Lib Dems will call for repeal of Digital Economy Act

26. It's not just P2P users getting a hard time, even legitimate small and fledgling business' are in the firing-line as well despite having done no wrong are held liable! Regarding Copyright you even have paralegals scaremongering people into quick settlement without argument on the Federation of Small Business Website, this is becoming a pandemic problem spreading across many industries! http://tinyurl.com/39j7fgr

25. I just strongly agree with what Clegg said: that we should assess the situation before committing one hundred billion pounds to upgrading "our" nuclear deterrent to the "latest and greatest". Let's first look at what the alternatives are. Makes sense (to me).

Anyway, I think we're drifting off topic here, this article is about the Lib Dems and their position on the Digital Economy Act. I agree with their stance because I strongly believe the DEA (coupled with the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA) is going to cause further damage to the UK's economy. The logic is simple:

1. It's mostly American music, films, and software that is illicitly downloaded using P2P services (like "The Pirate Bay" - just look at what is most downloaded/"seeded"/"leeched" on such sites).

2. Look at the provisions within the DEA and ACTA - they make it relatively painless for law firms representing rights holders to initiate civil law suits. Current practises have shown that it's usually a threatening letter before court action, a letter along the lines of "...pay us £800 or we'll take you to court and you'll have to pay more...".

3. The American recording industry generates over a third of its revenue through litigation.

4. One of the Lords (can't for the life of me remember which one now) said that he spoke with someone from Queen Mary University who said last year they received about 100 letters from US law firms last year regarding piracy, but this year they've received about 100 letters per month.

This new law (and the soon to be introduced ACTA) will create a new "ambulance chaser" type industry. Parents with teenage kids will be most heavily hit (parents who have already been hit hard by the recession).

Get ready for an unprecedented wave of litigation folks!

24. "I wasn't aware the Russians were planning an imminent invasion."

Not bothered about the Eastern Block, the Far East is a different matter though.

23. I hope they manage to do some good against this awful bill.

As for the missile debate; do you think Modern Warfare might have affected judgement a little here?

I wasn't aware the Russians were planning an imminent invasion.

22. looks like the only way to let our feerless leaders know we won't put up with this DEA **** is to vote for the LibDems

http://www.geekthevote.org.uk/

21. Thanks to everyone that replied to my question about the lib dem lords. It will be interesting to see how the bill survives after the election. Decided to vote green this year, the digital economy act and the expenses scandal has swayed my vote.

20. @ scott.deagon

Seriously put in my place. My apologies. I'm not a fan of the DEA myself, it was just the way that sentence was worded.

I am pro trident however, and absolutely not, pro lib dem. The party has got by for years promising voters anything that comes to mind, knowing they don't have to deliver any of it.

19. @windymiller - I happen to me an American (who has lived in London for 10 years), so there isn't a single anti-American sentiment in my body. I'm proud of my country and it's contributions to the world (of course we've made mistakes, but who hasn't?). I also spent half my life working for Lockheed Martin, so I'm extremely grateful and respectful to them.

I was just pointing out some cold hard facts. There's more depth to the "nuclear deterrent" argument than just "we have nukes, we safe". There is a counter argument - having nukes makes the UK (a medium sized power) a target for a superpower (like Russia - a country that has thousands of missiles and have demonstrated their ability to fly a nuclear war plane within 2 minutes of Hull completely undetected).

In regards to your comment about me basing my entire belief on the right to download pirated material - that's an assumption. I'm 50 years of age, I don't download pirated music or films - never have, never will. What I do care about, however, is democracy, freedom, and justice. The Digital Economy Act bends each of these over and elephant f..ks them (excuse my French). Here are the problems I have with the DEA 2010:

1. An IP address does not identify the culprit. There have been numerous rulings within Europe that back-up this logic. To say "your connection, your responsibility" will lead to miscarriages of justice on an unprecedented scale. An obvious demographic this would apply to: parents with one or more teenage children. I've heard the "your kids, your responsibility" argument, but this doesn't stack up either. Anyone who has access to your Wi-Fi (be it with your permission or not) could be the infringer, yet you will be held accountable.

2. Disconnecting entire families for the alleged piracy actions of one is simply ludicrous. Again taking using the hypothetical family example: a parent may rely on the Internet as part of their livelihood but may find themselves disconnected because of the actions of one of their children (or one of their children's friends, or one of their friends, or someone sitting outside in a car who has hacked their router, or someone on the Internet controlling a PC on their network thanks to a piece of malware someone installed).

3. Natural justice has been replaced with a "presumption of guilt". This is particularly nasty as the onus is place on the person who pays the Internet bill to prove that they did not engage in piracy in the event they are ACCUSED by a firm representing a rights holder. Although the DEA generously gives people the right to appeal, doing so will cost a significant amount of money (if the appeal doesn't cost much, hiring a network/IT forensics specialist certainly will).

4. Damage to the British economy. What people do not seem to comprehend is that the DEA will path the way for "volume litigation" (http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed14683). The BPI have already openly declared their intentions to resume volume litigation, effective immediately (http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i33e34f97cdbeee3e393bbf3300f0bb5c). Keep in mind that this litigation will occur when a law firm acquires the bare minimum of evidence (IP address in a swarm, and perhaps a couple of P2P chunk transfer logs). What will happen then is the owner of an IP address will be sent a letter along the lines of "pay us £800 (or so) or we'll take you to court where it's likely you'll have to pay much more". A wave of litigation is about to be unleashed on the UK on a scale never before seen. Again, I believe this will hit families with teenage children hardest - families who have already been hit hard by the recession. Why will this damage the British economy? Because most of this money will fall into the hands of American rights holders and law firms (again - I'm not being "anti-American" here). All you have to do to see that it is mostly American content that is being pirated it jump on to any P2P site that is renowned for making pirated material available, and look at the most popular film/music downloads - they're American.

