Clause 9 : Progress reports. Government Amendment 67 was popular, as it reduced the amount of reports that Ofcom needed to produce, thus reducing wasted money and such. There was more discussion on Lord Lucas's amendment to make sure the government is keeping the industry moving by encouraging legal forms of access to music and the like. After all, this Bill should be about helping the industry move people to legal downloading, not punishing those who don't do it. Lord Young of Norwood Green insisted, as usual, that the amendment wasn't necessary because the clause is fine as it stands.
Clause 10 : Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation. Finally, success for the Tories, as Lord Howard of Rising had an amendment accepted. When it comes to 'technical measures' - limiting or cutting off your internet - the government wants to make sure it's only used with regard to online infringement of copyright. Lord Howard's amendment made this crystal clear on the face of the Bill, so the government was happy to accept it. Another amendment was agreed to from the government, regarding copyright owners also being involved in the actions of this clause, not just service providers.
Clause 11 : Obligations to limit internet access. So, after the 'assessment and preparation' for the technical measures, we get the actual thing. This, as has been mentioned previously, is one of the most controversial parts of the Bill - if you remember my Panorama critique, it was the line they led the program with. Lord Young made it clear that "the initial obligations will have a minimum of 12 months to work" before even thinking about technical measures - so, you won't get your internet cut off tomorrow, they'll spend a year sending out letters to see if they can change people's behaviour, and only if that doesn't achieve much will they consider cutting you off or reducing your speed.
Lord Howard wasn't 100% convinced by the assurances, as he wanted it to be a little clearer by using his amendment, however having an amendment "accepted in the past quarter of an hour is a cause for happiness and I must not complain if the Minister does not accept this amendment, but should regard my glass as half full". Charming. The discussion moved on to one which sounded rather similar to the amendment accepted from Lord Howard, and the Minister said as such, but it was debated anyhow. The problem concerned limiting the powers of these regulations. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer said that "the internet is seen by many people as being on a par with access to other services such as electricity or water", so we shouldn't be cutting people off so easily as we wouldn't do the same for the other services.
The Earl of Erroll pointed out that "quite a number of internet subscribers have voice-over IP telephones - in other words, internet telephones; and they no longer have a landline, because it saves them a lot of money", and so access is essential in case of emergency. Lord Young dismissed this particular concern saying there "may be such people, but I suggest that they would more than likely possess a mobile telephone. I see the noble Earl nodding. I do not think that we are casting them into the outer darkness of being unable to communicate". As for Baroness Miller's suggestion, the Minister reassured her that using technical measures would be "at the end of a long process", and the government had no intention of "removing people's internet access on a whim".
Clause 12 : Code by OFCOM about obligations to limit internet access. Just a grammatical amendment, nothing more.
Clause 13 : Contents of code about obligations to limit internet access. Amendments 88 to 98 (not including 95) were moved very quickly, and were generally grammatical amendments. Amendment 100 was a monster of an amendment from the government, inserting a new clause entitled 'Subscriber appeals'. It had a few amendments to it from other Lords, including Lord Whitty, who got a bit confused over the grouping of these amendments. He didn't like that the new clause establishes a new appeals body, instead of letting the courts deal with the copyright issue. The government disagrees, naturally. They "do not want to apply technical measures to anyone. We want them to stop infringing copyright. We also do not want to drag people before the courts, which is always a stressful experience for anyone, unless there is a genuine need to do so".
Lord Whitty was still "most disappointed with that response". He wanted convincing that this system could actually work outside the courts, and was "deeply worried about these provisions as they stand". It seems unusual that he was alone about this, really.
Clause 14 : Enforcement of obligations. Three amendments linked to the previous amendment about copyright owners and providers were passed.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Clause 5 : Obligation to provide infringement lists to copyright owners. Just one amendment here, from the government, which stipulates that subscribers won't suffer a copyright infringement report (CIR) until they've actually reached an infringement 'threshold'. If everyone got a report on them, it'd probably result in a lot of wasted money, as they only really want to target the serious offenders. A good amendment.
After Clause 5, Lord Lucas suggested including consumer advice in the Bill, as the government hopes to educate people in how to stop people hacking their routers, for example. He said that his was, apparently, insecure, despite the fact that he bought it "at PC World, as it was one of the nicest looking ones around and did everything that was required of it". Lord Howard of Rising resisted "asking [the Minister] what a good-looking router looks like". Chortle. Although it's a nice idea, I agree with Lord Young of Norwood Green's insistence that this isn't Ofcom's job, as ISPs and organisations such as Which? are much better at doing this.
Clause 6 : Approval of code about the initial obligations. The questions here were chiefly on the subject of public internet providers, such as web-cafés, "libraries and educational establishments", and how the regulations would affect them. The Earl of Erroll has "a vision of the future where we can roam around the place, connecting freely wherever you are and working from wherever you need to work. If for some reason-such as transport difficulties, heavy snow or a terrorist threat-you cannot get into work, you can work from some other access point that you happen to get to. You may get halfway there and then log in". He said it would be rather sad if the government stopped this brave new world at the whim of copyright holders.
The government's response was that these providers already try to stop stuff like P2P file sharing, and as long as they carry on doing so, everything will be fine. Other than that, government Amendments 38 and 39 were agreed, and Lord Howard of Rising got a bit mixed up.
Clause 7 : Initial obligations code by OFCOM in the absence of an approved code. Lord Clement-Jones was curious about Ofcom being given a bit of time to get a code together, but the government reassured him that it's not that big a deal. They passed their Amendment 47 also.
Clause 8 : Contents of initial obligations code. Amendments 49 and 50 were agreed to immediately. They passed their Amendment 51 too, but Lord Whitty wasn't too happy with it. The idea of an appeals body imposing sanctions on people instead of a court rankles with the Lord, and he was unhappy with the very idea of this. Lord Lucas suggested he take out his frustrations with the latest advice, that being to "stab the upholstery with a felt-tip pen. I do not know how well that would go down here, but there is a lot of good upholstery". I have no idea what he's referring to, but it doesn't surprise me from Lord Lucas.
After agreeing to Amendment 52 in Clause 8, debates continued on 3 March, two days later.
This was the big one: the moment I'd been waiting for since Committee began. Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment to Clause 8 which paved the way for killing off the dreaded Clause 17. This amendment, number 54A, was designed primarily to "ensure a proper debate in prime time in this House of the merits of Clause 17 and our proposed substitute for it", as this was only the second amendment debated on that day.
Lord Clement-Jones came out in force with a lengthy speech on why Clause 17 should be removed, and it was clear from Committee that the Lib Dems, Tories and also Crossbenchers (people like the Earl of Erroll and Baroness Howe of Idlicote who are not linked to a party) wanted to remove it. Lord Clement-Jones's speech started by saying that it's "clear that infringement is taking place in both peer-to-peer and non-peer-to-peer environments", referring to "cyberblockers" - I think he means 'cyberlockers', like Rapidshare and Megaupload. The Bill has focused on P2P - or, Bittorrent, in other words, since that's by far the most common - and the 'future-proofing' that the government is trying to get by allowing the Secretary of State to simply change copyright law on a whim is what everyone is opposed to. Rather than future-proofing, Lord Clement-Jones thinks we need "present-proofing" first. A large amount of copyright infringement takes place in non-P2P environments, so why not try to tackle it? File-sharing is "only one part of the problem".
The main thrust of the amendment was to block websites, which Lord Clement-Jones thought would be easier and less risky than allowing changes to copyright law. This could prove controversial still, of course, but probably less controversial than Clause 17 would be. Lord Young of Norwood Green came out fighting - though not too hard as he had "problems with my hip". Lord Clement-Jones had compared this plan to the actions of blocking websites that have child abuse images, but Lord Young dismissed this analogy, given the tiny amount of websites with child abuse images. He said that "as many as 6 million or 7 million people may be infringing copyright online, and probably thousands of sites are involved... we should make sure that if we are going to make analogies, they can stand examination and scrutiny. With due respect, I do not believe that the analogy quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, can stand that scrutiny". Ouch.
The Minister strongly rejected the proposals by Lord Clement-Jones and insisted that the government's proposal was the right one. He said that after taking notice of the concerns expressed in Committee, their new amendment "provides accountability in both Houses, and it gives both Houses the right to reject if they do not believe that a government proposal is appropriate", so it wouldn't be right to replace it with something completely different. The Earl of Erroll agreed with the Minister, but he still wanted to get rid of Clause 17. He understood why Amendment 120A (the proposed replacement for Clause 17) was being proposed, but "this is too late a stage to insert it. This needs to go out to the whole industry for discussion first, so that we can find all the pitfalls. I have described the pitfalls that I spotted in 10 minutes of reading on this Bench. If I can do that, what could the whole industry do?" What, indeed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer was of the opinion that "such changes to the way that the internet is used in terms of filtering and blocking should not be undertaken without the other place having full opportunity to scrutinise them, which they will not have". Lord Puttnam, who is in favour of Clause 17, argued that, whether or not the 'super-affirmative' procedure advocated in Clause 17 is the best way of getting legislation, "we have to find a better, more effective, more efficient and speedier way of dealing with the kind of problem that the Bill overall is attempting to address". Nevertheless, Lord Clement-Jones tested the opinion of the House in a division, and the result was probably the most interesting thing that's happening in the whole process of the Bill: 165 Contents beat 140 Not-Contents to include this in the Bill, which obviously meant that when it came to removing Clause 17, it would be done without argument. Well, there you have it.
Amendments 55 to 66 (not including 57) were passed quickly from the government, but the damage had been done.
After Clause 5, Lord Lucas suggested including consumer advice in the Bill, as the government hopes to educate people in how to stop people hacking their routers, for example. He said that his was, apparently, insecure, despite the fact that he bought it "at PC World, as it was one of the nicest looking ones around and did everything that was required of it". Lord Howard of Rising resisted "asking [the Minister] what a good-looking router looks like". Chortle. Although it's a nice idea, I agree with Lord Young of Norwood Green's insistence that this isn't Ofcom's job, as ISPs and organisations such as Which? are much better at doing this.
Clause 6 : Approval of code about the initial obligations. The questions here were chiefly on the subject of public internet providers, such as web-cafés, "libraries and educational establishments", and how the regulations would affect them. The Earl of Erroll has "a vision of the future where we can roam around the place, connecting freely wherever you are and working from wherever you need to work. If for some reason-such as transport difficulties, heavy snow or a terrorist threat-you cannot get into work, you can work from some other access point that you happen to get to. You may get halfway there and then log in". He said it would be rather sad if the government stopped this brave new world at the whim of copyright holders.
The government's response was that these providers already try to stop stuff like P2P file sharing, and as long as they carry on doing so, everything will be fine. Other than that, government Amendments 38 and 39 were agreed, and Lord Howard of Rising got a bit mixed up.
Clause 7 : Initial obligations code by OFCOM in the absence of an approved code. Lord Clement-Jones was curious about Ofcom being given a bit of time to get a code together, but the government reassured him that it's not that big a deal. They passed their Amendment 47 also.
Clause 8 : Contents of initial obligations code. Amendments 49 and 50 were agreed to immediately. They passed their Amendment 51 too, but Lord Whitty wasn't too happy with it. The idea of an appeals body imposing sanctions on people instead of a court rankles with the Lord, and he was unhappy with the very idea of this. Lord Lucas suggested he take out his frustrations with the latest advice, that being to "stab the upholstery with a felt-tip pen. I do not know how well that would go down here, but there is a lot of good upholstery". I have no idea what he's referring to, but it doesn't surprise me from Lord Lucas.
After agreeing to Amendment 52 in Clause 8, debates continued on 3 March, two days later.
