Debating the Digital Economy Act with Wired Sussex at the Lighthouse
There has been massive outrage online and especially throughout the Twittersphere over the implications and rushed passing of the Digital Economy Act 2010. To manifest the angry sentiments and give voice to the Tweets Wired Sussex hosted a debate at the Lighthouse yesterday evening.
Chairing proceedings was Anthony Lilley, the chief executive of Magic Lantern and an Ofcom board member. He did very well to play devil’s advocate and ask the panel questions on behalf of the bill in an attempt to maintain some balance to the argument, although it was quite clear from the audience and panel’s vibrations that opposition was the reigning opinion.
Nik Butler from Loudmouthman provided some great statistics demonstrating the lack of due process with which the bill has been passed; there are 643 MPs in parliament and 412 didn’t turn up to discuss the bill, that’s 64% who were not present. Keith also level headedly pointed out that regulation already exists but the bill will increase this with a dangerously archaic concept.
Much like the film studios that hissed and spat at VHS fearing it would kill cinema there is always concern from the monolithic corporations in power when a new technology develops and threatens to adjust the balance and loosen their stranglehold on creativity and content. And this was exactly Jeremy Keith’s point from web design agency Clearleft; that the amendments to section 124 of the Communications Act 2003 are the real breach of democracy and our civil rights.
“124. Obligation to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports
(1) This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that…”
The keyword obviously being “appears” and this effectively turns over the staple of law that presumes innocence until proven guilty. So if you are an internet user and are just accused of piracy or copyright infringement of any kind, that is enough to have your ISP ban you without evidence and for the courts to prosecute you for which you may actually have to serve time. Ridiculous doesn’t quite sum it up but it is a very real possibility.
It appears we have failed to learn from history as the poor continue to get poorer at the behest of the rich who continue to accumulate wealth. The Digital Economy Bill tries to ensure this tradition by policing the internet and this was The Werks’ James McCarthy’s issue as he explained how the bill ignored the innovative grassroots content production in order to support the older, outdated business model of the industrial revolution.
Matt Adams from Blast Theory detailed a personal experience with Adobe that demonstrated the importance of reading contracts very carefully. His other statement that resonated was that the web is a cultural space not just a technological platform and many of the clauses of the bill, under the guise of protecting content creators, actually undermine creativity, innovation and the ideology of our remix generation.
As the debate opened up to the audience the best observation was that we need to de-geek our revolution. At present it is simply a band of web enthusiasts righting the world amongst themselves and this insular discussion needs to be opened up so everyone can take part in the discourse especially those in a position to change things. MPs need educating on this matter because the majority of them are either misinformed or highly aware of the implications of the bill but must pander to the money and mega-corps and so feign ignorance for the cameras.
So what can you do? We need to organise one collective for our personal efforts and the best way to get involved is by signing up to the Openrightsgroup.org and contacting your MP calling for them to lobby parliament. Hit that link and do it now.
Special thanks to Nik the LoudMouthMan and Jeremy from Clearleft for their help in the completion of this post. And watch this C Y B E R S P A C E for Jeremy’s retort coming soon.
NB. I am assuming I can copy and paste sections of the Digital Economy Bill as its public property, but I am second guessing myself, with irony.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Hi Zac, nice piece…
I think one of the scariest things about the bill is the non-specific definition of copyright infringement – it isn’t explicitly limited to downloading files so far as I can find in the act. Given that the internet is now the main gathering place and resource base for ‘dissidents’, and that it is impossible to spend more than five minutes on the internet without viewing content which technically infringes copyright, the implications are Orwellian – It may seem like a ridiculous exaggeration, but essentially, the government has awarded itself the power to cut any individual’s internet connection for as little as watching a music video on youtube (they infringe copyright, that’s why so many get removed by record companies). Obviously this couldn’t be applied accross the board, but it provides the basis for taking punitive action against anyone who is perhaps causing a perfectly legal nuisance on the internet which the government would rather have silenced.
Quite apart from all this, if some sort of legislation is needed to address the problem of illegal downloading, it should be in order to protect struggling artists, not record company revenues and the Metallicas of the world (who, I might add, nobody in the world would have heard of if it wasn’t for the illegal bootleg tape trading networks of the 1980s’ metal scene). But the fact is that many small bands and musicians happily give a lot of their music away as free downloads. Ironically, any band ‘lucky’ enough to be signed who does this could have their connection cut under the DE act, depending on the particulars of their recording contract and publishing deal.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Thanks Tim,
I totally agree about the Orwellian feel of the bill and i don’t think it’s ridiculous at all, the Digital Economy Act is one step closer to an autonomous Big Brother in a society already obsessed with surveillance.
Great point about Metallica too, and musicians these days don’t have to put their content online, they choose to, and even if they do they keep other features of their music such as live performances as sell-able products, so even if someone listens to their stuff online for free, you can’t download a live gig.