Digital Economy Bill – what did your MP say?

A prompt response from Theresa May, my MP, quoted in full here:

Dear Ms Carter

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.

For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome aspects of the bill there are other areas of great concern to us.

We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovations back. This must not be about propping up existing business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. This is why we were opposed to the original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29 which props up ITV regional news with BBC License Fee payers money.

The Government's failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concerns that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. However in certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. I also believe they should be debated in the House of Commons before we agree to them. Only if we are confident that they have been given the scrutiny that they deserve will we support them.

It is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill's proposals are not entirely accurate. People won't be disconnected from the internet without due process. And it will only be a small minority of people who constantly infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice. Even then, they may be able to reconnect using another ISP immediately and without penalty.

Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital sector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me,

Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

At the bottom of mine:

»»»»»»»»»»»»
UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted.
This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted
for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
»»»»»»»»»»»»

So much for that then.

Thanks for your recent email about the Digital Economy Bill. The subject is complex and the bill is proving to be hugely contentious; because of this it is crucial, more than ever, that Parliament fulfils its democratic duty and gives the bill proper debate and scrutiny.

Although it is imperative that jobs in the creative industries are protected, and it is right that artists be paid fairly for work they produce, the bill, as it stands, seems to be heavily weighted in favour of rich and powerful copyright holding companies.

Provisions to suspend file sharers’ connections and to require internet service providers to block access to websites hosting “substantial” amounts of copyrighted material are an over reaction, dangerously intrusive and will only prove to be counter productive.

You may be aware that the next significant stage for the bill will be its second reading in the House of Commons. Despite the front bench consensus there is significant back bench concern on all sides, and I and my colleagues will do all we can to ensure the bill is not rushed through the House without proper debate and scrutiny.

Yours sincerely

Jeremy Corbyn MP
Islington North

I got the same response as Theresa May gave from my MP David Evennett. So the Tories appear to be matching form letters with form responses… oh well.

Dear Mr Simpson,

Thank you very much indeed for letting me have your views on this.
While I do understand your concerns, I do feel that there is a delicate balance to be struck between the protection of intellectual property and the freedom to use the internet. The attached briefing outlines what the Bill is trying to achieve. I will certainly look at it closely, but they do seem very worthwhile aims.

I entirely agree that the issues raised are ones that deserve to be discussed fully and not to be rushed through in the closing stages of this Parliament and I can assure you that I will look very closely at the arrangements for dealing with the legislation that is currently under consideration and press for a full debate if this issue is to be proceeded with

Yours sincerely,

Peter Soulsby

this is an identical email to the one recieved by me from my MP in bournemouth seems like they are putting a preworked reply out to try subdue us into believing theey care when in fact they dont !!!!!

Bill Wiggin replied:

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.
For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome aspects of the bill there are other areas of great concern to us.
We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back. This must not be about propping up existing business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. That is why we were opposed to the original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29 which props up ITV regional news with BBC Licence Fee payers money.
The Government's failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concern that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. However in certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. I also believe they should be debated in the House of Commons before we agree to them. Only if we are confident that they have been given the scrutiny that they deserve will we support them
It is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill's proposals are not entirely accurate. People won't be disconnected from the internet without due process. And it will only be a small minority of people who consistently infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice. Even then, they may be able to reconnect using another ISP immediately and without penalty.
Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital sector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Bill Wiggin MP
Tel: 020 7219 8175
Fax: 020 7219 1893

Dear Mr Leach

Thanks for your email; I have already received quite a few identical ones. I can assure you the Conservatives are following this issue very closely. It's touch-and-go whether the Bill will actually make it onto the Statute Book before the election for the reason you give – we do not approve of the lack of proper scrutiny.

Best wishes

Gerald Howarth MP
Member of Parliament for Aldershot & Shadow Defence Minister
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Had a good reply from Mark Pritchard MP (Wrekin Con) he says if the bill comes to the Commons and if he is present he will be speaking as he is concerned Ministers have not been consulted properly. He is intending to bring Ministers to account over the matter AND he thanked me for my interest

Firsty I got a reply from my MP Roger Godsiff where it was stated that the folling letter had been sent to the Leader of the House:

Dear Harriet

Re Digital Economy Bill

I am sure that you are aware that the Digital Economy Bill is becoming a serious political issue in advance of the General Election, particularly so if it is the Government’s intention to push this through without debate in the ‘Washup’.

I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of leaving this measure till another day and ensuring a proper opportunity for debate otherwise I regret that I will not be able to support the measure in any shape or form.

Regards

Yours sincerely
Roger Godsiff MP

Then a second reply saying:

You asked about the prospects for the Digital Economy Bill.

The Bill is provisionally scheduled to have its second reading in the House of Commons next Tuesday (6 April). After this, according to some press reports, it might go into the “wash-up” – allowing it to reach the statute book after relatively little further debate. Were this to happen it has been reported that some provisions in the Bill will be lost, though the online copyright provisions are thought likely to survive in some form.

The note below details the procedures involved:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/b…

Also, attached to the email was the Digital Economy Bill (Research Paper, March 29): http://rapidshare.com/files/369950074/RP10-030.pdf

Received from George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, on 23 March. He said on Twitter that he'd replied to over 100 letters from constituents about this.

“Dear Kimberley

Thank you for your email – I share your very justifiable concerns about the draconian measures contained in the Bill, and I am also angered by the way the government is preparing to rush it through – with the loyal support of the opposition and certain Lib Dem peers it would seem – without any time for proper debate or scrutiny.

I can only see this whole debacle as one last reckless insult to democracy from a regime that should have placed itself before the electorate long ago.

I've recently been expressing opposition to the Bill on Twitter and Facebook.

I am also writing to the Speaker to ask for proper Parliamentary time for scrutiny and debate.

Naturally I am in favour of the workers in all the relevant industries receiving fair remuneration, but I do not think that forcing through this Bill, with all its inherent dangers, against the profound misgivings of the public, is the way to go. Given time, and good will, I am sure that mutually acceptable solutions could emerge.

Once again, however, this government is prepared to trample over your human rights in the name of political expediency. Surely the last days of a dying government should have been devoted to more productive matters. What about freeing local councils to directly invest in housing? Or reforming the laws that criminalise photographers and people peacefully protesting? Or agreeing to a Robin Hood tax on the banks?

With best wishes

GG”

22 March 2010

Dear Mr Boyle

Thank you for your email of 17 March about the Digital Economy Bill.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the Bill's draconian approach to internet activity. The amendment recently tabled in the House of Lords was designed with this in mind, to avoid a situation where people have their internet connections cut off based only on suspicion of illegal activity, as opposed to having been convicted of an offence.

At the Lib Dem Spring Conference an emergency motion was accepted that was aimed at providing a better solution to this difficult issue. I enclose a copy of the text of the emergency motion, which condemns the Digital Economy Bill 'for focusing on illegal file sharing rather than on nurturing creativity and innovative business models'.

The Lib Dems will continue to fight for our hard-won civil liberties whenever possible. Thank you for writing to me about this important issue and I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

David Howarth
Member of Parliament for Cambridge

I received a response from Tory MP Ian Liddel-Granger, which almost identically mirrors Theresa May's response below. It looks like we're not the only ones using standardised letters.

I received two emails from my MP, Andrew Dismore MP for Hendon (Labour);

The first:

—————

Thank you for email of 18th March concerning the issue of the Digital Economy Bill.

I do not think the Bill is being rushed through, as it has had quite a lot of consideration and scrutiny.

The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, has reported on the Bill twice, on the various aspects relating to individual rights, and you may be interested in reviewing our reports on the issue, which can be seen on our website: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committe… .

The two reports are our 5th report and 14th report of the session of 2009/2010. You will see that we have raised a number of concerns and we have published the Government’s response to those concerns in the second report.

The Bill is now in the House of Lords, so we will have to wait and see how the Bill progresses there, as what happens in the House of Lords if of course beyond the reach of Members of the House of Commons, as we are entirely separate Houses of Parliament.

I certainly also expect there to be time to debate the Bill again in the Commons after the Lords have finished with it, before the election is called.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Dismore
Labour Member of Parliament for Hendon

—————

The second:

—————

You wrote to me about the Digital Economy Bill, and your concerns that it was not receiving adequate debate.

I am pleased to tell you that a full days debate has now been scheduled for the Bill on Tuesday the 6th of April.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Dismore MP

Dictated by Andrew Dismore and transmitted by Brenda Long.

—————

With reference to the link which Mr Dismore gave in the first email, it links to a page with further links to numerous reports. I believe the two reports to which Mr Dismore is referring (the 5th and the 14th) are these ones:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt2009…
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt2009…

One of the reports even states that they are having to focus on limited aspects of the bill in their report because of limited time.

Jim Dowd MP sent me a brief response saying “Thank you for your message and I can confirm that I am aware of the many misapprehensions and concerns surrounding the Digital Economy Bill. “. I found this immensely patronising, as he's effectively saying “you are only worried because you haven't understood it”, without bothering to explain why this is.

He then says that he can't reply in full unless I provide him with my address to prove that I'm a constituent. I did that five days ago. No further reply so far…

Had a prompt reply but this is all I've heard from him,

I acknowledge and thank you for your email. Please supply your full postal address and a fuller response will follow

Regards
Albert Owen MP
Ynys Mon

Sent postal address still waiting for a reply

Justine Greening, Cons, Putney:

For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome aspects of the bill there are other areas of great concern to us…

Heard that before?

I received this from Michael Wills, MP for North Swindon. He'll be standing down as an MP at the next election.

–

Dear Mr Hesse

Thank you for your email of 16 March about the Digital Economy Bill.

I am sorry that you feel this Bill is undemocratic and risks adversely affecting businesses and innocent citizens, and that it is being rushed through the legislative process. In response to your concerns, I have now written on your behalf to Lord Mandelson, asking for a response to your call for the Digital Economy Bill to be subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny and debate.

I will contact you as soon as I receive a response, but in the meantime, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this, or any other matter, further.

Yours sincerely

Rt Hon. Michael Wills
MP for North Swindon

I just came across an excellent new site http://www.digitaldemocracy.org.uk that enables communities to democratically determine their top priorities. You can enter proposals and try and persuade others to support them, and at the end of a fortnight the top proposal gets sent to an elected representative for a response. This would be a great site to raise this issue on.

I got the standard Conservative response from Douglas Carswell MP. You know, the letter that starts “For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy…” I've written to him again.

Dear Sirs

I feel that it's appropriate to signal that in Mr. Roger Godsiff MP reply he states that the research paper on the Digital Economy Bill is located on the following address Also, attached to the email was the Digital Economy Bill (Research Paper, March 29): http://rapidshare.com/files/369950074/RP10-030.pdf

Does to Government not realise that this site not only charges for downloading from this site (Membership) but also hosts torrents leading to inappropriate images of children.

They should be informed of this and find a DECENT site to lodge such an important paper.

My letter from Adam Ingram who is standing down at the next election:

“Thank you for your letter of 16th March 2010 concerning the Digital Economy Bill and its progress through Parliament before the General Election.

You will not be surprised to hear I have received a number of letters on this topic in recent weeks and I appreciate why you are unhappy at reports that the Bill could be passed into law without being properly debated in the House of Commons.

As you will be aware, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords and has gone through all stages there, being significantly amended in the process. There is obviously not time for it to be properly scrutinised by the House of Commons – ie, a Second Reading debate, detailed scrutiny in Committee, Report Stage and Third Reading – before the General Election has to be called.

Indeed, we are fast running out the time for it to even have a Second Reading in the Commons, thought this is something which is a matter for the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, and she may have more news at the next weekly Business Statement.

My understanding of what will happen to the Bill is as follows. If the Bill does not get listed for a Second Reading in the Commons, then it falls, ie, it does not become law and would to be re-introduced after the next General Election.

If it does make the floor of the House of Commons, eg, if there is a Second Reading debate in the Commons chamber, then the non-controversial elements of the Bill may be dealt with during what is known as the “wash up” period. (This is the period after the Prime Minister goes to the Palace to signal a General Election but before Parliament is dissolved). This would have to be agreed by the three main political parties, and, if there is not a consensus, there will be no attempt made to push through any measures in the Commons by a parliamentary vote.

I appreciate that there is real concern about some of the clauses in the Bill, in particular, the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing. There is, however, much in the Bill which is uncontroversial, which needs to be enacted as soon as possible and for which there is broad support. These measures, and only these measures, may become law before the General Election.

Of course, if the General Election does not take place until June, there may be time for full scrutiny of the Bill by the House of Commons, but I suspect that will not happen!

I hope this provides you with some reassurance.”

Beg pardon for the wall o'text, but I wanted to see if anyone spotted any useful information in it. Seems like a long, thoughtful answer till you realise it is just an explanation of parliamentary process. Though he does admit this Bill is going to hit the wash up period and parts of it are guaranteed to become law. Without specifying what parts.

Any questions or points you think I should put in my reply, please tell me.

Just to clarify, it was not the MP who uploaded the document there, it was me. The document was orignally sent as a plain PDF, attached to an email.

From Tom Levitt MP in the High Peak :

Dear Anthony

Thank you for letting me know of your concern about aspects of the Digital Economy Bill. Government business managers have now managed to find a slot for its second reading debate in the Commons on 6 April. It has already completed its detailed consideration in the House of Lords where it has completed all its Parliamentary stages, so concerns that it will not be fully scrutinised can be allayed.

It is inevitable that the Bill will not have the time to complete all its usual stages in the Commons which might normally include a further consideration in the Lords. Like many other important bills it will therefore be caught up in the 'wash up', the period of 2 or 3 days in which the legislative agenda is cleared, as far as possible, immediately an election is called. By and large, only those bills which the Opposition agree to will be fast tracked, which means controversial ones are unlikely to succeed. I do expect this Bill to be agreed, however.

One of the issues which has caught constituents' attention has been copyright. Of course a balance has to be struck between the rights of copyright holders and the freedom of the internet; deciding where to fix such a balance and how to enforce it will always be controversial. However, I hope that the enclosed briefing from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills will reassure people that every effort has been made to get this balance right.

The Prime Minister has announced plans to supply universal access to broadband, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs, by 2012. 90% of UK households will have access to next generation broadband by 2017. The universal nature of this pledge ensures that those who live and work in areas like High Peak will not miss out. I have written to BT to ask about their specific plans for High Peak and I will write again when I have their reply.

Yours sincerely,

Tom

Blatant foboff, if I read it correctly…..

//////////
Dear constituent,

Thank you for your email.

Firstly, let me apologise for the delayed response. I have been researching what is in parts a very technical Bill and having meetings connected to the various concerns constituents have raised and wanted to conclude these before replying.

In general I think the Digital Economy Bill contains a number of positive reforms and that some fears about its implications are unfounded – for example, the idea that the Government may use the powers under the Bill to hastily disconnect users who are even suspected of infringement simply does not square with the extensive thresholds written into the Bill which prevent arbitrary or overhasty recourse to such measures and seem to be to apply a very high bar on such action.

However, there clearly seems to be a problem with the particular issue of copyright infringement which clearly lies at the heart of the concerns of the majority of constituents who have written to me on this subject. It is very important that parliament allocates sufficient time to consider these objections – rushed Bills are rarely ever good bills. We do need to look carefully at whether particular aspects of the bill are excessive or whether the thresholds included are still to low.

I have therefore written to, and have had several follow-up conversations with, the Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the House of Commons who is the Minister in overall charge of managing government business and the procedural passage of legislation through the House. I have requested that we consider the Bill without the clause that has caused concern to most of you – this request has been taken under detailed consideration.

I know that the aim of the Bill is not bring the benefits of broadband internet to as many people as possible and for your interest I have included below some of the details of the Bill which may address some of the concerns you may have:

New technology has changed the way people access content, but we need to make sure that those who use the internet to access music, films etc pay the appropriate charge for doing so not least so we can ensure the future viability of the industries and artists which produce them.

On-line copyright infringement is a very serious problem, and I know that the Government has been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet firms on practical solutions.
I, like many others, would have preferred a voluntary rather than a regulatory solution but this has not proved workable. The Digital Economy Bill therefore set out in detail the Government’s proposals to tackle unlawful peer to peer file-sharing (details on the Bill can be found at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/di…).

As you may know, the legislation will require ISPs to write to their customers with accounts identified by a rights holder as having downloaded their material unlawfully. In the cases of the most serious infringers, if a rights holder obtains a court order, the ISP would have to provide information so that the rights holder can take court action.

The Government’s belief is that this process of notification, coupled with more education of consumers on the importance of rewarding creators for their content and the development and proliferation of legal online content offerings, will secure the 70% reduction in illegal peer to peer file sharing which is their aim. If that proves not to be the case, the Bill provides a reserve power obliging an ISP to apply ‘technical measures’ to a customer’s internet account to restrict or prevent illegal sharing. Technical measures will not be introduced until at least a year after the notification process starts.

