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).”"

Firstly, VAT has just risen to 17.5% again, so expect price rises immediately, or phased in over time depending on the retailer. I would have thought it wise to have extended the VAT break to a later date, as a price rise whilst we’re only just approaching the end of the recession could run the risk of reducing sales, and leading to a double dip; many retailers, in deciding to freeze the increase for a while, seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Related to this, the UK, on May 6th most likely, will have a General Election. Unless a major upset happens, we’re currently looking at a Conservative Government with a small majority, or even forming a minority or coalition government from a hung parliament. But will a shift to a blue government really bring about much change, after all New Labour was an attempt to shift Labour towards the Conservatives, and Cameron’s Conservatives pull themselves towards New Labour? Yes, and no. Both sides promise dangerously low investment, and even cuts, in industry that desperately needs investment, such as eco-technology and energy, sciences, and education. Labour want to balance investment by cutting it in areas they don’t like, the Tories want to destroy the public sector, all the while supporting the renewal of hugely expensive, weapons of mass destruction. The Tories want to slash taxes for the rich, whilst doing little for the middle and lower classes, and Labour aren’t progressive enough to properly support those who need it. Labour risk destroying an entire sector of the economy, and people’s rights, with the ghastly Digital Economy Bill (which the Pirate Party, and non-party organisations such as ORG are fiercely opposing), whilst the Tories are so out of touch as to seem not to even care about the sector at all, with their pledge to scrap the much needed, albeit inadequate, “broadband tax”. So ultimately, we’re screwed either way.

But the winds of change do blow in politics this year. Approximately one-third of the House of Commons will consist of MPs new to the house following the election, with a likely small increase in independents, especially with Jury Team out there supporting them. Many of these new MPs will be replacing those corrupt, out-of-touch bastards who saw fit to abuse a ridiculously poorly regulated allowances system, squandering public money to pay for their first class seats, their mansions, their moats and trouser presses, and all the other crap they apparently can’t afford on their “chumps change” of a salary of £64,766 – some £40,000 more than the ‘average’ wage earner in the UK. Maybe, just maybe, these replacements will be less self-obsessed, more in touch with modern Britain, and able to represent their constituents properly. Maybe, but maybe not… I’m not getting my hopes up for this lot.  Assuming Mr Cameron has a brain, he’ll call an election in 2014 to coincide with the EU Elections, and that year, I feel, will be a big turning point in both British, and European politics. Indeed, 2014 is where I’m focussing my own efforts, not withstanding the results of the 2013 local elections, and where I plan to make my entry into politics under the banner of the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom if I do not do so in 2013.

Another change which will hopefully happen this year is the introduction of, or the preparations to introduce some form of electoral reform; however this will only happen if the Conservatives continue to fail to set themselves apart as anything other than “not-Labour”, and we end up with a Liberal coalition. Such a result is quite frankly the best outcome we could hope for. British politics needs radical change and sweeping reforms, and this would be the place to start, in this year. So let’s hope it happens.

Moving away from politics, 2010 will be bringing about many changes to my personal life. I’ve got exams in a few weeks, exams that will ultimately decide whether I get into Aberystwyth; my university of choice, have to utilise the terrible clearing system in a (post-)recession climate, or just end up not getting into university at all. This of course means I’m also finishing college this summer, and quite frankly I’ll be glad to be leaving, because that college was a pretty exhausting place to be, crushing and suppressing the hobbies, hopes and interests that I had when I first attended there. And running alongside all this, those few friends I do have will all also be heading off to university and whatnot themselves, so this year is really our last year together, and I want to spend as much of it as I can with them. In reality I realise I probably won’t see them much more than I did this past year, and that is upsetting to me; but even so, spending some time with them is better than none at all, right?

So there you go – 2010 will bring change right from the start, but it’s not necessarily good change, and that’s incredibly frustrating, especially for a powerless control freak like me, who just wants to be able to change things, make them better, improve on what we have.

Addendum: Whilst writing this post my  site went down, luckily I learnt long ago to always copy what I’ve written to the clipboard just in case something like this happens. Downside is I lost links and stuff I’d put in. Let this be a lesson to you all, copy to clipboard, and save drafts often. I also realised I never got around to talking about 2010 in technology like I planned, but I can’t be bothered to write more for this.

The standard logo of Pirate Parties worldwide

43 Countries, 12 Official parties, 2 MEPs,  3rd biggest party in Sweden, 6th biggest party in Germany, tens of thousands of members worldwide; and all just 4 years after the founding of the original Piratpartiet in Sweden – but just what is the Pirate Party, what does it stand for, and why is it one of the most rapidly growing political movements of this century?

