On "three strikes": email to my MP
An email I wrote to my MP (using the very handy WriteToThem) regarding the UK Government’s so-called “three strikes” proposals to combat illegal filesharing.
Dear Ms Hillier,
I am writing to ask you to vote against the Government’s forthcoming Digital Economy Bill, unless the currently proposed measures to impair or disconnect without trial the internet connections of those accused of illegal filesharing are removed from said Bill.
Copyright holders are already entitled to initiate private lawsuits against those they believe to be infringing their rights. This of course involves a trial in court, with the accused party presumed innocent until proven guilty. Methods of detecting infringement are known to be unreliable, leading to false accusations, but currently this is the accuser’s problem.
The Government’s plans would remove the inconvenient (to the rights holder) need for a court case to punish the accused. The unreliability of detection would become an issue for every internet user, since these plans do not require proof of infringement, only repeated accusation.
This circumvention of justice is justified only by evidence produced by the rights holders themselves. It ignores evidence that the music industry has actually grown over the last five years, and that filesharing may be an opportunity for the content industries rather than a threat.
I am also very concerned about the precedent that would be set by these proposals. Music and film are not the only industries whose business models have been shaken by the emergence of new technology. The news industry, for example, is considering charging for its previously free online content. Without question people will find ways to circumvent these “paywalls” and access the content for free. Will we then allow news publishers to join in selecting people for disconnection? I myself, as an independent software developer, am a creator of copyrighted works. Can I disconnect people I believe have used my work without permission? If not, why can the BPI do it but not me?
I believe the Government’s plans to be short-sighted in conception, wrong in principle, and likely in practice to do more harm than good. I will vote against any politician who supports them.
I also ask you to sign Early Day Motion 1997, which echoes many of these sentiments.
Thank you for reading.
Yours sincerely,
Sam Stokes
Update 2009/12/02: response
Ms Hillier was kind enough to respond by post to my email. I will not reproduce her response here, as she has not given her consent to publish it; however I have blogged about the further email I sent in reply.
Since the Digital Economy Bill was published between my first email and my second, the latter brings up some new points, in particular regarding the lack of evidence to justify these measures and the broad powers to be given to the Secretary of State.
Comments (archived)
Comments are disabled, but please feel free to reach out on social media if you'd like to discuss this post!
Comments from a previous URL for this post (which now redirects here):
Comments from a previous URL for this post (which now redirects here):
-
I have emailed my MP, Gerald Howarth, asking him to oppose the passage of the bill. I emphasised slightly different aspects of the Bill:
the undemocratic and unconstitional powers it grants the Secretary of State, the cash incentive for ISPs to send warning letters (which will inevitably be used to target heavy bandwidth users rather than genuine copyright infringers due to the impossibility of banning encryption), and the fact that if the ISPs attempt to enforce this law through deep packet inspection they could embroil the Government in a costly battle with the European Court of Human Rights, all at the UK taxpayer's expense.–
at Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:29:29 +0000-
Thanks for posting this. Good idea to focus on the economic angle and new powers for the Secretary - when I wrote the full horror of the Bill had not yet been revealed, so I didn't know about the "Pirate-Finder General" proposals.
I'd be interested to know whether you've had a response from Mr Howarth. My own MP responded noncommittally - I'll blog about it soon.
(Sorry for not replying to this earlier - there's a problem with the comment system I was hoping would be resolved first, but the nice people at Disqus are still working on it.)
–
at Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:09:12 +0000-
Thank you - I hadn't come across the Early Day Motion regarding the legal redress issue when I sent my initial communique, however, which I agree is a very good thing to include in correspondence with Members of Parliament. Mr. Howarth has not yet responded in full to my concerns, although he did acknowledge receipt of the email and stated he would provide a more comprehensive reply in a few days. The second reading on the Bill is on the 2nd of December, so I may send a follow-up missive at the beginning of next week asking him for his thoughts if nothing further is forthcoming.
–
at Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:04:28 +0000
-
-
Since a couple of people have asked me: please feel free to use the text of this email to send to your own MP. It'll probably have more impact if you paraphrase or personalise it though - particularly if the same MP gets the same email twice!
If you were to leave a comment here saying you did so, that would be cool, but no obligation :)
– Sam Stokes at Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:08:48 +0000
Good writing, Sam -- you put it better than I could have. I'll reuse it and send it to David Howarth.
– Martin Kleppmann at Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:58:23 +0000