If technical measures are introduced they will only be applied to those who have received repeated notifications but continue to be identified in infringement. Technical measures might be a band width restriction, a daily downloading limit or, as a last resort, temporary account suspension. There will be a full appeals process, including to a First Tier Tribunal, which is a judicial body.

More widely, the Government want a reserve power to amend the Copyright Design and Patent Act. This will allow them to tackle quickly any misuse of emerging technologies for copyright infringement and provide an element of future proofing.

These measures were adopted following two consultations on file-sharing and extensive meetings with all stakeholders. Both consultations, the representations made and the Government’s responses can be found at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/closedwith…

The Government recognise the need for proper consumer education and attractive new legal sources of content, alongside the system of notifications, so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the “default” for many seeking content on-line. Rights holders need business models which work in the new digital environment. We welcomed announcements such as the Virgin Media and Universal agreement, the development of Spotify and the music offers announced by Vodafone and Sky. These types of agreement will play a critical role in moving the great majority of people away from piracy.

I hope this answers some of your concerns. If there are any particular aspects of the Bill you remain with which you remain dissatisfied then please do let me know as I would be happy to make representations on these points.

Yours sincerely,

Karen Buck MP

Hi All,

I received the following from the office of my MP:

—
Good afternoon Mr Dow

Digital Economy Bill

I have spoken to Mr Devine this morning and he has asked me to thank you for your email.

He asked me to let you know that the business of the House of Commons has now been announced up to 5th April 2010 and the second reading of the Digital Economy Bill has not been included.

He would therefore be very surprised if this were to go ahead before the general election is called.

If this situation changes he will, however, do everything he can to ensure that the Minister is made aware of your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Carol Bartholomew
Senior Caseworker
Office of Jim Devine MP
—

Well my email would have been similar, but not identical, as I made some specific points of my own and received a longer reply, which I won't be publishing here since I didn't tell Mr Howarth that the response would be public. I'm not pleased that he doesn't seem to be objecting to the inclusion of the Bill in washup. Right now, the direct opposition of the Lib Dems to the Bill being rushed through makes me take them slightly more seriously, but I have to say I'm concerned in general that it could still go through next week without anyone altering the offensive disconnection clauses.

I've had the following dialogue with my MP regarding the Digital Economy Bill.

If someone could tell me the specific clauses of the bill relating to
'three strikes' it would be extremely helpful!

Yours, — P

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Philip Wadler <wadler@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Protecting musicians
- Hide quoted text -
To: Nigel Griffiths <ngriffithsmp@hotmail.com>

The “three strikes” provision which concerns me is described in these
news articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/1…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/0…

Yours, — P

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Nigel Griffiths
<ngriffithsmp@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Philip,
> I have responded to the email which I understand was drafted by big business
> (you mention BT, Yahoo and Google – fresh from kow-towing to the Chinese).
> This has been the subject of Parliamentary debate over a long period so
> please give me the Clauses in the Bill you wish to be struck out.
> Best wishes.
> Nigel
>
>> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:06:27 +0000
>> Subject: Re: Don't rush through extreme internet laws
>> From: wadler@inf.ed.ac.uk
>> To: ngriffithsmp@hotmail.com
>>
>> Thank you for your prompt reply.
>>
>> You haven't responded to the points raised in my e-mail. In
>> particular, I believe that the proposed bill would deny internet
>> access to an entire household if one member was accused three times of
>> copyright violation. (Sometimes called 'three strikes'.) Given the
>> importance of internet access for everything from doing my job to
>> checking the weather, how is this fair and proportional?
>>
>> Yours, — P
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Nigel Griffiths
>> <ngriffithsmp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dear Philip,
>> > Thank you for sending me a standard email. However, this is an issue I
>> > have
>> > been working on with interested constituents for more than a year who
>> > have
>> > issues with the Bill, so I can assure you there has been a real debate
>> > on
>> > this here in South Edinburgh – mainly musicians who want it to be
>> > stronger
>> > and others who want to download stuff for free.
>> > I strongly support protection for intellectual copyright. Far too many
>> > people have their products, music and videos ripped off, so I am
>> > listening
>> > to the Musicians' Union and others about the safeguards needed. The
>> > 'huge'
>> > companies you (and others signing this standard email) ask me to support
>> > are
>> > massive profit-makers who have a vested interest in doing as little as
>> > possible to protect musicians and others, since they stand to make more
>> > money that way. I shall not be supporting any Bill that would “damage
>> > schools and business”, but I am confident that Ministers will ensure
>> > that
>> > this new bill protects the rights of musicians and others as well as the
>> > rights of users.
>> > Thank you again for writing.
>> > Yours sincerely,
>> > Nigel
>> >
>> >
>> >> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:35:23 -0400
>> >> To: ngriffithsmp@parliament.uk
>> >> From: wadler@inf.ed.ac.uk
>> >> Subject: Don't rush through extreme internet laws
>> >>
>> >> From:
>> >> Philip Wadler
>> >>
>> >> Dear Nigel Griffiths,
>> >>
>> >> Last week a leaked UK record industry memo on the Digital Economy Bill
>> >> candidly asserted that the only reason this bill would pass Parliament
>> >> is
>> >> because MPs were “resigned” that they wouldn't have a chance to debate
>> >> it
>> >> properly. The law contains many worrying provisions, notably plans to
>> >> disconnect people suspected of copyright infringement, a punishment far
>> >> more
>> >> extreme than the crime. What happens to my internet connection—which
>> >> I
>> >> need for my job—if one of my children is accused of pirating a record
>> >> track?
>> >>
>> >> Internet firms like Google and Yahoo, and service providers like Talk
>> >> Talk
>> >> and BT oppose the bill. So why is the Government attempting to force it
>> >> through without proper debate?
>> >>
>> >> As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can
>> >> to
>> >> ensure this bill receives proper democratic scrutiny and debate.
>> >>
>> >> Prof. Philip Wadler
>> >> 11 Braid Avenue, Morningside
>> >>
>> >> UK Parliament Disclaimer:
>> >> This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have
>> >> received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
>> >> system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted.
>> >> This
>> >> e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for
>> >> any
>> >> damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>> . Philip Wadler, Professor of Theoretical Computer Science
>> ./ School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>> / http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>
> ________________________________
> Not got a Hotmail account? Sign-up now – Free

–
. Philip Wadler, Professor of Theoretical Computer Science
./ School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
/ http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/

Reply from Steve Pound which was nice:

I've received more messages on this subject than I did on Iraq and can confirm that there is virtually no chance at all of the Bill proceeding through both Houses in the limited time available to it.

Should the impossible occur I'll act in line with your expressed wishes and concerns.

Thanks for getting in touch,
Steve Pound.

And I just got another from his assistant it seems, which was even better:

Dear Lydia Snodin
Thank you for your recent email to Steve Pound MP. This is just a short note to let you know that Mr Pound is taking up your concerns with the Minister for Digital Britain (Stephen Timms)and he will contact you again when he has received a response.
Kind regards
Diane Wall
Assistant to Steve Pound MP

Response from John Bercow (Speaker).

Many thanks for your email of 23rd March. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I understand your concern regarding the Digital Economy Bill and agree that it requires full scrutiny before being passed. I have now written to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the matter and as soon as I receive a reply I will be in touch with you again.

Best Wishes.

Dear Sir

In my reply to your email on the Digital Economy Bill I poured cold water on the idea that it might be rushed into law in these last days of a dying Parliament.

I may have been wrong. It`s introduced for Second reading next Tuesday (6 April) and Consumer Focus fear that it could be rushed through on what`s called the “wash up” without a full committee debate, or the opportunity to make representations.

I hope they`re wrong. It should be left for the new Parliament. The Bill is too important and has too many repercussions to be rushed. I`ve put down an Early Day Motion saying it shouldn`t proceed further and will try and speak to that effect in Tuesday`s debate. But just in case they do make such a daft attempt to rush it through when the attention of MPs is elsewhere on the General Election, you could send me an email about your concerns.

Yours sincerely
AUSTIN MITCHELL
GREAT GRIMSBY

I received the following response from my MP, John Barrett (Lib Dem,) who is stepping down this year:

Dear Graeme,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about the Digital Economy Bill.

As you know, the Digital Economy Bill is a massive piece of legislation which modernises much of our copyright and digital access laws. It's [sic] first reading in the House of Commons took place last week after spending months going through the House of Lords. Unfortunately we will not get nearly as much time to consider in the lower house as our colleagues in the other chamber did due to the impending election.

What will most likely happen is that both the Labour and Conservative Parties will agree to push the bill through what is called 'wash-up'. This is a period a couple days before the dissolution of parliament where a bill can be passed without completing the full legislative process if the principles of the bill are agreed by both the Government and the opposition.

I find the inability to properly debate a bill as large as this completely unacceptable. I agree with you that the bill is flawed in many areas. However, the bill does have some merits in that it will modernise the current systems we have in place. That being said, in its current form I am not happy with the bill and cannot as of yet offer my support. You can be assured that the Liberal Democrats will continue to seek to do all we can to ensure that the rights and freedoms of internet users are protected to the maximum possible extent. The DCMS team has invited some leading bloggers and the Open Rights Group as well as representatives from key members of the industry to a round table to work out how we can best make this happen. Hopefully we will be able to succeed in ensuring these goals. However, once again I would like to emphasise in its current form I cannot see myself voting for this bill.

I hope this email has explained my position on the digital economy Bill. Please if you do have any other concerns regarding this or any other issue please do not hesitate to contact me further.

Best Wishes,

John

I received this reply from Rachel Morley of the BIS.

Dear Joseph

Thank you for your email of 23 March to Harriet Harman about the Digital Economy Bill. Your email has been passed to Stephen Timms’ department and I have been asked to reply.

The Government wants as many people as possible to enjoy all the benefits that broadband internet can bring. New technology has changed the way people access content, but we need to make sure that those who use the internet to access music, films etc pay the appropriate charge for doing so. On-line copyright infringement is a serious problem, and we have been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet firms on practical solutions.

Everyone would prefer a voluntary rather than a regulatory solution, but it has not proved possible to achieve one. The Digital Economy Bill, published on 20 November 2009, sets out in detail our proposed legislation to tackle unlawful peer to peer file-sharing. The Report can be found at: <http://www.dcms.gov.uk/what_we_do /broadcasting/5631.aspx>.

The details on the Bill can be found at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/di….

The legislation will require ISPs to write to their customers with accounts identified by a rights holder as having downloaded their material unlawfully. In the cases of the most serious infringers, if a rights holder obtains a court order, the ISP would have to provide information so that the rights holder can take court action.

We hope the process of notifications, coupled with more education of consumers on the importance of rewarding creators for their content and the development and proliferation of legal online content offerings, will secure the 70% reduction in illegal peer to peer file sharing which is our aim. If that proves not to be the case, the Bill provides a reserve power obliging an ISP to apply ‘technical measures’ to a customer’s internet account to restrict or prevent illegal sharing. Technical measures will not be introduced until at least a year after the notification process starts.

If technical measures are introduced they will only be applied to those who have received repeated notifications but continue to be identified in infringement. Technical measures might be a band width restriction, a daily downloading limit or, as a last resort, temporary account suspension. There will be a full appeals process, including to a First Tier Tribunal, which is a judicial body.

More widely, we want a reserve power to amend the Copyright Design and Patent Act. This will allow us to tackle quickly any misuse of emerging technologies for copyright infringement and provide an element of future proofing.

These measures were adopted following two consultations on file-sharing and extensive meetings with all stakeholders. Both consultations, the representations made and the Government’s responses can be found at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/closedwith…

We also recognise the need for proper consumer education and attractive new legal sources of content, alongside the system of notifications, so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the “default” for many seeking content on-line. Rights holders need business models which work in the new digital environment. We welcomed announcements such as the Virgin Media and Universal agreement, the development of Spotify and the music offers announced by Vodafone and Sky. These types of agreement will play a critical role in moving the great majority of people away from piracy.

Thank you for taking the trouble to raise this issue with us.

Yours sincerely

Rachel Morley
BIS MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE UNIT

No response yet from Sadiq Khan MP, Tooting. It's been a while now…

An extremely impressive from my local Liberal Democrat MP, Dr. Evan Harris:

Thank you for your recent email about the Digital Economy Bill. Lack of effective scrutiny for legislation is something that I have a particular concern about – and on which I have been very active in Parliament – and I therefore wanted to take some time to craft a personal response to this campaign. I would like to respond firstly to the substantial concerns that remain about the Bill itself and secondly to the process by which this Bill is being rushed through

1. DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL – concerns

At our Conference last weekend, the Liberal Democrats overwhelmingly voted for a motion condemning the Digital Economy Bill’s website-blocking and disconnection provisions. I worked with its sponsor, Julian Huppert (our candidate for Cambridge), to promote the motion. Unlike the other two parties the Liberal Democrats are a democratic party and this motion is therefore now part of our party’s policy. The motion is too long to quote here in its entirety (although I recommend you look at it on the website http://bit.ly/LD-DEBill ) but the most significant parts are:

Conference condemns:

i) Website-blocking and disconnecting internet connections as a response to copyright infringement.
ii) The threat to the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals and businesses from the monitoring of their internet activity, the potential blocking of their websites and the potential termination of their internet connections, which could lead to the closure of internet hotspots
iii) The Digital Economy Bill for focusing on illegal file-sharing rather than on nurturing creativity

Conference supports:

a) The principle of net neutrality, through which all content, sites and platforms are treated equally by user access networks participating in the Internet.
b) The rights of creators and performers to be rewarded for their work in a way that is fair, proportionate and appropriate to the medium.

Conference therefore opposes excessive regulatory attempts to monitor, control and limit internet access or internet publication, whether at local, national, European or global level.

Within Parliament Lib Dems have been working to improve this bad legislation.

We already managed to remove the provisions to allow Lord Mandelson to change copyright law at a stroke. We attempted, with our Amendment 120A in the House of Lords which would have changed the Government’s Clause 17, to require the Government to go to the High Court to get an injunction if it wanted to require ISPs to block access to websites that persist in publishing a substantial amount of copyrighted material despite repeated requests to remove it. It creates quite a high threshold that the Government would have to overcome, and ensures that – if this provision is to remain – then there must be proper scrutiny and due process. It requires that all of the following conditions are met:

a) The website is holding a “substantial proportion” of copyrighted material;
b) The operator has been contacted a number of times and asked to remove the content but failed to do so;
c) The copyright holder has made a reasonable effort to ensure there are legal ways of accessing the content online;
d) Human rights implications, such as the right to freedom of expression, have been taken into consideration by the Court.

Even with this amendment, I believe that the Bill still represents a threat to freedom of expression. I am confident that, due to the controversial nature of the Bill, it will not be able to be passed in the likely remaining 8 sitting days of this Parliament, or that this measure will go through in the “wash-up” when parliament is about to be resolved and the parties negotiate what bits of bills can get through. However I am not complacent about this and it is important that organisations such as the Open Rights Group keep up the pressure to ensure that both Labour and the Conservatives are aware of the electoral costs of allowing this legislation through.

Particularly following the Conference vote, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the fact that it is now Liberal Democrat policy to oppose:
a) Website blocking and disconnection
b) Sweeping monitoring of internet activity
c) Threats to net neutrality

Liberal Democrats are instinctively opposed to attacks on civil liberties and censorship – and I will continue to vote against these extreme proposals whenever they come up.

2. BETTER SCRUTINY

For many years I have been a strong advocate working for better scrutiny of legislation in Parliament. In the abstract it seems like something of a technical concern, but in reality it has a fundamental impact on the legislation passed in this country. There are countless examples of important Bills where whole groups of amendments or clauses are never even debated let alone voted on in the elected House. The reason for this is that the Government has control over the entirety of Parliament’s timetable. It cannot be right that the Government regulates (and indeed inhibits) Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the Executive – and it seems fairly obvious that it’s the job of legislators to scrutinise legislation.

Recently as a leading member of the elected Wright Committee on the Reform of Parliament I was successful in pushing through an amendment, on a cross-party basis, to establish a “House Business Committee” at the start of the next Parliament. This would ensure that the House itself, not the Government whips could decide its own timetable, while providing for sufficient time for the Government to put forward the business that it was elected on, and mandated to carry out. Scrutiny will obviously depend on good MPs to scrutinise the legislation, but this change will at least give them the opportunity to do so – an opportunity they are currently denied. A report of my efforts in this area can be found in this article by Henry Porter in the Observer: http://bit.ly/cjpDmN

However, another part of the problem for timetabling is that Parliament’s time is very unpredictable, as the Prime Minister can call an election at any time. When the election is called there is therefore the issue of what to do with legislation that Parliament has spent a lot of time on, but not yet passed into law. Fixed-term Parliaments would get round the problem posed by this and the horse-trading the parties (commonly known as the “wash-up”) could no longer even pretend to be justified. I, along with the rest of my party, have long supported fixed-term Parliaments.

