Dodgy Digital Bill!

By Doug Richards

I'm a writer, I appear on television and receive royalties, I produce webcasts and podcasts, and I actively support startups and small businesses that frequently depend on the unique content they can create and distribute for their survival. At the Richard house we own three and four copies of some films in a variety of media because we won't just rip them and put them on a hard drive. We go see first run films in the movie theaters, we don't download them via Bit Torrent. We do watch video on YouTube from time to time and the provenance of that content is sometimes dubious, but I also know from personal experience that YouTube will pull content if a legitimate copyright holder complains to them about stolen media, and frankly I'd pay for that content if there were some way to pay for it.

So, given that I'm a capitalist who believes in a wide range of property rights including copyright, and an honest guy who doesn't believe folks should steal, I find it astonishing that government has manage to create a flagship digital copyright protection law I wish I could sink with a nuclear bomb.

This legislation is "Big Brother" threatening and "Big Government" expensive.

• The most commonly told horror story about this law, which is accurate, is that the person who pays the bill for an internet connection will be held accountable for for what happens on it. So if your roommate is a happy digital pirate, and you front the cost of that internet connection, it is your name the copyright complaint will be filed against. If you run a business, and one of your 200 employees or one of the other folks in the building who ties into your WiFi without your permission because someone gave him the password, uses bit torrent across your network your business will be held accountable.
• Now, let's say you run one of the many websites on the internet where people post links to content they like. Maybe it's links to movie trailers. Maybe it's links to movies you can download. In theory the copyright holder can appeal to the Secretary of State for Business (that would be Lord Mandelson) to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright". Even though you aren't hosting the illegal content, you are helping people find it. In fact, under this kind of legislation, I'm not sure Google can't be challenged. Goodness knows Google links to more illegal downloads than anyone else on earth.
• Best of all, just the allegation of abuse is enough to get paperwork recorded and action taken. Just the allegation . . . No one has to prove anything. No one stands in a court and makes a case. You're accused, you're guilty unless you can prove you aren't, and some form of corrective action must then taken to prevent you further breaking the law. Even if you didn't.
• Obviously, figuring out how to interpret and apply this buffoonery will be the work of many thousands of business owners, legal professionals and government officials until it is effectively replaced by a proper Digital Copyright Law that makes some kind of sense in the real world.

And I guess that's why I'm so furious. There was no need to rush this legislation through except that someone, somewhere wanted to get passed under the wire. Someone wanted a bad law in place, and in the wrapping up of parliament it happened.

That is devastating.

The only defense the writers of this iniquitious legislation give in defense of its overarching reach is to assure us that it will only be used against serious offenders. But why should any law require our re-assurance? Wouldn't the law be more effective if it solely worked when it should? Why undermine the due process of law? Why assign responsability to a party who may not be guilty? Why permit anyone to be held accountable when they might not have done anything wrong? Why cave into one pressure group if it stymies innovation across an entire industry? Why create legislation that is uneforceable? Why create legislation that itself admits it will need more legislation to make it workable?

Why did this bill pass? Why did large mainstream media not cover it? Why. Why. Why.