Proceeding contribution from Lord Whitty (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 January 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
My Lords, I was not going to intervene on this amendment, but in the light of the contributions from my noble friend Lord Triesman and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I have to put a contrary case. Those of us who are against much of what is in this part of the Bill are not saying that nothing should be done or that rights holders, whoever they are, do not have rights. What we are saying is that there are better ways of getting people to move on to legal forms of file-sharing than criminalising it up front, at the first end of the process, as—I nearly called him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Mitchell were expounding. This is a very difficult and complex problem—even though the actual technology is relatively simple—and it is not sensible to approach it by effectively alienating large chunks of the population when there is an alternative. The alternative may take longer, but it is clear that, both in the present system of going to the courts and in the potential of the system proposed in the Bill, proportionality will go out of the window. I refer to the courts and the behaviour of solicitors. The example referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was not at the behest of a starving musician in a garret or even the FA, but on behalf of pornographers, who form the largest element in solicitors’ letters in this country and Germany so far. We accept that there is clearly an issue here. We accept the basis on which the Government are approaching this problem. We accept that we have to resolve it. However, we should not do so by taking a bludgeon first and not giving a legal way out. In the long run, a move across to legal forms of file-sharing will be much more beneficial to those genuine rights holders whose interests my noble friend Lord Triesman and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, are upholding. I am sorry I have entered into a Second Reading debate. Whereas I spoke at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Triesman did not, so he has an excuse and I do not, but I thought the contrary point of view on this issue ought really to be expanded on at this point.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c427-8
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Codes of practice Broadcasting Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Broadband Sky Communication Fees and charges ICT EU law Infrastructure Emergencies Internet Ofcom Radio frequencies Telecommunications Security Satellite communications Subscriptions Television licences
- Legislation
- Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-05 10:24:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_607614
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_607614
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_607614