14 DAY TRIAL // In a move that probably shouldn't surprise anyone, the controversial Digital Economy Bill was passed by the British Parliament Commons chamber with an overwhelming majority. The mock debate was rushed through Parliament, which will be dissolved ahead of the upcoming General Elections in the UK. Most of the bill was written by the record labels and movie studios themselves and MPs didn't even bother to show up for the debate before casting their vote in line with their party view.
The bill got through with 189 votes to 47. Only 236 of the 650 MPs actually turned up for the voting. What's more, only about 20 MPs sat through the two-hour debate, the rest showed up just in time to cast their vote. The two main parties in the country, Labour and Conservative, mortal enemies to be sure, managed to come to terms in this particular case and both voted for the bill.
So what does it actually mean for British citizens? Some rather nasty stuff, actually. The bill passed roughly in the form the big content industries wanted it to. If it gets enforced, ISPs will have to send warning letters to their subscribers at the request of content owners. If the accused infringers don't straighten their path, copyright holders could ask a court for their names and private data in order to pursue legal action.
The bill also makes the owner of an Internet connection responsible for all the activity, legal or otherwise, which goes through it. This means that any establishment offering free WiFi could be held accountable for the actions of its patrons. It also means that anyone operating an open WiFi network, out of choice or lack of knowledge, could also be taken to court for files others may have downloaded.
It gets better. An amendment was created to replace the controversial Clause 18, which would have given the government power to block or order the shut-down of any site it believed was involved in some way with copyright infringement. Interestingly enough, the amendment to Clause 8 gives the government the same powers except it now needs the approval of a court. What it means is that the British Secretary of State for business will have the power to block "a location on the Internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright."
The best part in this phrasing are the words "likely to be used." With this, any site is up for grabs. It could be argued that even Google is likely to be used for copyright infringement and it certainly is, every day. Not only is "innocent until proven guilty" out the door by allowing copyright holders to ask that a user's Internet connection be blocked on accusation alone, you don't even have to do anything illegal to be punished. Doesn't anyone remember how Minority Report turned out?
Luckily, there are several legislative procedures to go through before the bill can be enforced and there may even be a (slim) chance that it doesn't get the final approval and becomes law. It may be up to a year or more until anything is put into practice and things may change until then, but it doesn't look good for the Internet and basic human rights and freedoms in the UK and, perhaps, for the rest of the world as well.