Amidst opposition within Parliament, considerable protest from thousands, and condemnation from some of the most respected companies in the world, the Digital Economy Bill was made law last week, becoming the Digital Economy Act.
Concerns surrounding the potential impact of the new legislation are numerous and varied, but the most controversial aspect of the Act is the slew of amendments to communications and copyright law, intended to better protect the rights of artists in the digital age. It is far too early to tell how successful the new law will be in this respect, but many commentators are hailing it as a step backwards that will hinder the competitiveness of the UK, and lead to the harassment of innocent members of the public.
Below are some of the predicted consequences:
- Innocent members of the public will lose out
Commentators have suggested that making the owner of an internet connection liable for the actions of people using it will have far reaching implications. It could spell the end for wi-fi in coffee shops, and leave those less tech-savvy home owners facing expensive lawsuits. - Increase the cost of being connected
Some argue that the obligations imposed upon internet service providers (ISPs) will increase costs substantially, with these inevitably being passed on to consumers. - Drive serious pirates underground
Once of the greatest concerns is that, while it may severely disadvantage innocent members of the public, the new law will drive serious pirates underground, barely impacting their operations. By utilising encryption, and clever schemes to achieve anonymity, those who have the drive to ignore copyright law on a large scale will not be phased by the new Act, instead they will use technology to hide their activity more effectively.
While the music and film industry herald the new law as an acknowledgement of their rights and a need for development in the law in response to technological advancements, it is not yet clear whether the Act will have a positive impact. Many are concerned by the alleged lack of scrutiny to which the Act was subjected, and advocate reform of the business models employed by those industries rather than the introduction of further legislation.
on Apr 14th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
I actually think that as well as the damage the DEA will inflict on the “digital economy” (and leaving aside the irony of Labour’s manifesto pledge of broadband for all, whilst simultaneously forcing through this bill to allow disconnection without trial) the whole process has done a great deal of damage to confidence in the political and democratic system.
10s of thousands of people wrote to, emailed and phoned their MPs to protest only to see the bill whipped through in the face of serious concerns by a virtually empty chamber – seemingly on the basis that it now somehow makes sense to pass this kind of legislation whilst all kinds of details remain uncertain because that an always be sorted out later.
From a party political perspective I don’t know how much difference it makes as the two main parties were both involved, but I suspect that it will have reinforced the “why bother” mentality for some people, which can only be a bad thing.
As I wrote on my blog last week, I predict some kind of “poll tax riot” type civil disobedience if the Act starts to be used to as grounds for disconnecting individuals on masse or (even more worryingly) forcing ISPs to block access to Youtube, Wikileaks etc. etc.
on May 3rd, 2010 at 3:04 am
Although I respect the rights of the entertainment industry to be upheld in the face of privacy, I’m not too sure that this was the best way to go about it. It all seems a bit rushed, having taken less than a month from its first reading to royal assent, with barely any parliamentary debate over the issue. The drafters of the legislation appear to have not given much foresight to either the hijacked internet user (innocent, but liable) or the hijacking internet user (guilty, but not liable) who circumvents their way out of blame.
on May 6th, 2010 at 3:58 am
Well “civil disobedience” isn’t what I would call it, the Act is a pretty massive breach in privacy and a total intrusion in on it’s self. I wouldn’t be shocked at all if there were riots. To know something can be passed like that when the people are against it is just an idiotic mistake that their government will soon have to pay the price for making. I mean I live in the U.S and you have got to wonder what kind of chaos this type of bill would cause over here, I am not being prejudice, but I’ll admit: The bulk of our nation’s people are ignorant and violent and when the “Big man” starts to pick on us civility will be out of the window.
Kids download stuff and who’s at fault when they are caught? Not the kids, but the parents and people say “Well parent your child better and restrict access” The one’s who think like that are truly pigheaded. Not all of us raise our children to be brainless,moronic couch potato’s, our children will always find a way to go up and over our heads.
I care that the creators of what ever media was made be it: games,music,movies,programs,books or what have you, get their fair share of money for their work,but I truly don’t care if people “illegally” download their media either. If some one likes what was made, they’ll buy it. I think of it as sampling or demoing. Our governments and their stupidity and greed is the problem. Quoting here ” We are the Masses. We shouldn’t fear our government, but it is the government who should fear us.” In my opinion the bill should be abolished and binned.