*** Updated (see bottom) ***
Over at the Writers’ Guild website, Bernie Corbett (General Secretary of the WGGB) has written a piece called ‘In Defence of the Digital Economy Bill’). It fundamentally misunderstands both the effects of the legislation and the manner in which it was passed, and is a worrying display of ignorance of the facts and issues that surround the Bill. The Bill is bad, that my union should be so maladroit in its defence is worse.
Mr Corbett begins by calling the Bill ‘much-debated’. This is a coy misdirection. Although the legislation has been much debated in various online forums it has not been afforded full debate in the place it should have been: Parliament. It was rammed through as part of the ‘wash-up’ process at the end of a Parliament despite being hugely controversial.
Tens of thousands of people signed petitions against the legislation which fundamentally alters the way in which the Internet will be allowed to function in this country, and yet it was debated for less than two hours, by fewer than 15 MPs (although more than 200 could be bothered to turn up to vote).
That a representative of my union sees fit to support legislation passed without the usual scrutiny or debate afforded to any legislation, never mind that which directly affects the industry in which I work, I find incredible. The fact that Mr Corbett refuses to recognise that one can be opposed to the tawdry and secretive way in which this legislation was put together, with last-minute amendments being shoved in at the behest of the BPI, is baffling to me.
Mr Corbett says that he ‘makes no apology’ for supporting measures to automatically disconnect people accused of illegal file-sharing. Peopleaccused of file-sharing. Not people convicted of file-sharing, people accused of it. Or, rather, people accused of having their internet connection used for it. So a parent loses their ability to work from home because their teenager illegally downloads a game upstairs. So an old person who Skypes their distant family loses her connection because she didn’t secure her wi-fi connection. As Liberty says:
“What’s more, automatic disconnection is likely to be largely indiscriminate in its application. As mentioned above in relation to model 1, evidence of suspected infringement will not amount to evidence of a specific suspected infringer rather an account holder whose internet subscription may have been used by another to infringe copyright. Deciphering whether or not an account holder or another is the suspected infringer is certainly not possible at the stage at which technical measures would be imposed under this model. The likelihood is therefore that many who have not themselves infringed copyright will be subjected to the automatic sanctions including disconnection.”
It is a crying shame that, in order to appear to robustly support the rights of creators, the WGGB feels the need to support measures which assume guilt rather than innocence, and are fundamentally flawed and unjust in the ways in which they are to be applied.
It is more of a shame that Mr Corbett either does not understand, or pretends not to notice the difference between what the Bill does, and what he says it does: “introducing automatic penalties against people who use the internet to download music, films, books or whatever in breach of copyrights held by creators, publishers, producers, etc.”
It becomes even more absurd when we notice what sorts of people have been accused of copyright infringement (under America’s DMCA) in the past. Larry Lessig’s speech about the concept of fair use has been accused of infringement; people commenting on Ralph Lauren’s airbrushing of modelshave been accused of infringement; videos parents have made of their children dancing have been accused of infringement; Viacom even accuse Youtube of infringing with videos Viacom themselves uploaded to Youtube, according to Google’s submissions in the court case between them.
He says that “it cannot be right” for “internet service providers to have no role in policing the material they transmit” but doesn’t suggest that the Post Office be equally vigilant in policing all of the material they transmit. Are we seriously to accept that if someone is accused of receiving an illegally pirated item through the post they should have the postal service to their house suspended, and that the Royal Mail should be held liable? That seems to be what Mr Corbett thinks should be the position.
