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

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.

The Digital Economy Bill will have precisely the opposite of its desired effect. The Bill will ignite the development of tools that make it easier for people to access music, films and other copyright-protected material for free and undetected, defeating any attempt to protect copyright.

That was the message to MPs and Peers today at a briefing in Westminster organised by TalkTalk, the UK’s largest provider of broadband to homes.

Already there are dozens of such tools available, developed by latter day Robin Hoods who in many cases are not motivated by money.

It is not known what proportion of copyright-protected content is accessed using these new tools but research by the BPI suggests people are migrating away from traditional P2P (which can be monitored, albeit at great expense) and using these other tools instead (1).

Examples of these tools include:

• Applications which scan thousands of internet radio stations, and in a few hours download tracks from selected artists and then catalogue them
• Services which effectively conceal users’ IP addresses, allowing them to download material without detection
• Websites which stream “pay to view” sporting events broadcast outside the UK
• Tools which allow users to ‘rip’ content from on demand TV and music services such as iPlayer

MPs and Peers were today (Tuesday 26^th January) given a chance to see some of these tools and applications in action at a briefing entitled Principles and Practicalities of Copyright Protection, held in Westminster today (Tuesday). They also had the chance to hear from four organisations – Which?, Liberty, Consumer Focus and Open Rights Group – about the damaging effect of the Digital Economy Bill on human and consumer rights.

“The measures in the Digital Economy Bill will hasten the migration away from P2P, ignite the development of new tools and popularise the notion that stealing content is socially acceptable, akin to breaking the speed limit by one or two miles per hour,” said Charles Dunstone, chief executive of TalkTalk. “The inevitable consequence of persisting with this legislation will be to increase the moral chasm between labels and fans and between government and citizens.”

TalkTalk has published a series of case studies which show that people who develop tools which can be used to access content illegally are frequently not motivated by money. Rather, they are irritated by digital rights management (DRM) restrictions placed on content by labels and studios.

“Content owners really frustrate music and film fans by allowing material to be downloaded only to one device or used in only one format,” said Dunstone.

“Most fans grudgingly put up with it but some are smart enough to develop applications which allow content to be copied from one format or device to another. And that is the genesis of many of the tools which are currently out there. If the Digital Economy Bill becomes law, more tools will emerge and they will be simple enough for anyone to use.

“Copyright infringement is illegal. We do not encourage or condone it. But we live in the real world and it is clear that the Digital Economy Bill is futile and will only hasten the development of more beneath-the-radar tools and applications.

“The old model just cannot work in the digital age. Once content is digitised it effectively becomes freely and easily available to anyone who wants it. That is the stark reality the content industry has to confront.

“Record labels and film studios need to find new ways of persuading fans to pay for their content.  Those that can’t find new ways of making money in the digital age won’t survive. They will be replaced by new ventures which see the online environment as an opportunity rather than a problem.”

While some high profile artists such as Bono and Lily Allen have spoken in favour of disconnecting people accused of copyright infringement, other celebrities have registered their vehement opposition.

Stephen Fry has used Twitter to urge his followers to sign TalkTalk’s petition on the Number 10 website. At the time of writing the petition has been signed by almost 32,000 people.(2)

“I’m no defender of systematic deliberate criminal downloading,” said Stephen Fry, “but in my estimation the government’s proposed 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.

“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 the law. I shake my head in sad disbelief that Britain could seriously be contemplating going down a path like this.”

Ends

For more information please contact

Steve Marinker

Citigate Dewe Rogerson

0207 282 2841

07779 031 936

Editors’ notes

1)       Harris Interactive for the BPI, February 2009

2)       TalkTalk has also run a competition, judged by Stephen Fry, calling for individuals to create content opposing the Digital Economy Bill. Entries can be found out:

www.dontdisconnect.us/category/competition

Stephen Fry has agreed to judge a competition to create a protest song, poem or other form of artistic expression against the proposed ‘Three Strikes’ law.

The law is designed to protect the music and film industry against copyright infringement but in doing so it threatens basic human rights, overturns the principle of presumed innocence and is likely only to ensnare innocent broadband customers whose Wi-Fi connections have been hijacked.

TalkTalk, the UK’s largest provider of broadband to homes, has run a vigorous campaign (www.dondisconnect.us) against the proposals, which are part of the Digital Economy Bill. The Bill has received its second reading in the House of Lords and will move to the Commons in the New Year.

More than 30,000 people have registered their opposition to the draft law by signing the petition on the No.10 website.

Now TalkTalk is offering a prize of £3,000 for the most creative piece of protest content. The competition is called Sing Our Petition but any form of artistic expression will be considered: mime, dance, song, sculpture, haiku… anything you like so long as it can be accessed online.

The competition is open to anyone via www.dontdisconnect.us/sing-our-petition and closes on 22nd January 2010.

Last month the singer Dan Bull posted a protest song on YouTube in the form of an ‘open letter’ to Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State responsible for the legislation. This followed Bull’s hugely popular ‘letter’ to Lily Allen, an outspoken supporter of the Three Strikes law.

“Bull’s letters were inspired,” says Andrew Heaney, strategy and regulation director of TalkTalk. “Now we want to encourage others to express their opposition to the legislation. The intensity of support for our campaign has been impressive but we need to crank it up a gear or two if we are to stop these crazy measures from becoming law.”

Stephen Fry is a high profile opponent of the proposed three strikes law and has tweeted about it on several occasions. Stephen Fry says: “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. I couldn’t be more pleased to be asked to judge this competition.”

Within 24 hours of Fry’s tweet on Sunday morning the petition, originally lodged by Andrew Heaney of broadband company TalkTalk, had passed 8,000 – more than the number of people who signed a petition to give Gurkhas the right to stay in the UK.

Fry claims to have introduced Lord Mandelson – whose Digital Economy Bill contains the anti-piracy measures – to the internet when he showed him his first website in 1997.

You can sign the petition against the filesharing proposals on the Number 10 website.