Okay, for those who are interested, my continued coverage of the Digital Economy Bill. Warning: this post is very long, and took me a long time to compile. The Committee Stage will be much simpler, I promise.

The Second Reading took place on 2 December 2009. This, as I explained before, is pretty much just a variety of different members putting forth their opinion on the Bill, without any back-and-forth debate. That is more likely at the next stage. I'll list all the people involved in the 'debate', in the order in which they spoke. Click on their name to go to their Wikipedia page, and click on the sentence after their name to go to that point in Hansard, the recording of the proceedings. I could've included a link to the pertinent part of the BBC's Democracy Now video recordings of the proceedings, but Hansard covers what they say pretty well, insofar as it's not really worth seeing the action live. If there is a moment that may be worth seeing, however, I'll provide a link.

Labour First Secretary of State Lord [Peter] Mandelson introduced the Bill. The Labour government introduced this Bill, after their Digital Britain white paper made the reasons for the Bill clear. They do this, of course, with full knowledge that they may not be the government to see this Bill through, as a general election must be held before next November. It should be interesting to see how things progress. Anywho, Mandy explained the proposals pretty plainly, and made it clear that this kind of thing is long overdue, and there are an enormous amount of things that this Bill promises to do.

For me, the speech seemed to be surprisingly level-headed and forward-thinking: I've always had this feeling that the government - any government - are always behind the times with technology, but the speech made a refreshing change. From giving the Lords a dig by joking that "this House is probably the one place in Britain where peer-to-peer file-sharing is associated more with passing notes in the Lords' tea room than with piracy", to something that I've insisted on before, that "copyright infringement is the market's way of telling us that we need to develop new business models that make digital content legally available at reasonable prices". Later on, someone mentions Premiership football streaming in this regard, and I would echo Mandy's statement right there for that.

Equally encouraging, was the Labour government's clear, explicit denouncement of Murdoch's masterplan for destroying the BBC and, as he says, filling "British airwaves with more Fox-style news". He insisted that "Ofcom should be strengthened, not emasculated as some Conservative spokesmen have suggested". Sadly, as Britain moves ever closer to a Conservative government, I'm very worried about the BBC's future, since Labour are clearly more favourable to public service broadcasting, including Channel 4 (I'm sure many people are not even aware that C4 is a public service broadcaster, through all the repeats of US TV shows).

Of all the things mentioned, however, the most interesting, and perhaps controversial, was that of ISPs' jobs regarding stopping file sharers. This includes giving ISPs the power to suspend accounts, but "only against the most serious infringers". To my mind, proper government intervention in this is the most sensible option, as currently people downloading certain games or porn movies will be harassed by lawyers, instead of being given a fair trial with legal representation. As it stands, it's either pay up, or you're in big trouble. Alas, he mentions Ofcom creating a code to regulate this, and other members lament the current lack of such a code.

His opposite number for the Tories, Lord Fowler put forward his own views. He insisted at the beginning that his views were his own, not those of his party. He even decided to make a joke about Mandy's "comebacks", as well as a humorous complaint about a BBC commentator's (supposed) description of him. In general he seems to support the principles of the Bill, as do most people in the Lords. Notable points include his mention of the workprint leak of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which (according to Fox), "probably knocked $20 million to $30 million off the box office" - a purely hypothetical number, of course, as another member insists later in the debate.

He also mentions the argument that "file-sharers are those who spend most in the legitimate commercial market and that the industries would help themselves by making more material available legally and legitimately". Whether this is true is debatable, but it's nice that he brought it up. On the subject of TV, the ongoing argument about the death of regional news gets a mention. I'm sure there'll be a lot more talk of that in Committee. Also, he's not too happy about the Royal Charter that the BBC is governed by, with changes every ten years. This is probably how the Tories generally feel about the BBC, which is another reason I'm a bit worried about the Tory government, as I cherish the BBC.

Lib Dem spokesman Lord Razzall showed his party's "gentle welcome" to the Bill (he actually says 'general' but Hansard records it differently, one reason I listen to the debates first). His main focus was on online copyright infringement. This, clearly, is one of the biggest issues that the Bill focuses on, and he provides a few largely hypothetical numbers to put the case across. Apparently, around a tenth of the UK population "share copyrighted files regularly", 95% of music downloads are "illegal", and a quarter of "the world's online television piracy takes place in the United Kingdom", the latter not exactly a surprise as most pirated TV shows are American, and we'll download raw US TV more than any other country outside the US. Nevertheless, even if "we may all take [the statistics] with a pinch of salt", he makes the not unreasonable suggestion that curbing, but not exterminating, online piracy would still be "a very significant step".

