Could new government kill UK Digital Economy Bill?

Speculation is mounting that the formation of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK could lead to the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which amongst other things puts in place a three-strike anti-piracy policy, being repealed.

Regardless of party allegiances, many people with an understanding of technology campaigned to stop the Digital Economy Bill from being passed due to what they felt was a complete lack of technological understanding from the government. Considering that the now-former Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms said in a letter that an "IP address" stood for "intellectual property address" it is easy to see why there was concern.

Although both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were highly critical of the bill, when it came before the commons during the so-called "wash-up" period, the Conservatives voted in favour after some amendments, and the bill was passed.

After the bill was passed, now Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that the Liberal Democrats had done everything they could to stop the bill.

"It was far too heavily weighted in favour of the big corporations and those who are worried about too much information becoming available, " he said, "It badly needs to be repealed, and the issues revisited."

However, as reported by PC Pro, it is believed that the Digital Economy Bill could be repealed as part of a bill currently being dubbed as a "Freedom Bill" or "Great Repeal Bill" that was announced as part of a coalition agreement published on Wednesday. Designed to tackle what it calls a "substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government", it will reportedly include the scrapping of ID cards, biometric passports, storage of email and phone records and, if the speculation is to be believed, the Digital Economy Bill.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

65,000 Android phones ship per day; tethering coming soon

Next Story

Used games worse than piracy says developer

45 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

RaoulDuke24 said,
Apparently Stephen Timms has been stabbed in East London. A woman has been arrested.

Can confirm he has been stabbed but he'll live.

Please god let it be true.
I'm glad some folk see some sort of sense. If you're the Minister for Digital Britain, you should know what an IP Address is, or at least what it's used in. I understand the whole intellectual property thing, but there is no excuse for stupidity.

badblood said,
Please god let it be true.
I'm glad some folk see some sort of sense. If you're the Minister for Digital Britain, you should know what an IP Address is, or at least what it's used in. I understand the whole intellectual property thing, but there is no excuse for stupidity.

It's this kind of stupidity everyone can deal with

thealexweb said,

Tories fully supported it.

Don't talk rubbish. People should really get their fact correct before posting stupid incorrect information.

Labour [349 seats] (186 for / 22 against) - 89% for
Conservatives [206 seats] (4 for / 5 against) - 55% against
Liberal Democrats [62 Seats] (0 for / 19 against) - 100% against
SNP [6 seats] (1 for / 0 against) - 100% for
DUP [9 seats] (0 for / 1 against) - 100% against
Independant (1 for / 0 against) - 100% for
Plaid Cymru [3 seats] (0 for / 1 against) - 100% against

Nick Clegg didn;t even vote so how he can say the Lib-Dems did everything in their power I will never know.

Don't take my word for it. Check for yourselves:

http://www.theyworkforthebpi.com/
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

{-: ZIGGY -} said,

Don't talk rubbish. People should really get their fact correct before posting stupid incorrect information.

Your post did make me laugh.

Here is why the Conservatives did indeed support it. If they did not support it they would have made a point of voting against it.

But by not voting they guaranteed the bill they wanted, and then they can simply say I did not vote for it.

I guess ignorance is bliss. Think about it.

stevember said,

Your post did make me laugh.

Here is why the Conservatives did indeed support it. If they did not support it they would have made a point of voting against it.

But by not voting they guaranteed the bill they wanted, and then they can simply say I did not vote for it.

I guess ignorance is bliss. Think about it.

So by your idea as 43 lib-dems did not vote either that they supported it.

Come on lets not play games. The stats are there to be seen. You can make assumptions to whatever degree you like..... it doesn't mean your assumptions are correct, just opinion.

No we cannot assume that, the official Conservative line after the adjustments were made which they asked for was to support the bill.

I agree with you that you cannot assume if they did not vote that they agreed, but if the party as a whole disagreed with that bill becoming law they would have made sure it could have been voted out.

Look at the numbers, it would have been easily voted out. That was of course if they wanted to.

To me it is common sense that they must have been happy the bill was going through.

Edited by stevember, May 14 2010, 3:36pm :

{-: ZIGGY -} said,

So by your idea as 43 lib-dems did not vote either that they supported it.

Come on lets not play games. The stats are there to be seen. You can make assumptions to whatever degree you like..... it doesn't mean your assumptions are correct, just opinion.

And you are making the assumption that his assumption is 100% incorrect which means what you said is just as much of an opinion. i doubt you asked the 43 individually why they didnt vote.

stevember said,

Look at the numbers, it would have been easily voted out. That was of course if they wanted to.