Raising the Pirate Flag

On January 1st, 2006, the original Pirate Party was founded in Sweden by Rick Falkvinge, now 37, a former Microsoft employee; with the desire to address the imbalances and injustice imposed by current copyright and patent law, as well as providing a powerful opposition to all attempts to destroy privacy. By the end of the summer, the party had over 4000 members.

In the following years, the movement would continue to grow, and transcend national borders, leading to the establishment of the Pirate Party International umbrella organisation, which served to facilitate discussion and organisation of pirate politics across the globe. But it wouldn’t be until 2009, with the infamous Pirate Bay Trial, and success in the European Elections, that the party would truly become a global phenomenon.

In a landmark case decided in April 2009, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström, all involved in the operation of The PirateBay torrent tracker website, were sentenced to a year in jail, and ordered to pay a fine of $3.8 million (US Dollars) across multiple entertainment companies. Within 10 days of the decision, over 25,000 had joined the Pirate Party in Sweden, bringing the total to over 40,000, and making them the 4th largest party in the country, and by September 2009, the party had already become the 3rd largest in Sweden.

The summer of 2009 also saw the official registration of Pirate Parties across the world, inspired by the success of Piratpartiet, and the rising threats from the media industry and governments on file-sharers and fans; sporting similar policies but tailored to their individual countries. One such party, of which I am a member, is Pirate Party UK.

PPUK Logo

PPUK was established over the summer, becoming officially registered on 30th July, 2009; and now touting over 500 members. Lead by Andrew Robinson, Pirate Party UK revolves around its “3 core policies” of reforming copyright and patents so that “it’s the artists who benefit, not monopoly rights holders.” and to bring about “a patent system that doesn’t stifle innovation or make life saving drugs so expensive that patients die.”, ending excessive surveillance , profiling, tracking, and monitoring of innocent people by government and business; and to ensure true freedom of speech.

It’s the 21st Century, Charlie Brown

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or working for one of the Big 4?) for the past decade, you’ll have noticed that we’re now into the 21st Century – a time of significant social, economic, and technological reform and progress. Digital distribution and social media have ushered in a period where more than ever before, entertainment and information can be supplied to and shared between millions easily, and cheaply; and with it a rise in piracy. This rise, the record labels, and film distributors say, has cost the entertainment industry millions, if not billions of dollars in lost sales – but is this really the case?

Graph courtesy of Times Online

This graph, using data from BPI and PRS for Music, shows UK music revenue from 2004 to 2008.  What is clearly shows that not only have total earnings in this industry increased in this period of increased piracy, but the distribution of this money is far fairer, with a greater share going to the artists who created the works being sold/pirated.

So when the record industry say piracy costs millions and is destroying music, what they’re actually saying is “we think original artists do not deserve to be paid for their work, and profits belong to us”.

The problem for them is in this day an age, artists are able to easily produce, publicise, market, sell, and distribute their own work without the need to enter into wholly unfair contracts with exploitative corporations. Whilst artists and fans have adapted and evolved with technology, the record labels are being incredibly stubborn about doing the same; after all, it means even less revenue for them.

So to try to protect the label’s falling revenue, and stop the artists getting their fair share of the profits, the Big 4, and their puppets such as Lily Allen, have lobbied governments across the globe in an attempt to curtain progress and control the entertainment industry as they see fit, whilst the consumers pay extortionate fees just so that their fellow fans can be criminalised and persecuted in the name of undeserved profit.

And here in the UK is a prime example of where they are succeeding in their goal to penalise fans and artists alike. Following the Digital Britain report, and some meetings with media moguls, the unelected, corrupt, dangerous Peter Mandelson seeks to criminalise up to 7 million people in the population. The Digital Economy Bill would also force ISPs to disconnect alleged pirates (and by extension, their entire family), and not only are ISPs reluctant to do so, some even loudly opposing it, but based on the prior figure and the average number per household, this could mean potentially up to 21 million people – approximately 1/3 of the UK population – have their internet access revoked, something that recently the European Courts have been considering a fundamental right to have access to.

And just today it was leaked that under new proposals, the Secretary of State would be given additional powers to tackle piracy, and would even be able to give authority to any business to force ISPs to aid in the persecution and prosecution of innocent fans. This alone is a disastrous set-back for the freedoms of the British people, and would be a terrible precedent that would be sure to follow in other countries.

There’s also the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secretive treaty which serves to undermine the privacy and rights of the public across the globe.

All of this, just because a single industry refuses to modernise or die? That is why the Pirate Party movement exists.

What can you do to help? Check out these sites:

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

http://www.pp-international.net/ to find your country’s PP

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

http://www.dontdisconnect.us/

http://a2f2a.com/

Remember – together, fans, artists, and the public can bring about the reforms needed to allow the industries to flourish even more, and protect the rights of the individual.