Clause 3 : OFCOM reports on media content. Clause 3 wasn't even discussed at all, as there was only one amendment, which was not moved. That was easy.

Clause 3 passed - no amendments

So, now we move to the second part, Online Infringement of Copyright, by far the biggest part of the Bill, and the most controversial. It was discussed at length on 12th, 18th, 20th and 26th January.

There was a bit of discussion on inserting a new clause before Clause 4. Amendment 33 dealt with insisting that copyright holders must use the new laws instead of simply harassing people with lawyers for money. Lord Mitchell pointed out that, on the subject of illegal downloading, it's something that "every single child in this country is doing - you would be hard pressed to find any person under the age of 25 who is not illegally downloading". Thus, the recurring theme from these debates resurfaced: that it's "dangerous for us to be putting into effect legislation that puts a whole lot of people in a criminal situation when they do not think that they are committing a crime".

Having said that, Football Association Chairman Lord Triesman pointed out that "not everybody who steals a file on their computer is a 16 year-old who wants one song", but also that "car boot sales and market stalls" have tons of downloaded stuff to buy, and it's "frequently associated with illegal immigrants". Not sure exactly what he's saying about immigrants there, but his main point is that it's "a very significant criminal activity", not just kids having fun. Nevertheless, he'd like to get the kids "into a sport and off the couch and away from the television - and occasionally, one hopes, away from their computers and stealing files", so he's showing his other interests there.

Lord Davies of Oldham, who is Labour's main spokesman for the Bill, made it clear that "peer-to-peer file-sharing... is a civil infringement, not a criminal one". The Earl of Erroll pointed out that "peer-to-peer" is just one technology used for file-sharing, and is not, by nature, unlawful. A good technical point. After a lot more debate, the amendment was withdrawn.

One more amendment was tabled before Clause 4, and Lord Lucas made his feelings known: "Copyright at its heart is not a right, it is a compromise... [it] is merely what we do - the tough, difficult, bad things we do in order to enable the good thing, which is creativity, to flourish". The issue in question was making sure people accused of downloading still had their human rights intact. He said that people should expect a "reasonable and rational level of cost" for admitting to illegal file-sharing, "rather than leaving him at the mercy of the courts and of solicitors who push on the fear factor".

Clause 4 : Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements. Watching all of this debate, it occurred to me that, although it's terrible that companies are getting law firms to attack people with threats of legal action, what will happen if every company that wants to get file-sharers has to go through the civil courts? So many people are doing it - and the evidence, in my mind, is often difficult to prove - that the courts could get clogged up with people, and some may not get convicted for years. Some things about this Bill just make me think the horse has not only bolted but is making its way over the hill.

Anyway, a couple of interesting points came up quickly: first of all, we can identify people uploading (sort of), but what about streaming and downloading? That's almost impossible. It's made clear that the provisions in the second part of the Bill deal only with P2P, not any other things like Rapidshare and so on. Lord Young of Norwood Green makes it clear that, while there may be lots of illegal downloading going on, "these provisions have been written with peer-to-peer networks in mind. That has been the trouble causing so much damage to the creative industries and is certainly the primary problem we set out to address in this part of the Bill". Second point, made by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, was related to communal networks (cafés, libraries, universities etc). If people do something illegal there, the institution would get in trouble. The response was that these places can take measures to stop people doing it, which is true: porn sites can be filtered out, and the speed can be reduced to make P2P pointless.

Lord Whitty was hoping that "peer-to-peer was too techie for the parliamentary draftsman and therefore he reverted to "old speak" in terms of copyright violation" with his amendment to make the P2P aspect explicit, but now he's not so sure.

At last, an excellent point, made by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in support of her Amendment 43. She asks "why is simply allowing others to use the connection different from, for example, allowing someone to use your car if they were insured to do so, and they were caught speeding? In those circumstances you are asked if you were using the car, to which the response is, "No, it was X who used the car". If X was speeding, X is liable for the fine and the points on their licence. But in this case, as the Bill is written, it is still the person who provides the internet connection who is liable for disconnection, throttling or any of the other sanctions provided, not the person who was actually using the internet connection". Related to this, Lord Howard of Rising joked that there "is a railway line on which you can plug in and get an internet connection. At the moment, the ultimate person there is the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who described himself the other day as the Thin Controller. I would hate this to be another example of the Government not listening to the Opposition when making legislation and ending up with one of their Ministers falling foul". There was debate surrounding the legal definition of 'allowed' (either 'gave permission' or 'failed to stop').

The amendment had wide support around the House, but it was ultimately withdrawn. Lord Davies of Oldham strongly argued that the Bill is not so tough that "a constable and the heavy hand of the law will arrive at a house with an arrest warrant for a signal charge, with a penalty of at least 25 years hard labour" after just one incident. Instead, subscribers will receive notice that it's happened, with a polite request to stop it. If it was somebody else who did it, then no matter: you'll only get into trouble if you keep doing it consistently. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer was having none of it, however, and expressed how strongly she feels about it.

Lord Lucas began his Amendment 52 by noticing that the two Labour men in charge weren't listening to him. It was concerned with a 'threshold' that decides when to take action against someone who's file-sharing. With an estimated 7 million people doing it, cutting a million off from the internet is not desirable (Lord Young of Norwood Green insisted they had no intention of doing that except as a last resort). The Earl of Erroll - obviously the most technically-minded person in attendance, and a frequent contributor to the debates - went even further to suggest that the public will ignore this "because there are so many holes in [the Bill]".

I'm going to print a large quote from The Earl of Erroll in full, as it's worth it: "I am not reassured by the lack of technical precision in the Bill team's briefing. You do not upload when you file-share peer to peer. The whole point about peer-to-peer file-sharing is that there is no central server on which to upload files. They are downloaded directly from the other person; no uploading is involved. If the Minister's Bill team does not understand even that amount of technology, I have very little faith that it can answer any of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, either. Neither he nor I believe half the things that the Minister says so airily, including that it is easy to say who is doing what on your personal network at home. If you can show me technically how I can do that and if a program is recommended to me that I can use, I will gladly and happily buy it and publicise it when I next talk to PC Pro and others." Bang bang. He later apologised for his "aspersions" as he was "getting slightly frustrated".

Lord Razzall's amendment - changing "the" to "a" - was obviously minor, but it gave him the opportunity to poke fun at the Tories' relationship with BSkyB.

Debate on Clause 4 was concluded on 18th January. There were a few more interesting things discussed, but not enough to warrant any more coverage. Only highlight was Lord Davies of Oldham insisting that his nodding is as good as his words. Other than that, another clause bites the dust.

Clause 4 passed - no amendments