There were a few problems he saw with the Bill, however. He didn't like the Bill's suggestion to punish people who did illegal downloading in the past, and he didn't like the lack of clear details about who's going to pay for all of it. Most of all, the Bill's most controversial part, Clause 17 (which allows the government to alter copyright law without the checks and balances of primary legislation - in other words, if the Tories were pals with Murdoch, they could give him a hand without other parties intervening), is rejected outright by the Lib Dems. Interestingly, he also makes the point that 'format shifting' (downloading a movie or song and converting it to use on another device) is today, technically, a copyright breach, so the Bill should insist that this "does not constitute a breach of copyright if done for personal use". Sensible, I'd say: I have to convert videos for my iPod all the time, so it'd be prudent to get this put in the Bill.

The BBC's former Director-General Lord [John] Birt was next to voice his opinion. Being an ex-BBC boss, you'd think he'd talk about them for a while, but most of his concern was with copyright infringement. Now, I'm familiar with attempts by unscrupulous law firms to prosecute downloaders, but often it's impossible to verify if somebody actually downloaded the files they're alleged to have downloaded. Thus, Birt's support of the Bill's response to offenders being "an absolutely identifiable account which is used at a precise moment in time, measured to the second, by someone who admits to possessing specific named content and then transmits that content online to a third party in breach of copyright" is interesting in theory, though may be difficult in practice. Obviously, the most serious offenders may be pretty easy to catch, but someone who downloads something once or twice is unlikely to be caught, as far as I can see.

Most of his debate centred on the internet, with a lament to the lack of "virtual bobbies on the digital beat" to stop paedos and fraudsters (which, frankly, is a pretty solid point, given the clear risks). He closes on this point, insisting that the Digital Economy is a "lawless, unpoliced and unregulated place", and something must be done about it. From my experience, these words and possible measures are certainly noble and justified, but, as I've said before, may be a little tricky to implement in practice. After all, if somebody frauds away your credit card details, couldn't they just hide in a more lawless country (like the one I'm in now, for that matter)?

The Lord Bishop of Manchester [Nigel McCulloch] addressed interesting concerns for church radio microphones, amongst other things. I'm not all that surprised that he mentioned video games, as he was the one who kicked up a fuss about 'Resistance: Fall of Man' featuring Manchester Cathedral. Nevertheless, the most unusual point he mentioned was, as I said, about churches using the analogue spectrum to "use space creatively" (with radio mikes). Selling off the analogue spectrum as Britain switches to DAB radio is certainly a cause for concern, and the Bishop says as much.

Labour's Lord [David] Puttnam didn't stay for long. He just wanted to let everyone know that he, and apparently Melvyn Bragg, would be taking part in future, but he was a bit busy today. Thanks for that.
Tory Lord Lucas agreed with Lord Birt, saying that the internet is like "the wild west out there", and "if the streets were like the internet we would want to know what was being done about it". Fair point. He also talks a great deal on his belief that the spectrum plans should include future provisions for emergency services, as things are a bit old-fashioned now, apparently. Also, he pointed out that "people have got used to a reasonable level of sharing of copyrighted material between friends and within small communities" when it comes to newspapers, books and the like, so it's "not at all certain how many [illegally downloaded] songs or films would actually have been purchased if people had had to pay for them".

This may be common sense, but he also warned about the industry insisting that copyright theft harms only the "small, creative individual", when big, nasty corporations are mostly bothered by this, so we run the risk of "putting a lot of people into the hands of pornographers and their lawyers" (for example) if the Bill isn't done properly. This goes back to what I said earlier about a fair trial for sharers, rather than legal bullying. Most satisfyingly of all, he insisted that people pirating music and streaming football matches comes down to the companies treating their customers with utter disdain. He's very much on the consumers' side, suggesting that the ISPs should try to wean sharers off illegal downloads "without making them feel like criminals". Last but not least, he insisted that Clause 17 should be removed completely.

Lib Dem Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (and yes, she is related to the other one) focused most of her attention on Channel 4. In general, she (though she says "we", referring I assume to the Lib Dems) is very much in favour of commercial public service broadcasting, such as Channel 4, and is glad that the Bill corrects the current remit, which "relates only to linear TV and ignores the growth of digital media". One problem she saw, however, was that the Bill must insist on more public service content being produced for the main, terrestrial Channel 4 station, not "relegated to digital channels with small, niche audiences" (is she referring to More4, perhaps?). She also turned her attention to the proposed local news consortia, that intend to provide independent TV local news. At the moment, ITV say they can't do it, so there will apparently be some pilots "next April". The Lib Dems welcome the idea as they believe that "the BBC must not become a monopoly supplier". Finally, she wonders if having no mention of the BBC in the Bill at all is a "lost opportunity".