This was the big one: the moment I'd been waiting for since Committee began. Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment to Clause 8 which paved the way for killing off the dreaded Clause 17. This amendment, number 54A, was designed primarily to "ensure a proper debate in prime time in this House of the merits of Clause 17 and our proposed substitute for it", as this was only the second amendment debated on that day.
Lord Clement-Jones came out in force with a lengthy speech on why Clause 17 should be removed, and it was clear from Committee that the Lib Dems, Tories and also Crossbenchers (people like the Earl of Erroll and Baroness Howe of Idlicote who are not linked to a party) wanted to remove it. Lord Clement-Jones's speech started by saying that it's "clear that infringement is taking place in both peer-to-peer and non-peer-to-peer environments", referring to "cyberblockers" - I think he means 'cyberlockers', like Rapidshare and Megaupload. The Bill has focused on P2P - or, Bittorrent, in other words, since that's by far the most common - and the 'future-proofing' that the government is trying to get by allowing the Secretary of State to simply change copyright law on a whim is what everyone is opposed to. Rather than future-proofing, Lord Clement-Jones thinks we need "present-proofing" first. A large amount of copyright infringement takes place in non-P2P environments, so why not try to tackle it? File-sharing is "only one part of the problem".
The main thrust of the amendment was to block websites, which Lord Clement-Jones thought would be easier and less risky than allowing changes to copyright law. This could prove controversial still, of course, but probably less controversial than Clause 17 would be. Lord Young of Norwood Green came out fighting - though not too hard as he had "problems with my hip". Lord Clement-Jones had compared this plan to the actions of blocking websites that have child abuse images, but Lord Young dismissed this analogy, given the tiny amount of websites with child abuse images. He said that "as many as 6 million or 7 million people may be infringing copyright online, and probably thousands of sites are involved... we should make sure that if we are going to make analogies, they can stand examination and scrutiny. With due respect, I do not believe that the analogy quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, can stand that scrutiny". Ouch.
The Minister strongly rejected the proposals by Lord Clement-Jones and insisted that the government's proposal was the right one. He said that after taking notice of the concerns expressed in Committee, their new amendment "provides accountability in both Houses, and it gives both Houses the right to reject if they do not believe that a government proposal is appropriate", so it wouldn't be right to replace it with something completely different. The Earl of Erroll agreed with the Minister, but he still wanted to get rid of Clause 17. He understood why Amendment 120A (the proposed replacement for Clause 17) was being proposed, but "this is too late a stage to insert it. This needs to go out to the whole industry for discussion first, so that we can find all the pitfalls. I have described the pitfalls that I spotted in 10 minutes of reading on this Bench. If I can do that, what could the whole industry do?" What, indeed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer was of the opinion that "such changes to the way that the internet is used in terms of filtering and blocking should not be undertaken without the other place having full opportunity to scrutinise them, which they will not have". Lord Puttnam, who is in favour of Clause 17, argued that, whether or not the 'super-affirmative' procedure advocated in Clause 17 is the best way of getting legislation, "we have to find a better, more effective, more efficient and speedier way of dealing with the kind of problem that the Bill overall is attempting to address". Nevertheless, Lord Clement-Jones tested the opinion of the House in a division, and the result was probably the most interesting thing that's happening in the whole process of the Bill: 165 Contents beat 140 Not-Contents to include this in the Bill, which obviously meant that when it came to removing Clause 17, it would be done without argument. Well, there you have it.
Amendments 55 to 66 (not including 57) were passed quickly from the government, but the damage had been done.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Before Clause 4, Lord Lucas brought in Amendment 15 to deal with ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons - and Tilly Bailey & Irvine, apparently - who are law firms that... you know what, I'll just let Lord Lucas explain it:
"The game works roughly like this. You find an owner of an obscure bit of copyright that is available on the internet, preferably something pornographic and extremely nasty. You then employ a piece of software whose innards have never been exposed to the public, or tested in a court, to produce allegations that a particular set of IP addresses have made that copyright material available for upload over the internet. You then take tens of thousand of these cases to court and, using a Norwich Pharmacal order, obtain the details of the relevant subscribers from their internet service providers. You then write them a letter, which has basically three elements to it. First, it says: "You have committed this transgression of copyright". Secondly, it says: "If you force us to take you to court, we will pursue you for a very large sum of money". Thirdly, it says: "But we offer you this opportunity to settle for a mere £500 or £800" - or whatever the figure is - "and we will forget all about the perils of court and the vast sums for which you might otherwise be liable, because basically we are very good people, and all that we are seeking to do is to protect our copyright"". I couldn't put it better myself.
We saw about this in Committee, but here is a concrete solution to the problem. Baroness Howe of Idlicote described them as "so-called solicitors", and said that it "has to be dealt with and is disgraceful". Lord Whitty made a good point that the public's acceptance "of the future system proposed in the Bill would be aided if these abuses were cleared out of the existing system".
Lord Howard of Rising made sure he got a word in before Lord Young of Norwood Green made his response. He was more cautious, and hoped that "nothing that is put in the Bill prevents rights holders from using civil proceedings". From the government side, Lord Young said "there is nothing between us on the problem" (a diplomatic way of saying he agrees with everyone, though he won't explicitly use the same kind of language as Baroness Howe). He compared the firms to "rogue wheel-clampers, if I can use that analogy". Lord Lucas sees the connection with the analogy: these law firms practise "an abuse that has some justification in fundamental law. Rogue wheel-clampers are merely enforcing their rights of private property. I suppose that bailiffs are doing an excellent job in retrieving lots of money for the public purse and for creditors". The government insisted that the Solicitors Regulation Authority should take care of this instead of the government (though they've not done much about it so far).
There were a funny couple of gaffes amongst all this: Lord Young (Labour) described Lord Howard (Tory) as "my noble - I nearly said friend - the noble Lord, Lord Howard". For those who don't know, the convention in the Lords is to refer to others in your party as 'my noble friend' and those from other parties as 'the noble Lord'. This happened again later, but I've forgotten who said it and when. Sorry.
Lord Puttnam voiced his displeasure at the entire Bill, given the way it's been debated. He said that the worst part was "how much of the time was spent arguing over and discussing things that could so easily have been dealt with by a small group of peers from all parts of the House. If there is one great lesson to take away, it is that the House should not accept Bills like this without provision for pre-legislative scrutiny". The final Bill that would leave the Lords "is a Bill that none of us is particularly proud of. It will be a spatchcock [rush job] that does part of the work it was intended to do but not all of it. I am absolutely convinced that, within the next two or three years, there will be another Bill before this House which will be created to deal with the deficiencies of the present Bill". In other words, the Bill sucks. Strong words indeed.
Lord Puttnam was talking about an amendment by Lord Whitty that suggested the purpose of the Bill is to encourage legal activity, not simply to punish unlawful activity. This idea had been mentioned by Lord Lucas at Committee. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer agreed that the government's education process should've got underway a long time ago - indeed, this Bill should've been done a long time ago. Lord Maxton mentioned "a company called 3B Software which offers for a small annual sum of about £30 unlimited access to television stations round the world and to as many films as I want to watch. If I am paying, is it legal? I do not know". He again made the megabytes/megabits mistake, which someone really ought to mention, though I'm sure (or I hope) anyone drafting the Bill will not be confused by it.
The Earl of Erroll tore into proceedings by asking, "What message are we are trying to get out?" He said we might as well just do things the ACS:Law way - since both front benches want to keep that possibility - but take serious offenders to court. Otherwise, the Bill is just "frighten[ing] minor offenders". Since the amendment specifies the whole reason of doing this, the Earl said that it was an essential amendment, and without it, "this Bill, to be honest, will be ridiculed".
Amidst Lord Young's insistence that the Bill is educational, Lord Whitty (also Labour) didn't agree. He said that the "first letter a subscriber gets is, "It appears that an infringement has taken place". That is not education. It may turn out that he will learn something from it, but it is not education. It is a threat. The problem with this approach is that it is a serious threat". He went on later to point out that "if a policeman knocks on my door and says, "It looks as if you've got some dodgy gear in your shed", I consider that is an implication of guilt". For all the sweetness and light that the government is projecting, he has a point - and he's on the same bloody side.
Clause 4 : Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements. Several amendments were agreed to from the government, Amendments 19 to 21, 23 to 25, 27 and 29 specifically, all relating to the issuing of copyright infringement reports (CIRs). There were a couple of other amendments tabled, one of which suggested action to take if there were "financial gain" to be had from the copyright infringement. Lord Young felt this was unnecessary as it's "easier and simpler when there is money involved since, if somebody is making money from copyright infringement, it becomes a criminal offence" - so the 'softly, softly' approach in the Bill isn't necessary.
"The game works roughly like this. You find an owner of an obscure bit of copyright that is available on the internet, preferably something pornographic and extremely nasty. You then employ a piece of software whose innards have never been exposed to the public, or tested in a court, to produce allegations that a particular set of IP addresses have made that copyright material available for upload over the internet. You then take tens of thousand of these cases to court and, using a Norwich Pharmacal order, obtain the details of the relevant subscribers from their internet service providers. You then write them a letter, which has basically three elements to it. First, it says: "You have committed this transgression of copyright". Secondly, it says: "If you force us to take you to court, we will pursue you for a very large sum of money". Thirdly, it says: "But we offer you this opportunity to settle for a mere £500 or £800" - or whatever the figure is - "and we will forget all about the perils of court and the vast sums for which you might otherwise be liable, because basically we are very good people, and all that we are seeking to do is to protect our copyright"". I couldn't put it better myself.
We saw about this in Committee, but here is a concrete solution to the problem. Baroness Howe of Idlicote described them as "so-called solicitors", and said that it "has to be dealt with and is disgraceful". Lord Whitty made a good point that the public's acceptance "of the future system proposed in the Bill would be aided if these abuses were cleared out of the existing system".
Lord Howard of Rising made sure he got a word in before Lord Young of Norwood Green made his response. He was more cautious, and hoped that "nothing that is put in the Bill prevents rights holders from using civil proceedings". From the government side, Lord Young said "there is nothing between us on the problem" (a diplomatic way of saying he agrees with everyone, though he won't explicitly use the same kind of language as Baroness Howe). He compared the firms to "rogue wheel-clampers, if I can use that analogy". Lord Lucas sees the connection with the analogy: these law firms practise "an abuse that has some justification in fundamental law. Rogue wheel-clampers are merely enforcing their rights of private property. I suppose that bailiffs are doing an excellent job in retrieving lots of money for the public purse and for creditors". The government insisted that the Solicitors Regulation Authority should take care of this instead of the government (though they've not done much about it so far).
There were a funny couple of gaffes amongst all this: Lord Young (Labour) described Lord Howard (Tory) as "my noble - I nearly said friend - the noble Lord, Lord Howard". For those who don't know, the convention in the Lords is to refer to others in your party as 'my noble friend' and those from other parties as 'the noble Lord'. This happened again later, but I've forgotten who said it and when. Sorry.
Lord Puttnam voiced his displeasure at the entire Bill, given the way it's been debated. He said that the worst part was "how much of the time was spent arguing over and discussing things that could so easily have been dealt with by a small group of peers from all parts of the House. If there is one great lesson to take away, it is that the House should not accept Bills like this without provision for pre-legislative scrutiny". The final Bill that would leave the Lords "is a Bill that none of us is particularly proud of. It will be a spatchcock [rush job] that does part of the work it was intended to do but not all of it. I am absolutely convinced that, within the next two or three years, there will be another Bill before this House which will be created to deal with the deficiencies of the present Bill". In other words, the Bill sucks. Strong words indeed.
Lord Puttnam was talking about an amendment by Lord Whitty that suggested the purpose of the Bill is to encourage legal activity, not simply to punish unlawful activity. This idea had been mentioned by Lord Lucas at Committee. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer agreed that the government's education process should've got underway a long time ago - indeed, this Bill should've been done a long time ago. Lord Maxton mentioned "a company called 3B Software which offers for a small annual sum of about £30 unlimited access to television stations round the world and to as many films as I want to watch. If I am paying, is it legal? I do not know". He again made the megabytes/megabits mistake, which someone really ought to mention, though I'm sure (or I hope) anyone drafting the Bill will not be confused by it.
