Our guest writer is Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group (@jimkillock)
Progressive politics stands for justice and understanding, and facing up to corporate special interests to defend the public good. Yet somehow those corporate special interests have captured the debate on copyright enforcement and the future of the internet.
A huge lobby – Labour’s Tom Watson MP reports at least 100 full time employees – is being employed to campaign for disconnection of internet accounts when copyright infringement may have taken place.
There will be no need for a court hearing. Whole families, businesses, schools or community groups disconnected for the actions of one person. The government admits that innocent people will be punished. They understand this fully, because that’s the nature of the evidence, as it can only pinpoint the internet connection (ie, the household) not the person doing the infringing.
Civil liberties groups from the Open Rights Group, to which I belong, to Liberty and Consumer Focus, are saying very clearly: disconnection would be a very severe punishment in the internet age. Under human rights law, punishments are meant to fit the crime, and not intrude into other parts of people’s lives more than necessary. That’s why fines are such a common punishment. Lords, including Labour’s Larry Whitty, chair of Consumer Focus, made these points very powerfully in their debates.
Industry’s response has been hysterical. From Lily Allen to Simon Cowell, supposed gems of cultural achievement have been lined up to cry out that the industry will die and ‘something must be done’. Fine. But not at the expense of our basic human rights. Not at the expense of innocent people’s education, work and political freedoms.
Industry’s problems isn’t the point. We’re talking about punishments here, and what is appropriate when someone infringes. This isn’t a choice between industry’s doom and imposing disconnection: the choice is between appropriate punishments and imposing disconnection.
The progressive view is clear: whatever it takes to enforce copyrights or change an industry, that cannot be at the expense of our human rights. The duty of the progressive now is to make this clear: a Labour government committed to a progressive agenda should never have signed up to such draconian proposals. And with strong voices opposed within Labour’s ranks, it isn’t too late for a change of heart.
24 Responses to “Special interests have captured the copyright debate”
BekiT
Jim,
The very article you point to clarifies that suspension means temporary suspension, not disconnection as you persist in asserting. If you understand this to be the case, why do you use such dramatic language? “Draconian”, “disconnection”, “innocent people will be punished” – have you ever thought to find out what the law of Draco was like?
Over the next week, this discussion and the fabric of the issue will change. I think everyone’s getting a bit too worked up about something that hasn’t even got out of the Lords yet, and is being altered to address many of the concerns you have, and allegedly will adopt your ideas. What do you want? I just don’t understand.
Jim Killock
We want recognition that if accounts are disconnected – or as you prefer “account suspension” takes place – that this will damage people’s lives in a way that is not warranted. It is clear that innocent people will be punished if this takes place. Even assuming the account holder is the infringer, their partner, their children, any relatives or friends living their are likely innocent and also punished. This isn’t hard to understand, it is plain and obvious, and uncontested even by the government. Their only attempt to assuage us is to say that disconnection isn’t a severe penalty (right) and that it is the account holder’s whole responsibility what happens to their account (ie, if their children’s education is damaged, well that’s the fault of the person being irresponsible).
Given that all this could be avoided by taking prior court action, and using fines as a punishment, we are left with the distinct impression that disconnection is being used a symbolic punishment, rather than anything judged on its appropriateness and proportionality.
Alyster Gynn
RT @openrightsgroup: RT @leftfootfwd: Special interests have captured the copyright debate argues @jimkillock http://bit.ly/bnlCMC
Links 2/3/2010: Linux-2.6.33-libre is Released | Boycott Novell
[…] Special interests have captured the copyright debate Progressive politics stands for justice and understanding, and facing up to corporate special interests to defend the public good. Yet somehow those corporate special interests have captured the debate on copyright enforcement and the future of the internet. […]