make enough money to privatly prosecute individuals or website owners themselves without have Laws to be changed in countries and trample over civil liberties.

Another point is the house of lords is built up of Lords, Barones's, Earl's, Viscount & Bishops these people have very little sence of reality and are total out of tune with the average Man or Woman on the street, these people should not nor have the responsibility to pass something that I am sure none of them have any understanding or knowledge of and its implications of civil liberties and because it called the World Wide Web global Liberties.

Remebering that he Web has been around for over 20 years and its only now to become censored because its seen as a poerfull tool and a threat by a few world leaders in Movies and Music, but even our Honorary Lords, Barones's, Earl's, Viscount & Bishops have not heard of Proxy servers and hidding IP addresses which will be the next big step forward.

http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsand...of_members.cfm

[barrowmanandrew]

i take your point about the lords being not elected should mean they dont vote for popularity. but as the next poster says they are well out of touch with everyday people.