I could go on, but this comment is already quite lengthy.

@ode76 - thank you for being civil.

18. @ scott.deagan

"The simple fact that the Lib Dems have committed themselves to repealing the DEA is enough to win my vote."

Brilliant, we get an anti Trident, ant American, anti Labour lecture, then you base your whole political belief on the right to download a pirated travis CD.

17. @scott.deagan. If a 'real' Trident missile was fired, then the system will have failed. It is a second-strike weapon that is designed to only be used if the UK was attacked first. That is the point of a deterrent. This is a subject we will disagree on. I won't be voting for the Liberals....

16. @ode76 - I disagree with your assessment of the Trident missile program. Sure, it will allay people's paranoia and give a Britons a sense of global security, but...

1. British Trident missiles are leased from the US.

2. There is a Trident factory in Berkshire that is two-thirds own by Lockheed Martin and Jacobs Engineering (American companies).

3. The firing and guidance systems are designed and built in the US.

4. In 2003 Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, restructured the UK's defence forces to make them "inter-operate" with the US. It is impossible for the UK to launch a missile without US approval.

5. Despite its range, the Trident would not be able to penetrate Moscow's ABM system. Yet simply having Trident does make the UK a target (last time I checked the UK doesn't have an ABM program in place).

Personally I believe that the UK's nuclear deterrent is noting more than an extension of America's colossal nuclear arsenal, yet we, the British tax-payer, are footing the bill.

I think the whole Trident issue needs further debate. I certainly don't think it's a reason to dismiss the other policies of the Lib Dems.

The simple fact that the Lib Dems have committed themselves to repealing the DEA is enough to win my vote. The slippery slop the DEA (and ACTA) are taking us down is (I believe) a far greater threat the democracy and freedom than any nuclear deterrent issues.

I want to see real change, and I truly believe the Lib Dems can deliver.

15. The one thing that scares me the most about the Lib Dems is their commitment to scrap Trident. If there is one thing that should never be messed with, it is your country's protection. In the perfect world, no country should own nuclear weapons - but that all changed in 1945. And when you have a system that acts as a deterrent (Trident being extremely effective in this area due to it's global range)no-one will want to target you for fear of mutual destruction. The Liberals want to take a huge gamble on the UK's safety for monetary reasons and their own misguided views on nuclear weapons. By not having the weapon, it increases our chances of being attacked, it is as simple as that. If it means I have to pay more taxes to pay for it - I'm certainly willing. We are after all talking about the safety of future generations too.

14. "also i would like to add that this never would have been allowed to happen years ago"

Definitely not in the forties:-)

13. the bill affects so many people it should be re done with a full parliament. whats to say that in another year apple won't put in a claim that to many people are pirating apps or jail breaking the iphone, judging by this all they need is a few million to make sure it gets right to the top, the next thing you know we will be banned from looking at sites involving hardware hacks. great firewall of Britain here we come!!!

also i would like to add that this never would have been allowed to happen years ago. i mean im only young but i know enough about our history as a nation to know that we have gone soft!

12. Good grief,the lib dems can promise anything knowing they'll never have to deliver. If they got in this time, they'd cr@p their pants.

Last nights snap polls? novelty vote.

11. @niaccurshi Quite the opposite; I wish more politicians had the courage to admit their mistakes and change their policies. I am, however, rather weary of pre-election promises that evaporate when the party making them achieves power, hence some skepticism on my part.

10. @psyfur No lib dem MPs voted in favour of the DEA.

The DEA is a law constructed by luddites when visionaries are needed! Rather than fight the Internet and the resultant consumer patterns, they should evolve their business model to take advantage of the new opportunities.

The DEA is unlikely to have any effect on file-sharing, as is evident when you look at Sweden as a case study, where file-sharing has risen since their anti-piracy laws, just now it is encrypted. But this is no reason not to try. However, there are more creative alternatives, such as Music Supported Here and Music Matters.

These do not carry the same negative repercussions on our society and economy that the DEA does. It's an insult to democracy by being so blatantly written and pushed through by lobbyists from the BPI and other “music industry” figures. It ignored the British judiciary system by assuming guilt in the absence of proof (IP addresses cannot prove guilt in a court of law). It jeopardises our young digital economy, by eroding the chances of gaining truly wireless cities, and removes any incentive to provide free wi-fi areas.

For my blog on the implications of the DEA please go to http://bit.ly/a5rnUk. Cheers.

9. And even if Lib Dems don't win wouldn't you at least want to see them as the official Shadow Government/opposition.

8. @dessembrae - Oh no! You mean I can EITHER have my digital civil liberties abolished OR be limited to driving at 50 mph? I'll keep my digital liberties, thank you very much.

@psyfur Two LibDem peers in the House of Lords wrote an undesireable amendment based on BPI suggestions that was ultimately removed. Party activists jumped up and down and an emergency motion was passed at the recent Conference that establishes a very clear line on digital freedoms.

I doubt that the LibDems will lead the next Government, but they are likely to be important especially in the event of a hung Parliament, where they may hold the balance of power. Even if you live in a safe seat held by the other parties, a LibDem is not wasted because a higher popular vote will legitimise LibDem participation in Government, especially in the case of a hung Parliament.