Digital Economy Bill - You can still write to your MP

Hi All,

The Digital Economy bill is getting punted through parliament right now, but you can still write to your MP online, (for or against I'm not telling you what to think, just what to do about it!).

Use http://www.writetothem.com/ (which is linked from the very excellent http://www.theyworkforyou.com/) and (politely) ask your MP to represent your views when he votes on this bill.

Linkies:
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8603285.stm

Against:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/spe...tremeinternetl

For:
http://www.creativecoalitioncampaign.org.uk/

Make your own mind up, but get outraged, get active, get off your backsides and make democracy work.

Thank you, that is all.

Already mailed my MP. I hope it made a difference.

Same here, did this a while back - as we all should. Chilling stuff.

Only problem is that there is now a general election and MPs minds are on other things - in fact they are only MPs until the 12th April and they stop sitting in parliament on Thursday this week.

Not to say people shouldn't take action/voice their opinion on this matter - just that it'll be pretty futile at the moment and may well be better timed just after May 6th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GheeTsar

Only problem is that there is now a general election and MPs minds are on other things - in fact they are only MPs until the 12th April and they stop sitting in parliament on Thursday this week.

Not to say people shouldn't take action/voice their opinion on this matter - just that it'll be pretty futile at the moment and may well be better timed just after May 6th.

---

Alas - that's why there's a problem. This bill is in the "wash up" process, where they have 2 days to rush through as many bills as possible before parliament is dissolved next week. So this is literally being debated right now (for about 20 minutes) when it really should be left until the next parliament after the election.

I sent one of those letters to my MP against the Bill, and recieved a response.

I recieved this email this morning, tried calling but couldnt get through whilst in the car on the way to a site.

Just over an hour and a quater to go, its not too late. Letters won't get there in time, however if you can get through on the phones it should get your point of view across. :)

Quote:

---

Today Parliament is planning to rush through the Digital Economy Bill.

Together we've sent tens of thousands of emails to our MPs urging a proper debate. Our pressure is working. Last week the Liberal Democrats caved in and announced they wouldn't support rushing the bill into law. We're now hearing from more and more MPs voicing serious concerns. But we don't have enough support to stop the bill becoming law, yet.

Will your call your MP now and tell them why the bill shouldn't be rushed into law? It's quick and easy to call your MP. Click here for everything you need to make the call including instructions and your MPs phone number:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/deb-call-your-mp

MPs saw our demand for a proper debate in the Times and the Guardian this morning. Now when the MPs get into work we need to make sure that our voice is heard, that their phones don't stop ringing about the bill.

It's not everyday we call our MP - and your MPs know that. But on a matter as important as this a flood of phone calls could be what's needed to stop the bill being fast tracked into law.

The debate starts at 3:30 so please call now to ensure your MP hears from you before the debate starts.

Just click here to get started:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/deb-call-your-mp

---

I wrote to my MP about this - I heard precisely nothing back. I've written to him twice before and never heard anything so I'm not surprised

I'm consistently disappointed though.

He's a Lib Dem and it seems as though they (the LDs) have turned against the wash-up/cover-up factor at least.

Bloody politicians, it's a shame they think we need them.

I actually got a proper response, if I remember I will take it to work, scan and upload it. my MP (Sir George Young, Conservative) has always responded in the past, and its not some sort of fob off answer. He listens to his constituents, and in the expenses scandel wasnt a money grabbing bar-steward like a few others from other areas. :)

Cool - I got a response! It was from his PA, but still pleased to get a response so fast.

Quote:

---

Thank you for your e-mail. I assure you that Rudi will not support rushing through
internet laws.

Yours sincerely

David Robinson

PA to Rudi Vis

---

It's a bit cryptic, but I think he's voting against it? Unless he's implying that they don't think this bill is rushed through?

Stephen Williams MP sent a fairly lengthy response to everyone who contacted him about it.

It looks like he won't vote for it, and he's sending an update later in the week - so we'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stytagm

It's a bit cryptic, but I think he's voting against it? Unless he's implying that they don't think this bill is rushed through?

---

I got something similar from him/his pa......

Would like to know what actually happened.

Been debated on BBC Parliament for the last few hours. House was half full to begin with then within an hour 12 representatives were left, now even less, don't get your hopes up as it seems most of them couldn't be bothered to turn up to discuss it in the first place.

Looks like the Tories are supporting it, I'll be very surprised if it doesn't pass. Disgusting.

Edit
"Approximately 40 out of the UK's 646 MPs attended the debate."
God bless 'em, they really earn their wages/allowances, don't they? Bah.
From here

Did it pass yet or is it still being debated?

http://grimdotdotdot.tumblr.com/post...k-britain-this

Utter joke :

"Peter Luff, the Conservative Chairman of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, said that he 'hated and loathed' the process by which the Bill was being brought through, calling it a 'scandal' and 'the most profoundly unsatisfactory constitutional process I have engaged with in my 18 years in the House' - before saying that he would vote for it anyway. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by format

Did it pass yet or is it still being debated?

