{"id":92970,"date":"2010-03-22T16:53:46","date_gmt":"2010-03-22T16:53:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=2351"},"modified":"2017-07-21T17:21:25","modified_gmt":"2017-07-21T16:21:25","slug":"digital-economy-bill-censorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=92970","title":{"rendered":"Digital Economy Bill: web censorship on horizon"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Razzal introduced a controversial clause in the already controversial Digital Economy Bill earlier this month, which Google, Facebook, BT, among many others, have <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/2010\/03\/10\/google-and-stephen-fry-attack-digital-bill\">claimed<\/a> will &#8220;threaten freedom of speech and open internet&#8221;  in the UK.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/ld200910\/ldbills\/032\/amend\/ml032-iira.htm\">Clause 18 (amendment 120A)<\/a>, ostensibly to introduce judicial oversight to the legislation, allows copyright holders to demand ISPs block web sites which may contain copyrighted material. Sites like Youtube and Wikileaks come to mind.<\/p>\n<p>Jim Killock, of the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.openrightsgroup.org\/\">Open Rights Group<\/a> (ORG), notes this will curb freedom of expression in the same way British libel law currently does: &#8220;Individuals and small businesses would be <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/technology\/2010\/mar\/04\/lords-digital-economy-bill\">open to massive &#8216;copyright attacks&#8217;<\/a> that could shut them <> down, just by the threat of action.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bpi.co.uk\/\">BPI<\/a>, which lobbies for multinational music corporations in the UK, however, claimed the clause was a &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.bpi.co.uk\/press-area\/news-amp3b-press-release\/article\/bpi-responds-to-uk-internet-lobby-on-amendment-120a.aspx\">clear and sensible<\/a>&#8221; mechanism in a letter to the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ft.com\/home\/uk\">Financial Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>No wonder: the ORG <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/technology\/2010\/mar\/11\/digital-economy-bill-amendment-lobbyists\">revealed last week<\/a> that clause 18 was  copied almost word for word from the BPI&#8217;s draft!<\/p>\n<p>Fears are now, because of the coming general election, the bill <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/business\/2010\/mar\/16\/digital-economy-bill-piracy-scrutiny\">will be passed<\/a> through the &#8220;wash up&#8221; procedure, where the government and opposition make deals behind closed doors, bypassing parliamentary debate.<\/p>\n<p>BPI lobbyist, and prospective MP, Richard Mollet, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.boingboing.net\/2010\/03\/12\/leaked-uk-record-ind.html\">said in a leaked memo<\/a>  that if the parliament does its job and forces a debate the bill may not have time to be passed before the general election. Despite this, Richard notes MPs will likely have &#8220;minimum input&#8221; from this point on.<\/p>\n<p>The ORG and 38 Degrees <a href=\"http:\/\/www.38degrees.org.uk\/page\/speakout\/extremeinternet\">are urging citizens<\/a> to lobby their MPs on this, and the &#8220;three strikes&#8221; disconnection policy which <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/2010\/03\/03\/mandelson%E2%80%99s-digital-bill-unfettered-powers-to-censor-and-disconnect\/\">threatens<\/a> to deny citizens the use of what is increasingly a vital service for work, education and social life: the internet. Over 10,000 have already taken up the call <http:\/\/www.openrightsgroup.org\/blog\/2010\/10000-letters-sent-to-mps-to-demand-disconnection-debate> .<\/p>\n<p>In a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/technology\/2010\/mar\/19\/digital-britain-file-sharing\">letter to the Guardian<\/a> on 19 March, Jo Glanville of Index on Censorship and others demanded that the bill be scrapped or properly debated in parliament.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Aaron Newell<\/strong>: reaction to Britain&#8217;s Digital Economy Bill<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[4883,1],"tags":[1523],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92970"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=92970"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":94600,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92970\/revisions\/94600"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=92970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=92970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=92970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}