Accordingly I think I have a strong record of action supporting my belief that legislation should not be passed without sufficient and effective scrutiny. But in this case, I have additional concerns about the legislation in question.

Thanks once again for contacting me about this important issue, and thank you for keeping up the pressure against this unacceptable legislation.

Yours sincerely

Evan Harris

Nothing but an automated response from Malcolm Wickes MP

—–

from WICKS, Malcolm <WICKSM@parliament.uk>
date 23 March 2010 10:00
subject RE: Don't rush through extreme internet laws
mailed-by parliament.uk

Your email which has been received and will be dealt with as soon as possible.

If you are a Croydon North constituent, please ensure that you have included your full name and full postal address. If this information is missing, please resend your email including these details.

Many thanks for taking the time to contact me.

“Good questions Cole. I will use them to assess the Bill.
Thank you for writing. Michael Connarty MP
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange”

http://cole007.net/blog/66/the-digital-economy-…

Desmond Swayne Tory MP for New Forest West simply sent me the standard response and neatly towed the party line.

The Research Paper on the Digital Economy Bill (which runs to 60 pages!) can be found on Parliament's own website here:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/r…

If I read it right, Mr Ingram seems to be suggesting that he supports only the uncontroversial measures in the Bill becoming law before the election. You could ask him to clarify if he will only vote for the Second Reading of the Bill if the Government has given an assurance that the controversial parts on disconnection and web-blocking (Clauses 4 to 17 and the just-published Clause 18) are dropped completely.

Depending on how you feel about the issue, you might also want to ask him to sign Early Day Motion 1223, which calls for a full, proper debate on the Bill:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?…

I should add that there are of course other controversial Clauses, like the orphan works Clause 43:

http://stop43.org.uk/

And of course the Clause on internet domain names, etc., etc.

It looks like a large part of Karen Buck's response to you is just a copy-and-paste from the BIS response provided to Joe Green:

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2010/03/30/digital…

Here is the response I received from my local MP Lib Dem Chris Huhne. If any help is available to reply please let me know.

Dear Gemma

Thank you for your email regarding the Digital Economy Bill. The Bill is wide ranging and covers issues such as a new remit for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV as well as the issue of illegal downloading.

The Liberal Democrats support the creative industries and believe that many aspects of this Bill are vitally important to the continuing success of our radio, television and content industries. We are also concerned about the financial implications of illegal downloading of copyright material and recognise the importance of protecting intellectual property.

A report published on 17th March 2010 predicted that a quarter of a million jobs in the UK's creative industries could be lost by 2015 if current trends in online piracy continue. Commenting on it, Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, said: “The results of study stress that the growth of unauthorised file-sharing, downloading and streaming of copyrighted works and recorded performances is a major threat to the creative industries in terms of loss of employment and revenues. The scale of the problem is truly frightening now – let alone in the future if no firm actions against illegal file-sharing are taken.”

For these reasons we do believe that some action is needed and must form part of the Digital Economy Bill.

However, we have opposed – and helped defeat – government proposals (contained in Clause 17 of the original Digital Economy Bill) to give itself almost unfettered powers to act against copyright infringement.

Further, as a result of debates instigated and amendments passed by the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, the government's original proposals relating to illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing have been significantly improved.

As a result, no action to introduce “technical measures” (whether temporary account suspension, bandwidth throttling or whatever) can be introduced until;

- soft measures (letter writing) have been used
- an evaluation of their effectiveness has been undertaken
- an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical measures has been undertaken
- further consultation has taken place
- proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and
- there is an explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty

The Liberal Democrats remain concerned by some aspects of the system for tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing being introduced in the Bill and will take further action in the Commons to scrutinise and improve the legislation. In particular, we are concerned that there will not be enough time for in-depth consultation on the initial code that Ofcom will draw up. We also feel that there is currently inadequate protection in the Bill for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses offering internet access to the public.

We are also unconvinced of the merits of the various technical measures that have been proposed, including bandwidth shaping and temporary account suspension. For this reason we have amended the Bill to ensure that any such measures cannot be introduced without proper consultation and not until evidence has been produced to prove that this is the best available option. We are further seeking to ensure that any measures brought before parliament will be subject to maximum scrutiny in both Houses and that it will be possible for changes to be made to them before the final decision is made.

We are urging the creative music, film and video games industries to work more vigorously to develop new business models which will make it easier and more affordable for people to legally access their products. We hope that this combined with “soft measures” and an effective education campaign will mean that further action will not be required.

Liberal Democrats have agreed at their Spring Conference to establish a working party to address these issues. With at least a year before there will be any attempt to introduce “technical measures”, this will provide an opportunity for the party to consider the outcome of research into the effectiveness of the early stages of the implementation of the legislation in the digital economy Bill.

The Bill has now completed all stages in the Lords but cannot proceed unless it has, as a minimum, been debated at a Second Reading in the Commons. We believe that many of the measures in the Bill that do not relate to illegal file sharing are important and must be allowed to go into law. However, in respect of those that relate to illegal file sharing we will not support them in the Commons if we are not satisfied that the procedures in place are fair and allow for full consultation and scrutiny before their introduction in the future.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me about this issue and if I can be of any further assistance on this or any other matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely

Chris Huhne MP

The Early Day Motion Mr Mitchell is talking about is EDM 1223:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?…

Urge your MP to sign it via WriteToThem:

http://www.writetothem.com/

Hi Gemma,

A few points come to mind that you could make in your reply:

1. The Liberal Democrats passed an emergency motion at their spring conference that explicitly condemned website-blocking and disconnecting people from the Internet as a response to copyright infringement, so Chris Huhne's position seems to be in contradiction with the democratically-expressed will of his party; see also the repsonse provided to Lee Paxton by Lib Dem Evan Harris MP: http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2010/03/30/digital…

2. He mentions that “proposed legislation [must be] brought before parliament for decision” before the “technical measures” such as temporary account suspension (although there is no definition as to how long “temporary” is, who's to say it couldn't be 6 months?) are implemented, however this will only be secondary legislation, on which there is very limited time for debate and which cannot usually be amended by Parliament, only accepted or rejected.

3. Even though he says that “there is an explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty”, the fact is that you will still have to appeal to a tribunal (it doesn't even go through the proper court system) to prove your innocence and pay out of your own pocket for the privilege of doing so.

Also did you see the previous blog post here on 38 Degrees? It gives tips on how to reply to the arguments made by MPs:

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2010/03/30/digital…

my local labour MP Andrew Smith thanked me for contacting him and agrees that it is controversial.

“I have taken this up with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

I shall let you know as soon as I receive his reply”

Seems like other MPs have spoken to Mandelson about it too – it's reassuring that this much has already been achieved, and hopefully some reasonable sense can be instilled upwards!

Hi Andrew

Thank you for your help. I will have a look at the blog post. I had not seen it before.

Gem

Very good points. I shall definitely use those in my response. If anyone else has anything to add please let me know. I think that if we all give the best arguments we can to our MPs then this will work better.

Didn't get a reply from John Stanley MP (Tonbridge and Malling, Kent).

From Kerry McCarthy MP

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill and its progress through Parliament before the election. You will not be surprised to learn that I have received several emails on this topic in recent days and I appreciate why you are unhappy at reports that the Bill could be passed into law without being properly debated in the Commons.

As you will be aware, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and has gone through all stages there, being significantly amended in the process. There is obviously not time for it to be properly scrutinised by the House of Commons – i.e. a Second Reading debate, detailed scrutiny in Committee, Report Stage and Third Reading – before an election has to be called. (See here for details of the progress made through Parliament so far http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/dig…)

My understanding of what will happen to the Bill is as follows, the Bill has been given a Second Reading on the 6th April. The Second Reading debate will discuss the general principles in the Bill on the Commons floor. This will make the Bill eligible for the “Wash-up “. This is the period after the Prime Minister goes to the Palace to signal a General Election but before Parliament is dissolved. Legislation going through Parliament during this stage has to be agreed by the three main political parties. If there is not a consensus, there will be no attempt made to push any measures through the Commons by a parliamentary vote. This means that only the non-controversial elements of the Bill have any chance of being pushed through.

I appreciate that there is real concern about some of the clauses in the Bill, and in particular the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing. There is, however, much in the Bill which is uncontroversial, which needs to be enacted as soon as possible, and for which there is broad support. These measures, and only these measures, may become law before the General Election.

Of course is the General Election does not take place until June, there may be time for full scrutiny of the Bill by the Commons, but I suspect that will not happen!

I hope this provides you with some reassurance,

Regards,

Kerry McCarthy MP.

Reply from Sammy Wilson MP MLA, DUP, East Antrim, Northern Ireland:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me concerning the Digital Economy Bill.

I fully understand your frustration that you feel concerning the way in which the Government is rushing through this legislation. As a backbench MP I find it very disheartening when this happens as I want to have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and present the concerns that my constituents have to Ministers. Unfortunately more and more bills are being rushed through without proper scrutiny and debate and this is not an isolated occurrence.

Although I believe that there are some positive benefits that will result from this bill, I too share your concerns with regards to the internet which is exactly why there should be more parliamentary time devoted to the bill so that these issues can be discussed.

I will of course do all in my power to ensure that the Government is made aware of your concerns.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Got this written reply from my MP David Amess (Conservative.)

Thank you for your letter regarding the Digital Economy Bill which I have read carefully. I sympathise very much with your point of view and absolutely agree that there should be adequate time to scrutinise the Bill.
I will make immediate representations on your behalf and will contact you again as soon as I receive a response.
In the meantime, if you have any questions or think I can be of further assistance in relation to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

My MP Fabian Hamilton responded with the following (for which I am mostly satisfied)..

–

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill and its progress through Parliament before the election. You will not be surprised to learn that I have received several emails on this topic in recent days and I appreciate why you are unhappy at reports that the Bill could be passed into law without being properly debated in the Commons.

As you will be aware, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and has gone through all stages there, being significantly amended in the process. There is obviously not time for it to be properly scrutinised by the House of Commons – ie a Second Reading debate, detailed scrutiny in Committee, Report Stage and Third Reading – before an election has to be called. (See here for details of the progress made through Parliament so far http:// services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html

Indeed, we are rapidly running out of time for it to even have a Second Reading in the Commons, though this is something which is a matter for the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, and she may have more news at the weekly Business Statement today.

My understanding of what will happen to the Bill is as follows: if the Bill does not get listed for a Second Reading in the Commons, then it falls, ie it does not become law and would have to be reintroduced after the General Election.

If it does make the floor of the House of Commons, for example if there is a Second Reading debate in the Commons chamber, then the non-controversial elements of the Bill may be dealt with during what is known as the ‘wash up’ period. (This is the period after the Prime Minister goes to the Palace to signal a General Election but before Parliament is dissolved). This would have to be agreed by the three main political parties. If there is not a consensus, there will be no attempt made to push any measures through the Commons by a parliamentary vote.

I appreciate that there is real concern about some of the clauses in the Bill, and in particular the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing. There is, however, much in the Bill which is uncontroversial, which needs to be enacted as soon as possible, and for which there is broad support. These measures, and only these measures, may become law before the General Election.

Of course is the General Election does not take place until June, there may be time for full scrutiny of the Bill by the Commons, but I suspect that will not happen! I hope this provides you with some reassurance.

My Tory MP, Andrew Mitchell replied to me as follows

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.
In November 2009, the Government set out a series of policies relating to Britain's digital sector. I support the ambition of this Bill, but am disappointed that it does not show more imagination. Very few of the proposals contained with Lord Carter's Digital Britain report have made it to the Bill.
The Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy, and my party recognise that legislation is urgently needed to safeguard this vital industry and prevent a slide from our position as a global leader in creative industries.

However, I am concerned that, in places, the Bill proposes old economy solutions to new economy problems. Furthermore, there is a lack of detail on how certain proposals would be implemented – with much still to be done through codes of practice and secondary legislation – and a limited timeframe for the Government to make this legislation law.

I support measures to tackle internet piracy. However, I share the concerns you have raised. The Government's proposals fail to answer some critical questions about what criteria the Secretary of State will use before deciding to cut someone off from the internet and its proposals have serious implications regarding human rights in the UK.

I can assure you that my colleagues in the Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills and the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Teams are following this legislation very closely. They will continue to hold the Government to account on this issue and take every opportunity to ensure that the legislation provides the protection the creative industries need whilst safeguarding human rights.

John Spellar MP

Dear Mr Corfield

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Digital Economy Bill.

The Bill has now been rescheduled for a second reading in the House of Commons on April 6th.

It may reassure you to know that the Bill as it stands allows people and companies accused of illicit file sharing to appeal before they are disconnected. There will be no disconnection before the appeal.

You may find these fact sheets produced by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills useful. The first contains general information about the bill and the second considers the impact the bill may have on schools, universities and other public providers of internet connections.

http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/wp…

http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/wp…

The debate about how we strike a balance between how we protect the creative industries which produce so much value for the UK and the freedom of individuals to use the internet is still ongoing, and the campaign which you support is an important part of that debate. If no consensus can be found in the House of Commons during the second reading then the Bill might have difficulty making progress and this will be an issue which MPs will have to revisit in the next Parliament.

This Government believes that access to broadband is as essential as electricity in the modern world. Given this, it is unlikely we will end up with an Act which will provide for the disconnection of individuals for minor copyright offences.

Yours sincerely

Rt Hon John F Spellar MP
Warley

I had a response from Liz Blackman (Erewash, Labour) asking for my address. That was 13 days ago – just as well she's standing down (but to be replaced by centrally controlled labour puppet).

I don't hold out much hope of her taking my views into account when the party line is influenced by millions of BPI pounds.

Oh good. At least you got a reply from your NI MP.
I emailed Michelle Gildernew for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has have heard nothing back.
Didnt expect much from her though

my local lib dem David Heath, Liberal Democrat MP for Somerton and Frome wrote

Thank you for your email of 18th March concerning the digital economy bill.

As you rightly say, this is a bill which contains some very contentious elements. It also has within it some measures which are extremely welcome and necessary. My concern over recent weeks has been to ensure that the bill is properly debated in the House of Commons, given the fact that it has been scrutinised for nearly four months in the House of Lords but has yet to be considered by the elected chamber.

Accordingly, I have consistently raised the issue with the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, and she finally responded by timetabling a debate on second reading of the bill on Tuesday April 6th. Although this is better than nothing, in that it will at least enable members to express their views on the general principles of the bill, it is still far from satisfactory in that it is impossible for detailed scrutiny of the clauses of the bill to take place, and particularly the issues which are of most concern such as copyright and suspension of accounts.

I think the bill has been extremely badly handled, and I am quite clear that it should not complete its parliamentary passage as a result of a deal between the government and the Conservative front benches. However, I fear that this is likely to be the case, and that the real concerns which many constituents are expressing, will never have the opportunity to be debated in detail. This is, as I have said, deeply unsatisfactory.

Yours sincerely,

David Heath CBE MP

It's a clever letter, but don't think we can complain about form letters… its what we sent, although I varied mine by saying it had been drafted by someone else, but I agreed with it etc.

I don't think they'll be voting to “promote new business models rather than holding innovations back”.

Yup, had that three times, all from Labour MPs.

Sadly, and I am really disappointed because of who signed mine, a form letter. I received exactly the same reply from someone else.

and there's no jury… that's no coincidence

Adam Grant, Parliamentary Researcher, Office of the Rt. Hon Ann Widdecombe MP for Maidstone and the Weald Said:

Thank you very much in deed for your email to Miss Widdecombe of the 30th March.

Miss Widdecombe very much understands your concerns about this Bill. Any piece of legislation should be given proper and thorough scrutiny before it becomes law. Rushing the Bill through its remaining stages so close to the election without this would be entirely wrong.

The only way the Government could rush this through would be to have a programme motion for the debate. I can assure you that Miss Widdecombe would vote against such a motion and argue for a more prolonged and reasoned debate. Of course given the Parliamentary arithmetic, with the Government having a majority in the House of Commons I cannot promise that such a programme motion would not pass.

However my own personal view is that the Government will not be able to find enough Parliamentary time to allow even the most basic scrutiny and thus would be unable to pass this Bill before dissolution, forcing them to abandon this contentious Bill.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to Miss Widdecombe and may I pass on her best wishes to you for the future.

