Andrew explained TalkTalk’s views and made clear how the Bill’s proposals will affect consumers’ fundamental rights.

You can listen to the interview here: iPlayer (1:55 in).

So we were surprised – to put it mildly – to hear Geoff quote “a TalkTalk survey” to support his arguments. The problem is we don’t recognise the figure Geoff mentioned. Having checked with him, it seems he has been rather misleading in selecting one figure from a press release we issued last autumn. But more of that later.

First, the context. The relevant passage of the Today programme interview focused on the security of people’s wireless internet connections. The Digital Economy Bill will place the onus on broadband customers to secure their WiFi connection. So if anyone hacks the connection and uses it to illegally download copyrighted material, the blame lies with the innocent owner, not the hacker, unless they can prove they took ‘reasonable steps’ to protect their connection. If they cannot do so then they could be disconnected.

We think this is utterly wrong in principle and doomed to failure in practice. In fact, only a few days ago we issued a piece of research which estimated that the cost to consumers of making sure their wireless connections were secure with the latest technology could run to several hundred million pounds. Geoff Taylor said that “most people on residential connections using wireless already have their connections secured – it’s something like 95% of connections, according to a TalkTalk survey, are already secured.”

In other words, only 5% are unsecured. (If you want to listen to the relevant passage of the interview, you can do so here – from 6mins in.) This is incorrect and hugely misleading. Last autumn we undertook a survey of over 1,000 wireless connections in a series of residential streets in Ealing.

We found that 41% of the connections were vulnerable to unauthorised use, and actually the true number may be much higher. Under the terms of the Digital Economy Bill, these people could be disconnected if someone downloads copyrighted material via their connection.

When we announced the results of this survey, we also undertook a demonstration in Stanmore, where we checked 68 local wireless connections. Using this much smaller sample we found that 34% were vulnerable to hacking. Six per cent had no security at all and 28% had only WEP technology, which – as we pointed out – many people think is secure but is actually easily hackable by anyone with a laptop. Only one connection out of those 68 used WPA2, the highest form of wireless security protection and the only type which has so far not been hacked.

The BPI appears to have taken the 6% figure and claimed it accurately represents the number of unsecured wireless connections in the UK. You can judge for yourself whether you think they or we are more accurate in portraying the threat of unauthorised downloading. At any rate, we think the Digital Economy Bill presents a major threat to Britain’s internet users. It is a dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, which we believe does not deserve to become law.

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”.

If, like me, you remember the 80s, you may also recall recording the Top 40 on Sunday nights. Up and down the country, people were hovering over their cassette players with their fingers over the pause button, trying to get the perfect recording before Tony Blackburn spoke and ruined it. Back then the music industry told us that home taping would signal the end of the music industry and that it must be stamped out. There are clear parallels with today’s debate about filesharing and the Digital Economy Bill.

That’s why we teamed up with Dan Bull, the musician behind Dear Lily and Dear Mandy, to create our very own music video. ‘Home Taping is Killing Music’ is a tongue-in-cheek video that features 80s legends Madonna, George Michael and Adam Ant (well, actually it’s just a trio of look-alikes) lip-synching to the song Top of the Pops style.

The song’s release coincides with the results of some research we conducted which found that the majority of music fans would simply switch to alternative ways of accessing copyright-protected content for free, if using peer-to-peer (P2P) services leaves them vulnerable to disconnection. In fact, 80% of 18-34 year olds questioned in our survey said that if new legislation made it dangerous to use P2P services they would switch to using methods which are undetectable.

We’ve consistently made it clear that we don’t encourage illegal filesharing. But in our view, the government’s filesharing proposals won’t change a thing – persistent filesharers will find another way of getting songs, movies and software illegally. It’s a never-ending game of cat and mouse.

