According to 38 Degrees:

“There’s plenty to oppose in the Digital Economy Bill, it gives the government the ability to disconnect millions. Schools, libraries and businesses could see their connection cut if their pupils, readers of customers infringe any copyright. But one group likes it, the music industry. In a leaked memo a few days ago they admitted the only way to get the bill through would be to rush it through without a real parliamentary debate. Let’s stop that happening.”

The Open Rights Group is working with 38 Degrees  on the campaign. Spokesperson Jim Killock added:

“The numbers have exceeded even our expectations, but we are all clear that disconnection is wrong as a punishment. It should be no surprise to corporate lobbyists like the BPI are busy trying to write our copyright law, and forcing attemts to curtail our human rights to favour their business interests. But we expect better of our MPs. Many are decent folk; many won’t have through through the implications of this Bill. A debate is what allows the issues to be drawn out and understood – as well as fully publicly debated.

“The internet has become a fundamental part of our lives. While not yet a formal right, it clearly is the prime means by which we exercise our rights to work, to receive an education and for freedom of speech. This is what is drawing the reaction to this legislation. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement: we are appalled that the basic tool of our society – the internet – could be taken away from people because of trivial financial misdemeanours.”

To write to your MP (it really doesn’t take that long!), go to 38 Degrees site: Don’t rush through extreme web laws

As usual, Twitter provided an interesting barometer for views:

MikeKevan: The one sidedness of last nights panorama was dissapointing, felt more like scaremongering than reporting. BBC I am dissapoint.

@PiratePartyUK: #FALSE: “bittorrent means piracy” – bittorrent is an entirely legal protocol, like ftp. #debill #panorama

Growkin: the people on the panorama show are idiots “the kids take our work laptop and do what they want” IT IS YOUR WORK LAPTOP!!!
RossHaffenden: #Panorama “why don’t your go on Itunes ?” “because it costs too much”. Illegal downloaders spend twice as much on music etc SURPRISE? NOT!

The Open Rights Group’s Jim Killock felt that a lot of the programme missed the essential point: people’s rights not to be disconnected. On the ORG’s blog, he said:

This perspective was curiously underplayed in the Panorama broadcast yesterday. Instead, we mostly listened to a discussion between different musicians worrying about the future of their industry.

While that’s a concern – and the central concern of the BPI – our concern is our rights, democracy, and the future of our society, which is being built on the internet. We do not withdraw the basic tool of society without the most extreme reason. We certainly do not do such a thing without a massive public and democratic debate.

For close followers of the filesharing/music rights debate, there wasn’t anything new in the Panorama episode. Most users interviewed said they regularly used download services, although it was pointed out that filesharers spend more on music than non-filesharers. Andrew Heaney was clear about TalkTalk’s position on filesharing: “If the Secretary of State requires us to cut someone off, we will refuse to cut them off, unless a court has taken the decision that that subscriber did something wrong and they are guilty.”

Check out Panorama on iPlayer and make your own mind up. In the meantime, here’s our song: “Home Taping Is Killing Music”.

Sir, We regret that the House of Lords adopted amendment 120A to the digital economy bill (“Bill will censor internet, providers claim”, March 6). 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 that 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 and threaten 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 lawmaking.

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 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.

Tom Alexander,
Chief Executive, Orange

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

Stephen Fry

Jessica Hendrie-Liaño,
Chair, Internet Services Providers Association

Jill Johnstone,
International Director, Consumer Focus

Jim Killock,
Executive Director, Open Rights Group

Mark Lewis,
Managing Director, eBay UK

Ian Livingston,
Chief Executive, BT Group

Sarah Oates,
University of Glasgow

Jenny Pickerill,
University of Leicester

Mark Rabe,
Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland

Paul Reilly,
University of Leicester

Jess Search,
Founder, Shooting People independent film makers

Ian Walden,
Queen Mary, University of London

Tom Watson, MP

Fantasies of flip-flop on filesharers

A rash of reports fantasise today that the government has “dumped” or “abandoned” plans to boot the most persistent illegal filesharers off the internet.

The source of the reports is a sentence in a lengthy response to a petition on the Downing Street website, which reads: “We will not terminate the accounts of infringers – it is very hard to see how this could be deemed proportionate except in the most extreme – and therefore probably criminal – cases.”

Visit The Register for more.

Bowie then went on to make one of the most perceptive observations anyone’s ever made about our networked world. Music, he said, “is going to become like running water or electricity”. To appreciate the significance of this, remember that he was speaking in 2002, a year after Apple unleashed the iPod on an unsuspecting world. At the time, millions of people were transfixed by the idea that they could carry their entire music collections around with them in a tiny device. But Bowie perceived that this blissful state might just be transitory– that iPod users were, in fact, the audio equivalent of travellers to primitive countries who carry bottled water because public supplies are unreliable or unsafe. In a comprehensively networked world, Bowie surmised, people would eventually become more relaxed about carrying their supplies of bottled music: when they needed it, they would just get it streamed from the network.

Read the full piece online on the Observer’s website where you’ll read how the Grateful Dead fits into all this.