Hi Hear is the reply I recieved from my MP Vince Cable (Liberal)

Thank you for writing to me about the Digital Economy Bill.

The Digital Economy Bill is wide ranging and covers not just illegal file sharing and downloads from illegal websites, but issues such as a new remit for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV. We believe that these other parts of the Bill are extremely important and must be allowed to go into law.

We understand, however, that the proposals relating to website blocking and file sharing are controversial. Many people have expressed fears that the Bill will be rushed into law without proper examination. We recognise the significant damage to the creative industries of downloading from illegal websites and initially sought measures to address this. However, there has been limited time for consultation and very little time before final decisions are made. We, therefore, do not believe that measures to address site blocking can reasonably be included in the Digital Economy Bill and we will not support any such measures.

There has been much longer and wider debate about actions to address illegal peer-to-peer file sharing. The Liberal Democrats are unconvinced of the merits of measures such as temporary account suspension or bandwidth throttling. This is why we have amended the Bill to ensure that they cannot be introduced without proper consultation and not until evidence has been produced to prove that they are the best available option. We also want to ensure that any measures will be subject to maximum scrutiny in parliament and that it will be possible to change them before a final decision is made.

The passing of the Bill will only be the start of a long process with many stages and many more opportunities for scrutiny. Indeed, the controversial parts of the Bill will need to be scrutinised and voted upon by the next parliament before they can be brought into law. Liberal Democrats MPs would not support these sections of the Bill without this process.

Already we have helped ensure significant changes to the Bill so that “technical measures” such as account suspension or bandwidth reduction will never be possible unless;

1. copyright infringers are notified by letter, without any risk of their internet connection being affected, for at least a year 2. an evaluation of the effectiveness of such “soft measures” is undertaken 3. an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical measures has been completed 4. further consultation has taken place 5. proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and 6. any process to disconnect users explicitly assumes their innocence until they are proven guilty

We have also urged the music, film and videogames industries to work more urgently to develop easy and affordable ways to legally access their products in the hope that, combined with “soft measures” and an effective education campaign, disconnection is never required. However, despite the changes we have helped to achieve, we believe that there is still more to do in respect of the proposed system for tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing. We will take further action in the Commons to improve the legislation. For instance, we believe there is inadequate protection in the Bill for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses offering internet access to the public.

There are some who believe that no action should be taken to address the problems caused by copyright infringements on the internet. While we accept that the initial proposals from the government and the much later proposals in respect of website blocking went too far, we do not believe that the problems can be ignored. Our goal is to support the creative industries while at the same time fully acknowledging the issues of rights and freedoms for the individual that arise as internet technology advances. In other words action should only be taken if it is appropriate, proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

Thanks again for writing to me about this.

Yours sincerely,

Vincent Cable MP
MP for Twickenham
Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

I had a postal reply from Liz Blackman this morning.

Thank you for your email on the Digital Economy Bill. The standard email being sent to me by constituents states that this Bill is being rushed through Parliament without a debate. This Bill has recently completed its progress through the House of Lords, where it was thoroughly scrutinised. I enclose a fact sheet from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills which you might find useful. You might be interested to know that this fact sheet was requested by Ministers in the Lords in order to clarify some of the issues raised during the debate. The first reading has now taken place in the Commons, with a Second Reading scheduled for 6th April, after the Easter recess. This is not a case of ‘rushing the Bill into law’ as your email states, as the Bill will then need to go through Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law.

As you may now, I shall be retiring at the next election. If, however, you wish to contact me about this or any other issues in the short time remaining before Parliament is dissolved, please do not hesitate to do so.

Yours sincerely
Liz Blackman

It seems that most MP’s believe the Bill has received sufficient discussion (despite addition of the most controversial clauses towards the end of this discussion). It is also interesting to see that (from the mentioned briefing paper) libraries etc. should be installing firewalls to block access to sites containing flash technology. Does that mean that sites like YouTube should be blocked? I find it worrying that these laws are made by the people that understand the technology involved the least.

I recieved a letter in the post today from my MP i just scanned it in so some words my not of been automatically recognised incase there are mistakes.

Dear Mr Claughan

Thank you for writing to me about the Digital Economy Bill.
This is a crucial piece of legislation that could help determine the success of our creative industries for the next generation. The bill contains many provisions concerning improved broadband provision, the operation of the regulator OFCOM and the digital switchover.of radio.
I presume that you are writing concerning the provisions to tackle what is referred to as “peer to peer” filesharing.
Many myths exist surrounding what the bill is intending to do in tackling this issue. The critical point is that we cannot continue to allow the works of artists, creators and rights-holders to be given away.for nothing, as currently exist online just now. To continue to do this would threaten the development of our creative economy and ensure that artists and creators go unrewarded for the work they produce.
The bill simply intends to tackle this,.already illegal,. activity by issuing notices to persistent offenders and ask them politely to stop. If, after several notifications, there is no improvement in behaviour, technical measures such as throttling band width, or temporary suspension of the internet may be considered as a last resort.
There would be no threat to businesses or schools, but they, like everybody else will be encouraged to stop the illegal downloading of material from anyone who may use their accounts. I am absolutely certain that responsible businesses and administrators of shared accounts will want to do everything possible to ensure that illegal activity is not conducted from their internet accounts.
It should also come as no surprise that large powerful internet service providers oppose these measures, as some of their business comes from the illegal sharing of music, films and TV programmes. They have been encouraged to engage in helping tackle on-line piracy, but other than positive contributions from companies like Sky and Virgin, none of the ISPs you mention have shown any interest in tackling this abuse and have actively campaigned against any measure that may see artists and creators properly rewarded.
I'm sure you agree that artists and rights holders works should be protected and many sites exist where the public can secure these works legitimately on line.
This bill has all-party support and while there will not be nearly sufficient time in the House of Commons to debate this bill it has been thoroughly debated in the House of Lords. If it is not passed, we may not secure another opportunity to put in place these vital measures for a number of years, in a new Parliament, with a possible new Government.
I hope this provides some useful information for you.
Yours sincerely

Alex Salmond MSP MP

Ms Blackman is being highly disingenuous when she says that “[t]his is not a case of ‘rushing the Bill into law’ as your email states, as the Bill will then need to go through Committee Stage, Report Stage and Third Reading before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law.”

The whole point of the 'wash-up' is that after discussion between the party whips about what to keep and what to drop, the Bill is nodded through these stages in quick succession, perhaps just a few hours!

Parliament's briefing paper on the wash-up:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/b…

Karen Buck (LAB)

From: “Karen Buck” <k.buck@rpkn-labour.co.uk>
Date: 25 March 2010 09:24:05 GMT
To: “Karen Buck” <k.buck@rpkn-labour.co.uk>
Subject: Digital Economy Bill

Dear constituent,

Thank you for your email.

Firstly, let me apologise for the delayed response. I have been researching what is in parts a very technical Bill and having meetings connected to the various concerns constituents have raised and wanted to conclude these before replying.

In general I think the Digital Economy Bill contains a number of positive reforms and that some fears about its implications are unfounded – for example, the idea that the Government may use the powers under the Bill to hastily disconnect users who are even suspected of infringement simply does not square with the extensive thresholds written into the Bill which prevent arbitrary or overhasty recourse to such measures and seem to be to apply a very high bar on such action.

However, there clearly seems to be a problem with the particular issue of copyright infringement which clearly lies at the heart of the concerns of the majority of constituents who have written to me on this subject. It is very important that parliament allocates sufficient time to consider these objections – rushed Bills are rarely ever good bills. We do need to look carefully at whether particular aspects of the bill are excessive or whether the thresholds included are still to low.

I have therefore written to, and have had several follow-up conversations with, the Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the House of Commons who is the Minister in overall charge of managing government business and the procedural passage of legislation through the House. I have requested that we consider the Bill without the clause that has caused concern to most of you – this request has been taken under detailed consideration.

I know that the aim of the Bill is not bring the benefits of broadband internet to as many people as possible and for your interest I have included below some of the details of the Bill which may address some of the concerns you may have:

New technology has changed the way people access content, but we need to make sure that those who use the internet to access music, films etc pay the appropriate charge for doing so not least so we can ensure the future viability of the industries and artists which produce them.

On-line copyright infringement is a very serious problem, and I know that the Government has been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet firms on practical solutions.
I, like many others, would have preferred a voluntary rather than a regulatory solution but this has not proved workable. The Digital Economy Bill therefore set out in detail the Government’s proposals to tackle unlawful peer to peer file-sharing (details on the Bill can be found at: http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/di…).

As you may know, the legislation will require ISPs to write to their customers with accounts identified by a rights holder as having downloaded their material unlawfully. In the cases of the most serious infringers, if a rights holder obtains a court order, the ISP would have to provide information so that the rights holder can take court action.

The Government’s belief is that this process of notification, coupled with more education of consumers on the importance of rewarding creators for their content and the development and proliferation of legal online content offerings, will secure the 70% reduction in illegal peer to peer file sharing which is their aim. If that proves not to be the case, the Bill provides a reserve power obliging an ISP to apply ‘technical measures’ to a customer’s internet account to restrict or prevent illegal sharing. Technical measures will not be introduced until at least a year after the notification process starts.

If technical measures are introduced they will only be applied to those who have received repeated notifications but continue to be identified in infringement. Technical measures might be a band width restriction, a daily downloading limit or, as a last resort, temporary account suspension. There will be a full appeals process, including to a First Tier Tribunal, which is a judicial body.

More widely, the Government want a reserve power to amend the Copyright Design and Patent Act. This will allow them to tackle quickly any misuse of emerging technologies for copyright infringement and provide an element of future proofing.

These measures were adopted following two consultations on file-sharing and extensive meetings with all stakeholders. Both consultations, the representations made and the Government’s responses can be found at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/closedwith…

The Government recognise the need for proper consumer education and attractive new legal sources of content, alongside the system of notifications, so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the “default” for many seeking content on-line. Rights holders need business models which work in the new digital environment. We welcomed announcements such as the Virgin Media and Universal agreement, the development of Spotify and the music offers announced by Vodafone and Sky. These types of agreement will play a critical role in moving the great majority of people away from piracy.

I hope this answers some of your concerns. If there are any particular aspects of the Bill you remain with which you remain dissatisfied then please do let me know as I would be happy to make representations on these points.

Yours sincerely,

Karen Buck MP

I received a long letter from Dan Rogerson (LD, North Cornwall). Looks like the standard Lib-Dem response being almost exactly the same as that from Vince Cable posted above.

I received a similar response from Nigel Griffiths in which he ignored all of the questions which I posed. He seems to believe that the opposition to the bill is somehow 'funded by BT, Yahoo, Google and other big businesses'. I asked if he had any evidence to support this claim and his reply essentially stated that it was obvious because they were mentioned in emails which he had received from opponents.

This is what I received from my local MP. He mentions another document included, which I haven't typed up as it's enormous, but if it's requested, I will. But this really seems like he's all for it. I'm not impressed.

————————-
Digital Economy Bill

Thank you for your recent e-mail about the above bill.

The UK's digital economy is worth around 8% of our GDP. Britain's creative industries have become number one in the world as a proportion of our GDP. The bill is a key part of Labour's active industrial strategy and will maintain and build on Britain's leading position. It includes measures to ensure a competitive digital communications infrastructure, protect intellectual property and maintain plurality in regional news.

Illegal file-sharing is costing the UK's creative industries and creative talent hundreds of millions of pounds a year and we need to legislate to reduce this widespread problem. However, I know there is particular concern about the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing.

I attach for your information a copy of a reply from the Minister which sets out the government's position. You will particularly note his comments in the penultimate paragraph regarding a new clause to bring forward regulations to “allow proper consultation, consideration and proportionality” before the power to block access to sites is invoked.

Yours sincerely

David Wright
—————–

Who do the record companies think they are? Just because for the last hundred years or so, only they have been able to afford to record, edit and distribute records and CDs. They have certainly taken advantage of this fact and have profited accordingly. Now that tecnology has caught up, and now everyone can easily do what they have done for so long, they get worried. Worried about their huge fortunes that they have been taking advantage of for so long. They don't like this, even though they should have looked ahead and realized this would happen one day and adapted. Instead they want laws made just for them, just to protect their dirty big profits. The fact is at the end of the day, there is only one reason why the government would be so hell bent on helping them to the nations disadvantage, Money, You just know full well that there must be back handers flying around whitehall from the record companies. Why else would they do this?

Unfortunatly for the record companies though, this law will make little difference to progress. And just like all businesses they must learn to adapt their business model to allow for this. If they don't then some small start-up will have no problem taking their whole market right out from under them and no law will change that. All they would have to do is to have the guts to give their products away for free online and then take advantage of the huge advertising revenues that they would get from this. Revenue that would be bolstered by the savings they would make on manafacturing, distribution and sales. They would also still have the revenues from merchandising and live concerts. Of course this would probably only give them the sort of profits that most other businesses find to be more than enough, but this would not be enough for them. They would not be able to buy that seventh home or that third private jet. Are they really that greedy and so scared of losing their fortunes, if they are then they need to wake up and do something about it because change happens whether it suits you or not, and there is nothing you can do about that.

This response from Barbara Follet:

Thank you for your email of March 23rd 2010 telling me about the government’s Digital Economy Bill and proposals to legislate against unlawful peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. I understand your concerns about this matter and, as a former Culture Minister, I have a particular interest.

Online copyright infringement is estimated to cost the United Kingdom’s music sector £200 million in 2009 and by 2012 the cumulative cost to music companies could be up to £1.2 billion. This, according to the British Phonographic Industry, is an unsustainable loss to the music industry and the government has made it clear that taking someone else’s intellectual property or passing it on to others through file-sharing is theft and, as such, should be pursued through criminal law.

That is why, on August 25th, following the publication of the Digital Britain report on June 16th, the Department for Business, Innovation Skills (DBIS) launched a month-long consultation on legislating against P2P file-sharing. This included proposals to allow Internet Service Providers (ISP) to suspend individuals internet accounts for repeat offenders of copyright piracy, which were later included in the Bill.

The government and I do recognise that such a measure would have an adverse affect on all members of a household, not just the person who had downloaded illegally, and, as you say in your email, the internet can play a tremendously vital role in people’s day-to-day lives – through not just entertainment, but education and communication.

Despite how this Bill is being reported, the government does consider suspending individuals internet accounts an absolute last resort and certainly a decision that should not be made without thorough safeguards. As a result, such a decision must first undergo an examination of its proportionality, potential effectiveness, and several warnings from the respective ISPs.

In your email, you also raised concerns about the government’s intention to “rush” the Bill through without full scrutiny. Whilst the government does hope for the Bill to be passed before the forthcoming the election, I can assure you that it has undergone extensive scrutiny by opposition parties and others during each stage in the House Lords. This has included four hours of debate in the Second Reading, over thirty hours at Committee Stage, over ten hours at Report Stage and a two hour debate for the Bill’s Third Reading – the content of each debate is fully available on the Parliament Website at http://www.parliament.uk.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that, while parts of the Bill are aimed at tackling unlawful file sharing, the overall aim of this legislation is to support continuing plans to build Britain into a global centre for the creative industries and bringing about a universal broadband service for the whole nation.

Sustainable economic growth for the future cannot be achieved without a Britain which can embrace new technologies for the benefit of not just the few but the many and I do hope you can recognise this importance too.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Follett

Tom Harris MP fro Glasgow South. replied to my email by letter saying.

..I understand that you are worried that the Bill will be rushed through Parliament without proper debate and about the proposed changes to copyright law which could include a reserve power of internet account suspension.

I have listened to the arguements on both sides about the Bill's proposals, but I am not satisfied with the explanation on possible internet account suspension, which I consider to be a Draconian measure.I will therefore have to consider whether or not to support the Bill when it is read for the second time next Tuesday.

As the end of the parliamemtary session approaches, it is possible that the Bill may pass through Parliament during the “wash up” period, which is the time berween the announcement of the dissolution of Parliament and the actual date of dissolutiion. If this happens, the Government will have to prioritise the Bills currently going through the legislative process, deciding which of them it will be taking forward and which it will drop altogether, as well as seeking co-operation from the Opposition and other parties on individual clauses and amendments of the Bills it has prioritised. This means that any Bills that are passed tthrough Parliament during the “wash up” are likely to pass much more quickly, be much shorter and have some or many of their original proposals omitted. I will, however, lobby to prevent the Digital Economy Bill going through the House without proper scrutiny…

Dear Mr Fernandes

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill and its progress through Parliament before the election. You will not be surprised to learn that I have received several emails on this topic in recent days and I appreciate why you are unhappy at reports that the Bill could be passed into law without being properly debated in the Commons.

