
Digital Economy Bill
The Digital Economy Bill became law today after peers approved final changes to the legislation.
Having been rushed through parliament before the upcoming election, the bill has been the subject of much criticism from all quarters, with Labour MP Tom Watson speaking about the possibility of “unintended consequences” and business owners voicing their concern about the possibility of prosecution. And with over 20,000 people writing to their MP to plead that the bill be scrutinised further before being passed, there is genuine, widespread concern about its implications.
Anyone one who infringes copyright, will under the Digital Economy Bill, run the risk of losing their internet connection. If your Internet Service Provider suspects you are infringing copyright, then they will send you a letter to warn you over your behaviour. If the warning is not heeded, the bill allows for technical measures to be implemented, from reducing your connection speed to completely cutting you off from your broadband connection.
So what does the Digital Economy Bill mean to you as a business owner?
Well, the bill is intended to protect artists copyright and tackle illegal file sharing. Understandable given the growth of illegal file sharing and the potential loss in revenue for music artists, movie studios, game companies and software houses.
The most obviously affected would be businesses that knowingly engage in copyright infringement. Using pirated software, downloading music and films over the company broadband account. These are the targets the Digital Economy Bill has in its sights.
But the problem lies with identifying an “infringer”. Previously, lawyers had to work hard, establishing a case based on a little something called “proof”. That is no longer necessary. The broadband account holder is now responsible for everything on that connection.
Sound reasonable? Maybe, but consider a small business with a WiFi connection. Firstly, that connection had better be secured. If not, anyone could be connecting to your WiFi and downloading copyright material. Even then, WiFi security has been broken and takes little technical knowledge to circumvent. So if someone really want’s to, they can make use of your secured WiFi connection.
What if you provide internet access to your customers, for free or otherwise? Unless you collect registration details of ever customer that uses the connection, how will you know who has connected and what they’ve downloaded? Are Starbucks going to start storing registration details of everyone who uses their free WiFi? Same goes for any business that provides free WiFi. Coffee shops, pubs, hotels, any public place. And ultimately, the broadband account holder is considered responsible for what’s downloaded, so you’d probably have your work cut out proving that it wasn’t you that downloaded copyright material and that a customer is responsible.
So what about your company network? Even if you don’t have WiFi, do you have complete control over everything your employee’s are accessing on the internet? Whilst there are technical solutions for restricting internet access, small businesses don’t often have these in place and operate on a trust basis. Trusting your employees not to download illegal content. Ideally, there would need to be a mix of both solutions, but is that enough now? If an employee abuses your trust and downloads illegal content, your Internet Service Provider would hold the broadband account holder responsible. Give your employee an official warning, discipline them, sack them, it doesn’t change the fact that your ISP may now remove your internet access.
And the prosecution can be instigated by the copyright holder aswell as the ISP. Under the Digital Economy Bill, If the copyright holder believes their copyright has been infringed, they can contact your ISP to get all of your contact details and pursue the case themselves. Which could well involve going to court and prosecution.
So, could your business survive without internet access?
And as an aside, the same applies at home. So if your broadband connection at home is used by several people: your kids, your house mates etc, if you’re the broadband account holder, you’re responsible and could lose your connection and possibly face prosecution.
Censorship?
Whilst not directly related to your business currently, a clause in the Digital Economy Bill gives the goverment the power to shutdown or restrict access to websites that they consider to be promoting copyright material. So does that include Google?? Many of the pages in Google’s search results contain links to websites that “promote” illegal downloading of copyright material.
Giving a central body the power to censor and restrict internet access in this way seems like a slippery slope. What would be next on the list of sites to restrict access to or ban? The sucess of the internet for both business and pleasure was the freedom of information exchange which created a truely global market. We only need to take a look at the censorship of the internet in China to see how problematic this sort of power can be.
So why has the Digital Economy Bill been passed?
Mostly, the bill has been passed as a result of a lack of technical knowledge from the MP’s voting for it. There is no reason to expect MP’s to have the detailed technical knowledge to work on a bill such as this, which is one of the reason’s so many people requested that the process be delayed so that it can be properly debated.
With a seemingly impressive result of 189 votes to 47 for, the bill looks well supported, however barely 20 MP’s showed up to debate the bill. The rest of the voters just turned up to make their vote, based on the instructions of their party “whip”.
So will the Digital Economy Bill work?
Whilst the bill makes it much easier to clampdown on genuine copyright thieves, the long term effects of such a proposal are unconvincing.
Last year, Sweden passed a new anti-file sharing law, which saw overall internet traffic in the country dip by 30%. Several months after the passing of the bill however, Sweden’s internet traffic increased even higher then levels before the law was passed. A consultancy firm investigating the rise concluded that levels of file sharing had bounced back with one major difference: the traffic was encrypted.
Internet users in Sweden just found a way to circumvent the law, by encrypting their internet connection. This kept the details of what was being downloading away from prying eyes and effectively created a much bigger yet far less manageable problem.
Ultimately, the fear of prosecution will lead to yet more red tape, costs and enforced procedural changes for small businesses and new ventures. The long term effects of which we shall have to wait and see.