Government split over enforcing the Digital Economy Act

Rhoda Klapp

Can anyone explain to me why there is a DCMS? No, seriously, why?

Ian Walker

There's a lot of research done that shows that so-called 'piracy' is a myth. The people who are prepared to pay, will continue to pay even if obtaining something for free is stupidly easy.

And the people who habitually 'pirate' are also shown to be people who would not pay for something if piracy was impossible.

So in other words, almost no revenue is lost to piracy. And almost no revenue would be gained by 100% prevention. Anti-piracy measures, unless they are free, are ultimately loss-making

Frank P

The photographer caught two Jeremy's with one stone, there. Well done that man!

Verity

I don't want to know what the Digital Economy Act is. I don't care. It sounds stupid, like something that would pour out of Dave's ear if he tilted his head.

Occasional Ostrich

No, Rhoda, no idea. Whatever it actually DOES, the end result is that it just gets in the way. Mind, the same can be said about many (most?) of the remaining lesser government departments.

Nicholas

"The upshot is that governments will struggle to regulate the Internet, and certainly not without great cost."

But they'll still try and they'll still spend money on it, all justified by the usual "something must be done" hysteria, because socialists of whatever colour (red, blue or Brussels) cannot bear the idea that there are any areas of society without their surveillance, regulation and tax enforcement regime.

The biggest obstacle to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is politicians.

Walsingham's Ghost

Whilst not being Ed Vaiset's greatest fan in the past, he is on the money on this issue. Jeremy Hunt should stop trying to live up to his BBC pseudonym...

WG

Professor Bongo

I hope the local community is consulted this time.

Last time they were totally ignored with regard to this issue.

Without community support, sorry.. this ain't going nowhere..

Frank P

David B

Well, that's one way of pissing on my little quips (5.06pm): change the picture! Haaaahahahahaha.

As for the subject matter: completely concur with Nicholas. They've controlled the press throughout my lifetime and thereby insulated themselves against the criticism and fury of the hoi polloi. The intertubes obviate their control: watch out for the legislation! Then pave the whole country with prison yards, because we're as mad as hell and we ain't gonna take it anymore.

Frank P

As for removing Jeremy's picture, 'stoo late! He's already in the Lexicon of Cockney Rhyming Slang.

TGF UKIP

Rhoda, the Department of Culture Media and Sport solely exists to identify who and what Blair and his apology for an heir really are.

ndm

-- This is more than a point of pure philosophy. Vaizey has the support of ISPs, who believe the statutory requirement that they pay 25 per cent of the costs of enforcing copyright laws will impede their provision of cheap broadband across Britain, the central aim of the DEA.

Frankly, those asserting ownership should pay 100% of the costs of enforcement. The US Constitution, for example, recognizes the conflict between private ownership and public utility of ideas when it states:

-- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

With modern copyrights now extending for decades, that balance has been tilted well away from public utility. Consequently, there should no longer be any reason for the public to pay for protecting copyright. Alternatively, we should push the meaning of limited time down to a value that recognizes the public utility of ideas once again.

MilkSnatcher

It's doubtful that the DEA would have been passed had the then Government had the Hargreaves Review in hand, which decried making policy via lobbying, which is what the anti-piracy provisions of the DEA were -Mandelson, who burbled about incentivizing broadband, had dinner with the music industry (David Geffen I think) and then conducted a volte-face as I recall. The judicial review case brought by BT and others alleged that the Act had not been properly authorised because it hadn't been approved by the EU Commission as it contained technical measures. So this is a great way to kill it.

Sue Collini

>ISPs, who believe the statutory requirement that they pay 25 per cent of the costs of enforcing copyright laws will impede their provision of cheap broadband across Britain, the central aim of the DEA<

Well of course they do. Just like the banks, and the oil companies and every other corporate entity who thinks they should be free to do exactly as they please without regard to the consequences. Invariably we get threats that if such and such a business is required to contribute to the costs of or comply with prevailing or proposed regulations then they won't launch a service, will shut down existing services as uneconomic or (in the case of the banks) move abroad. Enough, already.

Collini Out.

Occasional Ostrich

Frank P:

Isn't that 'Naughtie' rhyming slang?

Frank P

OO

Naughtie is from Rothiemay, which is certainly far away from bow bells. I don't listen to the smug little Scottish shit, but I did read that he once availed himself of the LCRS by accident one morning on radio, then corpsed like a Danish lesbian tart at the daring of it all. What a Jeremy!

John Bracewell

I really do hope that the EU allow the British government to bring in this DEA, will our elected representatives have to beg on bended knee before the great and good in the EU in order to secure their blessing? It would not do for the UK to pass their own laws without the guidance of our EU masters.

AndyinBrum

Nicholas, more the over hysterical knee jerk moronic drama queens at the Daily Mail getting their arses in their hands over controlling the Internet more than the socialists, it's being pushed pollitically by them and commercially by big business.