The Earl of Erroll tore into proceedings by asking, "What message are we are trying to get out?" He said we might as well just do things the ACS:Law way - since both front benches want to keep that possibility - but take serious offenders to court. Otherwise, the Bill is just "frighten[ing] minor offenders". Since the amendment specifies the whole reason of doing this, the Earl said that it was an essential amendment, and without it, "this Bill, to be honest, will be ridiculed".
Amidst Lord Young's insistence that the Bill is educational, Lord Whitty (also Labour) didn't agree. He said that the "first letter a subscriber gets is, "It appears that an infringement has taken place". That is not education. It may turn out that he will learn something from it, but it is not education. It is a threat. The problem with this approach is that it is a serious threat". He went on later to point out that "if a policeman knocks on my door and says, "It looks as if you've got some dodgy gear in your shed", I consider that is an implication of guilt". For all the sweetness and light that the government is projecting, he has a point - and he's on the same bloody side.
Clause 4 : Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements. Several amendments were agreed to from the government, Amendments 19 to 21, 23 to 25, 27 and 29 specifically, all relating to the issuing of copyright infringement reports (CIRs). There were a couple of other amendments tabled, one of which suggested action to take if there were "financial gain" to be had from the copyright infringement. Lord Young felt this was unnecessary as it's "easier and simpler when there is money involved since, if somebody is making money from copyright infringement, it becomes a criminal offence" - so the 'softly, softly' approach in the Bill isn't necessary.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
So after the epic journey of the Committee Stage, the Digital Economy Bill moved into Report Stage on 1 March. This is pretty much the same, but generally much shorter, since most of the probing and amending has already been done, but any remaining issues can be dealt with. Another difference I've noticed: clauses don't have to be agreed to - unlike in Committee - only amendments, so I won't write every clause getting passed this time.
Clause 1 : General Duties of OFCOM. The Tories were still not happy at all with Clause 1, and particularly the point making Ofcom "promote appropriate levels of investment in electronic communications networks". The Tories 'cleared the bar' and put their amendment to remove that bit to a vote. They lost, of course, but the government then put forth their own amendment removing the words "appropriate levels of". That made the Tories a bit happier.
In debating this point, Lord Mitchell popped up with this odd contribution: "I learnt something new this weekend. I came across a new word: exabyte. I have never heard that before. An exabyte is a billion gigabytes, or a billion billion bytes - it is a pretty big number. In 2005, mankind created 150 exabytes; in 2010, 1,200 were created. So, over five years the total amount of data created on earth went up by a factor of 10, and I suspect the rate of increase is going to continue on an exponential basis. If we were standing here in two or three years perhaps we would need another word for a thousand exabytes. I do not know whether there is such a word; maybe there is". Mercy me. Oh, and there is a word: zettabyte.
A few amendments from the government were accepted, and Baroness Buscombe aired a concern regarding impartiality on newspaper websites (though she's the chair of the useless PCC, so I'm not sure if it matters), before the Earl of Erroll came out with a wonderful technical piece about BT.
"Let us say that you have got a fault on a line which has not been unbundled: in other words, it is still in BT's ownership. You are paying BT Retail for the line, and you are paying an ISP to provide you with broadband over that line. It gets a service from BT Wholesale, which runs what is called the backhaul from the exchange onto the main internet. Openreach is responsible for maintaining and fixing any faults on the line. There are four service entities involved, and there may be more. There are Chinese walls between these, and there is a lot of buck-passing. Let us say that your broadband is not working. You are meant to ring up your ISP, and tell it so. It is then allowed to test the line, and it may well use BT Retail stuff to do that, or it may be Openreach. Do not hold me to the exact detail of who owns which bit. BT Retail's universal service obligation only covers voice over copper, not the maintenance of broadband connections. So it will probably pass that test, but it is still not adequate for broadband, so it comes back and reports that the line is not faulty, but you know, empirically, that it is.
"What do you do next? This is a challenge, because you cannot talk to BT Wholesale. The other thing that could be happening is that either BT Wholesale, or your ISP, could be throttling back your internet connection and reducing the speed on it because it has a lot of traffic, or they could be doing what they call traffic shaping, which is allowing only certain types of traffic through at full speed. This is done through a digital line management unit, which is connected to your digital subscriber line access management unit in the exchange. These are technical things, but they will not tell you if they are doing them. There is no way of finding out, so you are stuck. I have discovered, because my line fell to under half its speed over a four-year period, that, when this sort of thing happens, if you can pester people persistently over a six-month period, and you know something about it, and eventually your line fails completely, there are some excellent engineers at Openreach who can and will come and sort it out. My line is now nearly treble the speed it was a couple of months ago, so they can do it. There is not a real problem with the lines. The trouble is the underinvestment".
He makes a good case. Sadly, the government thought that consumers were covered fine. The Earl of Erroll still disagreed. Although "you can complain to Otelo or CISAS about BT Retail or your ISP, who are your communication service providers, but the challenge is that you cannot talk to the very people who are responsible for doing something about it, who are Openreach or BT Wholesale". An outsider is needed to get this working properly, and "Ofcom is the only organisation that can do this".
Clause 2 : OFCOM reports on infrastructure, internet domain names etc. There was a lot of confusion here. After Lord Howard of Rising introduced an amendment, Lord Young of Norwood Green immediately started on it. This caused Lord Clement-Jones to intervene and ask if he's responding to the amendment, or speaking about a new amendment. On hearing that he planned both, Lord Clement-Jones reminded the House that "it is not possible on Report for other speakers to take part in the debate on an amendment after the Minister has responded". Well, there's another technical point that I (and I assume others) didn't know. So, Lord Clement-Jones gave his response, Lord Howard came up to withdraw, and was told that Lord Young hadn't actually responded. Eventually, Lord Howard meekly asked "I hope I am allowed to speak now. This nice piece of paper says a Member can speak when the Minister speaks early in order to assist the House in debate - that is obviously what he was doing". All's well that ends well.
Lord Whitty came out to suggest an amendment to encourage helping people in rural areas with their communications networks (specifically internet). It was very popular: Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer hoped the government could "rural-proof" the Bill, and said that with banks and post offices closing, the internet is increasingly vital; the Earl of Erroll suggested "trying strategically to repopulate the Highlands" by improving infrastructure there; Lord Puttnam, speaking about his current home of Ireland, said that there, "counterintuitively, it was more important to have good, high-speed broadband access in rural areas than in city centres".
Did the government take it? Of course not: the clause is good enough already. Lord Whitty was disappointed, and I'm sure others were, too.
Baroness Young of Old Scone popped up with her one and only appearance to talk at length about climate change. The subject was already covered by the Climate Change Bill, but communications networks were clearly not mentioned, which is why they've been brought up here. The government assured the Baroness that they were thinking about this, but not just with climate change - there are many dangers to worry about with communications networks, and climate change is but one. She was "pleased that the Minister is saying that the triennial reports on resilience that Ofcom must provide will include the future long-term impacts of climate change, not just the immediate short-term definition of what an emergency is", and I suppose climate change is not the same as preparing for earthquakes or what have you.
Clause 3 : OFCOM reports on media content wasn't even mentioned. Blimey.
Clause 1 : General Duties of OFCOM. The Tories were still not happy at all with Clause 1, and particularly the point making Ofcom "promote appropriate levels of investment in electronic communications networks". The Tories 'cleared the bar' and put their amendment to remove that bit to a vote. They lost, of course, but the government then put forth their own amendment removing the words "appropriate levels of". That made the Tories a bit happier.
In debating this point, Lord Mitchell popped up with this odd contribution: "I learnt something new this weekend. I came across a new word: exabyte. I have never heard that before. An exabyte is a billion gigabytes, or a billion billion bytes - it is a pretty big number. In 2005, mankind created 150 exabytes; in 2010, 1,200 were created. So, over five years the total amount of data created on earth went up by a factor of 10, and I suspect the rate of increase is going to continue on an exponential basis. If we were standing here in two or three years perhaps we would need another word for a thousand exabytes. I do not know whether there is such a word; maybe there is". Mercy me. Oh, and there is a word: zettabyte.
A few amendments from the government were accepted, and Baroness Buscombe aired a concern regarding impartiality on newspaper websites (though she's the chair of the useless PCC, so I'm not sure if it matters), before the Earl of Erroll came out with a wonderful technical piece about BT.
"Let us say that you have got a fault on a line which has not been unbundled: in other words, it is still in BT's ownership. You are paying BT Retail for the line, and you are paying an ISP to provide you with broadband over that line. It gets a service from BT Wholesale, which runs what is called the backhaul from the exchange onto the main internet. Openreach is responsible for maintaining and fixing any faults on the line. There are four service entities involved, and there may be more. There are Chinese walls between these, and there is a lot of buck-passing. Let us say that your broadband is not working. You are meant to ring up your ISP, and tell it so. It is then allowed to test the line, and it may well use BT Retail stuff to do that, or it may be Openreach. Do not hold me to the exact detail of who owns which bit. BT Retail's universal service obligation only covers voice over copper, not the maintenance of broadband connections. So it will probably pass that test, but it is still not adequate for broadband, so it comes back and reports that the line is not faulty, but you know, empirically, that it is.
"What do you do next? This is a challenge, because you cannot talk to BT Wholesale. The other thing that could be happening is that either BT Wholesale, or your ISP, could be throttling back your internet connection and reducing the speed on it because it has a lot of traffic, or they could be doing what they call traffic shaping, which is allowing only certain types of traffic through at full speed. This is done through a digital line management unit, which is connected to your digital subscriber line access management unit in the exchange. These are technical things, but they will not tell you if they are doing them. There is no way of finding out, so you are stuck. I have discovered, because my line fell to under half its speed over a four-year period, that, when this sort of thing happens, if you can pester people persistently over a six-month period, and you know something about it, and eventually your line fails completely, there are some excellent engineers at Openreach who can and will come and sort it out. My line is now nearly treble the speed it was a couple of months ago, so they can do it. There is not a real problem with the lines. The trouble is the underinvestment".
He makes a good case. Sadly, the government thought that consumers were covered fine. The Earl of Erroll still disagreed. Although "you can complain to Otelo or CISAS about BT Retail or your ISP, who are your communication service providers, but the challenge is that you cannot talk to the very people who are responsible for doing something about it, who are Openreach or BT Wholesale". An outsider is needed to get this working properly, and "Ofcom is the only organisation that can do this".
Clause 2 : OFCOM reports on infrastructure, internet domain names etc. There was a lot of confusion here. After Lord Howard of Rising introduced an amendment, Lord Young of Norwood Green immediately started on it. This caused Lord Clement-Jones to intervene and ask if he's responding to the amendment, or speaking about a new amendment. On hearing that he planned both, Lord Clement-Jones reminded the House that "it is not possible on Report for other speakers to take part in the debate on an amendment after the Minister has responded". Well, there's another technical point that I (and I assume others) didn't know. So, Lord Clement-Jones gave his response, Lord Howard came up to withdraw, and was told that Lord Young hadn't actually responded. Eventually, Lord Howard meekly asked "I hope I am allowed to speak now. This nice piece of paper says a Member can speak when the Minister speaks early in order to assist the House in debate - that is obviously what he was doing". All's well that ends well.
Lord Whitty came out to suggest an amendment to encourage helping people in rural areas with their communications networks (specifically internet). It was very popular: Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer hoped the government could "rural-proof" the Bill, and said that with banks and post offices closing, the internet is increasingly vital; the Earl of Erroll suggested "trying strategically to repopulate the Highlands" by improving infrastructure there; Lord Puttnam, speaking about his current home of Ireland, said that there, "counterintuitively, it was more important to have good, high-speed broadband access in rural areas than in city centres".
