Liberal Democrats prepare to amend their proposed amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, but disclosure that the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) wrote the original draft has led to calls for Parliament to fully debate the Bill.
Earlier this month I mentioned how Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones had proposed an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill that would cause a huge shift in the way ISPs are asked to deal with copyright infringement on their networks.
Amendment 120a would give courts the power to “prevent access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement” with the threat of “injunctions” against those ISPs that have “actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright,” but has failed 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).”
What it doesn’t spell out is exactly how ISPs are supposed to verify claims of copyright infringement nor does it offer a means of appeal. Site operators could be falsely accused of copyright infringement and subsequently erroneously sanctioned by their ISP.
Now after extensive public outcry championed, in part, by the Open Rights Group, a UK-based digital advocacy group, Liberal Democrats are backing off that proposal by amending the amendment.
Some of the proposed revisions include:
Amendment #14 The copyright owner applying for an injunction shall first have given notice to the ISP (in writing)…and prove that it comes from the said copyright owner.
Amendment #16 (High Court must determine) the extent to which granting the injunction would disproportionately prejudice legitimate uses and legitimate users of the online location,
Amendment #22 “…any person aggrieved may apply to the court on notice to the copyright owner and service provider to require the service provider to remove or vary the nature of the block; and…the court must order that the block be removed if it considers that it would not have made such an order,
Part of the problem was the revelation that Amendment 120a was taken verbatim from a British Phonographic Industry (BPI) letter asking the govt for specific revisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
[Compare the two - 1 - 2]
“Now, amendments often come from lobby and campaign groups, including us, not least because it’s the easiest way for them to show parliamentarians what they want,” says the Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group. “But the fact that twice, with the original copyright by diktat proposal, and then the web blocking proposal, the BPI essentially got to write what they wanted and get it proposed more or less wholesale as law, in such a tremendously sensitive area and in such a one-sided manner, shows something is very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.”
Exactly.
The BPI brushed aside any concerns that it was the source of the the amendment, and quite frankly, it shouldn’t be. It is, after all, only looking out for its own best interests as any good business would and should.
Either way, now with the Liberal Democrats having been forced to amend earlier proposals and debate the Bill further, the UK public may finally be getting a seat at the same table as the BPI.
“As several speakers noted – it was people like you writing to them that made them realise how important this issue is to voters in this election,” added Killock.
Stay tuned.