As you will be aware, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and has gone through all stages there, being significantly amended in the process. There is obviously not time for it to be properly scrutinised by the House of Commons – i.e. a Second Reading debate, detailed scrutiny in Committee, Report Stage and Third Reading – before an election has to be called. (See here for details of the progress made through Parliament so far http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/dig…)

Indeed, we are fast running out of time for it to even have a Second Reading in the Commons.

My understanding of what will happen to the Bill is as follows. If the Bill does not get listed for a Second Reading in the Commons, then it falls, i.e. it does not become law and would have to be reintroduced after the General Election.

If it does make the floor of the House of Commons, e.g. if there is a Second Reading debate in the Commons chamber, then the non-controversial elements of the Bill may be dealt with during what is known as the 'wash up' period. (This is the period after the Prime Minister goes to the Palace to signal a General Election but before Parliament is dissolved). This would have to be agreed by the three main political parties. If there is not a consensus, there will be no attempt made to push any measures through the Commons by a parliamentary vote.

I appreciate that there is real concern about some of the clauses in the Bill, and in particular the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing. There is, however, much in the Bill which is uncontroversial, which needs to be enacted as soon as possible, and for which there is broad support. These measures, and only these measures, may become law before the General Election.

I hope this provides you with some reassurance,

Yours sincerely,

Mike Gapes

Labour and Co-operative

Member of Parliament for Ilford South

House of Commons

London SW1A OAA

0207 219 6485

————————————-
Received 2nd April 2010 via post
Photo of letter @ http://yfrog.com/3dimg0868qj
————————————-

Dear Mr Anderson

I recently received your letter regarding the Digital Economy Bill. I have received your letter with a great amount of depth and consideration and I want to thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. To my understanding, the Digital Economy Bill will produce the following positive effects:

* Reduce online copyright infringement by imposing obligations on internet service providers

* Provide a legal framework to encourage the growth of legal markets for downloading that are inexpensive, convenient and accessible for consumers

* Encourage a plurality of news providers in local and regional news provision which is vital for democracy

* Accelerate the modernisation of government by delivering more services online, making them quicker and more responsive and saving the taxpayer money

I note that you are concerned about the process which is known as the “wash up” phase; this is the period before the Dissolution when the remaining pieces of legislation for that year are passed through the House of Commons with agreement from both sides.

I have received a number of correspondences from constituents about this issue and wholeheartedly agree that Parliamentary Bills passing through the House of Commons chamber ought to be given sufficient attention and proper scrutiny before it is passed as legislation.

It is important to note however that this is not a party specific policy, on the contrary, it is part of the winding up procedure which has long been established in Parliamentary protocol – this process has been in place for many years so therefore is beyond my control.

As you may already know, the 2nd Reading is scheduled for 6th April. However, I genuinely believe that as this Bill is raising so much concern, including it in the “wash up” phase may not be helpful.

Your Sincerely

Gordon Banks MP

————————————-
Sent 16th March 2010 via 38 Degrees
————————————-

Digital Economy Bill

Dear Mr Gordon Banks,

I'm writing to you today because I'm very worried that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate.

The law is controversial and contains many measures that concern me. The controversial Bill deserves proper scrutiny so please don't let the government rush it through. Many people think it will damage schools and businesses as well as innocent people who rely on the internet because it will allow the Government to disconnect people it suspects of copyright infringement.

As an IT professional (computing degree and IT engineer related employment), here are some of the main points I urge you to consider.

* The identification of internet subscribers will take place using only an IP address, which is not reliable evidence. I'm sure you will be aware of newspaper articles featuring elderly people accused of downloading explicit material which proves this.

* I am aware that the default encryption of most home routers takes less than 15 minutes to crack. Unfortunately, most users don't have the technical skills to improve this encryption or otherwise prove they haven't infringed copyright.

* Copyright infringement is often done by children, students and not with the knowledge or consent of the account holder.

* Internet access has recently been declared as a human right, and the throttling of internet access often makes essential online tasks impossible to complete as demonstrated in BBC Panorama this week.

* The bill will cause universities and retail outlets to decide not to offer free Wi-Fi services for fear of prosecution. It would be a great shame for our country to be associated with these types of restrictions.

* Blocking and throttling won't really solve anything, not least the failed entertainment industry business model. Many technical people already know how to evade any sort of detection by using a variety of different protocols and encryption techniques. If this bill passes, encryption services will become more commonplace. Intelligent Agencies would not be thankful for this!

* History has proven that for every file sharing service that has been taken down, an improved and stealthier version has been introduced. This bill will therefore undoubtedly do more harm than good (including to our reputation aboard).

Industry experts, internet service providers (like TalkTalk and BT) and huge internet companies like Google and Yahoo are all opposing the bill – yet the Government seems intent on forcing it through without a real debate.

As an IT professional I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can to ensure the Government doesn't just rush the bill through and deny us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate. Please earn my vote by properly taking the facts above into consideration.

Yours sincerely
Glen Anderson

I received the same from Karen Buck

Dear Florian

Thank you for your email – I share your very justifiable concerns about the draconian measures contained in the Bill, and I am also angered by the way the government is preparing to rush it through – with the loyal support of the opposition and certain Lib Dem peers it would seem – without any time for proper debate or scrutiny.

I can only see this whole debacle as one last reckless insult to democracy from a regime that should have placed itself before the electorate long ago.

I've recently been expressing opposition to the Bill on Twitter and Facebook.

I am also writing to the Speaker to ask for proper Parliamentary time for scrutiny and debate.

Naturally I am in favour of the workers in all the relevant industries receiving fair remuneration, but I do not think that forcing through this Bill, with all its inherent dangers, against the profound misgivings of the public, is the way to go. Given time, and good will, I am sure that mutually acceptable solutions could emerge.

Once again, however, this government is prepared to trample over your human rights in the name of political expediency. Surely the last days of a dying government should have been devoted to more productive matters. What about freeing local councils to directly invest in housing? Or reforming the laws that criminalise photographers and people peacefully protesting? Or agreeing to a Robin Hood tax on the banks?

With best wishes

GG

Email from Mark Lazarowicz MP (Edinburgh North and Leith)

Dear Ella

Thank you for your email. I hope you don't mind if I send you a general, and brief, reply, but I have had a large number of emails on this issue and I want to reply to them all as soon as possible.
The more I have looked into this issue, the more I have been convinced that it would be wrong for the controversial aspects of the Bill, such as you refer to, to be rushed through Parliament without proper debate. I can see the strength of the arguments you raise, but even if I didn't, I would still want to see full debate on such important matters which would have serious long-term consequences.

I have of course seen the press reports about negotiations between the Party leaderships on the Bill. I am not aware of the latest state of negotiations, but I can tell you that my view remains as I have described above.
You may be aware that a Parliamentary motion on the subject has been tabled by two Labour MPs (see below). Unfortunately, I was not made aware of the motion until after I had left Parliament for the short Easter recess, but I will be giving it my support when the House of Commons returns on Tuesday.

Thanks for your comments about my work as an MP – I try to be a 'champion' both locally and at Westminster.

If you have any further comments or queries, do not hesitate to get in touch.
Regards
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Visit my website http://www.marklazarowicz.org.uk for more details of my work in Parliament and in the community
EDM 1223 DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL [LORDS]30.03.2010
Mitchell, Austin
That this House believes that the Digital Economy Bill [Lords] is too important to be taken further in the last days of a dying Parliament; and considers that a bill with so many repercussions for consumers, civil liberties, freedom of information and access to the internet should be debated and properly scrutinised at length and in detail, with a full opportunity for public discussion and representation in a new Parliament after the general election and not rushed through in the few days that remain in this Parliament.

I got the following reply form my MP (Torafen, S Wales):

Dear Jane,

Thank you for writing to me about the Digital Economy Bill. This is something I take a close interest in, especially since I am a former Minister for Digital Inclusion.

The second Commons reading is taking place next week with full agenda of scrutiny having taken place whilst it went through the Lords. You may find details of the debates which took place at each stage here: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/dig…

But further scrutiny is necessary, as this is only the second reading, and I intend to speak in the Chamber next week, and I will certainly take into consideration the points you have raised to me.

With all best wishes,

Paul

Paul Murphy

MP for Torfaen

t: 01495 750 078 / 020 7219 3463
e: paulmurphymp@parliament.uk
w: http://www.paulmurphymp.co.uk

Interesting. I got almost the same reply from Mr Bercow, but without the “and agree that it requires full scrunity before being passed.”

Mine's dated 17th March, so presumably he added that last part later. Good to know!

Dear David JM Emmett,

Thank you for your email with regards to the Digital Economy Bill.

I do understand your concerns with regard to the Bill and it is now my understanding that when the Bill returns to the House for its second reading on Tuesday the 6th of April, the clause of the Bill that relates to the blocking of internet access has been revised so that it is clear that websites that are hosting illegal material can have access blocked to them by ISP's but only after the copyright holder has obtained an injunction on a court of law. As I understand it there have been concerns that Copyright Holders had been seeking a system where they would not need to gain a legal injunction and this will certainly not happen.

With regards for plans to disrupt internet connections for those who download illegal material, my understanding is as follows. Under the proposed law copyright holders will have the right to get the contact details for a subscriber who they suspect as downloading illegal material through the courts. Once the copyright holder has the information they will have to apply through a court for an injunction against an individual, which may result in a cap on the amount of data they can download or termination of their connections. However any data capping or disconnection will only be granted as a last resort and the copyright holder will have to prove that the infringer has been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to stop their activity and they have failed to do so. As this would need to be proved in a court of law, the prosecution in my view would also need to prove that the individuals Human Rights were not being violated.

Due to the nature and the burden of proof that the Copyright holder will have to provide, I do not believe there would be widespread disconnections of individuals internet access and due to the cost to the copyright holder to gain such an injunction I feel that the copyright holders would be seeking only to stop frequent offenders who download thousands of pounds of copyrighted material. I also think it is unlikely that if an individual were to have their home wifi router/modem 'hacked' that the perpetrator would be unable to download the quantity of material that the copyright holders would seek to forcefully stop. Also, anyone who had their connection being used by someone else would also be able to demonstrate that they were not in possession of any illegal material.

I am of the view that copyright holders would almost exclusively seek ISP's through the courts to block access to websites/torrents (etc) opposed to chasing individuals. The Government has also made it clear that in a case brought against anyone under these new laws, the copyright holder will have to prove that they (the copyright holder) have made material that is the subject of legal proceedings available at a reasonable price and that the defendant has chosen in light of this to gain the material illegally.

I do understand your concerns with regard to the bill not receiving full Parliamentary Scrutiny. The bill will be debated in its entirety on Tuesday at second reading but because of the likely General Election it will not be scrutinised clause by clause in committee. Once the election is called the parties meet at senior level to discuss which aspects of legislation which has not completed all its Parliamentary stages they can all agree to. In the light of this efforts have been made to find acceptable ways to discourage illegal downloading which can be agreed by all the parties. These may involve the Secretary of State being given powers beyond civil action if this were felt to be ineffective. In such cases the person being accused of downloading copyrighted material illegally will have the right to take the decision to a tribunal. The precise nature of these measures will most likely be set out in subsequent secondary legislation which as I understand it the Government has accepted will be subject to further Parliamentary scrutiny.

It is also my understanding that any such proposals will receive a further 60 days consultation before Parliamentary scrutiny providing of course the bill itself receives the backing of all the major parties prior to the General Election.

I hope that this reply allays your fears but please do not hesitate to comeback to me if you have further questions on this or any other issue.

Regards

Clive Betts MP

Hi everyone

this has certainly raised a lot of concerns, but I think that the biggest one of all seems to have been missed by everyone involved here: and that is specifically how intellectual property law possibly cope in the modern age?

Please allow me to explain this. I am a scientist and as such I know a thing or two about IP rules and regulations. now, as it stands, anything i do at work (i.e. find a cure for cancer, for example) would be primarily the property of the institution that i work in. same as if someone working for Microsoft comes up with the best anti virus program, etc, etc. what is crucial to this statement of invention is that it is original work- for example, i could not plunder the rain forest, get the cancer cure, and claim it for the university. that would be IP infringement of nature (and said country that the rain forest is in)

These rules are there to prevent exploitation of people's hard work, but the dominant force has been and always will be the big organizations that generate things like medicine etc. that is why there is a huge backlash in the US over the health-care bill, in case you were wondering. anyway i digress ;

the issue as i see it is that copyright laws have not really changed in the face of the internet. In fact, artists themselves have seen their profits dramatically reduced while the executives of the media companies make billions. let us not forget before virgin credit cards (MBNA) there were virgin record stores on every corner for a while. see my point?

so, films, and music, are not the artists property. they belong to the media company that they are under contract to, and everything that is generated therein is as well. the point is that this represents a VAST amount of material. some of it is immediately popular, due to its hype at the box office, some of it less so (i can name at least 3 bands who oppose this bill, you will never have heard of them but they feel it hinders smaller successes). the basic point, in light of so much material available covered by IP laws designed for things like cancer cures, it is no wonder that the copyright owners feel this could make them an amount of money that makes fred the shred's pension pot look like a pittance. if we are forced to not share the media we buy in any way (and this will lead to that, be sure of it) we are essentially turning the media companies into the biggest cartels of all time. it is quite simply a terrifying thought.

This is not to say that I do not respect copyright, or commercialization of media, or IP issues. i most certainly do. what the issue here represents is that we all have instant access to something that is copyrighted- this has never happened before. most of it for free if we so choose. clearly what is needed is a better approach to the distribution of the media that we like, as well as the associated costs involved, so that it is a fair purchase. as it stands, the majority of the people who for example work on a blockbuster movie do not see a large salary. the lead actors and the media executives- a very, very small minority- they see most of it. Therefore i think that just like the banks, these organizations that are billion pound/dollar need to reform as well, and to consider how best to maintain their copyright while treating the issue of piracy in a more mature manner.

I strongly urge all of you reading this to consider that the anquiated idea of copyright as it stands is what needs to be reformed, together with a second look at the media industry, and how we connect with the material that entertains us. only then will common sense begin to prevail in light of these serious concerns from both sides,

Yours,

The Doctor.

From Paul Farrelly MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme:

Dear …..
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Digital Economy Bill and I apprecitate your concerns.
The bill has now completed its passage through the House of Lords and had its first reading in the House of Commons on the 16th March. Following the usual procedure, the Bill wil not be debated fully in the chamber until it reaches its second reading next week.

I can assure you that I, along with my colleagues, will be paying very close attention to the content of this Bill and that the government would find it very difficult to push any poorly prepared legislation through the House. I should, of course, point out that the Bill has already been closely scrutinised and has been the subject of lengthy debate in the House of Lords, although I agree that a full debate should also take place in the Commons.

I can tell you however, that I also have concerns with the specific parts of the Bill to which you refer, including proposed measures to disconnect alleged illegal file sharers and I have been highlighting these concerns in my role as a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

Thankyou for writing to me on this important issue. If there is anything further I can do which you feel would be of assistance, in this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me again as I will be happ to help.

Dear Mr Brock,

Thank you for your e-mail about the Digital Economy Bill. I am a co-signatory of a Parliamentary Early Day Motion on this subject, a copy of which I have enclosed below.

Concerns have been raised about the Bill's progress through Parliament before the election and I have received a number of emails on this topic in recent weeks. I appreciate why you are unhappy at reports that the Bill could be passed into law without being properly debated in the Commons. Whilst the Bill has already received extensive scrutiny during its passage through the House of Lords and has gone through all stages there, being significantly amended in the process, there is obviously not time for it to be properly scrutinised by the House of Commons. In particular detailed scrutiny in Committee and at the, Report Stage cannot take place before an election is likely to be called.

As the Bill has been scheduled for a Second Reading debate on 6th April the non- controversial elements of the Bill may be dealt with during what is known as the 'wash up' period (the period after a General Election has been announced but before Parliament is dissolved). This would have to be agreed by the three main political parties. If there is not a consensus, there can be no attempt made to push any measures through the Commons by the normal parliamentary vote.

I appreciate that there is real concern about some of the clauses in the Bill, and in particular the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing. There is, however, much in the Bill which is uncontroversial, which needs to be enacted as soon as possible, and for which there is broad support. These measures, and only these measures, may become law before the General Election. Of course if the General Election does not take place until June, there may be time for full scrutiny of the Bill by the Commons, but I suspect that will not happen.

I hope this provides you with some reassurance.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Tony Lloyd MP
Manchester Central

I got the same response from him at 15:30 – did you reply to his email?

I also received the same email (1510) today. The Early Day Motion is pasted below:

======

EDM 1997

ILLICIT FILE SHARING 12.10.2009

Watson, Tom 57 signatures
Lloyd, Tony

That this House notes with concern the Government's proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill and your concerns that the Bill may be rushed through Parliament without a full Parliamentary debate.

