The controversial bill would see the death of public wi-fi, houses being disconnected on allegation of copyright infringement – with them having to prove innocence by paying for an appeal after the fact, photographers and works creators having work taken and exploited by industry without consent, or as one MP put it (in an endorsement of the bill!) – “putting creativity before freedom” – despite the fact the bill mentions not once the content creator or artist, and instead refers only to the rights holders – most often record labels or publishers, not the artists who created the works.

Understandably there has been outrage over the bill itself, and the government’s insistence on passing it without true scrutiny and debate: Over 20,000 letters and e-mails to MPs, over 35,000 signatures on the Number 10 petition against the bill, 100,000s of tweets, campaigns against the bill from consumer groups, business groups, ISPs, the  public, and the Pirate Party; concerns from the JCHR and the Law Society of Scotland that the bill breaches human rights, one of the  most discussed topics on social media worldwide, even on the day of the declaration of the election.

Guess how many of our great ‘Representatives’ turned up to the debate today?

Democracy In-action

To begin with, approximately 40 – about 5% of MPs; and as the speeches became more impassioned from both sides of the debate, the numbers dwindled and dwindled; down to just 9 at one point. So that’s hundreds of thousands of complaints about this bill, and the people who claim to represent us instead follow their vested interests and only turn up, on this last chance at democracy, if their private sector allegiances benefit from the bill. Democracy is dead.

The Digital Economy Bill has been a perfect showcasing of the corruption and undemocratic nature of 20th Century politics. It starts with a promising White Paper, proposing investment in telecoms infrastructure and reviews of law; then the unelected Minister in charge has a nice little trip on a media oligarch’s yacht; meanwhile other unelected officials have words with the out-dated distribution industries they work for and represent, having them draft law on their behalf; then the government tries to downplay the rights issues in the bill, even when challenged by their own commissions on human rights; then the opposition parties attempt point scoring by saying they oppose the bill, all the while supporting it and actively engaging in the corrupt activities surrounding it; and then, despite all public outcry and dispute from business and academics, the bill is passed without any real scrutiny or debate.

Everything about Parliament and the way it works revolves around these corrupt, undemocratic models, and voting for the 3 main parties at the upcoming election on May 6th isn’t going to change that. We need massive political upheaval and reform, and we need it now. So when you go to your polling station, I urge you to ignore LIB-LAB-CON, and instead put a cross besides any of the other candidates, be they Green, UKIP, Pirate, Jury Team, TUSC, BNP, Socialist, or Independent. If we can achieve a more representative Hung Parliament, then we have a basis to bring politics kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

One section of the bill (known as #debill on twitter); the controversial clause 17 – which would have given untold power to the Secretary of State to amend copyright however he, or lobbyists, saw fit. – was today replaced by a Liberal Democrat amendment, Amendment 120a. Whilst it’s good that the original clause is gone, what we now face in its stead is possibly even more terrifying.

This new clause 17, tabled by Lord Clement-Jones, adds a new section to the Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, and allows copyright holders to file an injunction requiring ISPs to restrict access to websites and services that allegedly infringe their copyright, or link to said alleged infringements. So now, rather than the usual “this video has been removed due to copyright claims by Mediacompany Inc.”, when you try to view your favourite video on youtube, you’ll find “This website has been blocked in its entirety due to unauthorised hosting of copyrighted material” So then, maybe you try to go to google to find an alternate link to it, right? Wrong. “”This website has been blocked in its entirety due to unauthorised linking to sites hosting copyrighted material.” – This new clause has the potential to ban every single person in the UK from accessing search engines, youtube, or even social networking sites like facebook or twitter, if copyright holders make an allegation of copyright infringement.

The Liberal Democrats compared such a system to the Internet Watch Foundation – a small group who blacklist alleged child porn websites. You may recall the controversy over them restricting access to wikipedia for millions of people a couple of years back. What they don’t seem to grasp is that not only are copyright infringement, and child pornography fundamentally different, but that policing the net based on allegations of copyright infringement is no better than the content restriction we see in countries like Iran and China.

With the addition of this new web censorship clause, the Digital Economy Bill continues to become a larger and larger threat to liberty, rights, the internet, and somewhat ironically the ‘Digital Economy’ itself. If it passes into legislation, we are putting so much at risk, and we can’t afford to let that happen. The Bill will be going to the commons soon, and I urge you all to write to your MP about the bill, to inform them of the issues and hopefully have them oppose the bill in parliament. You can also help by fighting the bill, and fighting for your rights, by joining both the Pirate Party, and the Open Rights Group. Pirate Party UK stands for the reform of copyright, and protecting your privacy and freedom of speech, and costs just £10 a year (£2 if you’re under 21) to join.

The amendment can be seen in full below:

Amendment 120a

LORD CLEMENT-JONES

LORD HOWARD OF RISING

Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new Clause—

“Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert—

“97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.

(2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—

(a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,

(b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),

(c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,

(d) any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.

(e) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,

(f) the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and

(g) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

(3) An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought and to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where—

(a) the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and

(b) the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken,

the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.

(5) In this section—

“copyright owner” includes a licensee with an exclusive licence within the meaning of section 92 of this Act,

“infringing content” means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright,

“online location” means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,

“operator” means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and

“service provider” has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act.

(6) Subsections (1) to (5) shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint not less than 3 months and not more than 12 months after subsections (1) to (5) have been notified to the Commission of the European Communities (“the Commission”) in accordance with the obligations of notification imposed by Directive 98/34/EC.

(7) If any comments are received from Member States of the European Union or the Commission after subsection (1) to (5) have been so notified and the Secretary of State reasonably considers amendments are necessary to give effect to such comments, he may make the necessary regulations within the period referred to in subsection (6)(a), to amend subsections (1) to (5).”"