St Bruno

Why is it in this country everything that this government interferes with always turns into a pile of poo. Now they are tinkering with the Internet, heaven help us!
I want to know who are really the lobby groups pounding the ear of Mr Cameron. Surely it's not all copyright and money making. What about all the twitters, blogs, forums, the free and easy flow of information and opinions, emails to long lost family in Australia all for free(well almost) the government must be wetting it's pants because it can't control it.
Regulate, regulate, control, control it must be done for your own sakes. Why not give the regulation of the Internet to the BBC and BT and be done with it! Or set up a committee with Virgin Pickle in charge, he will have some good ideas, I bet!

Steve Tierney

Watching governments across the world, in bed with giant media interests, trying desperately to outflank the technological future - is actually quite amusing.

Whatever they do, they'll be beaten. Trying to regulate the internet is like trying to regulate free speech. For every one high profile "catch" a million more pass quietly by.

In 50 years the media scene will be so different to what we see today it will be almost unrecognisable. A lot of what we're trying to "regulate" now will be the norm then and this last attempt by vested interests to retain power will look foolish with hindsight.

HampsteadOwl

Where does this idea come from that because it is the "internet", somehow the normal rules applying to human conduct and discourse don't apply?

If somebody breaks a court order by, say, harassing a person they've been told to keep away from, no one is outraged when they are punished. If someone steals goods from a department store, no one complains about them being pursued for shoplifting.

However, if you defy an injunction on Twitter, or download somebody else's music illegally you are a hero of the information revolution and anyone who tries to come after you is a control-freak or, worse, a socialist. This digital nihilism is deeply unattractive, and not at all conservative.

I don't doubt that the big media interests are behind this legislation, but has anyone stopped to think that they might actually have right on their side? A touch of Adam Smith applies here. Musicians, film-makers, artists, other "content-providers" (yuk) don't just do their stuff for the sheer creative pleasure of it all - they want and expect to be paid. If you undermine their ability to get paid, you erode their incentive and, eventually, they will stop.

Of course this may be an advantage in the case of [insert name here of any hideously unfashionable pop group or singer], but overall might be held to be a bad thing. Personally, I don't want to live in the "technological future" where entertainment consists of watching home-made You Tube clips of people farting to the tune of Home on the Range.

Even if you take the view, as Ian Walker above apparently does, that internet piracy is only a marginal activity, and unlikely to erode anything much, you are still left with the argument that the majority who properly pay for what they get should not be expected to tolerate the few who think they can do what they damn well please. It would be madness to use legitimate arguments about the dangers of over-regulation to grant licence to a bunch of parasites who want to use the vastness of the web as an opportunity to live outside normal human conventions.

Baron

what the hell do we need a Digital Economy Act for, can anyone remind me if there was an equivalent Industrial Revolution Act?

the Internet was born without any involvement from the noisome phylum of politics, those pint sized satraps who have to poke their nose into everything, it has flourished, fuelled by private money and imagination of the thousands, it got embraced by millions because the political gnomes didn’t have any say in it, so now they want to suffocate it by controlling it. Madness.

Ian Walker

HampsteadOwl: I don't deny that internet 'piracy' is a huge operation. My assertion is that it has no real effect on revenues. A summary of the points:

1) Only a very small proportion of those people who regularly watch premium content without paying, would watch the same content for money. Call this figure A

2) Of those people who are happy to pay for premium content, very few will switch to unpaid viewing, even when shown how to do it. Call this figure B

3) Unpaying viewers can generate significant exposure for a product, potentially increasing the total market for both paid and upaid viewers. Call this additional revenue C

4) Anti-piracy measures cost money, both in up-front costs of the technology, and lost sales due to alienation of legitimate customers. Call this D

So the net result of piracy is A + C - B - D

Logically, the A and B figures must be linked - you can't assume that many people will become enthusiastic payers, but won't switch the other way.

From the computer games industry, which I know well, I can anecdotally state that A and B are tiny, C is probably quite small (since the pirates and the payers tend to have different online social circles) and D is potentially very damaging - knowledgeable gamers will frequently boycott a game with DRM features.

James Firth

Piracy is only piracy because we decided as a society that intellectual property rights were broadly analogous to physical property rights. This decision was made hundreds of years ago and is simply being challenged by the new technology.

There's no notion of the normal rules not applying, merely challenges to the rules based on the practicalities of control - such as the numerous likely unintended and undesirable consequences of any government control over free and open communications.

Similarly with judicial secrecy, libel and privacy. The notion that suppressing a libel through take-down is the best way of dealing with the situation is being challenged. It doesn't sound right or idea, but new structures and orders will emerge.

As with court secrecy, and the notion information flows in to (and out of) a court room can be controlled. US put free speech over sub judice a long time ago. In the UK we still hold out with the idea that we control how information enters a trial - yet we don't know how many jurors disregard instructions not to check blogs and, as the current high profile case, Facebook, to find out what they can about the trial.

In fact it's a criminal offence under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to solicit information from a juror about the case, so perhaps we'll never know how robust our approach is!

Essentially we're being force to deal with a new reality. In defending the rules we have and attempting to apply them on line, we risk hindering progress. In allowing a free-for-all, we risk anarchy and/or survival of the strongest.

That's where digital policy specialists come in ;-)

@JamesFirth

CEO Open Digital Policy Organisation