Mr Corbett goes on to say, without evidence, that these powers will not be misused. Indeed, he does further: “I believe they will operate only rarely and in the most serious cases.” Phew! Thank goodness. He believes that to be the case. It is not guaranteed by the Bill, which gives sweeping new powers for all sorts of ill-defined problems, but Mr Corbett believes these powers won’t be abused
No one believed anti-terrorism laws would be used by councils to spy on school applicants. Or to stop photographers (you know, members of the creative industries) peacefully going about their business in public. Or tocatch litterbugs. Yes, one would have to be pretty paranoid to believe that the powers we give to our government and police force will be abused…
Some of the rest of what Mr Corbett says about pricing and release windows makes a lot of sense, but he seems compelled to defend a Bill that doesn’t say what he thinks it says, and doesn’t include some of the clauses he’s defending.
As he says:
“You might not know it from many media reports, but there are lots of other sections in the Digital Economy Bill, and some of them have been victims of the horse-trading between parties in the ‘wash-up’ process”
And that is part of the problem people have with the Bill. the fact that it was not submitted to proper scrutiny means that anything that was potentially good has been stripped from it (orphan works, local news services) and it has been anti-democratically filled with authoritarian dogma. What replaced the clause on orphan works? One that could ban (and a government minister refused to rule out that it would ban) sites like Wikileaks, which just this week provided evidence of the murder of a Reuters reporter in Iraq by US forces.
This Bill is a Bill against freedom of speech. In a world where people claimthat bad reviews are libellous, that whistleblowers are infringing copyright in the documents they expose, that music blogging is, by its nature, an infringing activity, there is a clear chilling effect on speech involved in draconian new powers for governments in regulating the Internet.
There is a lot of literature on the effects of DMCA takedowns on free speech, and, as a writer, I value free speech quite highly. I imagine Mr Corbett does, too. It’s sad, however, that he hasn’t given more thought to why writers, the writers he represents, may not entirely embrace a Bill passed in an undemocratic fashion that gives massive new powers to the government, any government, and that is modelled, in part, on similar laws in China.
Mr Corbett doesn’t believe that these powers will be abused. I can only hope that he is right.
He concludes: “During the intense lobbying over the Digital Economy Bill the interests of the Writers’ Guild, and writers in general, have been brilliantly looked after by two influential organisations to which the Guild is affiliated – the Creators’ Rights Alliance and the British Copyright Council.”
The last WGGB mailing had a copy of the Creators’ Rights Alliance Manifesto. It includes such edifying suggestions as: “All schoolchildren should be encouraged in the habit of using the (c) symbol with their work, whether it be an essay or a musical composition.”
I find that more dispiriting than I can say. When confronted with the challenges of managing intellectual property in the 21st century, that’s our answer? To commodify everything, at every level? Is there no place for freedom of thought, and play in expression? Is ownership the only valuable facet of creative work? Really?
Should we also clarify for our toddlers that, technically, being tickled is an assault, but they might not want to press charges every time?
Anyway, I’m drifting off-topic. I disagree with Mr Corbett, and I’m disappointed with the confused tone of a communication from the union of which I’m a member. The Digital Economy Bill is badly thought-through, conceptually confused, and has become law, sweeping law, without going through normal Parliamentary procedures.
Mr Corbett calls the Bill “little understood”. That’s true. One of the people who doesn’t understand the Bill, apparently, is him.
*** UPDATE: Bernie Corbett has sent a full response to this post, which can be found here ***
** UPDATE 2: I wrote a response to some of Bernie’s points here (and others in the comments below his post) ***
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 9, 2010 at 8:31 am
Darren
I think I agree with pretty much everything you say here. This bill is appalling, yet it sums up our “democracy”. Our polititians look us in the eye and tell us we have as much say in our democracy as everybody else. Then they have lunch with a lobbyist and THEN go and write legislation. This bill (or sections of it) is not about creative people or readers/listeners/viewers, it’s about propping up these industries out of date business models. So, as well as showing up our democracy for the sham it is, it also shows that big business only has to play by the rules of the free market when it wants to.
The only thing of comfort here is that this legislation will not ultimately save these dinosaurs.
April 9, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
I suppose I’m wrong to be disappointed that a union isn’t a more progressive or clear-thinking force, but to assume the interests of creators are the same as the interests of the corporations that exploit those creators’ work seems bogglingly naive.
