I don’t want this blog to get mired in politics, but this issue is too important for internet users and members of the creative industries in the UK (regardless of their political stripe) to ignore.
The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson wants to give the music and movie industries the power to force UK citizens (and their families) offline on the suspicion of infringing copyright. His plans are unworkable and unlawful, and will do nothing to fix old media’s obsolete business models, while at the same time doing incalculable damage to the UK’s viability as a place to do business online.
You can read more about Mandelson’s (increasingly ludicrous) plans here (Guardian) and here (BoingBoing). Cory Doctorow (yeah, I know) articulates what’s wrong with the proposals here (Guardian).
If you want to stop this unelected meddler from letting his recording industry friends kill the internet in the UK, take action:
Send a message to Mandelson (Open Rights Group)
Sign the petition
Write to your MP
Join the Facebook group (set up by thoroughly good egg Tom Watson MP)
This is not about piracy. (It’s perfectly fine for there to be reasonable, proportionate and legal means for rights holders to protect their work.) It’s about safeguarding access to the internet – something that has already been enshrined as a human right in Finland, France, Estonia and Greece, and which is becoming increasingly necessary to participate in society, be it for work, leisure, commerce, communication or access to public services.
Comments (7) »
Tags: corruption, disconnection, geffen, internet, machiavellian, mandelson, politics, sleaze, threestrikes
7 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Other things you can do:
Join the Open Rights Group.
Join Pirate Party UK.
Pledge not to vote for any MP who supports the Digital Economy Bill.
By Philip Hunt on 11.22.09 06:41
And now, some facts.
I do wish Doctrow would go away. The man is the left’s answer to Glen Beck, and it saddens me that we have one.
By Tom Edwards on 11.22.09 10:30
Tom,
Are you basically saying this isn’t a problem because it’s going to take a long time to implement? Disconnection even being a possibility as a penalty is unacceptable.
By Robin on 11.22.09 14:12
No, that’s entirely tangential.
My point is that any disconnections that do happen (assuming OfCom even goes down that route – if “phase 1″ is successful they likely won’t) will take place after multiple warnings and on the back of pretty damn irrefutable evidence corroborated by the ISP itself from its internal records. The ISP, let us remember, have a vested interest in retaining as many customers as possible.
Doctrow, and you in turn, sensationalise this into “giving the music and movie industries the power to force UK citizens (and their families) offline on the suspicion of infringing copyright”. Nasty and completely untrue, as the link I posted shows.
By Tom Edwards on 11.22.09 16:55
Well, the success of phase 1 hinges on the nebulous idea of a “70% reduction in filesharing” being achieved. I find it highly doubtful that there will be any result of phase 1 that will placate the music industry lobby.
Again, I say disconnection should not even be on the table as a penalty. Rights holders already have legal recourse to pursue infringers. ISPs shouldn’t be forced to police copyright any more so than the Post Office.
I agree that Doctorow has a penchant for sensationalism, falling into the classic activist’s trap of feeling that it’s OK to exaggerate if it’s in the service of a good cause. That does not make the summary of the likely result of this plan going ahead “completely untrue” however.
By Robin on 11.22.09 17:16
I’ve been reading the bill this evening and there’s no mention of 70%. Perhaps that’s what Mandelson wants, but bear in mind that OfCom’s report won’t be written until after the next election! Though you may be interested to hear that the current secretary of state can bring technical measures in without waiting for the report. Hmm…
I can’t argue with your feelings about whether disconnection should ever be an option. But I do think that the flowchart and now the published bill itself entirely debunk the particular sentence I quoted.
By Tom Edwards on 11.22.09 19:20
I say “current secretary of state” to include Mandy’s inevitable Tory successor. Wasn’t very clear at all.
By Tom Edwards on 11.22.09 19:22
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>