Lord Mandelson - the man behind the Digital Economy Bill

 Although it was painful to watch the Digital Economy Bill (DEB) become enacted, it did not come as a surprise. From the onset the Bill had been carefully timed to coincide with the very undemocratic parliamentary "wash-up" - a procedure in which "uncontroversial" Bills can be rushed through onto the statute books. Any lobbyist group fortunate enough to be able to afford a meeting with Lord Mandelson is guaranteed success. Let's take a quick look into Mandelson's political background:

1. In 1996 Mandelson recevied an interest free £373,000 loan from Geoffrey Robinson (at the time a Labour MP). Robinson was the subject of an investigation by Mandelson's department, but Mandelson claims he intentionally distanced himself from any decisions in regards to Robinson. Mandelson did not declare the loan to the Register of Members' Interests or his building society. Mandelson resigned on the 23 December 1998.

2. Mandelson is accused of abusing his position to influence the passport application of Indian businessman Srichand Hinduja. Hunduja was, at the time, under investigation by the Indian government in regards to the Bofors scandal. Mandelson resigned on the 24 January 2001.

3. Mandelson was involved with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Mandelson often joined Deripaska on holiday, the most recent being in August 2008 on Derpaska's yacht at Taverna Agni on the Greek island of Corfi. Sounds innocent enough, right? Wong! Mandelson was the European trade commissioner at the time and was responsible for two decisions to cut aluminium tariffs that benefitted Deripaska's company - RusAl. Naturually Mandelson denied there was a conflict of interest, and he received the full support of Gordon Brown who described the incident as "above board".

4. Mandelson meets with David Geffen (co-founder of DreamWorks) at the Rothschild family villa on the Greek island of Corfu and has dinner with him. Mandelson says there was no discussion whatsoever of Internet piracy, but upon returning from his meeting Mandelson (from out of the blue) decided that it was time for tougher regulation to address the problem of piracy.

This is just a quick snapshot of the man behind the DEB (now the Digital Economy Act, or DEA). One may shake their head in disbelief at how such a "colourful character" (who has twice resigned in disgrace) was made a Lord and let loose to write British legislation.

It's obvious that we need transparency and accountability reforms made to the lobbying process. If you agree, then I strongly urge you read this: 

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2010/03/14/lobbying-the-next-scandal/

My Problem with the Digital Economy Act

There are a number of flaws with the Digital Economy Act. The main ones that concern me are:

1. Connection Owner is the Infringer.

This is simply absurd! If you own an Internet connection, then you can share it via WiFi at your own risk! This is fair enough if you're a "lone wolf", living on your own, no-one else to share your Internet connection. But what if you live in shared accommodation? Would you want to take on the responsibility of owning an Internet connection? I believe the demographic that is going to be hit hardest by this is parents with one or more teenagers. How will parents (like myself) be able to sleep at night? Also, how do we tell our 14 year old (for example) that his or her friends and study buddies can no longer use the WiFi in our homes? 

WiFi connections can be hacked, computers can be compromised and controlled by someone who is anywhere in the world (so they could use your computer to do their downloading for them).

Here is an except from http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed14683 :

If one assumes the practice is compliant with the Data Protection Act, there remains an argument that the process is flawed. The data provided by the ISP relates to the ‘registered keeper’ of the IP address at that time. This is different to the user. I am the keeper of my broadband account: it is though used by others in my household. This has been recognised recently by the Tribunale di Roma which ruled that an IP address is insufficient evidence to identify an individual. During preliminary investigations of a file-sharing copyright infringement complaint, the investigatory magistrate and the judge considered that the mere ownership of the connection from which the offence was committed was not sufficient to establish the liability of defendants, especially since the alleged infringement may have been committed by other people. It is widely accepted that the industry standard WEP encryption protocol used for wireless routers is not sufficiently secure to prevent illegal access to even a secured router. The risk of identifying innocent parties as ‘infringers’ is therefore great. This has been evidenced in the hundreds of individual testimonies which may be read athttp://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/your-stories.php as well as in high-profile cases such as that of Ken and Gill Murdoch.

2. Presumption of Guilt

A copyright holder, or a firm representing a copyright holder, can make an accusation that you're an infringer with a bare minimum of evidence. I suspect that this evidence will be little more than your IP address showing up in a torrent swarm. I have a serious problem with this because:

• WiFi connections can be hacked.
• There has been mention of random IP addresses being injected into a torrent swarm and log files.
• There is no punishment or penalty for a firm making a false accusation.
• An appeal will be expensive (you'll have to hire an IT/Network forensics analyst).

 The Digital Economy Act is weight to heavily in favour of the rights holder. Almost all normal consumer protections have been removed. Taking a step back, it looks as though this legislation is making it as smooth as possible for law firms to engage in bulk (volume) litigation. You (the owner of the Internet connection) are guilty unless you can prove otherwise!

3. Websites can be Blocked/Closed Down

Any website accused of containing a "substantial amount" of copyright infringing material, or that is likely to be used to assist in copyright infringement, can be closed down by the Secretary of State. This provision caused public outcry from all circles of life, and was removed. However, I think that it has found its way back in again under another guise (there may need to be a court order).

Just the fact that ISPs will now effectively be controlled by the entertainment industry is worrying enough. The entertainment industry, thanks to this new law, have basically appointed themselves gatekeepers of the Internet. If you offer a service that enables undiscovered talent to broadcast themselves on the free Internet, then it will not be too difficult for the current cartel to make up an excuse to close you down. Let's not kid ourselves here, the DEA (Digital Economy Act) is all about control and money. Just look at how DMCA take-down notices in the United States have been abused - everything from a "Joker-ized" pricture of Obama being removed from Flickr to a YouTube video of a baby dancing to a Prince track in the background being removed. Unlike the DEA, however, the DMCA allows those who are falsely or maliciously accused to counter-claim.

---

I'm not even going to mention the way in which this Bill was enacted, or it's legitimacy. As far as I'm concerned, it's not legitimate, and I would certainly donate whatever I can to anyone who challenges this Act in a court of law (do any of these clowns actually remember what a court of law is?). I know that the BPI (rights holders) will pick their first battle very carefully. Similar laws were enacted in Australia, but iiNet (an Australian ISP) chose to stand up to AFACT and blatantly refused to disconnect its customers. A law suit followed, and iiNet won (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_v_iiNet#Judgement)

I don't condone piracy, I don't care about "free stuff". What I do care about is my children, democracy (lobbying transparency), and natural justice (innocent unless proven guilty). I for one am refusing to fund the companies who are so eager to destroy the online freedoms of normal everyday law abiding citizens such as myself. I am participating in the BPI Boycott:

http://www.bpiboycott.org.uk/

When millions of other parents are on the receiving end of the Digital Economy Act, I'm sure they too will follow suit.