To the digital barricades

We all love and rely on the web. The amount of information it holds, the opportunities it provides. The connections it allows us to make with people around the world. Life without the web in the UK is seriously disenfranchising. Hence the appointment of a Digital Inclusion Tsar, to get more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds online.

The web’s potential however is under threat like never before from a bill that appears to bear much of the hallmarks of big business.

You may not have heard of the Digital Economy Bill or just heard that it is the proposal to disconnect people who illicitly download music from the internet.

So what’s the big deal? They’re just pirates, right?

Imagine you are an IT contractor, with a wife and two kids (I am neither!). You live in a nice house in the suburbs and do your tax return and weekly banking online. You find new business via Facebook and LinkedIn.

Your 16 yr old daughter is sent a link to a torrent site and downloads the latest Massive Attack album and think no more of it.

Under the Digital Economy plans, a few days later you receive a letter from OFCOM alleging copyright infringement on behalf of a music company and asking you to stop.

You are predictably furious and after questioning, your daughter admits it was her. She says she won’t do it again. So far, so irritating.

Imagine though none of your family were responsible. Say someone was using your internet connection (masking your IP address is not difficult) and you didn’t know who it was.

Letter one arrives from OFCOM, downloads continue. Letter two arrives, the same. Letter three and then you are disconnected from the web. But at least I will get my day in court to defend myself?

This is where the bill becomes more complicated. Under these plans, copyrights holders will be able to request OFCOM provide reports of copyright infringement, without court order, based on legally untested allegations rather than evidence. OFCOM would provide oversight purely to the Secretary of State.

Although the bill in its current form, mentions a “tribunal”, it does not specify in the bill how this would work – this offers little initial comfort.

Plans have also been discussed for a “banned from one, banned from all” approach to this, removing the option to move Internet Service Providers.

It is worth pointing out however that Talk Talk have taken a proactive lead in saying they will resist disconnecting any of their users (other ISPs available – I have no personal connection to TalkTalk).

This bill challenges the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, the key question is can musicians get paid while also protecting our human right to a fair trial?

The futurist Gerd Leonhard has long argued for the creation of a new online music licence, where all the labels would agree to put their back catalogues online.

Such a licence could be bought by ISPs, mobile telecoms companies and device manufacturers who could then bundle an “anytime, anyplace, any device” licence with each contract. The benefit is that for marginal extra cost to the consumer, musicians would be paid and for the consumer it would “feel like free” (h/t @gleonhard for licensing, h/t @martini for their anytime…)

An online digital music licence would not only bring in new money to the music industry – where the current Digital Economy plans only plan to stem the financial blood flow – but would also not require disenfranchising individual net users.

Next steps

If like me, you love music and want musicians to be paid, but also feel that a fair trial is pretty vital to protect, why not join www.openrightsgroup.org - who are actively lobbying on this issue.