---

According to the Guardian, around 3.4% of MP's have turned out to vote on it so I would guess already that it's going to be passed.

Last I heard it was expected to be debated/rubber stamped this evening - 10:30ish rings a bell. I'll bet it's every bit as packed as it was yesterday.

This would be a joke if it weren't so bloody unfunny.

Well I've emailed my MP... hopefully it'll make a difference.

emailed my mp about it

Has anyone decided to run as mp purely by social media? Tempted to try and generate the money and run in the next one if I can get the money needed to run for MP and I'm not employed at the time, would be good to actually try to contribute considering the joke that some MPs take with showing up to work on important days

If you set up a donation fund I am sure there would be a fair few people here who would donate :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Platinum

If you set up a donation fund I am sure there would be a fair few people here who would donate :)

---

I was just thinking if we can get a fair few people to create a party and stand together in areas, and to stand for the younger voter given how our demographic isn't exactly that of politicians ;)

At least we mostly agree on things and can at least compromise to make a common view on things, maybe we can do better than the tories view if publicly being opposed to something... but voting for it anyway

I have to say I received a very swift response.

http://imgur.com/sI0Hz.png

When will the ****ing bozos realise it is impossible to bloke web sites? So long as I can talk to another computer outside of there restricted net, I can get to where they don't want me to. To "stop" that loop hole would mean the the design of a completely different internet. The seem to think there are "clients" and there are "servers", and the list of "servers" is controlled some how... Idiots!

This is my response

Quote:

---

I have to say I am pleasantly surprised to receive such a detailed response so swiftly. Thank you.

However, I still disagree with certain aspects of the bill.
Firstly, the amount of people that can access one particular connection is high. I ,for example, am a student and live with 2 other students. I have many friends who live in similar situations. If my flatmate decides to infringe on the copyright of an artist, should myself and my other flatmate then be punished as a result? How about if a 5 year old child downloads the latest chart topping song and is caught - should the child and indeed rest of the child's family be punished?
Similarly, this could also have a negative aspect on the many cafés, bars and other establishments such as public libraries offering wifi as a business or even as a commodity - should they, as the owner of the connection, be punished for something a customer has done?
Conversely, if a person has been 'banned' from using the internet, would there be provisions to stop whoever they happen to be living with setting up a connection in their own name and having the 'banned' person using that line?

If found guilty, I understand the 'guilty' party would be able to appeal. However the terms of this appeal seem rather draconian - no legal aid is available, despite reports of being charged for your appeal. In a complete switch from any normal appeal, the burden of proof now lies with the accused. In other words, if I understand correctly, I would have to prove my innocence, rather than be proven guilty by a court.

One point you make in your reply is that the bill has been given 12 days of debate prior to today. I would firstly like to enquire as to the level of attendance during these debates, and secondly I'd like to point out that with something that is as revolutionary and important to our daily lives should really be given far, far longer than 12 days of debate.

Another disturbing point in the bill is clause 17. I may be mistaken, but this clause allegedly allows the Secretary of State to change the law on copyright without having to put the changes to the law through parliament first. Again, this seems to me to be completely contrary to the democratic nature of our country. There are many potentially nefarious uses for this clause which I do not feel comfortable with any government having.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stytagm

It's a bit cryptic, but I think he's voting against it? Unless he's implying that they don't think this bill is rushed through?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAnimus

I got something similar from him/his pa......

Would like to know what actually happened.

---

With hindsight, I think his response translated at "Rudy Vis won't vote for poorly debated legislation, by virtue of not turning up at all". Although I'm not certain. Guess we can probably look it up in a few days?

Looks like they passed it.

Well, ****.

1 win: clause 43 (no copyright on photos on t'internet) was removed. All the rest of the awfulness remains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by directhex

1 win: clause 43 (no copyright on photos on t'internet) was removed. All the rest of the awfulness remains.

---

I didn't know about that clause how can they claim to support the right of some copyright holders (music/film) and try to remove it from others completely, pictures, movies after all are just a set of pictures played one after another.

The thing is - hardcore pirates will either know how to circumvent this measure, or will know someone who can help them circumvent it.
The people who download the most will be unaffected. The people who feel this bill bite the most will the people with a 5 year old who downloads that latest Britney album.

It's utterly pathetic.

It's a disgrace but no real surprise.

There's a slim chance the Lords will scupper it but I seriously doubt it.

I'm not a freetard and don't advocate free-for-all downloading but I'm passionately against censorship of the 'net and these muppets (who've been bought and sold by the media companies) do not know enough about what they're doing to be safe. It's like giving a five year old a pack of razors and a shotgun to play with.