His article even says: “Online copyright infringement not only deprives creators of payment for the enjoyment of their work, but also damages the businesses that, like it or not, we depend on for commissions, fees, royalties and residuals.”
This, then, is not a union for fighting for a world where creators own what they produce, or for new business models and ways of distributing what we create. Despite the protestations, this apparently is not a union that believes that we should own what we create, but rather that we should be better compensated when we inevitably have to sell it.
The ‘anti-weblocker’ clause inserted by Lib Dem peers (which I am not sure made it into the final bill) would make it much harder for me to make the things I make. We transfer large files as a matter of course to create In The Gloaming (http://inthegloamingpodcasts.wordpress.com kids – download, send them to your friends, spread the word, and click the donate button if you’d like…) and the fact that the government is claiming to be on the side of content creators is, in my view laughable.
The fact that my union apparently believes them is saddening…
April 9, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Jon Pritchard
What a really well written article. You highlight many of the pitfalls of this legislation and point to salient examples in other countries, something that not many MPs bothered to look up.
April 9, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Thank you, Jon. Sadly, there were lots and lots more examples I could have given. I only stopped because it was getting so late…
April 9, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Paul Leman
Bernie Corbett is not the first Union General Secretary to completely misundestand “debill”. If you stay awake to watch the transit of the bill through the Lords you would have seen Baron Young of Norwood Green (onetime General Secretary of the National Communications Union) show that he had not the slightest inkling of what they were really debating.
I’ve read that this Bill will help us compete with the likes of South Korea. I’d like to suggest that it will bring us down to the levels of that Stalinist “paradise” that is Kim Jong-il’s North Korea.
April 9, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Given the fact that someone on Stephen Timms’ staff seems to think the IP in ‘IP address’ stands for ‘Intellectual Property’ shows just how much politicians understand what is in the legislation they pass. As long as it has industry’s stamp on it, they seem to take it on trust that it is good legislation.
April 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Katabasis
Great post Nathaniel!
April 9, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Thank you!
April 9, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Ed
What an excellent read. It’s people like you, Nathaniel, who keep the Government in check. Hear hear!
April 9, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
I’m afraid, Ed, that it doesn’t seem like there’s anything that can keep the government in check. And the good work in drawing attention to these issues was all done by Techdirt, BoingBoing and The Open Rights Group, I just cherry-picked the stories I remembered from the last few months. They are doing all the hard work raising them each time they come up.
April 9, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Crosbie Fitch
If anyone’s interested in new business models (that operate without copyright) then check out http://contingencymarket.com
April 9, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
That looks interesting, Crosbie. Thank you for showing it to me, I was looking for something like this last year. I’d like to see it ‘in action’.
April 13, 2010 at 9:27 am
Crosbie Fitch
I’d like to see it in action too. The trouble is, given that you can count the number of people worldwide in single digits, who believe intellectual work can be exchanged for money without copyright, progress is slow for a consequently unfunded, solo developer.
The demonstrator of the Contingency Market, inexorably emerging, is http://1p2U.com – currently in early (alpha) stages.
April 9, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Bernie Corbett
The post merits a reply and at the risk of further exposing my maladroitness I have sent one to Nathaniel. Too long for a footnote comment but he can post it if he likes.
April 9, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Thanks for getting back to me, Bernie. I’ll put your response up now.
April 9, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Bernie Corbett’s Response to WMUIW « Nathaniel Tapley
[…] General Secretary of the WGGB has taken the time to expand on the arguments I criticised in an earlier post. I’m going to post his response in full below, and thank him for responding at all to a […]
April 10, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Tweets that mention Why My Union Is Wrong « Nathaniel Tapley -- Topsy.com
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ian Dunn, Elrik Merlin, Pirate Party UK, Nathaniel Tapley, Nathaniel Tapley and others. Nathaniel Tapley said: My article on why the Writers' Guild (my union) is desperately wrong in their attitude to the #debill #deact http://bit.ly/dpUlYd […]
April 12, 2010 at 1:47 pm
One Stupid Thing About The Digital Economy Bill « Nathaniel Tapley
[…] Whatever other differences we might have, the fundamental disagreement between Bernie Corbett and me can be boiled down to one essential point. He thinks it is wise to disconnect people from the […]
April 12, 2010 at 5:59 pm
leischa
Good article.