349 seats to labour... even if all the other parties went against and the 22 labour MPs, then it would merely delay it to another vote where all the labour party would have turned up, and it would have gone through. Yes exactly - look at the numbers and you'll see why they didn't turn up!

lt8480 said,

349 seats to labour... even if all the other parties went against and the 22 labour MPs, then it would merely delay it to another vote where all the labour party would have turned up, and it would have gone through. Yes exactly - look at the numbers and you'll see why they didn't turn up!

349 Labour seats, 650 total MPs.

That leaves 300 MPs, add together the 22 MPs makes 322, now then we can probably assume more Labour MPs would have been against, or so rightly we can assume other parties would have been for. You are entirely right it would have forced it to another reading probably pushed it back to some amendments.

Now if Conservatives disagreed they would almost certainly pushed it to that knowing the fact it was highly probable they were going to be in power.

It is obvious to anybody that thinks about it, they wanted it to go through before the election because it could be blamed on the previous party.

Will they get rid of it? Of course they will not.

Actually it isn't a Digital Economy Bill... it is an Old (and obsolete 19-20th century style) Industrial Economy bill forced on the new 21st century Digital Economy... and it should be repealed as soon as possible, because it is the opposite of what should it be, it is actually against the Digital Economy...

Funny thing though that the CONSERVATIVES is the ones who are smart enough to recognize that the Digital Economy Bill is against and not for progress. But I guess that is consistent with the "upside down" world we are living in recently.

Question.
By him saying
"IP address" stood for "intellectual property address"

Was he actually serious when he said that? Is that what he thought it meant?

Sorry that's no excuse for being ignorant, especially relevant for position he was holding.
And given this Bill was basically pushed through in the "twilight hours" of Parliament without any approval/ comment by the public at large, glad that numbnut has gone and look forward to new government dumping it/ looking at the issue more closely.

Hopefully it is repealed, the bill or rather 'Act of parliament' stinks. The same as many of our civil liberties being erased during the Labour Government. Something needs to be done about all of those stupid 'Health and Safety' laws there are now too - There's so much you can't do anymore due to Health and Safety... What happened to using your common sense?

thealexweb said,

Tories fully supported it.

Don't talk rubbish. People who publish idiotic comments really annoy me. Please in future get your facts correct.

Labour: 349 Seats (186 for / 22 against) - 89.4% for
Conservative: 209 Seats (4 for / 5 against) - 55% against
Liberal Democrats: 62 Seats (0 for / 19 against) - 100% against
SNP: 6 seats (1 for / 0 against) - 100% for
DUP: 9 seats (0 for / 1 against) - 100% against
Paid Cymru (0 for / 1 against) - 100% against
Independent (1 for / 0 against) - 100% for

Nick Clegg didn't even vote so how he has the nerve to say the Lib-Dems did everything in their power to stop it I do not know.

Don't take my word for it, check for yourself:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
http://www.theyworkforthebpi.com/

Edited by {-: ZIGGY -}, May 14 2010, 2:29pm :

thealexweb said,

Tories fully supported it.

Don't talk rubbish. People should really get their fact correct before posting stupid incorrect information.

Labour [349 seats] (186 for / 22 against) - 89% for
Conservatives [206 seats] (4 for / 5 against) - 55% against
Liberal Democrats [62 Seats] (0 for / 19 against) - 100% against
SNP [6 seats] (1 for / 0 against) - 100% for
DUP [9 seats] (0 for / 1 against) - 100% against
Independant (1 for / 0 against) - 100% for
Plaid Cymru [3 seats] (0 for / 1 against) - 100% against

Nick Clegg didn;t even vote so how he can say the Lib-Dems did everything in their power I will never know.

Don't take my word for it. Check for yourselves:

http://www.theyworkforthebpi.com/
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

{-: ZIGGY -} said,

Don't talk rubbish. People should really get their fact correct before posting stupid incorrect information.

Your post did make me laugh.

Here is why the Conservatives did indeed support it. If they did not support it they would have made a point of voting against it.

But by not voting they guaranteed the bill they wanted, and then they can simply say I did not vote for it.

I guess ignorance is bliss. Think about it.

stevember said,

Your post did make me laugh.

Here is why the Conservatives did indeed support it. If they did not support it they would have made a point of voting against it.

But by not voting they guaranteed the bill they wanted, and then they can simply say I did not vote for it.

I guess ignorance is bliss. Think about it.