Labour minister Lord Carter of Barnes talked a lot while saying little. He was one of the architects of the Digital Britain White Paper that inspired this Bill, so it's probably not all that surprising that he had no concerns to voice, just clarifications. He spent time emphasising the importance of funding the improvement of Britain's communication infrastructure, but most of what he said was unremarkable. As I said, not surprising.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote seemed to support Clause 17, surprisingly. Her argument was that the speed of change since the Communications Act 2003 has been such that "powers for the Secretary of State to make regulatory changes through secondary legislation" was a logical idea to speed things up. The 77-year-old showed her age occasionally, especially with this little gem: "I spend a lot of time in cars and have had hearing difficulties since the arrival of my first child, so it is a real pleasure to enjoy the quality and clarity of digital sound, especially when listening to music - whether it is Radio 3 or Classic FM, both of which are excellent stations." Thanks for that. By the way, I believe her first child was born when she was in her twenties, so don't worry.

She briefly mentions her support for the Bill's illegal downloading provisions, including the limiting of offenders' internet access ("my imagination somewhat boggles at how this is to be achieved," she wondered). Her main concern was with the exemption of music videos and sports from classification under the BBFC. While it's amusing to hear her talk about Mötley Crüe and Slipknot, the actual changes for this are now being addressed in another Bill, the Video Recordings (Exemption from Classification) Bill, which at time of writing is yet to get through 2nd Reading in the Commons. Her closing comments on "hard-core sex games" are also, um, interesting. (I didn't know this was a big problem...)

Labour's Baroness Morris of Yardley stuck to commenting on Clauses 4 to 17. She made the fair accusation that this kind of legislation should've been put in place a long time ago. She said that "when I was 17 or 18, I am not sure that I thought much about copyright when, in those days, I taped something from a record that was playing", so this idea that this generation is different to others is nonsense: other generations had little care for copyright, too, but now we have "the first generation that can do it at such high quality". Her basic point was that, as much as we need a revolution in the law to reflect the revolution in the industry, we need some things to stay the same, such as copyright. She concedes that the horse has bolted somewhat, saying that attempting "to persuade people to pay for something that was once free is far more difficult than doing it the other way round". Still, the Bill's principles of getting the big baddies of online distribution while helping the content providers to flourish should "move us towards a fully functioning online market for the creative industries", in her eyes.

Tory Baroness Buscombe talked for a bit about the news. This isn't surprising as she is chair(man) of the Press Complaints Commission. Her worry that some aspects may affect "self-regulation for the press" is obvious from her, though given what I've read about the PCC's 'regulation', I'd very much welcome the government giving the British press a kick up the arse. Incidentally, here's a fun Flash video explaining why the PCC needs reforming. Give it a look.

Anyway, back on topic. She made a point that nobody else seems to have mentioned, that of copyright for photography. In her words, "in a digital age, information about copyright and the creator supplied with the digital image is stripped away, often automatically, so that in a matter of moments the world is awash with so-called orphan images". So, somebody takes a pic, it ends up on the net, it's copied and Photoshopped, and nobody knows who the hell took it in the first place. Perhaps she has a point there. One of her main concerns, unsurprisingly, was the strengthening of Ofcom into areas outside TV, which may have an impact on freedom of expression. She's worried about the balance "between the rights of the individual and copyright protection". She does have a significant outside interest in this regard, of course.

Lib Dem Lord Roberts of Llandudno brought his Welsh perspective into things, as a lot of Wales obviously has serious broadband problems. It's certainly something worth mentioning: as the government pledges to get everyone up to a certain broadband speed, Lord Roberts reminds us all that a significant chunk of the UK can't get broadband at all, let alone fast broadband. In moving the country forward, it's obviously important not to leave some behind.

Unfortunately, there was the predictable confusion over 'megabits' and 'megabytes'. The Digital Britain report clearly states "2 megabits" per second, but people like Lord Roberts clearly don't know the difference. For the layman, 1 megabyte roughly equals 8 megabits (there's actually a difference between the way they're counted, but I won't explain that), and connection speed is only measured in bits, not bytes. People may say this doesn't matter, but it clearly does: there's a world of difference between getting everyone 2 megabits and 2 megabytes per second. It's like pledging 100 million pounds to help schools, then saying "oh, sorry, it was PENCE, not pounds. Still, no big difference, eh?". Still, the confusion has given people problems for years, since many think that their broadband should be faster than it currently is. Just for the record, where I live (outside the UK), I am getting 2 megabytes per second. Unlucky, fellas.

Labour's Lord Maxton also doesn't know the difference between bits and bytes, but still claims that he's an "early adopter" of technology, since he bought a mobile phone for £2,500 and his first computer for a similar price, though "it was a BBC computer and it had 400 kilobytes, not megabytes". Would it be pedantic to ask a) kilobytes of what? b) £2,500 for a BBC Micro is daylight robbery, are you sure you had a BBC? I guess it would be a little bit.