I was going to comment that the WGGB isn’t really a proper union – technically, it’s more an association of professionals on individual contracts and does not participate in collective bargaining, which is a good measure of how much of a union an organisation is. It’s certainly not the RMT.
However, according to the certification officer, WGGB is a recognised union with 1295 members.
I suspect that the reason for this daft and misguided policy has to do with the nature of the organisation.
Why don’t you join the NUJ?
April 13, 2010 at 8:56 am
Nathaniel Tapley
I doubt the NUJ would be much better (Bernie Corbett was a National Organiser of the NUJ), and it doesn’t really feel like the appropriate union for me. I write for television, radio, and peformance generally. I do occasionally write articles, but it’s not what I consider my main occupation, and certainly isn’t my main source of income. I’m not sure I’d even qualify for the NUJ.
Lots of creative unions seem to be wrong about this ( http://www.stevelawson.net/2010/04/my-letter-to-the-musicians-union-about-the-digital-economy-bill/ ), and I think it’s up to the members of those unions to start the debates that will (hopefully) affect union policy for the better.
April 14, 2010 at 11:13 am
UK Comedy Writer Takes The Digital Economy Bill Seriously… As A Threat To His Livelihood | PHP Hosts
[…] joins the many creatives that oppose the Digital Economy Bill. His original post that spurred Bernie Corbett’s response is a worthwhile read, as is his response to […]
April 14, 2010 at 11:20 am
UK Comedy Writer Takes The Digital Economy Bill Seriously… As A Threat To His Livelihood | Gabbur
[…] joins the many creatives that oppose the Digital Economy Bill. His original post that spurred Bernie Corbett’s response is a worthwhile read, as is his response to […]
April 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm
UK Comedy Writer Takes The Digital Economy Bill Seriously… As A Threat To His Livelihood | Geek News and Musings
[…] joins the many creatives that oppose the Digital Economy Bill. His original post that spurred Bernie Corbett’s response is a worthwhile read, as is his response to […]
April 15, 2010 at 12:46 am
Down the plug’ole (for now)
[…] the Digital Economy Bill did get through the washup. (Nathaniel Tapley with a writer’s perspective on why the D.E. Bill is a Bad Thing. Steve Lawson with a musician’s perspective on why the D.E. Bill is a Bad Thing. More […]
April 16, 2010 at 2:56 am
Ian Alexander Martin
What a delightfully reasoned, informative, and thought-provoking article. It’s things like this which make me all the more of the opinion that the UK is filled with a greater percentage of intelligent people than is found in the Dominion of Canada. Hooray for you!
Also, congratulations on having nary a knob-joke in the entire post. Go you!
April 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm
UK Comedy Writer Takes The Digital Economy Bill Seriously… As A Threat To His Livelihood « Hindgrindr
[…] joins the many creatives that oppose the Digital Economy Bill. His original post that spurred Bernie Corbett’s response is a worthwhile read, as is his response to […]
April 22, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Links 15/4/2010: GCC 4.5 Released | Techrights
[…] Why My Union Is Wrong Over at the Writers’ Guild website, Bernie Corbett (General Secretary of the WGGB) has written a piece called ‘In Defence of the Digital Economy Bill’). It fundamentally misunderstands both the effects of the legislation and the manner in which it was passed, and is a worrying display of ignorance of the facts and issues that surround the Bill. The Bill is bad, that my union should be so maladroit in its defence is worse. […]