The Digital Economy Bill currently passing through the Committee Stage at the House of Lords is trying to help foster digital innovation and protect the rights of content creators. There has been significant discussion over the legislation, particularly in relation to copyright infringement such as the transfer of files to other people over the Internet without the permission of the copyright holder.

TalkTalk has been one of the most vocal voices against the plans for protecting copyright, not because copyright shouldn’t be protected but because of the impact the plans may well have. Their latest release warns that ‘Robin Hood’ developers will neuter the bill with new applications and tools. This is something that is almost inevitable—In the digital world there is nothing like a challenge such as breaking some encryption or building an ability to hide data from others.

thinkbroadband look at both sides of the coin.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Dunstone, whose company owns and operates the internet and telephony provider TalkTalk, said he refused to send his customers who were suspected file-sharers warning letters about their supposed activity or disconnect them, even if these clauses of the bill became law.

He explained that he may choose instead to fight the Government in court, if his lobbying fails and that his company would “consider all its options” should these clauses in the Digital Economy Bill go through.

Read Emma Barnett’s full article here.

The Digital Economy Bill is one of the few pieces of legislation the government is actively pushing through parliament before an election is called.

Its aim is to build Britain’s telecommunications backbone and to pave the way for a world-beating digital economy – an admirable objective with cross-party support.

Yet lurking within this worthy endeavour is some of the most dangerous and misguided legislation to have come before parliament in recent years.

The Bill sets out to tackle online copyright infringement – frequently referred to as ‘illegal peer-to-peer file- sharing’ – in order to support Britain’s creative industries.

There is no doubt that some people do use the internet to watch films and listen to music without paying. TalkTalk does not condone or encourage copyright infringement, but I believe that the government’s proposals are disproportionate, impractical and deeply unprincipled.

Incredibly, the Bill effectively gives music labels and film studios the right to instruct internet service providers, such as TalkTalk, to cut off the internet connection of anyone that the labels and studios suspect of copyright infringement.

They don’t have to prove it in a court of law or to an impartial third party. The onus is on the customer to prove their innocence.

Consider this: if the police want to disconnect someone they suspect of viewing child pornography they have to apply to a court first and prove guilt. The Digital Economy Bill, in effect, casts people who download music without paying for it as a more urgent menace to society than people who view images of child abuse.

We know many broadband customers caught up in this Orwellian nightmare will be innocent since the detection method cannot establish the individual who is file- sharing. It can only identify the connection, which many – including the unauthorised – can use.

Already the consumer group Which? has identified innocent broadband customerswho have been pursuedrelentlessly by lawyers using the same process outlined in the Bill. These customers are the victims of Wi-Fi hijacking – hacking into other people’s internet connections in order to download content.

Because determined filesharers can easily avoid detection using Wi-Fi hijacking and a growing array of other tools and applications, it will be innocent broadband customers who suffer the consequences of this nightmare.

The music and film industry has lobbied hard for these measures, claiming that copyright infringement costs them about £400million a year in lost revenues. But the cost of tackling the problem will be massive – maybe hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

And guess who foots this bill? The music and film companies? Not a chance. You will pay for it – an extra £2 per month on your broadband bill, according to BT.

In fact, the cost of copyright protection plus the socalled ‘phone tax’ will jointly add about £30 per year to broadband bills.

Demand modelling shows this could make internet access unaffordable for 600,000 hard-pressed families. So much for the government’s claimed commitment to ‘digital inclusion’.

For the record, we make no money out of copyright infringement. The extra traffic costs us money as we have to add additional capacity to the network to carry the data.

The reality is that when content becomes digitised it, in effect, becomes free. It doesn’t matter how many websites are blocked, how many services shut down, how many families snooped on, people will always find ways to access copyrighted content free online. Film studios and music labels have to live with that truth and adapt their businesses.

The creative industries’ arguments are phoney and the government’s response will turn our digital economy into a disaster zone.

More than 31,000 people have registered their opposition to these absurd proposals by signing our petition on the Number 10 website. You can also sign at www.dontdisconnect.us.

Alan Ellis, 26, was accused of “ripping off” record labels and musicians on a “large scale” by running Oink, a music file sharing website he set up as a student.

When police raided the software engineer’s home in October 2007 they found almost $300,000 (£185,000) in his accounts. Officers also discovered that the site had 200,000 members, who had downloaded around 21 million music files.

….Mr Ellis said he set up Oink as a “hobby” because he was frustrated with his “outdated” software engineering honours degree at Teesside University.

He said never intended to defraud copyright holders and that donations made by users were to cover the server’s rental costs. Any surplus of funds was intended for buying a server, he said.

When his home was raided he allegedly told officers: “All I do is really like Google, to really provide a connection between people. None of the music is on my website.”

You can read the full story on the Telegraph and other news sites. In fact, pretty much every outlet seems to have covered it.

Meanwhile, our blog post earlier has been reported on pcadvisor.co.uk, broadbandgenie.co.uk and computeractive.co.uk and a Twitter search on “Bono” shows that his views have been, well, mixed to say the least.