Home taping didn’t kill music in the 1980s – it survived. The same will happen now in the internet age – illegal filesharing won’t kill music. And if you read the comments on the Have your Say page on www.dontdisconnect.us you’ll see that most people agree and suggest that the answer to bands making money out of their tunes lies in adopting new business models, not record companies trying to clamp down on suspected filesharers.

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.

Only Idiots Assume  written by Londoner Liam Mullone and sung by his friend Hils Barker, is a stinging attack on the Government’s plans to disconnect people suspected of watching films and music online without paying for the privilege.

Fry selected the song to win a competition organised by TalkTalk, Britain’s biggest provider of broadband to homes.

“I am insanely in love with Only Idiots Assume,” said Stephen Fry. “It’s got the anger, the wit, the musical skill – all in a wonderful package that reminds me of the high days of my youth when punk roamed the land and the young were angry and funny and spunky and spiky.”

Liam Mullone, who, along with Hils Barker, is carving out a successful career on the comedy circuit, described the entry as a “ska-punk reply to Peter Mandelson”. Lord Mandelson is the minister behind the Digital Economy Bill which contains the controversial copyright protection clauses. The Bill is making its way through Parliament and may become law before the election.

“I’m used to having my material taken because you can’t protect a joke,” said Liam. “I sympathise with any artist who gets discouraged at the thought of not making a living. But just because a problem is bigger than the government’s imagination, it isn’t bigger than the Magna Carta or the principle of due process.

“Assuming that people with high download volumes are stealing stuff is like calling someone a witch because they have a black cat. It’s a medieval premise.”

TalkTalk’s petition against the Government’s plans has so far received over 32,000 signatures on the Number 10 website.

The company has been an outspoken critic of the Government’s plans to disconnect people suspected of copyright infringement, arguing that such a penalty should only be imposed if guilt has been proved in a court

Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s executive director of strategy and regulation, said: “We launched this competition (called Sing Our Petition) to show the depth of public feeling about the Government’s misguided proposals.

“We wanted to tap into the outstanding creativity of the Great British public to send a clear message to the Government – these laws won’t work and people don’t want them.”

Fry continued: “I’m no defender of systematic deliberate criminal downloading but in my estimation the government’s proposed ‘Three-Strike’ Copyright Protection Law is ill-conceived, constitutionally outrageous, morally unfair and epically foolish. This is not the way to protect and strengthen the creative music, film and TV industries – it is a way further to alienate and antagonise the very people on whom those industries depend.

“Aside from the skewed psychology and hilarious inappropriateness of major labels and studios leading a crusade for artistic freedom and independence, the planned legislation reveals a deep misunderstanding of the online world. Large scale criminal P2P downloaders will certainly be smart enough to avoid attention while the innocent or small-time (most of whom are good customers) will be penalised without recourse to the due process of law. I shake my head in sad disbelief that Britain could seriously be contemplating going down a path like this.”

Last week TalkTalk held an event for MPs and Peers designed to demonstrate the futility of the proposals, specifically why the system designed to spot copyright infringement will entrap completely innocent customers while persistent offenders will remain undetected.

About Hils and Liam aka ‘Broken Dongles’

Liam Mullone and Hils Barker are stand-up comedians and libertarians.

Liam was previously a gravedigger, a restaurant critic and a journalist for the Times, and has written for ITV1, Radio 1 and Radio 4, with credits including The Now Show, the Arthur Smith Lectures and 28 Acts in 28 Minutes.

Hils is also an actress and a writer. She gigs up and down the country, including recently at the Hammersmith Apollo as part of the LIVEstock gig to raise funds for Friends Of The Earth. You can catch her soon on Radio 4’s comedy panel game Act Your Age.

Both have created work on the theme of civil liberties. Liam’s 2007 show Health + Safety explored the dehumanising effect of “beneficial” H&S legislation, and Hils’ 2008 show Exhibitionist! looked at the nightmare scenario of the Government knowing as much about us as Facebook – or even running it. The duo are turning this idea into a sitcom for the producer Paul Jackson.