Anyway, he pointed out his own feelings on the subject of Premiership football online, saying "Manchester United will not continue to have 10 matches a season on Sky when it can have every one of its matches live on the internet throughout the world and collect a fee for it. The fee might be quite small - it might be only £1 a time - but if millions of people are watching it, that is an awful lot of money every week". Which is something I've been thinking about for a while now. Compared to the services offered by sports in the USA, this ridiculous and expensive service in the UK is simply criminal. At any rate, even if megabits and megabytes are the same to him, his views regarding the internet are particularly fresh - for a Lord, that is. While most people are fretting over the prospect of ITV not providing local news, he "will not be worried if the BBC becomes the sole provider of news in a particular area", because the internet does an excellent job right now. Hell, if I want to know what's happening in my town, I can use the web, and I don't even live in England. The man's got a point. Finally, he's also such a nethead that he opposes the idea to cut people's internet off, as "broadband will become as important to our households as our gas, electricity and water supplies".

Tory Viscount Bridgeman was concerned with the previously-mentioned 'orphan works', relating to photographs. As a non-executive director of a photographic archive, it was obvious that he was going to bring this issue up. In his short speech, he also talked a lot about licensing related to copyright infringement.

Lib Dem Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer had numerous concerns with the Bill. One of her most interesting points (to me) was related to the crackdown on the usage of wi-fi networks by people other than those that pay for it - for example, the old defence that 'I didn't download the copyrighted material, someone must've hacked my wi-fi'. Well, she thinks that the Bill "will make life very difficult for the future of internet cafes" and others that offer free wi-fi. If I walk into McDonald's, download an album and walk out, can I be caught? Will McDonald's get a fine? This idea that "Swindon is planning to become the first wi-fi town in Britain" could be scuppered by the news that a town in Ohio tried the same thing, but "the Motion Picture Association of America managed to shut down its municipal wi-fi network after a single download". Something worth considering, I'd say.

Labour's Lord Whitty is the chair of Consumer Focus, and as a result looks at things from a consumer point of view. He quite rightly points out that many people "now expect a free service and will be resentful of and resistant to attempts to curb that". If anyone thinks that those in Parliament merely look down on copyright thieves, many of the statements in these debates suggest otherwise: most seem to agree that artists deserve compensation for their efforts, but are aware that most people are used to getting stuff for free.

He refers to the background of the Bill mentioning that there are 6.5 million downloaders in the UK (though his "rather limited understanding of the teenage world suggests larger numbers than that"), and of the insistence that downloading equals theft. He makes a nice point on this: that "even if we accept that it is theft, the shoplifters who steal the actual DVD, which is worth a lot more than the rights of an individual download to the rights holders, have a fair trial and are subject to due process. They do not receive a letter, but, at the first attempt of enforcement, they are subject to due process". Legally, as it stands, downloading is not theft, as it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter (an argument I've always made).

Lib Dem Culture, Media and Sport spokesman Lord Clement-Jones remarked, bafflingly, on the "skeletal" nature of the Bill by saying that there isn't "even a pig in the poke; the pig has not even arrived, in some cases". He tried to be even-handed between rights holders and consumers, but once again the point was raised regarding how "we have seen a proliferation of lawyers' letters, acting for the pornography industry... often against innocent people asserting copyright claims and threatening court action... I hope that the provisions of the new code will obviate the need for this heavy-handed type of action".

Clause 17 reared its ugly head again, described as a "Henry VIII clause" (meaning it gives powers to individuals in Parliament, instead of letting the whole of Parliament decide on things). Obviously the clause is intended to help changes in copyright law be implemented swiftly, but many people, including members of the House and other companies, are not happy with the idea. He went on to talk in detail about the division of the electromagnetic spectrum as Britain moves to DAB radio and for the mobile phone operators. His concerns were mainly about the way that it will be carved up for all concerned, and whether there can be some improvements for the government in relation to this.

Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Minister Lord Howard of Rising poured scorn on the Labour government's efforts in the digital economy, as apparently "Britain is only 31st out of 66 countries in broadband speed". He, along with others, didn't want to see the Secretary of State given "comprehensive and unchallengeable powers", referring to Clauses 11 and 17. He urged the government to be careful with the digital radio switchover, offering up as an example that old people "may have had a wireless for many years which has become almost a companion", and that blind people "will not be able to work the digital radio because the instructions are on a screen that they will not be able to see".

Labour's Lord Davies of Oldham reminded us all that the team writing the Bill "are only in the foothills - we are nowhere near the Himalayas yet". He responded to all of the concerns directed towards him throughout the debate. He confirmed that the government's position for punishing file sharers was to focus on those whose offences are "obvious, repeated and serious". He also made it clear that the government insists that "Clause 17 is a very important part of the Bill", despite the amount of opposition to it.

Phew. That's all. All three major parties were very keen on moving to Committee to resolve the many problems with the Bill, so I'll go through that next. I'll certainly abbreviate it much more than Second Reading, though.