A few weeks back, I noticed that Labour MP Tom Watson (who seems to have his head screwed on when it comes to the web) had proposed an Early Day Motion, specifically EDM 1997 Illicit File Sharing, which recognises the futility of Mandelson’s plans to implement a three-strikes system in the UK.
My immediate thought was to convince my own MP, Jeremy Corbyn, to sign it. However, it turned out he already had, so I used WriteToThem to send him a message thanking him. Click through to read it, and his response:
Dear Jeremy Corbyn,
I read this morning with great pleasure that you’d signed Tom Watson’s early-day-motion on illicit filesharing. This shows a firm grip on reality, and understanding of the issues involved.
I had been considering moving my vote elsewhere next year due to the noises that Peter Mandelson has been making on the subject, but if a substantial portion of the party recognises the futility of his plans, I hope they can be defeated. Please work to convince your colleagues in the Labour Party of the realities involved in the situation.
I waited a few weeks, and there wasn’t a reply, but this morning a letter from the House of Commons dropped through my mailbox. It read:
Dear Duncan Geere,
Thank you for your recent email regarding Early Day Motion 1997 Illicit File Sharing.
I am happy to be among the forty-three signatories to this EDM. Government proposals in this area seem to me to be poorly thought out, and leave people vulnerable to expensive and essentially ineffective prosections.
It is absolutely right to ensure that anyone prosecuted in the circumstances the EDM identifies should have the right to legal redress in a court of law before the impositions of sanctions.
More importantly, it would be better if police resources were directed not so much at protecting the financial interests of copyright holders, but at more urgent forms of internet crime, in particular serious fraud scams where ordinary people are the principal victims.
I’m very pleased. Corbyn seems to be understand exactly what the issues are here - firstly that the detection systems that the content owners use don’t work, secondly that even if they did, filesharers can evade detection very easily, and thirdly that the government has better things it should be doing than propping up malfunctioning business models.
For bonus reading, contrast his response with a response from Reading East’s Tory MP Rob Wilson, sent to a friend of mine, Alan Miller:
The issue of digital piracy is very serious. It costs the creative industries, in their capacity as rights-holders, hundreds of millions of pounds each year. This said, I share your concerns about the practical implications of the Government’s most recent announcements and believe that these measures show that they have given up, without enough effort in my view, before trying to put in place effective safeguards.
Whilst we are happy to consider the use of technical measures against the most extreme offenders, the Government should be finding incentives for technical solutions that prevent or deter people from illegal file-sharing in the first place. The Government has continually over promised and under delivered when it comes to tackling online piracy. Real progress is desperately needed, but this latest announcement fails to answer some critical questions. For example, what criteria will the Secretary of State use before deciding to cut someone off? I know that my colleague Jeremy Hunt MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is taking this issue very seriously and will continue to work hard in calling the Government to account.
As EDM 1997 has no legislative effect, rather than sign it I will work with colleagues to continue to use the other routes open to us in Parliament to press the Government on this issue.
*headdesk*
Still, some people reckon that the filesharing issue is an elaborate bomb that Mandelson is constructing for an incoming Conservative leadership. Mandelson has certainly proved Machiavellian enough in the past, though we’re firmly in tin-foil-hat territory here. If so, is he doing more harm to Labour’s reputation among young people than good?