So by your idea as 43 lib-dems did not vote either that they supported it.

Come on lets not play games. The stats are there to be seen. You can make assumptions to whatever degree you like..... it doesn't mean your assumptions are correct, just opinion.

stevember said,

Your post did make me laugh.

Here is why the Conservatives did indeed support it. If they did not support it they would have made a point of voting against it.

But by not voting they guaranteed the bill they wanted, and then they can simply say I did not vote for it.

I guess ignorance is bliss. Think about it.

Okay to clear up how government works... the reason a majority government is ideal is it means if your whole party agrees (loyal) and turns up then it will always have a majority vote and thus win at % - regardless to how others vote.

Even if every other MP voted against it and turned up it would still go through if all of labour had agreed (this is the very reason half of MPs don't turn up to every vote).

Not turning up to vote is usually more of a sign of not agreeing with it.

lt8480 said,

Okay to clear up how government works... the reason a majority government is ideal is it means if your whole party agrees (loyal) and turns up then it will always have a majority vote and thus win at % - regardless to how others vote.

Even if every other MP voted against it and turned up it would still go through if all of labour had agreed (this is the very reason half of MPs don't turn up to every vote).

Not turning up to vote is usually more of a sign of not agreeing with it.

yes, absolutely right. But on this occasion it is different because it was a free vote which means the parties do not dictate to the MPs which way they have to vote.

As you can see by this:
Labour [349 seats] (186 for / 22 against) - 89% for

It would have been fairly easy for the other parties to have stopped a majority vote, that is of course only if they disagreed with it.

They knew there was a high chance they would then get into power, they wanted especially during the election to be able to say they did not vote for it to the electorate for obvious reasons.

Why do you think Pirate Bay change their banner to a picture of David Cameron and Gordon Brown?

Why do you think Conservative or Liberal Democrats did not mention it in their manifesto?

Why do you think the new coalition government did not address the bill in the coalition agreement under civil liberties which they address many other things?

I agree with your post but regarding this one it is slightly different matter.

"The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading - which means it will get royal assent and become law - after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: "The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed," said the site set up to oppose the proposals.

But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed" Guardian

I do not like quoting newspapers because they are so biased, but they are pretty spot-on in my opinion on this one.

philcruicks said,
and this is why the lib dems should have won! thank god clegg has some sense!
@DJOuk know the UK government i wouldn't b so sure.

LOL. Me either but it seems rather a cheap shot when I could easily see myself typing IP = Intellectual Property when writing a letter regarding copyright infringement.

They have a government right now? I thought they were still bitching and the Queen was going to appoint one of her Yorkies to Prime Minister to fill in.

RawGutts said,
They have a government right now? I thought they were still bitching and the Queen was going to appoint one of her Yorkies to Prime Minister to fill in.

The Queen isn't allowed Yorkies

RawGutts said,
The Queen was going to appoint one of her Yorkies to Prime Minister to fill in

You mean Corgis - lol

torrentthief said,
lets hope they repeal the naked body scanners and the countless other illegal things the govt did to us.

I'm all for them if it means I can just walk through without needing to take off watches, shoes, belts etc all of which is very frustrating, - and then when something gets questionably flagged having to stand in a 10minute queue behind idiots with liquids and other items they clearly shouldn't have

(regardless to standpoint on taking these through or not - its not an excuse for people having them)

Body scanners aren't really that much of an invasion of privacy - after all at the moment then can shove a finger up you rear if they want to do a body search?.

torrentthief said,
lets hope they repeal the naked body scanners and the countless other illegal things the govt did to us.

I don't really care if they want to see my body naked. I'd rather that than being shot as I have nothing to hide when flying.

I don't but that Stephen Timms thought that IP stood for Intellectual property address. I think it was just a mistake which, considering the context of the letter, was easy to make.

DJOuk said,
I don't but that Stephen Timms thought that IP stood for Intellectual property address. I think it was just a mistake which, considering the context of the letter, was easy to make.

Sorry that's no excuse for being ignorant, especially relevant for position he was holding.
And given this Bill was basically pushed through in the "twilight hours" of Parliament without any approval/ comment by the public at large, glad that numbnut has gone and look forward to new government dumping it/ looking at the issue more closely.

Edited by lazieye, May 14 2010, 1:33pm :

DJOuk said,
I don't but that Stephen Timms thought that IP stood for Intellectual property address. I think it was just a mistake which, considering the context of the letter, was easy to make.

What? Sorry but no, that's no excuse at all. My computer illiterate sister even knows what an IP address is.