I appreciate your concerns at reports that the Bill may be passed into law without being properly debated in the Commons. I share concerns about measurees contained in the Bill that may lead to the internet being cut off for a whole household or business on the basis that someone has been accused of illegal file sharing. I am very concerned about the basis on which this would happen and I am asking for more clarification. I would also want an immediate, simple and robust appeal procedure. I have raised these concerns with Stephen Timms MP, the relevant Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and I will contact you again when I receeive his response.

As you are aware, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and has gone through all stages of debate there, and was significantly amended in the process.

The Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman MP, has just announced that the Bill will receive a Second Reading in the Commons on Tuesday 6 April. Once the Bill has received this Second Reading it means that the non-controversial elements of the Bill may be dealt with during what is known as the 'wash up' period. This is the period after the Prime Minister goes to Buckingham Palace to signal a General Election but before Parliament is dissolved. If you wish any further information about the progress of the Bill, please visit the website below:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/dig…)

The measures in the Bill that would be dealt with in this period must be agreed to by all three of the main political parties. If there is not a consensus, I can assure you that there will be no attempt made to push any measures through the Commons by a parliamentary vote.

I hope this information is useful to you. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me again on this or any other matter.

Yours sincerely

Celia Barlow

Labour MP for Hove and Portslade

Again an MP who believes all the rubbish put forward by the copyrights movement and all it's money sucking phonies (ACS-Law as an example) why don't they get an INDEPENDENT and non-profit making company to do the research before expounding unfounded facts

Typical New Labour stooge, what a fob-off.

Thanks to Maggie we don't have the digital infrastructure this country needs and deservedness, please stay away from the Con-Servatives as much as possible.

The Lib Dems are are the only Party that have come forward with a profound and truthful answer to this problem and have vote this in to their manifesto.

Please take heed.

Don't wate you vote on Lababour or the con_servatives.

vote liberal. they are our only chance

Do you honestly think Mandy-Pandy is going to take any notice of this letter. This is just a way out for an MP to get out and go against the Wip.

Thank you for your e-mail. I will certainly take all of the points you raise into consideration when voting on the individual clauses and amendments of the Bill. I will certainly want to hear what Ministers have to say in response to the various points made in the campaign on this Bill, and know that it is of importance to many people working in the digital economy here in Brighton.

Yours sincerely,

Des Turner MP
Labour, Brighton Kemptown

Again another MP who listens to the brown envelope brigade and does ask for proof of their outlandish claims.

If a real inquiry was made then it would show that the Media industry is still making a disproportionate profit but refuses to accept that we are now in the 21st Century

FOR GOD'S SAKE WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IT CAN HARM SO MANY JOBS?

Yet another @I will only do what the whips tell me”

Thanks to Miss Widdecombe for standing up for 'what is fair' we can always depend on her to follow what her constituents want and not what the big industries/media want

Ofcomm – powerless puppets of BT

Oh My God is this MP for real? The opposition to the bill is supported by big business with vested interests? What about this whole bill being bought, paid and written by the big business that is the record industry? Don't give me that crap about them supporting musicians, they couldn't care less about them, all they care about is maintaining the statuesque, even last week Pink Floyd had to take their own record company to court. The record industry has an appalling history of signing people up to legally dodgy and immoral contracts.

I got the same stock response from my local Labour MP, it took about two weeks and came from the House of Commons.

Thank you for your e-mail. I will certainly take all of the points you raise into consideration when voting on the individual clauses and amendments of the Bill. I will certainly want to hear what Ministers have to say in response to the various points made in the campaign on this Bill, and know that it is of importance to many people working in the digital economy here in Brighton.

Yours sincerely,

Des Turner MP
Labour, Brighton Kemptown

I telephoned my mp nick Harvey at 10:30am, but in an American voice I received a message that stated the offices were closed until after the general election. i then telephone on the local constituency number 01271 328621 but that also went through to voice mail, i left a long message with the parliament switchboard whom assured me that the message would be passed on.

lets see this law tested in court if and when it is passed i am proposing a fund be set up to fight this bill in court at the first oppertunty because i think the courts will rule in favor of the person taking this to court how can they prove who actually downloaded the files at the time

Dear Constituent

Thank you for your email about the Digital Economy Bill.

For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome aspects of the Bill there are other areas of great concern to us.

We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to takcle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back. This must not be about propping up exisiting business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. That is why we were opposed to the original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29 which props up ITV regional news with BBC licence fee payers' money.

The Government's failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concern that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. Hoever in certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. I also believe they should be debated in the House of Commons before we agree to them and this will happen on 6th April. Only if we are confident that they have been given the scrutiny that they deserve will we support them.

It is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill's proposals are not entirely accurate. People won't be disconnected from the internet without due process, and it will only be a small minority of people who consistently infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice. Even then, they may be able to reconnect using another ISP immediately and without penalty.

Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital ector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need.

In the meantime, I thought you wouldl ike to see a copy of the joint letter I have just received from the Secretary of State and the Minister for Digital Britain. You can download the document referred to Digital Economy Bill: A Summary from the website http://www.bis.gov.uk/digitaleconomybill.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Soames, Conservative MP for Mid Sussex

Stephen Hammond (Cons) MP for Merton and his wife, Sally Hammond, who works for him in the Houses of Parliament and whose salary is paid for out of the public purse, replied as follows:

Firstly Stephen Hammond by letter:
'My party recognises that legislation is urgently needed to safeguard this vital industry and prevent a slide from our petition as a global leader in creative industries'. Mr Hammond is an investment banker by profession. He is clearly not familiar with the mechanics of creative industries. http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2010/04/03/the-di…

On writing to his wife to inform her that a vote for the Digital Economy Bill would cost her husband two votes from my partner and myself at the election, she replied 'It is not the Conservatives who wish to rush this through but the Labour Government. How you vote is up to you.'

Given what her husband wrote in his letter that surely qualifies as one of the most disingenuous and contemptible responses from a public servant I've ever encountered.

Thank you for your email regarding the Digital Economy Bill. I note your concerns that it receives proper scrutiny in Parliament.

I have been contacted by a number of other constituents who raised similar concerns. As a result, I have written to Government Ministers to make representations on their behalf regarding the legislative scrutiny that this Bill receives. I would be happy to send you a copy of the reply as soon as I receive it. To assist with this I would be grateful if you could reply to this email with your full postal address.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Wayne David
MP for Caerphilly
http://www.waynedavid.labour.co.uk

Dear Mrs X

Digital Economy Bill

I have carefully noted your concerns in your email dated 30th March regarding the above Bill.
The Bill includes a number of important measures to reflect the increasing advances in
technology and to address the challenges that these bring to our economy. It includes creating a
new public funding route that will allow us to provide universal access to super-broadband
throughout the UK and assist many difficult to reach areas which are a particular issue here in
Scotland. I am sure that is something you would welcome.

But the Government, on which I serve as a Minister, is also clear that whilst they wish to give
subscribers as much freedom as possible it is important that the benefits of the internet must
include economic benefits for the creative industries and its artists.

There are many workers in the creative industries based in this constituency, most on very
modest incomes, and I want to ensure that we don’t risk their rights to employment and income
from their work. You may be interested to know that a EU wide study supported by the TUC
reported earlier this month – “Building a Digital Economy: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the
EU’s Creative Industries” which predicts losses due to piracy to reach as much as 1.2 million
jobs and 240 billion euros in retail revenue by 2015 based on current trends. Unfortunately
voluntary action to date has made no significant impact which is why I believe it is right to seek
legal regulation with enforcement powers.

I believe that the Government should be free to pass legislation without requiring the consent of
global international corporations such as Google and Yahoo both of whom clearly have vested
interests that do not include protecting jobs here in the UK. It is also wholly inaccurate to claim
that there has been insufficient parliamentary scrutiny – the Bill has in fact been discussed on 12
separate days in fine detail by the House of Lords and the Government has made significant
changes during the course of this debate.

Agreement has now been reached cross-party with both the Conservative and Lib-Dem
opposition on the principles that should be followed and it has been made very clear in the
course of the debate that disconnection is very much a last resort and any penalties must remain
proportionate. A number of important additional legal safeguards have now been added and
proposed new Ministerial powers have been restricted. This sort of dialogue is perfectly normal in the course of any legislation and certainly is not an example of a Government railroading
legislation through without amendment or any agreement from other parties.

The last amendment to the Bill during its process through the Lords was in fact brought by two
Libdem peers. Unfortunately there are a number of technical problems with the clause and it
does not comply with EU directives. The Government is now discussing with opposition parties
how we can alter the wording so that the clause can be effective but not unduly harsh. You may
be interested to note that the Conservative shadow culture secretary was quoted as saying “We
are trying to find a policy that allows for the blocking of websites set up to promote illegal
downloading of copyrighted digital content but does not impact on the vast majority of
legitimate web users”. This is in my opinion the right way to approach the problem and I
welcome the support given by other political parties.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.

Yours sincerely
Ann McKechin MP
Glasgow North

I received this today from Graham Stringer. (Labour MP for Manchester, Blackley).

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill and its progress through Parliament before the election. You will not be surprised to learn that I have received several emails on this topic in recent days and I appreciate why you are unhappy at reports that the Bill could be passed into law without being properly debated in the Commons.

As you will be aware, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and has gone through all stages there, being significantly amended in the process.

The Bill is scheduled its 2nd Reading on 6 April 2010 this means that there will not be time for the usual detailed scrutiny in Committee and at the report stage and 3rd Reading before the election is called. My understanding is that if the Bill gets a 2nd Reading then the non controversial elements of the Bill may be dealt with during what is known as the 'wash-up' period.(This is the period after the Prime Minister goes to the Palace to signal a General Election but before Parliament is dissolved).

This would have to be agreed by the three main political parties. If there is not a consensus, there will be no attempt made to push any measures through the Commons by a parliamentary vote.

I appreciate that there is real concern about some of the clauses in the Bill, and in particular the proposal to disconnect internet connections as a last resort in cases of illegal file-sharing. There is, however, much in the Bill which is uncontroversial, which needs to be enacted as soon as possible, and for which there is broad support. I understand that these measures, and only these measures, may become law before the General Election.

Of course if the General Election does not take place until June, there may be time for full scrutiny of the Bill by the Commons, but I suspect that will not happen!

I also intend if I can to participate however briefly to put your points in the 2nd Reading Debate.

I have also sent your comments to the Secretary of State for Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

I hope this provides you with some reassurance, but if you want to contact me again on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to do so.

Your sincerely

Graham Stringer MP

My MP (Ann McKechin, Labour, Glasgow North) has failed to respond to my concerns at all, leaving me with even less faith in the system than before…and I didn't have much faith to begin with. I received only an initial response stating:

“Can you respond to me with your name and full postal address so that I can confirm that you are within my consituency.”

She obviously didn't bother reading my letter, as I stated my name and full postal address at the bottom. Actually reading my letter would also have confrmed that to her that she is definately my MP (and yes, I have double checked!) and that she therefore has no excuse for her lack of response. I have no confidence whatsoever that she will uphold democracy on behalf of her constituents.

I'm a little worried she may not actually be able to use email technology, and if so she certainly can't be adequately aware of the technicalities of this bill and the deep impact it will have on this country.

Deeply disappointing.

No response from our MP, Gillian Merron (Labour – Lincoln) to either our Tweet to her or our emailed letter. Absolute apathy from most MP's, gauging from the responses on here.

The letter from my MP follows verbatum (my own address removed only):

###

Philip Dunne, MP Ludlow

23rd March 2010

Dear Zach,

Thank you for your email of March 17th regarding extreme internet laws.

For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome aspects of the bill there are other areas of great concern to us.

We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back. THis must not be about propping up existing business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. That is why we were opposed to original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29 which props up ITV regional news with BBC License Fee payers money.

The Government's failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concern that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. However in certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. I also believe they should be debated in the House of Commons before we agree to them. Only if we are confident that they have been given scrutiny that they deserve will we support them.

IT is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill's proposals are not entirely accurate. People won't be discunnected from the internet without due process. And it will only be a small minority of people who consistently infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice. Even then, they may be able to reconnect using another ISP immediately and without penalty.

Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital sector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need.

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch.

Yours sincerely

Philip Dunne
MP for Ludlow

Short and sweet reply from our Rosie

Dear Mr Drysdale

Thank you for your email dated 18 March regarding the Digital Economy Bill. I have carefully noted the points you have raised with me.

This is a matter of which I have previously written to Ministers on behalf of other constituents who have raised similar points to those in your correspondence. I will write to you again as soon as I have any further information for you.

In the meantime please find enclosed a copy of a speech given by the Prime Minister regarding Building Britain's Digital Future, which I thought you may find of interest.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Rosie Winterton
MP for Doncaster Council

Enclosed was a 13 page speech from good old Gordon.

At least I got a reply !! but nothing of any worth

Many thanks for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill. As you will appreciate, it is likely that we shall have very little time left in this session of parliament, and, as you say it would be inappropriate if this bill with its far-reaching implications were rushed through without proper debate. Therefore during the last three weeks, I have spoken several times I have spoken to those who manage the business timetable in the House of Commons to try and dissuade them from rushing this through.It has been raised a number of times at business questions which I attend every week, and MPs from both the Government side and the opposition side have made similar representations.

Yours sincerely,

Nia Griffith MP

Nia Griffith
M.P. for Llanelli
A.S. dros Lanelli

Constituency phone number / Rhif ffôn yn yr etholaeth:
01554 756374

House of Commons phone number / Rhif ffôn yn Nhŷ’r Cyffredin:
02072196102

Constituency office address / Cyfeiriad swyddfa’r etholaeth:
6, Queen Victoria Road, Llanelli, SA15 2TL

07 April 2010

Our Ref: Digital Economy Bill

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for your recent email concerning the digital economy bill and the prospect of this bill becoming legislation.

Although I would have voted in favour of the bill at its second reading, none of the opposition parties provided any opposition to advancing the bill. As a consequence of this, no vote was held and so the bill progressed to committee stage unopposed. I do however feel compelled to explain the reasons why I was in favour of the bill’s passage at second reading.

It is the case that businesses crucial to the UK’s media and technology economy will greatly benefit from the implementation of the bill. Such companies include Channel 4, whose main benefit would be an extension of its public service remit. The Bill will legally require Channel 4 to invest in film, thereby securing its already considerable commitment to this medium.

The other provision I strongly support is that relating to the strengthening of online protection of children and young teenagers. There have been numerous cases of children downloading information, using internet gaming and using social networking sites without their parents’ supervision or permission. The internet is one of the most influential and therefore powerful tools in the world, and there is little doubt that this level of unregulated and free information can have dangerous consequences on an impressionable mind.

A major area of controversy that the bill seeks to readdress would be the issue of online gaming. Rather than there being two regulatory boards examining and classifying the suitability of games, there would now be just one, avoiding the confusion on gaming suitability that currently exists. Secondly, the bill would put in place a strict procedure when games rated for ages 12, 16 and 18 are supplied to people under these ages, as it simplifies and clarifies the law on age-related status for retailers, parents and children, ensuring that children are not exposed to any material that is not deemed appropriate for them. Finally, it will create an age ratings system harmonised across 30 European countries so that children will not become exposed to offensive gaming material from other countries. Whilst the majority of research conducted on the internet is useful and informative, I believe that where we can take reasonable measures to protect children then this action should be taken.

It is also the case that the Bill has been thoroughly debated in the Lords and amended in relation to the provisions on copyright. It is my understanding that a clear and effective appeal mechanism has been put in place and that before Regulations could be implemented there would be full consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny.

Yours sincerely

Angela Smith MP
Sheffield Hillsborough

No mention of lack of debate…what is this parliament for if not to debate….they're a joke!

I got the same response (same MP) and my reaction was the same as yours: “that's not what I wrote to you about – I was concerned about the lack of debate”

This was me emailing John Leech on my own…

—
Mr John Leech,

I've been looking over yesterday's debate on the digital economy bill.

You didn't turn up.

So you've lost my vote, and I'm going to spend the election run-up telling my friends to not vote for you.

And here's for why:

The digital economy bill was drafted by a group of people who, frankly, do not understand the web and inter-networks. They were pushed into crafting penalties for crimes that cannot be proven with certainty by a creative industry that already has consumers in a vice-like grip of licensing agreements and has spent the past ten years making their product less and less appealing to consumers through DRM and unfair practices.

Allowing the government to censor websites that *may* allow access to copyrighted content will. not. work. Technologically minded people will find a way around any blocks enabled, and these solutions will find their way into the mainstream within days.

Such blocks also erode the free nature of information flow and are ideologically no different from those imposed by China et al. – if the government doesn't want you to see it, you don't see it.

