For those of you that share my naivety in government legislation and matters of digital economy you can be forgiven for having little awareness of the newly fronted Digital Economy Bill.
However, since you’re reading this online (and myself writing via the same online medium) maybe there’s an argument that our ignorance is misplaced…
In summary, the government have began motions toward bringing Britain into the digital age, primarily via this Digital Economy Bill which looks to turn Lord Carter’s Digital Britain Report into law; the issue being that current copyright laws are fast becoming obsolete.
You’d also be forgiven for thinking this should all be relatively straight forward, however a triangle of conflicting interests has been created as government, ISPs and online business, and the music industry fight their interests.
Much of the issue revolves around the controversial Clause 17. This part of the bill was meant to ensure it was “future proof” as it would have allowed the then Secretary of State unlimited power in enforcing copyright by introducing laws relating to file-sharing [on the Internet] without the consent of Parliament. But this was something strongly opposed by ISPs and opposition back-benchers as a route toward a totalitarian-style censored internet for the UK.
As a consequence through Liberal Democrat insistence, Clause 17 has been replaced by Amendment 120A – a move celebrated by the music industry. However it is no wonder the industry are celebrating the development, as it transpires the amendment has been copied almost word-for-word from a drafted BPI letter to government (the BPI being lobbyists on behalf of the music industry)! The four largest ISPs have attacked the amendment as creating a worse off arrangement than the original clause, and chiefs of companies such as Google, eBay and Yahoo have all been quick to slam the developments stating freedom of speech is threatened by the allocation of power here. For example, under this new amendment it is possible for websites like YouTube to be blocked to British customers.
There are some ominous possibilities being aired here and worry that personal interests of different sectors battling may afford the wider freedoms of the end user. While we cannot purport to know who is right or wrong, nor what should be done here, we can certainly claim the importance of proceedings with regards to altering current zeitgeist and a future upheaval for at least one side of the debate.
The bill is still in debate and lobbyists from all sectors look to battle this one out to the bitter end as the future of British online commerce looks set to make an evolutionary step forward – or should i say an evolutionary step backwards?