Did the government take it? Of course not: the clause is good enough already. Lord Whitty was disappointed, and I'm sure others were, too.
Baroness Young of Old Scone popped up with her one and only appearance to talk at length about climate change. The subject was already covered by the Climate Change Bill, but communications networks were clearly not mentioned, which is why they've been brought up here. The government assured the Baroness that they were thinking about this, but not just with climate change - there are many dangers to worry about with communications networks, and climate change is but one. She was "pleased that the Minister is saying that the triennial reports on resilience that Ofcom must provide will include the future long-term impacts of climate change, not just the immediate short-term definition of what an emergency is", and I suppose climate change is not the same as preparing for earthquakes or what have you.
Clause 3 : OFCOM reports on media content wasn't even mentioned. Blimey.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Tenth section, "Copyright and performers’ property rights: licensing and penalties", Clauses 42 and 43 here.
Clause 42 : Extension and regulation of licensing of copyright and performers' rights. Big debate. Orphan works is a very contentious topic, especially in the case of photographs. What's an orphan work? It's a work (photograph, film, video, book, whatever) that doesn't have an author, because nobody can figure out who made it. Therefore, it's an 'orphan'. Why is this an issue? Because works that have no known author, but are not designated as 'orphans', cannot be released to the public because of current copyright laws. The basic statistics, provided by Lord Howarth of Newport, are staggering: "over 40 per cent of [the British Library's] archive collections may be orphan works" and a study found that "up to 50 per cent of works in large archives were orphan works and, indeed, that in excess of 50 million orphan works were held in somewhat more than 500 organisations which were surveyed". All of this valuable material is completely off-limits to the public, ridiculously, because of current copyright law.
Lord Howarth also gave the example of "a series of unpublished interviews held in the 1960s and 1970s at St-Mary-le-Bow church in the City of London, 302 hours were recorded as being spent by British Library staff and their paid contractors in looking for 259 rights holders". How many did they find? Fourteen. Given that the original project wasn't done for a commercial purpose, wasting so much time on "fruitless searches for rights holders is really not a sensible or, I would suggest, a proper use of public resources" - indeed, "much of the cultural sector is agreed on wanting an exception in copyright law for orphan works", so something clearly needs to be done. The Tories, although pleased with the principle, were not convinced with the drafting of the clause. Lord Howard of Rising said that the "desire to use genuine orphan works must not lead to any weakening of legitimate copyrights". The problem lies in determining what is and isn't orphaned, via a search. How detailed the search must be is unclear, however, and this could cause problems.
Lord Young of Norwood Green tried to relax the Tories by insisting that the bodies searching for rights holders must be "authorised and regulated and will have to carry out a diligent search". He later gave us another amazing statistic: apparently, "the BBC has roughly 1 million hours of [orphaned] programming". My word. People were still worried that the clause could be exploited - people such as "freelance photographers" and "the Royal Photographic Society". I suppose it's easy to pretend you don't know who took a picture and use it for free. Lord Clement-Jones was convinced that we would have "what is traditionally called the wash-up at the other end" (meaning the Commons), and boy was he right.
The government moved a large group of amendments, introduced by Lord Young in typical fashion: "The amendments require that the first regulations made under this power-that is, the creation of the first orphan works regulations, the first extended collective licensing regulations and the first exercise of the powers to introduce codes of practice and enforcement provisions for these codes and for the regulation of licensing of orphan works and extended licensing-are subject to the affirmative procedure. That was a long sentence and will need careful reading in Hansard". There was plenty of discussion about licensing and the like. The main gist is this: we want to let these orphaned works be made public, but we don't want legitimate copyright holders to have their work released for free if they don't want it to (especially freelance photographers and the like). Much of the debate was very technical, but it all came back to that basic point. Lord Clement-Jones even had an amendment (283) agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones was still not 100% convinced, of course, and after Lord Young defined 'orphan works' as "works protected by copyright but for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or traced even after a diligent search", which he called a "succinct definition", Lord Clement-Jones wanted to know if that definition is in the Bill, and if now, should it be? It looks like we'll see at Report.
Clause 42 passed - Amendment 265A, 268A, 277A, 282AZA, 282ZE, 283, 283ZA, 283B, 283C, 284ZA, 284B agreed
After Clause 42, Lord Lucas, in an effort to save time in light of the late hour (and after seven days of Committee), decided that, "unless the Committee objects, I will telescope proceedings by speaking also to all my remaining amendments. I hear no objections: this is good". His first point was 'format shifting': in other words, when you buy a CD, you rip it to MP3 to stick it on your media player of choice. This is a fuzzy area of copyright, but Lord Lucas thinks it should be fine, since everyone does it anyway. Lord Davies of Oldham said it was too complicated to just get a UK solution, so not now.
Schedule 2 : Licensing of copyright and performers' property rights. A big chunk of amendments from the government, but no debate.
Schedule 2 passed - Amendments 299A to 299L agreed
Clause 43 : Increase of penalties relating to infringing articles or illicit recordings had no amendments tabled.
Clause 43 passed - no amendments
Eleventh section, "Public lending right", just Clause 44.
Clause 44 : Public lending right. The final amendment was Amendment 300, a simple probing amendment from Lord Clement-Jones - or, in his words, "it is with enormous pleasure that I rise at 10 minutes before 11 pm to move this final probing amendment in Committee". Lord Young agreed: "finally, unlike in Arthurian legend, we have reached our version of the holy grail - the final amendment". Lord Clement-Jones hoped that "the holy grail we are talking about is not the Monty Python version. That is all I can say at the end of seven days in Committee". If you remember the ending from the Monty Python film, you can see why.
Clause 44 passed - no amendments
Now the twelfth and final section, "General". Clauses 45 to 49. Nothing to see here.
Clause 45 : Power to make consequential provision etc, Clause 46 : Repeals, Schedule 3 : Repeals, Clause 47 : Extent, Clause 48 : Commencement and Clause 49 : Short title had no debate at all, so the final section of the Bill was cleared up almost instantly.
Clauses 45 to 49 & Schedule 3 passed - no amendments
And, that's it for Committee Stage, at last. Phew. It's been a real slog, I must say, but the hard part of this Bill is over with now. We have Report Stage next, which is much shorter than this, I can assure you. I'd better get on with it, though: the Bill's already become an Act, thanks to the upcoming election. Still think it's worth chronicling the debates, though.
Clause 42 : Extension and regulation of licensing of copyright and performers' rights. Big debate. Orphan works is a very contentious topic, especially in the case of photographs. What's an orphan work? It's a work (photograph, film, video, book, whatever) that doesn't have an author, because nobody can figure out who made it. Therefore, it's an 'orphan'. Why is this an issue? Because works that have no known author, but are not designated as 'orphans', cannot be released to the public because of current copyright laws. The basic statistics, provided by Lord Howarth of Newport, are staggering: "over 40 per cent of [the British Library's] archive collections may be orphan works" and a study found that "up to 50 per cent of works in large archives were orphan works and, indeed, that in excess of 50 million orphan works were held in somewhat more than 500 organisations which were surveyed". All of this valuable material is completely off-limits to the public, ridiculously, because of current copyright law.
Lord Howarth also gave the example of "a series of unpublished interviews held in the 1960s and 1970s at St-Mary-le-Bow church in the City of London, 302 hours were recorded as being spent by British Library staff and their paid contractors in looking for 259 rights holders". How many did they find? Fourteen. Given that the original project wasn't done for a commercial purpose, wasting so much time on "fruitless searches for rights holders is really not a sensible or, I would suggest, a proper use of public resources" - indeed, "much of the cultural sector is agreed on wanting an exception in copyright law for orphan works", so something clearly needs to be done. The Tories, although pleased with the principle, were not convinced with the drafting of the clause. Lord Howard of Rising said that the "desire to use genuine orphan works must not lead to any weakening of legitimate copyrights". The problem lies in determining what is and isn't orphaned, via a search. How detailed the search must be is unclear, however, and this could cause problems.
Lord Young of Norwood Green tried to relax the Tories by insisting that the bodies searching for rights holders must be "authorised and regulated and will have to carry out a diligent search". He later gave us another amazing statistic: apparently, "the BBC has roughly 1 million hours of [orphaned] programming". My word. People were still worried that the clause could be exploited - people such as "freelance photographers" and "the Royal Photographic Society". I suppose it's easy to pretend you don't know who took a picture and use it for free. Lord Clement-Jones was convinced that we would have "what is traditionally called the wash-up at the other end" (meaning the Commons), and boy was he right.
The government moved a large group of amendments, introduced by Lord Young in typical fashion: "The amendments require that the first regulations made under this power-that is, the creation of the first orphan works regulations, the first extended collective licensing regulations and the first exercise of the powers to introduce codes of practice and enforcement provisions for these codes and for the regulation of licensing of orphan works and extended licensing-are subject to the affirmative procedure. That was a long sentence and will need careful reading in Hansard". There was plenty of discussion about licensing and the like. The main gist is this: we want to let these orphaned works be made public, but we don't want legitimate copyright holders to have their work released for free if they don't want it to (especially freelance photographers and the like). Much of the debate was very technical, but it all came back to that basic point. Lord Clement-Jones even had an amendment (283) agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones was still not 100% convinced, of course, and after Lord Young defined 'orphan works' as "works protected by copyright but for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or traced even after a diligent search", which he called a "succinct definition", Lord Clement-Jones wanted to know if that definition is in the Bill, and if now, should it be? It looks like we'll see at Report.
Clause 42 passed - Amendment 265A, 268A, 277A, 282AZA, 282ZE, 283, 283ZA, 283B, 283C, 284ZA, 284B agreed
After Clause 42, Lord Lucas, in an effort to save time in light of the late hour (and after seven days of Committee), decided that, "unless the Committee objects, I will telescope proceedings by speaking also to all my remaining amendments. I hear no objections: this is good". His first point was 'format shifting': in other words, when you buy a CD, you rip it to MP3 to stick it on your media player of choice. This is a fuzzy area of copyright, but Lord Lucas thinks it should be fine, since everyone does it anyway. Lord Davies of Oldham said it was too complicated to just get a UK solution, so not now.
Schedule 2 : Licensing of copyright and performers' property rights. A big chunk of amendments from the government, but no debate.
Schedule 2 passed - Amendments 299A to 299L agreed
Clause 43 : Increase of penalties relating to infringing articles or illicit recordings had no amendments tabled.
Clause 43 passed - no amendments
Eleventh section, "Public lending right", just Clause 44.
Clause 44 : Public lending right. The final amendment was Amendment 300, a simple probing amendment from Lord Clement-Jones - or, in his words, "it is with enormous pleasure that I rise at 10 minutes before 11 pm to move this final probing amendment in Committee". Lord Young agreed: "finally, unlike in Arthurian legend, we have reached our version of the holy grail - the final amendment". Lord Clement-Jones hoped that "the holy grail we are talking about is not the Monty Python version. That is all I can say at the end of seven days in Committee". If you remember the ending from the Monty Python film, you can see why.
Clause 44 passed - no amendments
Now the twelfth and final section, "General". Clauses 45 to 49. Nothing to see here.
Clause 45 : Power to make consequential provision etc, Clause 46 : Repeals, Schedule 3 : Repeals, Clause 47 : Extent, Clause 48 : Commencement and Clause 49 : Short title had no debate at all, so the final section of the Bill was cleared up almost instantly.
