It takes some effort to unpick headlines such as “File Sharing Is Not a Victimless Crime“. In fact, file sharing isn’t a crime at all, victimless or otherwise. It’s perfectly legal to exchange files if you own the copyright in them or have a license that allows such sharing. Creative Commons and the GNU General Public License are two examples of using copyright to enable massive, worldwide, legal file-sharing to the benefit of millions. One might think, then, that the headline should read “Copyright Infringement Is Not a Victimless Crime” however this would also be wrong. Turns out that, unlike theft, copyright infringement isn’t a crime at all – it’s a civil matter. As for piracy – war-like acts committed by non-state actors (typically robbery or criminal violence committed at sea) – I fail to see how this compares with downloading a few Lily Allen tracks. (Terrorism, on the other hand…)

This kind of language abuse is an insidious form of spin. If we want a clear debate on the future of copyright and the Internet we should challenge people who try to confuse the issue by claiming infringement is something it’s not.

As the saying goes, “You wouldn’t download a car…“

Some video and photos of the event are online here: http://bit.ly/shefdebprotest Yes, that is me mumbling incoherently into Mikey’s video camera!

Paul Scriven at the Gagged Geeks protest

There was disappointing news from Parliament today. Despite a massive letter-writing and direct action campaign by geeks across the UK, Leader of the House Harriet Harman has scheduled a second reading of the Bill for 6 April. This is widely expected to be the day Gordon Brown goes to the Queen to ask permission to disolve parliament. If a second reading takes place before Parliament rises for the election, the Bill will be eligible for the so-called “wash-up” process, in which the Government and Opposition front-bench teams will sit behind closed doors to horse-trade our rights away. No transparency. No scrutiny. No debate. No democracy.

If you haven’t done so already, now is the time to write to your MP and protest, which you can do in two minutes at http://www.writetothem.com/. There’s a guide to writing a good letter here

If you have already written, and you haven’t received a reply, then you could write to the local paper and call them out publicly. Here’s my letter in the Sheffield Star.

You could also turn up to one of the many election hustings being held across the country and ask your local Parliamentary candidates for their opinion – both on the Bill and the underhand way it’s being pushed through Parliament.

If you’ve had a reply from your MP, and it’s a form letter or you’re not satisfied with their answers, please write back and tell them. Point out which parts of their response you disagree with or ask them to address any specific points from your first letter that they’ve ignored. You’ll often get back a much more personal and considered response to a second letter.
Please also consider contributing the correspondance to the Open Rights Group wiki

Lastly, you could join the Open Rights Group, who campaign to protect and extend digital rights in the UK.

Disclosure: I am an Open Rights Group paying supporter and volunteer.

I am writing to you in your capacity as Leader of the House of Commons. My MP Richard Caborn may have made representations to you already on my behalf however I wanted to emphasise how important this matter is to me.

Please ensure the Digital Economy Bill benefits from the full scrutiny of all our elected representatives in the House of Commons. It should receive a second reading, a committee stage, a third reading and a report stage. If necessary, the passage of clauses 11-18 in particular should be delayed until after the general election, when there will be sufficient time to address line-by-line their many shortcomings.

You will be tempted to ignore this letter because you suspect it’s part of a throw-away campaign orchestrated by partial interests. Not only would such suspicion be unfounded, to succumb to it would be to ignore real anger and frustration at the way this issue is being handled, felt by the very people charged with building the UK Digital Economy: our technical experts. A search on Twitter for the hashtag #debill will confirm the outrage being expressed by net-savvy people all over the UK.

You will be told the measures in the Bill are uncontroversial and have cross-party support however more than 12,000 people have written to their MPs to protest them in the last week alone. I’m sure you will have received some of these letters personally.

You will be told the Bill is essential to protect our creative industries – by deep-pocketed lobbyists working for those industries, who have themselves drafted some of the most contentious clauses of this Bill. Lord Whitty said during the Third Reading debate in the house of Lords, “I regret to say that during the course of our consideration of the Bill, we have seen one of the worst examples in my memory of the political parties being captured by a producer interest. That applies not only to the Government and the bringing forward of the Bill, but to the opposition Front Benches as well.”

Given the current furore over lobbyist influence this Bill could prove to be political dynamite!

Lastly, and most frustratingly of all, you will be told this Bill will reduce copyright infringement on the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Encryption services such as IPredator and HideMyAss, and products like the Pogoplug, rendered this legislation ineffective before it was even drafted. If you don’t believe me, consult an independent technical expert, or ask for the advice of the security services.

I support the right of creative people to make a living from their art. I do not condone copyright infringement. This is not about getting something for nothing – it’s about defending democracy, justice and human rights.

If you feel for political reasons that a Digital Economy Bill *must* pass into law during this Parliament, please remove clauses 11-18 of the present draft, and offer to bring them back for proper scrutiny in a new Bill after the election.

Thank you

Write your own letter to Harriet here: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/HarrietHarman
Come to a protest against the Bill in London or Sheffield on the evening of 24 March.

There will be a flash mob protest outside Sheffield Train Station at 5:55pm on Wednesday 24 March. It’ll only take 20 minutes of your time, it’ll be good fun, and it could help to save the Internet.

If passed into law as it currently stands, the Digital Economy Bill could allow the Government to disconnect you from the Internet (without trial), facilitate censorship of the Internet, and could precipitate the death of open Wi-Fi and public Internet access provision.

If you register for a free ticket or RSVP to the Facebook event it’ll help us gauge numbers. Otherwise, just turn up, and bring your friends and colleagues.

Hope to see you there!

What you can do now:

• Write to your MP (takes two minutes, however please use your own words.)
• Write to your local paper.

I have put fingers to keyboard once again, therefore, resulting in the following missive to the noble Lords who came up with the idea.

Dear Lord Howard of Rising (CON) and Lord Clement Jones (LD)

I am alarmed by your proposed Amendment 120a to the Digital Economy Bill and would like to explain why I think you should abandon it.

I have followed closely the passage of the Bill through Parliament and have written to both my MP and the members of the Lords Science and Technology Committee to express my views on the proposals to tackle copyright infringement in particular.

I am proud of the way opposition members of the House of Lords, such as yourself, have tried to hold the Government to account on issues such as disconnection without trial; defences and access to justice for those accused; excessive Ministerial powers to change copyright law through secondary legislation; and protection for public Internet-access providers such as libraries, universities and private businesses.

I feel I must protest anew the inclusion of measures such as Clause 11 and Amendment 120a that give the Government the ability to censor the Internet.

There are two problems with such proposals:

1) They will not have the desired effect on copyright infringement.

If you seek independent expert advice you will discover that dedicated infringers can use technologies such as anonymous proxies, virtual private networks and onion-routing to get around any blocking mechanism employed by ISPs. These tools are widespread in other countries that censor the Internet, such as China, Iran and Australia.

2) State censorship is wrong in principle.

In the wake of the expenses scandal I need hardly remind you that sometimes people publish information the state would rather they didn’t. The proposed measures would give the Government the ability to force ISPs to block any content it doesn’t like. This would be an unprecedented attack on individual liberty, press freedom and freedom of expression.

I implore you to abandon Amendment 120a and to vote down Clause 11.

If you’ve read this far you’re obviously as concerned as I am about Amendment 120a. Please write to Conservative Lord Howard of Rising and Lib Dem Lord Clement Jones and tell them in your own words what you think about their proposals.