There are other problems with this bill. Clause 18 will allow business to bully government into changing the law whenever they feel their current, obsolete business models are threatened.

I am a software developer and part time photographer. Several times I have had to email various websites for using either my software (Not everything written on your own will come with a license) or photographs without acknowledgement or payment. Clause 43 (relating to orphan works) of the bill would mean that any content distributor could use my work, in theory after being unable to contact me, but in reality, as I my work is not widely known, and I am “small fry”, I doubt they'd bother trying to find me.

I am an important part of the so called “Digital Economy”, and frankly, this bill will harm my living, my hobby, my free access to information and clobbers my rights in favour of those of big business.

Yours,

Tom Bradshaw
—

Full conversation thread is on my blog

D ear Mr ,

I have already raised this with the Shadow secretary of State (on and off the floor of the House) and his view, which is pivotal to the horse trading that goes on during the wash-up, is expressed in Hansard today.

I cannot see any way of defeating the bill on third reading.

Roger Gale, MP

“Received the picture?” – UKIP don't seem to like “Yoof”

Thank you for your email. UKIP is receiving many thousands of questionnaires on various topics (from protection of our precious woodland, to the hunting debate, to tackling global poverty).

I'm sorry but we simply don't have time to forward each of these on to the 500+ UKIP candidates. We're a small party that relies on donations from members and well-wishers, and are not backed by big business or, indeed, the TUC. I am afraid that we are therefore unable to respond to your query in great detail. This does not imply either support or opposition to the particular matter you have raised. If you visit http://www.ukip.org and click on 'policies' you will hopefully gain an insight into the general direction of UKIP's approach.

UKIP is a great fan of the BBC and recognises the huge contribution it has made to British cultural life over the decades. We also support a publicly funded licence fee. (If you've ever watched American TV you'll know what we mean). Nevertheless the Corporation has certainly allowed itself to dumb-down during the last few years, and seems to have completely surrendered to the liberal-left agenda.

One example is “Global Warming” which the BBC completely embraced, ignoring the fact that thousands of reputable scientists had grave doubts about the “science” behind it, doubts that have now burst to the surface. Another example is the BBC's insistence on quoting distances in metric when the British equivalent is 'miles'. For example, BBC journalist John Simpson, during the first Iraq War, doing a piece to camera: “The Iraqi positions are five kilometres down the valley.” Suddenly there was a loud 'whooshing' noise and the air was thick with dust, stones and falling rocks. Off camera we heard Simpson say: “BLOODY HELL, that was 20 feet away!”

We might also add that when the BBC stops advertising its vacancies in leftie newspapers like the Guardian, critics might be more convinced of its neutrality.

If a miracle happened and the BBC ever returned to the Reithian doctrine of “Inform, Educate, Entertain”, I suspect that it might be astounded at the positive response from the public.

On the issue of Music-6 etc… UKIP would have no objection to the Corporation shedding some of its services (frankly we think it already tries to do far, far too much) and would applaud a policy of fewer channels but of greater quality.

Before we opened up the airwaves to multiple channels British television (ITV and BBC) produced programmes of quality that shone throughout the world. Now we have literally dozens of channels of drivel, with advertising revenue so diluted that we are now at the stage where even Channel 4 is seeking public funds just in order to survive.

We cannot comment on which particular services should be axed… that is an operational decision for those running the BBC…. but we would encourage the Corporation to pay greater attention to 'middle-England' which actually pays the bills, and devote less time to 'Yoof', most of whom are on the internet anyway.

I could elaborate further but hopefully you have by now received the picture. Thank you for contacting us.

David Challice

I e-mailed Gordon Banks, Labour MP for Ochil and South Perthshire.(I will be voting SNP for sure).I have written to him before about Home education and received a very brief unsympathetic letter. This reply is, in contrast very long and deferential…equally insulting! He wasn't there for the “debate” needless to say.

He says he received a number of letters about this.He also says the wash up phase is not party specific , therefore beyond his control. He genuinely believes that as this bill is raising so much concern,including it in the “wash up” phase may not be helpful.

So much for that then.
Thanks for this site and the guardian for help and info.
keep on keeping on and stay positive

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ This is handy for really getting to know your MP. Scary!

Nice response – sadly I had little faith in Evan Harris doing the right thing and speaking out in debate and I was proven right he didn't even show up. Yet again the Lib Dems posture around and then don't do anything when it matters.

i'm looking forward to voting him out and getting in a representative who will bother to show up to important debates.

I also received the exact same email from Karen Buck.

Seems like it was all a waste of time though eh? ( Bloody democracy! Ha!!

My MP, Tony Lloyd, emailed me a follow up (which I unfortunately cannot post here due to the confidentiality statement at the bottom), however amongst other things he brought my attention to the following which may be of interest to some of you:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-…

Got a reply from John Grogan (Labour Selby)

“Thank you very much for your email regarding the Digital Economy Bill.

I very much shared your position and did my best with others to raise the issue in the House. I attach the proceedings from the Second Reading on Tuesday -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2009…

The subsequent stages which were taken last night. This is available from the Parliamentary website here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2009…

At the time of writing the Lords are yet to consider the Government and Conservative amendment which lays down rules for website blocking. I am afraid the best that we can hope for now is that this new clause is resisted in the Lords later tonight and has to be dropped. Here's hoping for this success at least.

Once again, thanks for getting in touch.

Yours Sincerely,

John
“

John Leech did turn up and voted against the bill, as he explains on his blog: http://johnleechmp.wordpress.com/. Are you going to tell your friends that instead?

Hi,
I hear what you say and I'm aggrieved by the passing of this sinister bill but at least the lib dems have a policy and a standard to hold them up to. After 65 years of a single party state (labservatism) what are the alternatives? George Osborne and 'call me Dave' or further erosion of civil liberties under Labour. How typical of them to find another good day to bury bad news and corrupt legislation in! I'd urge everyone to take a long hard look at what another five years of labservatism really means.

Joe

Fraser Kemp (Labour, Houghton & Washington East) made representations on my behalf to Stephen Timms MP. Timms is 'Minister for Digital Britain' and part of the Department for Business Innovation & Skills.

The reply by Stephen Timms is as follows:

Dear Fraser [ed: remember this was made on my behalf]

Thank you for your letter of 23 March, enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr Luke Frost ______________________ [my address], about the Digital Economy Bill. I am replying as the matter falls within my portfolio.

The Government wants as many people as possible to enjoy all the benefits that broadband internet can bring. New technology has changed the way people access content, but we need to make sure that those who use the internet to access music, films etc pay the appropriate charge for doing so. On-line copyright infringement is a serious problem, and we have been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet firms on practical solutions.

Everyone would prefer a voluntary rather than a regulatory solution, but it has not proved possible to achieve one. The Digital Economy Bill, published on 20 November 2009, sets out in detail our proposed legislation to tackle unlawful peer to peer file-sharing. The Report can be found at: http://www.dcms.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/…

The details on the Bill can be found at:
http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/di…

The legislation will require ISP's to write to their customers with accounts identified by a rights holder as having downloaded their material unlawfully. In the cases of the most serious infringes, if a rights holder obtains a court order, the ISP would have to provide information so that the rights holder can take court action.

We hope the process of notifications, coupled with more education of consumers on the importance of rewarding creators for their content and the development and proliferation of legal online content offerings, will secure the 70% reduction in illegal peer to peer file-sharing which is our aim. If that proves not to be the case, the Bill provides a reserve power obliging an ISP to apply 'technical measures' to a customer's internet account to restrict or prevent illegal file sharing. Technical measures will not be introduced until at least a year after the notification process starts.

If technical measures are introduced they will only be applied to those who have received repeated notifications but continue to be identified in infringement. Technical measures might be a bandwidth restriction, a daily downloading limit, or as a last resort, temporary account suspension. There will be a full appeals process, including to a First Tier Tribunal, which is a judicial body.

More widely, we want a reserve power to amend the Copyright Design and Patent Act. This will allow us to tackle quickly any misuse of emerging technologies for copyright infringement and provide an element of future proofing.

These measures were adopted following two consultations on file-sharing and extensive meetings with all stakeholders. Both consultations, the representations made and the Government's responses can be found at:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/closedwith…

We also recognise the need for proper consumer education and attractive new legal sources of content, alongside the system of notifications, so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the 'default' for many seeking content on-line. Rights holders need business models which work in the new digital environment. We welcomed announcements such as the Virgin Media and Universal agreement, the development of Spotify and the music offers announced by Vodafone and Sky. These types of agreement will paly a critical role in moving the great majority of people away from piracy.

I do not agree that our planned measures will prevent private enterprise as well as universities, libraries and the like from offering internet access. All these types of establishment would be able to take action to prevent infringement on their networks. Many already do so and in fact, in many cases, their activities to prevent infringement already go far beyond what we are proposing. Universities, schools etc currently receive notices of infringement from copyright owners, but there is inconsistency in how these establishments react to these notices, and certainly as to the legal position. Our proposals will bring regulatory certainty and consistency.

Please thank Mr Frost for taking the trouble to raise this issue with us.

Yours ever,

STEPHEN TIMMS

This is a horrible reply from a horrible party. What the hell has this got to do with the Digital Economy Bill? Ahahaha

It's why I'm not voting for them. Though I don't see the Lib Dems as any different. My vote will be going to which ever local party comes closest to real libertarianism (sadly the Libertarian party aren't standing in my area).

And that requires a promise to abolish the smoking ban and reverse the DEB within 3 months.

Emailed Liam Fox my MP and didn't hear anything back at all, I did this several weeks ago as well.

Certainly won't be getting my vote again.

Emailed Dr. Tony Wright, my local MP, got the following response:

————

Dear Mr Evans,

Many thanks. Yes, I do think this proposed legislation is far too hurried and needs much more consideration to ensure we get the balance right on this matter. The election may ensure this happens.

Best regards,

Dr Tony Wright MP (Cannock Chase)

Room 530 Portcullis House
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA

Tel: 020 7219 5583
Fax: 020 7219 2665

——–

I just found the list of all MPs who opposed the Bill and he wasn't one of them.

Liar.

I wasn't actually referring to the vote in that mail, I was referring to the debate on the Tuesday beforehand, in an email to which he replied. The response being on my blog.

And yes, I posted the email I received from him confirming that he'd voted against the bill. I'd assumed that disqus would show my site's URL if I'd entered it but it seems not to have bothered.

For the record, it's at http://www.cyganic.com.

There's no need to be snarky.

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for your recent communication to David Heath CBE MP. David has asked me to send you his response as follows:

“Thank you for your recent communication. I am in entire agreement that the digital economy bill did not get the attention it deserves. I am actually the only one to have spoken from the front benches of any of the parties on the need to debate this bill properly.

I have consistently pressed for a full debate bill. What is outrageous is that no was given for committee and report stages of the bill when detailed consideration of the contentious aspects could have been looked at and voted upon. Had the second reading been brought forward when I first asked for it, on the 11th March, then parliament could have done a proper job.

I did not attend the vote on the 6th April because the Conservatives did a deal with Labour to push the bill through. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues are against the bill but our votes were effectively futile against the combined Conservative and Labour votes. I was not willing to give the Conservative candidate two days head start on the general election campaign trail as I want to be back in parliament to work to repeal this dreadful bill.”

Yours sincerely,

Ms C Glover

Asst. Caseworker to

David Heath CBE MP

Keeping us sweet for the election no doubt

Reply from Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour) re DEBill:

Dear Mr Williams,

Fabian has asked me to thank you for your e-mail and to forward his response to you (below). If I can be of any further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Laura Harper
Personal Assistant to

Fabian Hamilton
Labour Party Candidate for Leeds North East

Thank you for writing to express your views regarding the recent passage of the Digital Economy Bill. With regard to the specific issues that you have raised I note your concern about the relative speed of the passage of this Bill. However, as you will be aware, Parliament has been dissolved in preparation for a General Election and therefore legislation that the government has considered vital has, as a matter of necessity, been speeded through Parliament with all party support to ensure that it becomes law. Debate and discussion has still been possible and as has been noted it has still been sufficient for Members of both Houses to express their reservations.

Unfortunately, owing to commitments in my constituency I was unable to attend the vote on the Bill itself, although there was no vote on the Second Reading and just two votes on two of the most controversial clauses of the Bill on Wednesday. However, I would note that the process of nurturing creativity and enterprise involves protecting the biggest and smallest of enterprises against things such as copyright infringement because such laws cannot discriminate on grounds of size; therefore, it is necessarily true that laws that protect bigger companies will also protect small ones and allow them the possibility for growth. Large corporations are better able to absorb the cost of internet piracy, something that does an immense amount of damage to British business, so I believe it is wrong to see this Bill as being designed to protect 'big corporations' against the rest of society and smaller businesses. A recent report commissioned by Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP) found that in 2008 illegal downloading of music, films and television programs cost Britain an estimated 39,000 jobs and retail losses of £1.4 billion. On a Europe-wide level those figures rise to a staggering potential 1.2 million lost jobs and £215 billion in lost revenue.

This is an unacceptable loss which will naturally hit the smallest the hardest. It is for that reason that I support the main thrust of the Bill allowing action to be taken against those who violate copyright. Furthermore, many measures in the Bill will be of benefit to the general public as well as to smaller scale artists and producers of content; for example, public lending rights have been extended to include digital material such as audio and e-books. This will mean producers and artists who have created this content will be rewarded when material is lent out from public libraries. Like anybody else I am concerned to see that when a sanction is brought against internet users it is done with the properly established proof as well as process; however, in general I support this Bill in its efforts to protect smaller scale producers and artists and help nurture our creative industries.

Summary of the main points of the Bill:

* Extended Collective Licensing
* The copyright licensing system will be modernised to make it simpler and quicker for licensing societies to make content available online to consumers.
* Orphan works
* Previously unusable cultural content – known as ‘orphan works' – where the rights holder cannot be identified or found, will be opened up for public and commercial use. This could benefit services such as Google Books.
* Independent and high-quality news
* Give Ofcom powers to appoint and fund Independently Funded News Consortia and future-proof Channel 3 and Channel 5 licencees, including adjusting requirements of Channel 3 licence holders to produce or broadcast Gaelic programming.
* Public Lending Rights
* Extend public lending rights to include digital material such as audio and e-books. This will mean producers and artists who have created this content will be rewarded when material is lent out from public libraries
* Digital infrastructure and content
* Give Ofcom new duties to promote investment in communications infrastructure where this is needed and to make a formal assessment of the UK's communications infrastructure every two years.

I trust this response is helpful to you. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Dear constituent
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about the Digital Economy Bill, which received its second and third readings in the House of Commons this week.
I realise that Bill contains controversial measures and I thought carefully about how I intended to vote. I accept that holding the debate during the ‘wash-up’ period before the dissolution of Parliament is not an ideal situation for a Bill that has attracted such controversy and opposition but I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is too important to be left until after the election, and so I voted in favour of it.
You have contacted me in particular about the clauses related to digital piracy, so I will concentrate on the reasons why I voted in favour of the Bill from this point of view, although of course the Bill contains many more measures that will strengthen the UK’s position in the new digital economy. The Bill has arisen from 2009’s Digital Britain Report, which argued that the UK is in a strong position to take advantage of the new digital economy given our strong record in creative sectors such as music, computer and video games and film.
Much of the opposition to the Bill has been based on a fear that internet users will have their connections suspended at any point. The Bill will tackle this problem by placing obligations on ISPs to work with copyright owners, notify customers who are accessing copyrighted material, and enabling them to target legal action against the most persistent offenders. The Bill states quite clearly that this will be a last resort, and that providers will have to send warning letters to customers warning them that they risk having their access temporarily suspended if they continue to illegally download such material. Only if these warnings are routinely ignored will action be taken, and there will be a full right of appeal for all customers, and suspension cannot be imposed on a user until any appeal has run it full course.
Some people have mentioned that most internet service providers are opposed to the Bill, but this is only to be expected. No business wants to lose customers, or to create extra work for itself by policing its users. However, it is simply unsustainable for the future of the UK entertainment industry, which employs many thousands of people, for copyright infringement on the scale as we see now to continue. Online copyright infringement is estimated to cost the creative industries £400m a year. As well as lost sales, it undermines the development of new online businesses, and a threat to the future of digital industry which we hope the UK can be a world leader in.
The Bill originated in the House of Lords and it has received full scrutiny through three Lords readings, as well report and committee stages where the legislation is scrutinised line-by-line. The Bill has been debated over two days in the Commons and was passed with cross-party support, albeit with some key measures removed. It will now have its report and committee stage before returning to the House of Lords for final approval.
I appreciate that you will be disappointed that I chose to vote in favour of the Bill, but I hope that I have clarified my reasons for doing so.
Yours sincerely
Dr Doug Naysmith MP
MP for Bristol North West

Dear Ms Doan,

Thank you for writing to me about the Digital Economy Bill.