Clauses 45 to 49 & Schedule 3 passed - no amendments
And, that's it for Committee Stage, at last. Phew. It's been a real slog, I must say, but the hard part of this Bill is over with now. We have Report Stage next, which is much shorter than this, I can assure you. I'd better get on with it, though: the Bill's already become an Act, thanks to the upcoming election. Still think it's worth chronicling the debates, though.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
The sections get a bit small now, so I'll just tell you when they appear. This next one is the seventh section, entitled "Regulation of television and radio services". It had only Clause 37, a tiny clause.
Clause 37 : Application of regulatory regimes to broadcasters. It's a tiny clause, and had no amendments (and I doubt it ever will).
Clause 37 passed - no amendments
Another section, the eighth, entitled "Access to electromagnetic spectrum". Clause 38 and 39 were in this one.
Clause 38 : Payment for licences. Lord Clement-Jones had a lot of concern about competition between mobile phone operators. He was worried about how the spectrum would be divvied up between all parties, including emergency services and the like. He wasn't very satisfied with Lord Young of Norwood Green's responses, but he was the only one raising any objections, so the debate didn't continue for long.
Clause 38 passed - no amendments
Clause 39 : Enforcement of licence terms etc. There was one amendment from the government, which corrects a mistake in the Bill regarding financial penalties. Obviously no argument there.
Clause 39 passed - Amendment 242 agreed
After the last clause, there was a confusing situation where Lord Lucas tabled an amendment to add a new clause, but Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment to amend his amendment. Very odd. It was related to making sure that there was spectrum left over for the European emergency services, which the government understands and may return to.
Ninth section, "Video recordings" (which is also related to video games). Clauses 40 and 41.
Clause 40 : Classification of video games etc. The first amendment dealt with being more specific about what shouldn't be allowed in an 'exempted' work. For those who don't know, you have to submit a video to the BBFC to get an age rating, but if the general theme of the video is music, sport or religion, you don't have to submit it at all - it's exempt. This was started with the Video Recordings Act 1984 (which we're not going to get into here) and times have, obviously, changed. UFC is a sport which can be pretty damn violent, and more and more music artists are being allowed by their record company to do more and more risqué things. So, there is a need to update this for the 21st century.
There was actually a Bill introduced to do just this, the Video Recordings (Exemption From Classification) Bill, which was one of the Bills left on the scrapheap when the election was called, so it's dealt with in this enormous Bill. Amendment 246 also included a mention of "racist, homophobic or other discriminatory language", which Lord Monson (in his only contribution to the entire Bill) took issue with. He insisted that the word 'homophobia' "does not mean a dislike of homosexuals. If it means anything at all, it means an aversion to one's own kind". He accepts that it is in common usage, but disagrees that it should be in an Act of Parliament. Lord Addington (stepping in for Lord Clement-Jones) thought this was a rather silly comment, since if you start going back to the original Greek for meanings of words, "that way madness lies".
Nevertheless, everyone seemed to agree with the principle, though the Lord Bishop of Manchester warned that the prohibition of discriminatory language could affect comedy performances, and also religious sermons where, for example, "theological views that were critical of other religions were expressed". Lord Davies of Oldham assured Lord De Mauley (who tabled the amendment) that the government are thinking about it.
Clause 40 passed - no amendments
Clause 41 : Designated authority for video games etc. Lord De Mauley returned, asking how the video games authority can be sure that a video game should be given to the BBFC if it should receive an R18 rating - that is, if it's pornographic. It's not explicitly mentioned in the Bill that the BBFC should be in charge of porn, not video games regulators. I wasn't aware that hard-core video games was a big problem at the moment (I'd like someone to show me more than five, not including the wacky Japanese stuff that would never be released in the UK anyway). The government insisted that everything would be okay, and the right body would be judging the right material.
Lord Howard of Rising pointed out with his amendment that there is a disparity between the BBFC ratings and PEGI (Pan-European Games Information) ratings, so a "game based on a film that was classified as a 15 by the BBFC could be turned into a work with a minor amount of interactivity, which would suddenly move it to a 16 under games classification". The chief point he was making, however, was concerning 'hybrid' products - that is, media which has interactive and linear content. Who rates the product? Baroness Howe of Idlicote chipped in with an example that we could have a situation where "a video game contains a series of films and yet the disc has a PEGI classification, which, according to the Bill, could bear no relation to the BBFC classification". Clearly this idea of hybrid products produces a very confusing situation. If the BBFC governed all types of video works it would be much simpler, but what can you do. Clearly we don't want a situation where we have "a product that is primarily linear being repackaged as a game to avoid robust BBFC classification".
You may remember from Second Reading that I told you the Lord Bishop of Manchester complained about the use of Manchester Cathedral in 'Resistance: Fall of Man'. Well, he brought it up again: "a games manufacturer created visual footage of the inside of Manchester Cathedral, without permission, as the setting for a very violent fantasy fighting scene, including all sorts of nasty creatures, none of which I recognised as regular worshippers," - this got a big laugh, ho ho ho - "using futuristic weapons. The episode showed me how much we have moved on from the days of pixelated Pac-Men wobbling across the screen". I'm pretty sure it wasn't video footage, but a level in the game that you could run around, so not quite relevant to this amendment. Never mind.
Lord Davies said that they wanted the VSC to become "a clear authority for games", like the BBFC is for video works. The government doesn't want the BBFC to be in charge of everything.
Clause 41 passed - no amendments
After Clause 41, there was an interesting debate on a new clause concerned with protecting kids online. She said that the "incongruity between what happens online and what happens offline makes a mockery of our law and creates a dangerous division between the real and the virtual world which we really should not continue to tolerate". She mentioned that Quake Live is based on an offline game (presumably Quake III Arena) which received an 18 certificate. So, she thinks that being able to log on to Quake Live and just play isn't right, given that it's for over 18s. Worryingly, she said that the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society claims "pornography has negative effects on individuals and communities. This is something which we all know but which we need to bear in mind when framing new legislation". Wait, "something which we all know"? What?
Regardless of the details, she's right that there is an incongruity between the real and virtual worlds when it comes to age restriction, but what can be done? Lord Mackay of Clashfern brought out statistics from Dr Tanya Byron, such as "63 per cent of children had lied to their parents about their online behaviour", "44 per cent boasted that they could hide unsuitable internet activity from their parents" and "53 per cent had deleted their browser history". Okay, so kids are liars, true, but that hasn't changed since the dawn of time. Baroness Buscombe highlighted the age divide with her kids "accessing all kinds of stuff on the screen without my knowledge and without my understanding". To be fair, home computers have been popular in Britain since around 1982, so anyone who was about 10-12 years old then (in other words, born in 1970) should be quite comfortable with computers, and those people will keep getting older and older. Of course, the Lords are all over 40 (as far as I know), so being comfortable with computers is the exception here (the Earl of Erroll is the only one who clearly knows his apples).
All this talk of protecting the kids is fine, but can it work? Lord Howard isn't sure: "Listening to the statistics... makes one wonder, laudable though the intentions behind these amendments may be, how they can possibly be made to be effective". Lord Davies insists that they can do something, though. He mentioned the amusing-sounding Click Clever, Click Safe campaign, with the 'Green Cross Code'-style slogan, "Zip It, Block It, Flag It". Whether this will help parents to protect their kids I don't know. As for selling stuff to under-age people online, the government's position is clear: "what is illegal offline is also illegal online. There is no distinction between the two".
Schedule 1 : Classification of video games etc: supplementary provision. Lord Howard was concerned with charging a fee for different formats of the same game. If a game is released on PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii, it gets three separate rating fees. PEGI apparently does this already - "and very lucrative it must be, with so many different ways of playing video games" - but he asked if this is really the right thing to do. The BBFC doesn't do it, so why should anyone else? Well, Lord Davies made the point that "a change in format can lead to a different perception and impact of the game" - and I guess there's a big difference between releasing a film on Blu-Ray and DVD, and releasing a game on PSP and PS3. He also made the point that, as it is, "publishers will not be able to take several already classified works, cut them and repackage them in a new way and then seek to rely on the previous classification certificate for the work in question". Lord Howard bowed to Lord Davies' "much greater knowledge of video games than mine. I do not know when he finds time to play them".
Schedule 1 passed - no amendments
Clause 37 : Application of regulatory regimes to broadcasters. It's a tiny clause, and had no amendments (and I doubt it ever will).
Clause 37 passed - no amendments
Another section, the eighth, entitled "Access to electromagnetic spectrum". Clause 38 and 39 were in this one.
Clause 38 : Payment for licences. Lord Clement-Jones had a lot of concern about competition between mobile phone operators. He was worried about how the spectrum would be divvied up between all parties, including emergency services and the like. He wasn't very satisfied with Lord Young of Norwood Green's responses, but he was the only one raising any objections, so the debate didn't continue for long.
Clause 38 passed - no amendments
Clause 39 : Enforcement of licence terms etc. There was one amendment from the government, which corrects a mistake in the Bill regarding financial penalties. Obviously no argument there.
Clause 39 passed - Amendment 242 agreed
After the last clause, there was a confusing situation where Lord Lucas tabled an amendment to add a new clause, but Lord Clement-Jones tabled an amendment to amend his amendment. Very odd. It was related to making sure that there was spectrum left over for the European emergency services, which the government understands and may return to.
Ninth section, "Video recordings" (which is also related to video games). Clauses 40 and 41.
Clause 40 : Classification of video games etc. The first amendment dealt with being more specific about what shouldn't be allowed in an 'exempted' work. For those who don't know, you have to submit a video to the BBFC to get an age rating, but if the general theme of the video is music, sport or religion, you don't have to submit it at all - it's exempt. This was started with the Video Recordings Act 1984 (which we're not going to get into here) and times have, obviously, changed. UFC is a sport which can be pretty damn violent, and more and more music artists are being allowed by their record company to do more and more risqué things. So, there is a need to update this for the 21st century.
There was actually a Bill introduced to do just this, the Video Recordings (Exemption From Classification) Bill, which was one of the Bills left on the scrapheap when the election was called, so it's dealt with in this enormous Bill. Amendment 246 also included a mention of "racist, homophobic or other discriminatory language", which Lord Monson (in his only contribution to the entire Bill) took issue with. He insisted that the word 'homophobia' "does not mean a dislike of homosexuals. If it means anything at all, it means an aversion to one's own kind". He accepts that it is in common usage, but disagrees that it should be in an Act of Parliament. Lord Addington (stepping in for Lord Clement-Jones) thought this was a rather silly comment, since if you start going back to the original Greek for meanings of words, "that way madness lies".
Nevertheless, everyone seemed to agree with the principle, though the Lord Bishop of Manchester warned that the prohibition of discriminatory language could affect comedy performances, and also religious sermons where, for example, "theological views that were critical of other religions were expressed". Lord Davies of Oldham assured Lord De Mauley (who tabled the amendment) that the government are thinking about it.
Clause 40 passed - no amendments
Clause 41 : Designated authority for video games etc. Lord De Mauley returned, asking how the video games authority can be sure that a video game should be given to the BBFC if it should receive an R18 rating - that is, if it's pornographic. It's not explicitly mentioned in the Bill that the BBFC should be in charge of porn, not video games regulators. I wasn't aware that hard-core video games was a big problem at the moment (I'd like someone to show me more than five, not including the wacky Japanese stuff that would never be released in the UK anyway). The government insisted that everything would be okay, and the right body would be judging the right material.
Lord Howard of Rising pointed out with his amendment that there is a disparity between the BBFC ratings and PEGI (Pan-European Games Information) ratings, so a "game based on a film that was classified as a 15 by the BBFC could be turned into a work with a minor amount of interactivity, which would suddenly move it to a 16 under games classification". The chief point he was making, however, was concerning 'hybrid' products - that is, media which has interactive and linear content. Who rates the product? Baroness Howe of Idlicote chipped in with an example that we could have a situation where "a video game contains a series of films and yet the disc has a PEGI classification, which, according to the Bill, could bear no relation to the BBFC classification". Clearly this idea of hybrid products produces a very confusing situation. If the BBFC governed all types of video works it would be much simpler, but what can you do. Clearly we don't want a situation where we have "a product that is primarily linear being repackaged as a game to avoid robust BBFC classification".