I'm adding the killing and eating of Peter bloody Mandelson to my Tolerance Party manifesto after this.

Peter Mandelson, death?

Are you suggesting that someone who is a twice shamed corrupt douche bag, should not be making decisions like this? You will be suggesting that the senior fellow who brought him in unelected to the government makes bad calls next!

You're right, I don't know what came over me. I'll go a lie down in a darkened corner for a couple of months until I'm back to normal again. :)

Yet another step taken which will push those who want content for free anyway further underground, blocking sites? TOR will get around that. Tracking your ip, anonymous proxies....... List is endless. As said, the parent of the kid who wants the latest Hannah Montana track is the one who will be facing this farce of a rushed law.

Hell if I wanted to I could sit in the comfort of my own home and connect to the three open wifi networks near me and leech from their lines. God help all the poor souls that barely know how it all works let alone securing routers.

You can see who voted and how here: http://www.publications.parliament.u.../32.htm#hddr_2

My MP (Rudy Vis) didn't vote, which confirms our suspicions about his PA's cryptic response. Can't vote for him at the next election anyway, as he's stepping down after the expenses report (paid for his retirement house by the seaside by re-mortgaging his London constituency home and using the cash to pay for a pad in Suffolk).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stytagm

You can see who voted and how here: http://www.publications.parliament.u.../32.htm#hddr_2

---

And that's why I keep voting for Dr. Evan Harris MP, good old Liberals.

My MP (Lynne Featherstone) did something right and voted against it.

My MP also voted against it, I was pleased and surprised to discover.

My MP Alan Campbell voted for the bill like a good little lap dog and also never actually bothered to turn up in person for the vote. I would love to know how this guy keeps getting voted back in, he was shown to be fiddling the books before the last election.

I think this is the first time that I really can't vote for a single one of the big three parties. Need to see who is standing in local elections.

My MP unsurprisingly voted yes to this - she didn't even bother to reply to my last email either :(

So does this mean people will be off to places where there is free wi-fi??? What is to stop me from using a free connection and downloading music and movies......................nothing!! It scares me that these so called elected representative care so little, and most don't bother to turn up and vote. And who are they representing in this case??? the big companies that's who!

Again the mp's and bif companies fail to see the light!!

Its been voted in by a majority of 142, now going to house of lords for final approval....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8608478.stm

OK, I've just written to my MP's assistant asking him to explain the lack of attendance at the vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stytagm

Dear Mr Robinson,

Many thanks for your prompt reply to my enquiry about Rudy Vis and the Digital Economy bill.

Now that the results are in, I notice that Mr Vis did not vote on the bill in favour or against. Could you confirm to me if Mr Vis is generally in favour of the bill in it's entirety (including the controversial clauses such as clause 18 and the now amended clause 8).

Could you also confirm if My Vis had a pairing agreement for this particular vote with another Member with opposing views to his own?

Yours sincerely,

---

In the interests of balance:

There are legitimate reasons for an MP to miss a vote on an issue they do not have direct expertise in, or responsibility for (ie, they're not the minister for that area) if they have other parliamentary or constituency business. In which case your MP might have a pairing agreement or similar, but I don't know how this would apply in the case of a bill which had cross party support.

It also seems that one of the controversial clauses, clause 18 (which could allow ministers to order ISPs to block websites that link to pirate content) was watered down a bit, so that a court has to rule that the site to be blocked "exists primarily to infringe copyright" before the minister can issue the order.
http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com/po...Clause-18.aspx

However the the "three strikes" rule, which could cut of individuals net connection under a "guilty until proven innocent" rule is I think still in force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey M@a

God help all the poor souls that barely know how it all works let alone securing routers.

---

I agree as there are in the region of 16 wireless networks which I can pick up from my PC at home and not all of these are setup securely as some are using WEP (which is easily bypassed) and some are not even using any encryption or passwords at all.

Why is it that all the people running the country have no common sense whatsoever as anyone with a bit of knowledge on wifi and networks would be able to see this has been a bad idea since they dreamed the scheme.

Panic at the lack of knowledge these guys have before making a decision

http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stytagm

You can see who voted and how here: http://www.publications.parliament.u.../32.htm#hddr_2

My MP (Rudy Vis) didn't vote, which confirms our suspicions about his PA's cryptic response. Can't vote for him at the next election anyway, as he's stepping down after the expenses report (paid for his retirement house by the seaside by re-mortgaging his London constituency home and using the cash to pay for a pad in Suffolk).

---

Not Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. :(

IP addresses have taken on a new meaning :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elspuddy

Not Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. :(

---

Use google cache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAKTAK

IP addresses have taken on a new meaning :rolleyes:

---

Idiot Politician ;)

Google cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co.../32.htm#hddr_2

My MP voted in favour... He's getting an email tomorrow then... :rolleyes:

How long until everyone just jumps onto their local MPs connection, spoofs their MAC address and then just downloads shed loads of stuff?