I was very disappointed by the means used to pass this Bill through the House of Commons. The Bill contained a number of clauses that will affect the regulations governing technology and commerce. These should have been considered in detail, and should not have been rushed through the House of Commons in the final hours of the Parliament.

The Bill itself was likely to pass due to overwhelming Government support. My Conservative colleagues and I took the decision to support the Government on this occasion, in order to secure substantial concessions. Controversial measures that would have seen photographers lose the legal and commercial rights to their work were dropped from the Bill. The Government was also forced to pledge a full consultation on the more contentious clauses, and to do so before they are implemented.

This should not mark the end of the process. A Conservative Government would use every power at its disposal to review aspects of the Digital Economy that are likely to prove counter-productive. I am hopeful that a number of the measures that were approved will be revised, so that they can be improved before they come into effect.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Rifkind MP

A reply from David Chaytor:

Thank you for your email concerning some aspects of the Digital Economy Bill, which completed its final stages in the House of Commons last night.

As you will be aware, the Bill is a wide ranging piece of legislation designed to strengthen Britain’s digital and creative industries in the light of rapid technological change. The Bill was developed after a long period of national debate and builds on the proposals contained in the Government’s White Paper, ‘Digital Britain’, published in June 2009. It received broad support in both Houses of Parliament from all political parties, and a wide ranging coalition of industry groups. The Second Reading of the Bill took place on Tuesday evening of this week and was agreed without a vote.

However, I do appreciate that concerns have been expressed by a number of my constituents about some details of the Bill, notably to the clauses related to unlawful file sharing. It is indisputable that copyright infringement represents a major threat to the growth of the digital and creative industries in the UK. However, I fully accept that the earlier text of the Bill may not have included measures which were seen to be practical or workable. As a result the Government introduced amendments which clarify the proposals and provide for a further period of consultation on future regulations.

I should also stress that the fears expressed in some quarters about the draconian measures included in the Bill simply do not reflect the reality. There was a lively debate on this during the final stages last night and some members called for a further period of delay before legislating on copyright infringement.

However, this was rejected and I am confident that the Bill in its current form, with the necessary safeguards, will serve its purpose of strengthening our digital and creative industries, without impacting adversely on harmless and entirely legitimate activities in the way that some campaigners have feared.

However, it is clear that the debate about the ethics of different forms of file sharing, and the technical means of reducing copyright infringement, will continue and no-one is under any illusions that there are simple solutions to some of these complex problems. What is indisputable is that the growth of digital technologies will only continue within a framework of appropriate regulation designed to deal with the worst examples of copyright infringement.

For your information I have included a more detailed briefing on some measures of the Bill which my office has prepared. I also attach a briefing from the Creative Coalition Campaign, outlining why they supported this aspect of the Bill so strongly.

Further information about the context of Digital Britain and the range of measures included in the Digital Economy Bill is included on the website of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: (http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/ ) and (http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/di…)

You may be interested to read more about this if you have not already done so, although I should point out that the website does not yet provide an update on the final stages of the Bill, and may not be updated now till after the election.

Thank you for writing to me on this important matter.

Yours sincerely

David Chaytor

Response from Phillip Hammond MP (Conservative), Runnymede (including areas such as Weybridge, Addlestone)

Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.
For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a great deal needs to be done to give the UK a modem regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome some aspects of the Bill, others are of great concern to us.
We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable legal and intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back. This must not be about propping up existing business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. That is why we were opposed to the original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29, which props up ITV regional news with BBC Licence Fee payers money.
The Government's failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concern that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. In certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. However, I also believe they should be abated in the House of Commons before we agree to them. Only if we are confident that they have been given the scrutiny that they deserve will we support them.

It is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill's proposals are not entirely accurate. People won't be disconnected from the intemet without due process.
And it will only be a small-number of people who persistently infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice.
Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital sector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.

PHILIP HAMMOND MP (Conservative)

_ Nick Ainger – Labour

Dear Mr. Price

I have now signed the 38 Degress' pledge and confirm that I will oppose to the BBC including the closure of BBC 6 Music and magazine titles.

I can aslo confirm that I will work to ensure continued investment in the BBC so that licence-payers can continue to receive the best possible selection of quality services and programmes.

I hope this is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further comments or questions on this issue.

yours sincerely
N A Ainger
Nick Ainger MP

_ John Dixon – Plaid Cymru

Dear Mr Price,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. I have signed the pledge, but
not without some reservation, which I have noted in a brief comment. But
I'd like to expand a little here.

Firstly, public service broadcasting is a very important part of the media
services available to us, and I would be keen to protect that. But opposing
specific changes may not necessarily be the best way, in the long term, of
protecting that which needs to be protected. Audiences and markets change,
and the BBC must have some freedom to respond to that – both by opening new
services, and also, occasionally, by cutting or changing other services.
And I'm far from convinced that allowing politicians – of any party – to
start dictating to a public service broadcaster which services must be
maintained is the best way of maintaining the level of independence from
political control which I think that the BBC should have.

I also tend to favour changing the way the BBC is organised, as part of a
process of devolution of responsibility for broadcasting to Wales.

So, in principle, I can entirely support the points which you make in your
second bullet point, but I'm not so convinced about all the details in the
first at this stage.

John Dixon
Ymgeisydd Plaid Cymru Candidate
Gorllewin Caerfyrddin a De Penfro / Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

_Simon Hart – Welsh Conservatives

Thanks for your email. As a rule I am reluctant to sign up to petitions in advance of the election – even the ones I agree with, as we do not yet know the full reality of the public finances.

However it may reassure you to know that I generally am a big admirer of the BBC and would not willingly set about damaging it.

Best wishes,

Simon Hart

If you check my campaign website http://www.barnsleylibdems.kk5.org you will see that I am also an IT professional and I share your concerns. Though I agree with copyright protection, the Digital Economy Bill is over the top and requires amendment. If not elected, I will be campaigning for amendments to legislation at Lib Dem Party conferences. I also access the Internet through a wireless router.

Hope this helps.

John Brown

PPC Barnsley East

PS To help in my campaign would you be prepared to forward my campaign website to people you know in Barnsley East?

Due to lack of funds, my campaign will be paperless apart from handing out slips containing the website when touring round the constituency.

Dear Ashley,

Thank you for your re-mail about the Digital Economy Bill. I also share your concern about this piece of legislation and want to make clear the approach the Conservative Party has taken.

Britain has been made to wait too long for legislation updating the regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. I regret that once the Government got around to considering these issues, it did not allocate the sufficient time in the House of Commons for proper legislative scrutiny. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward.

My Party took the decision to seek to remove those clauses of the Digital Economy Bill that we did not support or feel received proper legislative scrutiny, while supporting the Bill as a whole. Rejecting the Bill would have been an unacceptable set-back for the important measures it contains.

I support the Bill’s efforts to tackle online copyright infringement. This is an extremely serious issue that costs the creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds each year. I want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual property framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. Internet piracy also puts consumers at risk, as those who download illegal material increase the likelihood of their machines being attacked by computer viruses, and are exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material.

The measures in the Bill aimed at tackling online copyright infringement received robust scrutiny in the House of Lords. My Party was concerned about the lack of parliamentary oversight of the original clauses and as such the Bill now has a super-affirmative resolution in it. This means Parliament will debate any order that the Secretary of State lays that would allow people to be disconnected. These measures can also not be introduced for 12 months after the Bill becomes law. This means that we are by no means rushing in to these decisions and that the next Parliament will be able to consider them beforehand.

The measures in the Bill designed to tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a proportionate regime that would, only following public consultation, repeated warnings and due process, lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty.

While I have no doubt that these measures could have been improved if the Government had allocated time for this Bill to be debated in Committee, blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and was therefore not something we were not willing to do.

My Party and I recognise the need to establish a workable system for unlocking the wealth of inaccessible content known as orphan works, but we have consistently stated that in no way should this Bill actually harm content creators. We were keen to address the problem of people stripping out identifying information from a digital image and wanted to clamp down on this and ensure that the Bill does not encourage such activities. We also wanted specific requirements for a search for the rights holder and a system in place if that rights holder comes forward at a later date. After Government failed to amend the Bill in line with these protections, we insisted that clause 43 be removed from the Bill.

The debate on copyright is not yet over and my Party will seek to revisit options for a balanced solution as part of a broader update of copyright following the General Election.

I hope this answers some of your questions and is help.

Best Regards

James Hockney

Prospective Conservative MP
for Barnsley East

07958-389713

Dear doctor, you claim here that copyright infringement costs media producers £400 Milion a year in lost revenue, well what a shame!!!

I've been a media producer, producing political leaflets, posters, artworks and all sorts of other multi-media forms for several decades and I dont care if my works are copied ad infinitum!!! I just produce more and more artworks and 'stuff' for free for the publicity and awareness my artwork produces in the mnds of those who see my work!!!

a good 90% of the revenues you seem to be bothered about goes on inflated wages for publicists and printing costs so if they were removed – just how much would we lose in royalties and revenues?? I'd say get over it and find another way rather than introduce fear and dispute where there needs to be none and we certainly dont need more legislation introduced in this way: thru the was-up in the dying days of this House of Traitors called Parliament!!!
that's my thoughts, take it or leave it!

Steven J humphrey
Independent PPC for Bournemouth East

Dear Mr Quigley

Thank you for writing to me about 38 Degrees' Lobbying Pledge which I am
delighted to commit to.

Liberal Democrats will curb the improper influence of lobbyists by
introducing a statutory register of lobbyists containing the details and
interests of every person or organisation that engages in lobbying. We
will also change the Ministerial Code so ministers and officials are
forbidden from meeting MPs on issues where the MP is paid to lobby.

A statutory register of lobbyists will ensure that public affairs firms
declare who their clients are, as well as on which issues they work. We
will also require companies to declare how much they spend on lobbying
in their annual reports, so that any relationship between sums spent on
persuasion and apparent influence in government become transparent.

In addition, Liberal Democrats will introduce a statutory register of
interests for parliamentary candidates based on the current Register of
Members' Interests, so that voters would know the outside interests of
potential MPs before votes were cast.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg
Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Sheffield Hallam

Dear Paul Nattress

Michael Foster has asked me to thank you for your e-mail about the forthcoming Digital Economy Bill.

With regard to the concerns you raise, the Bill will be programmed for debate in the Commons in the near future, having gone through the Lords and Michael will ensure that the points you raise are brought direct to the attention of the Minister responsible, Lord Mandelson in advance of the reading of the Bill.

As soon as Michael has a response from the Minister he will contact you again.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Payne
On behalf of Michael Foster MP

from the office of
Michael Foster MP (Worcester)
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

tel: 020.7219.1176
fax: 020.7219.0917

website: http://www.michaelfoster.co.uk
follow “MikeFosterMP” on Twitter

Mike Foster then went on to vote in favour of the Digital Economy Bill.

My Labour PPC (the existing Labour MP is stepping down at this election) tweeted ” I support the Bill. Sensible actions to support our creative arts & expand broadband access”
Rachel Reeves

Dear Jonas Quinn

Thank you for your EMail about the DEB.

As it happens, I was not in London on Wednesday night when the Bill was put through. I had previously expressed concerns about some of its provisions and I hope that the new Parliament will return to these issues in due course.

Yours sincerely

Gordon Prentice MP

——————————-

That's nice; the one bill I'm bothered about and my MP didn't deign to turn up.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Digital Economy Bill. After listening carefully to the debate last night, I abstained on the votes on this Bill, which was passed. I believe the majority of the Bill is well intentioned however aspects relating particularly to copyright and the internet require more scrutiny and so I decided to abstain on the votes.

Any further issues regarding Parliament and parliamentary procedure should be sent to the new MP for Calder Valley once they are elected on 6th May 2010, as there is a strict parliamentary protocol that MPs only correspond with their own constituents.

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful, as I am retiring. Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Chris McCafferty MP
Member of Parliament for the Calder Valley

———–

Surely if you don't agree with any of a Bill you vote against it? Abstaining does nothing. Yes she paid attention and thought about it, but all that meant nothing. Might as well not have voted. And then to say I can't do anything until after the election is not helpful in the slightest!

Email received after constant pestering to the conservative party:

——————————————

Thank you for contacting us about the Digital Economy Bill. We take what you say on board, and I am happy to respond to your concerns.

Britain has been made to wait too long for legislation updating the regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. We regret that once the Government got around to considering these issues, it did not allocate the sufficient time in the House of Commons for proper legislative scrutiny. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward.

We took the decision to seek to remove those clauses of the Digital Economy Bill that we did not support or that we did not feel received proper legislative scrutiny, while supporting the Bill as a whole. Rejecting the Bill would have been an unacceptable set-back for the important measures it contains.

We support the Bill’s efforts to tackle online copyright infringement. This is an extremely serious issue that costs the creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds each year. We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual property framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. Internet piracy also puts consumers at risk, as those who download illegal material increase the likelihood of their machines being attacked by computer viruses, and are exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material.

The measures in the Bill aimed at tackling online copyright infringement received robust scrutiny in the House of Lords. We were concerned about the lack of parliamentary oversight of the original clauses and as such the Bill now has a super-affirmative resolution in it. This means Parliament will debate any order that the Secretary of State lays that would allow people to be disconnected. These measures can also not be introduced for 12 months after the Bill becomes law. This means that we are by no means rushing in to these decisions and that the next Parliament will be able to consider them beforehand.

The measures in the Bill designed to tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a proportionate regime that would lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended, but only following public consultation, repeated warnings and due process. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty.

While we have no doubt that these measures could have been improved if the Government had allocated time for this Bill to be debated in Committee, blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and was therefore not something we were not willing to do.

Conservatives recognise the need to establish a workable system for unlocking the wealth of inaccessible content known as orphan works, but we have consistently stated that in no way should this Bill actually harm content creators. We were keen to address the problem of people stripping out identifying information from a digital image and wanted to clamp down on this and ensure that the Bill does not encourage such activities. We also wanted specific requirements for a search for the rights holder and a system in place if that rights holder comes forward at a later date. After Government failed to amend the Bill in line with these protections, we insisted that clause 43 be removed from the Bill.

The debate on copyright is not yet over and we will seek to revisit options for a balanced solution as part of a broader update of copyright following the General Election.

Thank you, once again, for getting in touch. I hope my reply was useful.

Yours sincerely,

James

James Bull
Office of David Cameron

My reply from John Randall, MP for Uxbridge

—————————————————–

Thank you for your email. Last night the Digital Economy Bill was passed by the
House of Commons. It had a Second Reading on Tuesday and 2 hours of further debate
last night. Although various clauses were removed by the Conservatives

I have to say that on listening to the debate last night, I was not fully convinced
that the Bill has had the proper scrutiny and I hope that a future Government will
look at again at how the Bill is working.

In the end I abstained and did not vote for the Bill.

Yours sincerely

John Randall MP

Here' the response I got from Richard Benyon MP, when I asked him why he didn't vote:

_________________________________________________________________________

Dear Gordon

I was in attendance for the front bench speeches and when I heard the sensible approach we were taking to the regrettable way the Government were bringing this legislation through I went about other parliamentary business. So, unlike most MPs, I was there. If you want me to talk through the confusing procedures at the end of a Parliament that are known as the “wash up”, I will gladly ring you. Let me know with a phone number if you want me to ring.

Richard

“We support the Bill’s efforts to tackle online copyright infringement. This is an extremely serious issue that costs the creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds each year. We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual property framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. Internet piracy also puts consumers at risk, as those who download illegal material increase the likelihood of their machines being attacked by computer viruses, and are exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material.”

Costs hundreds of millions of pounds each year! According to what research???
I am terrified by – 'exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material'. Who decides, the unverified content? Who decides what is 'inappropriate'?

Here' the response I got from Richard Benyon MP, when I asked him why he didn't vote:

_________________________________________________________________________

Dear Gordon

I was in attendance for the front bench speeches and when I heard the sensible approach we were taking to the regrettable way the Government were bringing this legislation through I went about other parliamentary business. So, unlike most MPs, I was there. If you want me to talk through the confusing procedures at the end of a Parliament that are known as the “wash up”, I will gladly ring you. Let me know with a phone number if you want me to ring.

Richard

“We support the Bill’s efforts to tackle online copyright infringement. This is an extremely serious issue that costs the creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds each year. We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual property framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. Internet piracy also puts consumers at risk, as those who download illegal material increase the likelihood of their machines being attacked by computer viruses, and are exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material.”

Costs hundreds of millions of pounds each year! According to what research???
I am terrified by – 'exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material'. Who decides, the unverified content? Who decides what is 'inappropriate'?