You may remember from Second Reading that I told you the Lord Bishop of Manchester complained about the use of Manchester Cathedral in 'Resistance: Fall of Man'. Well, he brought it up again: "a games manufacturer created visual footage of the inside of Manchester Cathedral, without permission, as the setting for a very violent fantasy fighting scene, including all sorts of nasty creatures, none of which I recognised as regular worshippers," - this got a big laugh, ho ho ho - "using futuristic weapons. The episode showed me how much we have moved on from the days of pixelated Pac-Men wobbling across the screen". I'm pretty sure it wasn't video footage, but a level in the game that you could run around, so not quite relevant to this amendment. Never mind.
Lord Davies said that they wanted the VSC to become "a clear authority for games", like the BBFC is for video works. The government doesn't want the BBFC to be in charge of everything.
Clause 41 passed - no amendments
After Clause 41, there was an interesting debate on a new clause concerned with protecting kids online. She said that the "incongruity between what happens online and what happens offline makes a mockery of our law and creates a dangerous division between the real and the virtual world which we really should not continue to tolerate". She mentioned that Quake Live is based on an offline game (presumably Quake III Arena) which received an 18 certificate. So, she thinks that being able to log on to Quake Live and just play isn't right, given that it's for over 18s. Worryingly, she said that the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society claims "pornography has negative effects on individuals and communities. This is something which we all know but which we need to bear in mind when framing new legislation". Wait, "something which we all know"? What?
Regardless of the details, she's right that there is an incongruity between the real and virtual worlds when it comes to age restriction, but what can be done? Lord Mackay of Clashfern brought out statistics from Dr Tanya Byron, such as "63 per cent of children had lied to their parents about their online behaviour", "44 per cent boasted that they could hide unsuitable internet activity from their parents" and "53 per cent had deleted their browser history". Okay, so kids are liars, true, but that hasn't changed since the dawn of time. Baroness Buscombe highlighted the age divide with her kids "accessing all kinds of stuff on the screen without my knowledge and without my understanding". To be fair, home computers have been popular in Britain since around 1982, so anyone who was about 10-12 years old then (in other words, born in 1970) should be quite comfortable with computers, and those people will keep getting older and older. Of course, the Lords are all over 40 (as far as I know), so being comfortable with computers is the exception here (the Earl of Erroll is the only one who clearly knows his apples).
All this talk of protecting the kids is fine, but can it work? Lord Howard isn't sure: "Listening to the statistics... makes one wonder, laudable though the intentions behind these amendments may be, how they can possibly be made to be effective". Lord Davies insists that they can do something, though. He mentioned the amusing-sounding Click Clever, Click Safe campaign, with the 'Green Cross Code'-style slogan, "Zip It, Block It, Flag It". Whether this will help parents to protect their kids I don't know. As for selling stuff to under-age people online, the government's position is clear: "what is illegal offline is also illegal online. There is no distinction between the two".
Schedule 1 : Classification of video games etc: supplementary provision. Lord Howard was concerned with charging a fee for different formats of the same game. If a game is released on PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii, it gets three separate rating fees. PEGI apparently does this already - "and very lucrative it must be, with so many different ways of playing video games" - but he asked if this is really the right thing to do. The BBFC doesn't do it, so why should anyone else? Well, Lord Davies made the point that "a change in format can lead to a different perception and impact of the game" - and I guess there's a big difference between releasing a film on Blu-Ray and DVD, and releasing a game on PSP and PS3. He also made the point that, as it is, "publishers will not be able to take several already classified works, cut them and repackage them in a new way and then seek to rely on the previous classification certificate for the work in question". Lord Howard bowed to Lord Davies' "much greater knowledge of video games than mine. I do not know when he finds time to play them".
Schedule 1 passed - no amendments
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
This is just a quick update to tell everyone that, while I'm still working through the final part of Lords Committee Stage on the Digital Economy Bill, the announcement of the general election for 6 May has given the DEB a kick up the arse, and they plan to go through all the stages for it in the Commons today.
Yes, this thing that took several months in the Lords is being rushed through like crazy in the Commons to get it done before Parliament is dissolved. I half expected this to happen, but it's a real shame that they had to start this Bill so late. If they'd started it a year earlier, they'd have had an entire Parliamentary session to do it. Instead, the carefully thought-through process done by the Lords is going to be practically ignored by the Commons and the Bill will become an Act before I can finish coverage of it. Such a shame, after spending so many hours covering it.
At least this blog remains as a record of what has been discussed for you to look at for the future. I'll still finish up my coverage of the Lords' debates on the Bill as soon as I can.
Yes, this thing that took several months in the Lords is being rushed through like crazy in the Commons to get it done before Parliament is dissolved. I half expected this to happen, but it's a real shame that they had to start this Bill so late. If they'd started it a year earlier, they'd have had an entire Parliamentary session to do it. Instead, the carefully thought-through process done by the Lords is going to be practically ignored by the Commons and the Bill will become an Act before I can finish coverage of it. Such a shame, after spending so many hours covering it.
At least this blog remains as a record of what has been discussed for you to look at for the future. I'll still finish up my coverage of the Lords' debates on the Bill as soon as I can.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Enough about TV, it's radio's turn. This is the sixth section of the Bill, entitled "Independent radio services".
Clause 30 : Digital switchover. The digital switchover of radio is clearly an important issue, because the majority of people still use analogue radios, for a number of reasons. Also, the digital TV switchover is far easier, as you just need a new box to stick under your current set and you're away, whereas radios clearly don't work like that. Thus, there will be a shedload of FM radios going on the scrapheap, and the Tories "remain unconvinced that the Government's plans to switchover in 2015 are realistic". Indeed, the government made it clear that the 2015 date suggested was "a target that we have set, not a precise date". So, don't worry, basically.
In all fairness, there is a good argument to be had to not turn off FM radio at all. It has uses besides your favourite music mix, such as radios for emergency services and the like. I'm sure that, eventually, we'll have to do away with FM, but I really don't think it's worth thinking about it until it's well and truly dead. As it stands, its use is alive and well, unlike with analogue TV. Anyway, I'm blabbing, instead of telling you what everyone said. Lord Young of Norwood Green insisted that the government had no intention to turn off FM and switch to DAB until the vast majority of people used DAB. Lord Clement-Jones wasn't thoroughly convinced, as he made it clear that "ultra-local radio" covered such small areas that FM would continue to be sensible for them, but DAB would make it more difficult for them.
The point of ultra-local radio was also brought up by the Lord Bishop of Manchester, who pointed out that moving to DAB could widen the range of these stations, having the knock-on effect of receiving phone-ins from people beyond the local area and, more importantly, putting off local advertisers who don't want to pay higher ad costs for such a wide range. He used the BBC's failed attempt to turn off Radio 4's LW service, which prompted "purposeful if well-mannered resistance, as one might expect from Radio 4 listeners. In fact, I am told that the sight of 200 protestors [sic] in tweed and twinsets marching down Upper Regent Street was enough to help the BBC to see the error of its ways". Lord Young tried his best to allay concerns, included the mention of a proposed system to select stations by name rather than by band, thus allowing FM and DAB to run side-by-side. Promising, indeed.
Lord Low of Dalston made his first appearance, and got off to a shaky start, though when I saw the video (I usually just listen to the debates rather than watch them) I realised why - he's blind. Well, he's the right man to comment on the problems faced by blind people with digital switchover. According to him, "more than 91 per cent regularly [listen] to the radio and more than 80 per cent [own] a radio set themselves", quite amazing statistics, though why pay for a TV licence if you can't see the damn thing? Thus, blind people rely on radio for all their news, sport and entertainment needs. The problem is in the design: old radios "use buttons and tactile dials for tuning. New DAB radios rely on touch screens or inset buttons that can pose real difficulties for visually impaired users". He wants the government to insist on manufacturers designing radios with this in mind. He also pointed out that with the screen of the radio providing information about the shows, presenters will be less inclined to give this info out. All in all, a good set of points.
Lord Young did make it clear that iVOX technology makes things a lot easier for blind people (I assume a robot voice tells you the information on the screen for you, which is a good idea). Lord Low knows about these things, but reminded Lord Young that the manufacturers might not consider some of them commercially viable, as has apparently happened in the past. He made some very important points (that I'm sure many people didn't even realise before), so I hope to hear more of this.
Clause 30 passed - no amendments
The debates came together for the final day of Committee on the 8th February.
Clause 31 : Renewal of national radio licences. This had no amendments, but Lord Clement-Jones argued that it should not be in the Bill - and, surprisingly, nobody agreed with him. Lord Howard of Rising said that the clause "enables the move to switchover at a later date, and it does not set in stone when the switchover will take place or indeed that it must happen", which he thought was very useful. The Lord Bishop of Manchester also supported the clause, saying that "not one digital radio station has yet posted a profit", so blocking an attempt to renew analogue radio wouldn't be a good idea. Lord Eatwell made his first appearance in the chamber as part of the consumer panel of Classic FM, and claimed that if the clause was removed, "the future of Classic FM will be severely compromised because it is a requirement of existing law that the analogue licences are auctioned" and that Classic FM has a 'non-speech' licence, which it might not get if and when it has to go digital.
Lord Clement-Jones was still not convinced, however. He insisted that they've missed the point, which is: "What is it about these extensions that will make those radio stations invest more when they migrate to digital? That is what it is all about".
Clause 31 passed - no amendments
Clause 32 : Renewal and variation of local radio licences, Clause 33 : Variation of licence period following renewal and Clause 34 : Content and character of local sound broadcasting services had no amendments, and thus, no debate.
Clause 32, 33, 34 passed - no amendments
Clause 35 : Local radio multiplex services: frequency and licensed area. Baroness Howe of Idlicote had a point to make regarding Northern Ireland not receiving commercial radio stations for some reason involving the Republic of Ireland. Lord Young insisted that the government sympathise with her concerns, but that the amendment she proposed wouldn't do the trick, so they'll go away and think about it.
Clause 35 passed - no amendments
Clause 36 : Renewal of radio multiplex licences. There was a very brief (and somewhat confusing) question on the clause, and neither I nor Lord Clement-Jones fully understood the government's response as to why the clause is necessary. Oh well.
Clause 36 passed - no amendments
Clause 30 : Digital switchover. The digital switchover of radio is clearly an important issue, because the majority of people still use analogue radios, for a number of reasons. Also, the digital TV switchover is far easier, as you just need a new box to stick under your current set and you're away, whereas radios clearly don't work like that. Thus, there will be a shedload of FM radios going on the scrapheap, and the Tories "remain unconvinced that the Government's plans to switchover in 2015 are realistic". Indeed, the government made it clear that the 2015 date suggested was "a target that we have set, not a precise date". So, don't worry, basically.
In all fairness, there is a good argument to be had to not turn off FM radio at all. It has uses besides your favourite music mix, such as radios for emergency services and the like. I'm sure that, eventually, we'll have to do away with FM, but I really don't think it's worth thinking about it until it's well and truly dead. As it stands, its use is alive and well, unlike with analogue TV. Anyway, I'm blabbing, instead of telling you what everyone said. Lord Young of Norwood Green insisted that the government had no intention to turn off FM and switch to DAB until the vast majority of people used DAB. Lord Clement-Jones wasn't thoroughly convinced, as he made it clear that "ultra-local radio" covered such small areas that FM would continue to be sensible for them, but DAB would make it more difficult for them.