Afterall, it's on their connection, their wireless was 'secured' (most average Joe's are still using WEP, i'm sure they still will be...), that way the MAC address also ties up to their machine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAKTAK

Google cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co.../32.htm#hddr_2

---

Guess my MP has something in common with gordon brown.... neither bothered to vote

neither did mine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TAKTAK

Afterall, it's on their connection, their wireless was 'secured' (most average Joe's are still using WEP, i'm sure they still will be...), that way the MAC address also ties up to their machine...

---

Yes the O2 router my aunt got was setup with wep and locked down so you could not change things including the web key! I take the attitude she has done everything she can, its her ISP that supplied badly setup stuff. Telling my Aunt to many details will only scare her and also mean she knows of the problem and therefore has to solve it, and she cannot deny knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stytagm

Alas - that's why there's a problem. This bill is in the "wash up" process, where they have 2 days to rush through as many bills as possible before parliament is dissolved next week. So this is literally being debated right now (for about 20 minutes) when it really should be left until the next parliament after the election.

---

Just to correct that, it actually had more like four or five hours of debate in the Commons, not 20 minutes. It's still woefully inadequate for such a huge and wide-ranging bill (n it's implications), but it's far from 20 minutes.

To put it in context, aside from ministers speeches, back-bencher speeches were initially limited to 12 minutes each, and even that was raised, shortly after the start, to 15 minute speeches. and a lot of them did indeed make speeches approaching that.

The point has also been made that only a dozen or so MPs were in attendance. At any given time, that's true, though it varied between about a dozen and about 40, but it's at a given time. MPs were coming and going all the time .... though a few more seemed to go than came.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy about the way this was rushed through, and if there was any common theme from all sides of the house (including minor parties like the SNP Pete Wishart) it was that the way it introduced in the Lords, and then rail-roaded through the Commons with wholly inadequate scrutiny was an absolute disgrace and must "never, ever happen again". It was also referred to as a "stitch-up" between the three front-benches, depriving elected members of a proper say, whereas unelected appointees, cronies and donors in the Lords got a full say.

On that, I fully agree. It was indeed a stitch-up.

But for all that the Bill has some major issues, it also covers important matters that did need to be dealt with. There are concerns over some aspects, but many aspects were also regarded by both sides of the argument as common ground.

So MPs were faced with a choice - do they regard the good that it will do as outweighing their concerns over the major issues?

While many, or I suspect nearly all, of them would have liked much greater debate and scrutiny, and the chance for amendment in committee and them re-examination, the sheer fact was that the way it was introduced, and the electoral timetable, meant that just wasn't going to happen. They didn't get much say in what was amended or removed, or much time to deal with it. They merely had to decide whether, on balance, it deserved to pass. But, believe me, many many of them weren't happy about being given that choice and only that choice.

Sorry about the 20 minute comment - that was off the cuff and for effect (a bit like another famous 45 minute comment, but that's another story).

The thing is, that in a situation where a bill has cross party support (like this one), and like you say the majority of the bill is not controversial, then there seems to be little risk in postponing it until the next session? It's not like the Tory's would throw it out unless it's passed now. In theory that's only 7 or 8 weeks delay (in practice, I guess the bill would go through at the normal speed, so you can add a month or two onto that, but that is time well spent in my opinion).

I guess from my point of view, I feel that on balance the two or three bad parts of this bill (the bit's we've all been hearing about) are so bad that it shouldn't become law. I wouldn't be prepared to accept the bad parts just to get the good parts. I think the threshold has been crossed. Like you say, the MPs disagreed, all we can do is lobby them to try and persuade them of our way of thinking. (just as the other pressure groups are entitled to lobby MPs round to their way of thinking, and so far have proved more effective at it).

I guess now we can start the process again, keep the debate alive, lobby our MPs and parliamentary candidates during the election process, and start all over again to get the bad parts fixed in the next parliament. It's our right to try.

I think it was John Redwood (among others) that expressed my major concerns with the Bill as it stands. Much of the impact of the Bill comes from the fact that key clauses are merely enabling legislation, that pass the onus for the actual implementation either to Ofcom or, for the most part, the Secretary of State to implement by Order. In other words, it authorises the Secretary of state to write the bits that determine how much of it actually works, and it then is implemented more or less on the nod, by executive "Order" without debate or scrutiny.

John Redwood described that as the Commons being asked to buy a pig in a poke, or to write a rush cheque without having seen the actual invoice. And, after having removed some obnoxious provisions (like orphaned works changes) that, of course, is exactly what MPS did - they wrote the Secretary of state (whoever it may be) a large blank cheque.

That is a disgrace. Many of the actual provisions, though, including dealing with illegal file-sharers, are ones I;d broadly support and that had majority support in the Commons.