The point of ultra-local radio was also brought up by the Lord Bishop of Manchester, who pointed out that moving to DAB could widen the range of these stations, having the knock-on effect of receiving phone-ins from people beyond the local area and, more importantly, putting off local advertisers who don't want to pay higher ad costs for such a wide range. He used the BBC's failed attempt to turn off Radio 4's LW service, which prompted "purposeful if well-mannered resistance, as one might expect from Radio 4 listeners. In fact, I am told that the sight of 200 protestors [sic] in tweed and twinsets marching down Upper Regent Street was enough to help the BBC to see the error of its ways". Lord Young tried his best to allay concerns, included the mention of a proposed system to select stations by name rather than by band, thus allowing FM and DAB to run side-by-side. Promising, indeed.
Lord Low of Dalston made his first appearance, and got off to a shaky start, though when I saw the video (I usually just listen to the debates rather than watch them) I realised why - he's blind. Well, he's the right man to comment on the problems faced by blind people with digital switchover. According to him, "more than 91 per cent regularly [listen] to the radio and more than 80 per cent [own] a radio set themselves", quite amazing statistics, though why pay for a TV licence if you can't see the damn thing? Thus, blind people rely on radio for all their news, sport and entertainment needs. The problem is in the design: old radios "use buttons and tactile dials for tuning. New DAB radios rely on touch screens or inset buttons that can pose real difficulties for visually impaired users". He wants the government to insist on manufacturers designing radios with this in mind. He also pointed out that with the screen of the radio providing information about the shows, presenters will be less inclined to give this info out. All in all, a good set of points.
Lord Young did make it clear that iVOX technology makes things a lot easier for blind people (I assume a robot voice tells you the information on the screen for you, which is a good idea). Lord Low knows about these things, but reminded Lord Young that the manufacturers might not consider some of them commercially viable, as has apparently happened in the past. He made some very important points (that I'm sure many people didn't even realise before), so I hope to hear more of this.
Clause 30 passed - no amendments
The debates came together for the final day of Committee on the 8th February.
Clause 31 : Renewal of national radio licences. This had no amendments, but Lord Clement-Jones argued that it should not be in the Bill - and, surprisingly, nobody agreed with him. Lord Howard of Rising said that the clause "enables the move to switchover at a later date, and it does not set in stone when the switchover will take place or indeed that it must happen", which he thought was very useful. The Lord Bishop of Manchester also supported the clause, saying that "not one digital radio station has yet posted a profit", so blocking an attempt to renew analogue radio wouldn't be a good idea. Lord Eatwell made his first appearance in the chamber as part of the consumer panel of Classic FM, and claimed that if the clause was removed, "the future of Classic FM will be severely compromised because it is a requirement of existing law that the analogue licences are auctioned" and that Classic FM has a 'non-speech' licence, which it might not get if and when it has to go digital.
Lord Clement-Jones was still not convinced, however. He insisted that they've missed the point, which is: "What is it about these extensions that will make those radio stations invest more when they migrate to digital? That is what it is all about".
Clause 31 passed - no amendments
Clause 32 : Renewal and variation of local radio licences, Clause 33 : Variation of licence period following renewal and Clause 34 : Content and character of local sound broadcasting services had no amendments, and thus, no debate.
Clause 32, 33, 34 passed - no amendments
Clause 35 : Local radio multiplex services: frequency and licensed area. Baroness Howe of Idlicote had a point to make regarding Northern Ireland not receiving commercial radio stations for some reason involving the Republic of Ireland. Lord Young insisted that the government sympathise with her concerns, but that the amendment she proposed wouldn't do the trick, so they'll go away and think about it.
Clause 35 passed - no amendments
Clause 36 : Renewal of radio multiplex licences. There was a very brief (and somewhat confusing) question on the clause, and neither I nor Lord Clement-Jones fully understood the government's response as to why the clause is necessary. Oh well.
Clause 36 passed - no amendments
Saturday, 3 April 2010
After the section regarding Channel 4, we move onto the fifth section, entitled "Independent television services". So, that's ITV, then, amongst others.
Clause 23 : Determination of Channel 3 licence areas, Clause 24 : Initial expiry date for Channel 3 and 5 and public teletext licences and Clause 25 : Initial expiry date: consequential provision were not debated at all, as there were no amendments, so they were passed in an instant. Clearly they must've been a bit boring.
Clauses 23, 24, 25 passed - no amendments
Clause 26 : Report by OFCOM on public teletext service. Lord Howard of Rising just had a quick query regarding subtitles provided via teletext - he was concerned that turning off analogue teletext would also turn off the ability to get subtitles. Lord Young of Norwood Green made it very clear that "because subtitles are provided on the same platform as teletext on analogue, the public may assume that the existence of analogue subtitles relies on the continuing provision of teletext", but that the subtitles are provided by the channels themselves, not the teletext provider. So, even if there is no teletext, the channels must still provide subtitles. So, that answers that question, then.
Clause 26 passed - no amendments
Clause 27 : Power to remove OFCOM’s duty to secure provision of public teletext service was also not discussed at all. Jesus, we're rattling through this section. The government must've got something right, at last.
Clause 27 passed - no amendments
Clause 28 : Appointed providers of regional or local news. Well, this was where the big debate came. The first debate came from the fact that money not used from the BBC's licence fee would be used to fund the digital switchover, and money not used from that would be used to fund the new local news consortia. The Tories don't like the idea of public subsidy for any kind of news, partly because they think that it will affect impartiality, and partly because the news consortia should be able to stand on their own two feet, rather than being able to defeat rivals thanks to a government hand-out. My personal view on this is that local news needs this subsidy because the traditional profit-driven model isn't working now. Come to think of it, why should there be any local news if there is clearly no market for it?
Nevertheless, Lord Davies of Oldham reassured the Tories that there would be no "top-slicing" of the licence fee, first and foremost, though he's not sure exactly where the money will come from. He picked up on Lord Howard of Rising's suggestion that "we might be inhibiting radical new news concepts. I have an awful feeling that by radical we mean a British version of Fox". (Lord Howard came back with "I must say that [Lord Davies] loves to chase that fox"). On the subject of Fox, he made clear that the government's position is that "the independence of news broadcasters should be maintained, and public resources have a role to play in that". Having seen ITV and Sky's news output, I think there is no doubt in that for me.
Lord Lucas tabled an amendment which was accepted by the government. It was to prevent someone disqualified in the Broadcasting Act 1990 cannot be appointed a news provider under this clause. The government agreed with this, of course.
There was a bit of a probe regarding some ambiguity around Ofcom specifying the "form" and "character" of news content. Lord Howard's reason for concern was that "allowing the regulator to set the character and form of any news that the appointed person produces sounds rather Orwellian. Are we to be treated to Ofcom's version of events? Will the character of such news be slanted to look favourably on regulators, governments or anything else that the appointed person cares to think about?" Lord Davies agreed that Lord Howard's suggestion was "something sounding like "Ofcom news" - if ever I heard of something out of George Orwell, that would be it. But that is not our intention". He made it clear that "Ofcom is not to be involved in editorial decisions", and such a thing would not be allowed to happen.
Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg came out in support of impartiality in news. Lord Puttnam quoted James Murdoch (son of Rupert), and Lord Bragg quoted a few other people. The general tone of their combined speech was that plurality of news output shouldn't occur at the expense of impartiality. Fox News was brought up again, and the suggestion that it is the most trusted name in American news is extremely worrying, and something that the UK wants to stay away from as much as possible. Lord Davies broadly agreed, remarking that "we all spend a great deal of time berating the weaknesses that are identified from time to time in our democratic practices... it is necessary to step back and recognise those things that we do well that are important in sustaining our democratic traditions". It seems to be agreed that TV news' impartiality must be maintained since "newspapers spend an awful lot of their time on comment", so they're pretty much a lost cause. If there is a suggestion that "television news is considered to be the most trusted of news sources by audiences, there is little doubt that it is thanks to the impartiality rule, which is why the Government are eager that that should continue".
Lord Howard once again complained about how public money (aimed at local TV news) could be used to fund newspapers, as that would be unfair to local rivals. Lord Davies reminded the House that since they're using public subsidy to support local news in the first place, then "the issue is not the plurality of newspapers but whether there is one there at all". He insisted that Lord Howard's amendment would limit the funding to television, which would be a step backwards as times change. Lord Howard, again, insisted that his question wasn't answered properly, but this time I think it was: the government's position is that funding will go to local news consortia, whether it includes newspapers, television or whatever. Limiting it to just TV would not help. Lord Howard was still not happy, but never mind.
Clause 28 passed - Amendment 233ZF agreed
Clause 29 : Broadcasting of programmes in Gaelic was a tiny clause which just removed a few bits from the Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to showing Gaelic language programmes in Scotland. Obviously, not a big debate, then.
Clause 29 passed - no amendments
Clause 23 : Determination of Channel 3 licence areas, Clause 24 : Initial expiry date for Channel 3 and 5 and public teletext licences and Clause 25 : Initial expiry date: consequential provision were not debated at all, as there were no amendments, so they were passed in an instant. Clearly they must've been a bit boring.
Clauses 23, 24, 25 passed - no amendments
Clause 26 : Report by OFCOM on public teletext service. Lord Howard of Rising just had a quick query regarding subtitles provided via teletext - he was concerned that turning off analogue teletext would also turn off the ability to get subtitles. Lord Young of Norwood Green made it very clear that "because subtitles are provided on the same platform as teletext on analogue, the public may assume that the existence of analogue subtitles relies on the continuing provision of teletext", but that the subtitles are provided by the channels themselves, not the teletext provider. So, even if there is no teletext, the channels must still provide subtitles. So, that answers that question, then.
Clause 26 passed - no amendments
Clause 27 : Power to remove OFCOM’s duty to secure provision of public teletext service was also not discussed at all. Jesus, we're rattling through this section. The government must've got something right, at last.
Clause 27 passed - no amendments
Clause 28 : Appointed providers of regional or local news. Well, this was where the big debate came. The first debate came from the fact that money not used from the BBC's licence fee would be used to fund the digital switchover, and money not used from that would be used to fund the new local news consortia. The Tories don't like the idea of public subsidy for any kind of news, partly because they think that it will affect impartiality, and partly because the news consortia should be able to stand on their own two feet, rather than being able to defeat rivals thanks to a government hand-out. My personal view on this is that local news needs this subsidy because the traditional profit-driven model isn't working now. Come to think of it, why should there be any local news if there is clearly no market for it?
Nevertheless, Lord Davies of Oldham reassured the Tories that there would be no "top-slicing" of the licence fee, first and foremost, though he's not sure exactly where the money will come from. He picked up on Lord Howard of Rising's suggestion that "we might be inhibiting radical new news concepts. I have an awful feeling that by radical we mean a British version of Fox". (Lord Howard came back with "I must say that [Lord Davies] loves to chase that fox"). On the subject of Fox, he made clear that the government's position is that "the independence of news broadcasters should be maintained, and public resources have a role to play in that". Having seen ITV and Sky's news output, I think there is no doubt in that for me.
Lord Lucas tabled an amendment which was accepted by the government. It was to prevent someone disqualified in the Broadcasting Act 1990 cannot be appointed a news provider under this clause. The government agreed with this, of course.
There was a bit of a probe regarding some ambiguity around Ofcom specifying the "form" and "character" of news content. Lord Howard's reason for concern was that "allowing the regulator to set the character and form of any news that the appointed person produces sounds rather Orwellian. Are we to be treated to Ofcom's version of events? Will the character of such news be slanted to look favourably on regulators, governments or anything else that the appointed person cares to think about?" Lord Davies agreed that Lord Howard's suggestion was "something sounding like "Ofcom news" - if ever I heard of something out of George Orwell, that would be it. But that is not our intention". He made it clear that "Ofcom is not to be involved in editorial decisions", and such a thing would not be allowed to happen.
Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg came out in support of impartiality in news. Lord Puttnam quoted James Murdoch (son of Rupert), and Lord Bragg quoted a few other people. The general tone of their combined speech was that plurality of news output shouldn't occur at the expense of impartiality. Fox News was brought up again, and the suggestion that it is the most trusted name in American news is extremely worrying, and something that the UK wants to stay away from as much as possible. Lord Davies broadly agreed, remarking that "we all spend a great deal of time berating the weaknesses that are identified from time to time in our democratic practices... it is necessary to step back and recognise those things that we do well that are important in sustaining our democratic traditions". It seems to be agreed that TV news' impartiality must be maintained since "newspapers spend an awful lot of their time on comment", so they're pretty much a lost cause. If there is a suggestion that "television news is considered to be the most trusted of news sources by audiences, there is little doubt that it is thanks to the impartiality rule, which is why the Government are eager that that should continue".
Lord Howard once again complained about how public money (aimed at local TV news) could be used to fund newspapers, as that would be unfair to local rivals. Lord Davies reminded the House that since they're using public subsidy to support local news in the first place, then "the issue is not the plurality of newspapers but whether there is one there at all". He insisted that Lord Howard's amendment would limit the funding to television, which would be a step backwards as times change. Lord Howard, again, insisted that his question wasn't answered properly, but this time I think it was: the government's position is that funding will go to local news consortia, whether it includes newspapers, television or whatever. Limiting it to just TV would not help. Lord Howard was still not happy, but never mind.
Clause 28 passed - Amendment 233ZF agreed
Clause 29 : Broadcasting of programmes in Gaelic was a tiny clause which just removed a few bits from the Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to showing Gaelic language programmes in Scotland. Obviously, not a big debate, then.
Clause 29 passed - no amendments
Friday, 2 April 2010
We're now onto the fourth part of the Bill, simply titled "Channel Four Television Corporation". Clauses 21 and 22 were to update Channel 4's remit.
Clause 21 : Functions of C4C in relation to media content. There was plenty to talk about when it came to the issue of Channel 4, which is, like the BBC, a public service broadcaster but, unlike the BBC, is commercially funded, not by the taxpayer. Lord Howard of Rising was worried that the new remit might downgrade the quality of C4C's output, because they're moving into areas beyond their single terrestrial channel. Lord Puttnam, deputy chairman of Channel 4, assured everyone that the clause is fine as it is with regards to C4C's output, giving the moving of educational output online as an example.
Lord Howard raised another question which, puzzlingly, didn't get a satisfactory answer. It may be normal for politicians to not answer questions directly in interviews, but this was very unusual to see it in the Lords. The question was very simple: the Bill, as drafted, says C4C must participate in "distribution [of films] by means of electronic communications networks". Lord Howard simply wanted to know if this meant it was "compulsory for Channel 4 to invest in streaming films over the internet", rather than being just an option. He was worried that they would be forced to stream other people's films over the internet, which might be bad for their budget. Lord Davies of Oldham replied that the section in question merely ensures that C4C "includes in its services films that reflect UK culture". He pointed to the "sheer weight of the economic, financial and, to a degree, cultural domination of the American industries. If I were addressing a French audience about the necessity of advancing French interests with regard to films, I would have nothing but universal applause".
Lord Howard (and myself) was not convinced by this. Lord Davies had made a nice reassurance, but it didn't answer the question: do they have to stream films online? He probed again. Lord Davies still repeated the same answer. Lord Howard became a little frustrated, and suggested he read Hansard afterwards. A very odd exchange. Perhaps Lord Howard should've been more direct? The Lords are often too wishy-washy in their questions, so they get wishy-washy answers.
Surprisingly, we had an amendment agreed to, and not from the government. Baroness Howe of Idlicote, while pronouncing 'genres' in an unusual way (I think she's forgetting it's an English word now), she suggested an amendment to ensure that C4C's output remains international in flavour, when it comes to things like Channel 4 News "widening the international news agenda". The BBC's charter apparently has the explicit aim to "bring the world to the UK", so she wanted the same from C4C. The government were happy with that, C4C were happy with it, so it passed.
Clause 21 passed - Amendment 231A agreed
Clause 22 : Monitoring and enforcing C4C’s media content duties. This clause wasn't actually debated, but after Clause 21, Lord De Mauley really wanted a new clause to limit the regulation of C4C by making them produce a report, instead of "yet another inexorable layer of bureaucracy" imposed by Clause 22. Nobody else seemed to agree with him and his party, but he tested the opinion of the Committee anyway, and lost by 143 to 65. The Tories' hopes dashed again.
Clause 22 passed - no amendments
Clause 21 : Functions of C4C in relation to media content. There was plenty to talk about when it came to the issue of Channel 4, which is, like the BBC, a public service broadcaster but, unlike the BBC, is commercially funded, not by the taxpayer. Lord Howard of Rising was worried that the new remit might downgrade the quality of C4C's output, because they're moving into areas beyond their single terrestrial channel. Lord Puttnam, deputy chairman of Channel 4, assured everyone that the clause is fine as it is with regards to C4C's output, giving the moving of educational output online as an example.
Lord Howard raised another question which, puzzlingly, didn't get a satisfactory answer. It may be normal for politicians to not answer questions directly in interviews, but this was very unusual to see it in the Lords. The question was very simple: the Bill, as drafted, says C4C must participate in "distribution [of films] by means of electronic communications networks". Lord Howard simply wanted to know if this meant it was "compulsory for Channel 4 to invest in streaming films over the internet", rather than being just an option. He was worried that they would be forced to stream other people's films over the internet, which might be bad for their budget. Lord Davies of Oldham replied that the section in question merely ensures that C4C "includes in its services films that reflect UK culture". He pointed to the "sheer weight of the economic, financial and, to a degree, cultural domination of the American industries. If I were addressing a French audience about the necessity of advancing French interests with regard to films, I would have nothing but universal applause".
Lord Howard (and myself) was not convinced by this. Lord Davies had made a nice reassurance, but it didn't answer the question: do they have to stream films online? He probed again. Lord Davies still repeated the same answer. Lord Howard became a little frustrated, and suggested he read Hansard afterwards. A very odd exchange. Perhaps Lord Howard should've been more direct? The Lords are often too wishy-washy in their questions, so they get wishy-washy answers.
Surprisingly, we had an amendment agreed to, and not from the government. Baroness Howe of Idlicote, while pronouncing 'genres' in an unusual way (I think she's forgetting it's an English word now), she suggested an amendment to ensure that C4C's output remains international in flavour, when it comes to things like Channel 4 News "widening the international news agenda". The BBC's charter apparently has the explicit aim to "bring the world to the UK", so she wanted the same from C4C. The government were happy with that, C4C were happy with it, so it passed.
Clause 21 passed - Amendment 231A agreed
Clause 22 : Monitoring and enforcing C4C’s media content duties. This clause wasn't actually debated, but after Clause 21, Lord De Mauley really wanted a new clause to limit the regulation of C4C by making them produce a report, instead of "yet another inexorable layer of bureaucracy" imposed by Clause 22. Nobody else seemed to agree with him and his party, but he tested the opinion of the Committee anyway, and lost by 143 to 65. The Tories' hopes dashed again.
Clause 22 passed - no amendments
Thursday, 1 April 2010
We now move onto the third part of the Bill, entitled "Powers in relation to internet domain registries". There were three clauses in this section, 18 to 20.
Clause 18 : Powers in relation to internet domain registries. Quite a bit of discussion on this one, and lots of amendments agreed to, all of which came from the government. The first amendment was connected with domain names, specifically giving the Secretary of State powers to stop the misuse of them, but only over ones that appear to be connected to the UK, such as .uk and .gb, but also potential future ones, "such as ".london", or even ".britfishshops". I am sure noble Lords will well appreciate that the Government will certainly be concerned about any phishing activities, if you will pardon the pun, associated with this domain. I see that joke went down really well. You can't win them all, as someone once said". His attempt at a joke wasn't entirely lost, however, as the Earl of Erroll pointed out that there was some merit in what he said: "Would "sh" appear twice in the middle, or not? There is a phishing opportunity there".
Interesting amendment from the government: they removed lines 37 to 39 from page 19, which gives the definition of "internet domain" as "an internet domain indicated by the last element of an internet domain name or by that element together with one or more of the preceding elements of the name". This is obviously related to the flurry of amendments which make the type of domain names affected by the legislation much more specific. That definition was replaced by a much more in-depth one in Amendment 225B.
Clause 18 passed - Amendment 214A, 215A, 221A, 221B, 223A, 223B, 223C, 225A, 225B agreed
Discussion resumed on the 3rd February.
Clause 19 : Appointment of manager of internet domain registry. Things got off to an interesting start as Lord Howard of Rising tested the opinion of the Committee on his Amendment 226A. The amendment was designed to "limit the authority of the appointed manager to deal with the rectification of a specific problem or problems", but both Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Clement-Jones though that such limiting of power was already included. Lord Howard disagreed. After the order to 'clear the bar', the result was victory for the Not-Contents, scoring 146 to 79 (I do wonder where all these people come from, as I generally see less than 10 people actually debating the issues). Lord Howard didn't get his way.
Surprisingly, the Earl of Erroll's amendment was agreed to by the government, one of the few times that an amendment not tabled by the government has been accepted. It was a very simple one, just giving more flexibility, as the original wording made things a bit tight.
Clause 19 passed - Amendment 225C & 227 agreed
Clause 20 : Application to court to alter constitution of internet domain registry. The exact same amendment as in the other clauses (changing "an" to "a qualifying") was done here, too. No other amendments discussed.
Clause 20 passed - Amendment 229A agreed
Clause 18 : Powers in relation to internet domain registries. Quite a bit of discussion on this one, and lots of amendments agreed to, all of which came from the government. The first amendment was connected with domain names, specifically giving the Secretary of State powers to stop the misuse of them, but only over ones that appear to be connected to the UK, such as .uk and .gb, but also potential future ones, "such as ".london", or even ".britfishshops". I am sure noble Lords will well appreciate that the Government will certainly be concerned about any phishing activities, if you will pardon the pun, associated with this domain. I see that joke went down really well. You can't win them all, as someone once said". His attempt at a joke wasn't entirely lost, however, as the Earl of Erroll pointed out that there was some merit in what he said: "Would "sh" appear twice in the middle, or not? There is a phishing opportunity there".
Interesting amendment from the government: they removed lines 37 to 39 from page 19, which gives the definition of "internet domain" as "an internet domain indicated by the last element of an internet domain name or by that element together with one or more of the preceding elements of the name". This is obviously related to the flurry of amendments which make the type of domain names affected by the legislation much more specific. That definition was replaced by a much more in-depth one in Amendment 225B.
Clause 18 passed - Amendment 214A, 215A, 221A, 221B, 223A, 223B, 223C, 225A, 225B agreed
Discussion resumed on the 3rd February.
Clause 19 : Appointment of manager of internet domain registry. Things got off to an interesting start as Lord Howard of Rising tested the opinion of the Committee on his Amendment 226A. The amendment was designed to "limit the authority of the appointed manager to deal with the rectification of a specific problem or problems", but both Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Clement-Jones though that such limiting of power was already included. Lord Howard disagreed. After the order to 'clear the bar', the result was victory for the Not-Contents, scoring 146 to 79 (I do wonder where all these people come from, as I generally see less than 10 people actually debating the issues). Lord Howard didn't get his way.
Surprisingly, the Earl of Erroll's amendment was agreed to by the government, one of the few times that an amendment not tabled by the government has been accepted. It was a very simple one, just giving more flexibility, as the original wording made things a bit tight.
Clause 19 passed - Amendment 225C & 227 agreed
Clause 20 : Application to court to alter constitution of internet domain registry. The exact same amendment as in the other clauses (changing "an" to "a qualifying") was done here, too. No other amendments discussed.
Clause 20 passed - Amendment 229A agreed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)