The Open Rights Group has revealed that in the last 3 days more than 10,000 outraged citizens have written to MPs demanding a debate on the Music Industry's Digital Economy Bill (DEB).

To the absolute dismay of most outside the music and movie industries, some of the most controversial elements of the Bill are unlikely to receive any major scrutiny and will be dealt with quickly under the so-called wash-up, a short period between the announcement of an election and parliament being closed down.

It's a deeply unsatisfactory and very worrying development, a senior executive from an ISP told The Guardian. The fear is that no one will know what is being cooked-up before it becomes law. It's legislation on the hoof.

But this situation suits the BPI just fine. This week a leaked memo from the BPI fell into the hands of Cory Doctorow which showed that the LibDem amendment – a proposal under the DEB which would allow for websites to be blocked if, essentially, the BPI didn't like their activities – was in fact written by the BPI. Very cosy.

But the controversies don't end there. Doctorow also received an internal document prepared by the BPI's Director of Public Affairs and prospective Labour parliamentary candidate, Richard Mollet. In the document he admitted that the only reason the DEB had a chance of passing is because MP's are resigned to voting on it without debate.

Translation: if MPs got to debate the Bill, they would tear it to unrecognizable pieces as they realized what terrible rubbish it really is, wrote Doctorow.

According to Jim Killock at the Open Rights Group, UK citizens aren't leaving anything to chance with 10,000 of them having written to their MPs in the last three days to demand a debate on the Digital Economy Bill: It is outrageous for corporate lobbyists including the BPI, FAST and UK Music to demand that MPs curtail democracy and ram this Bill through Parliament without debate, says Killock, adding: The British people did not elect UK Music and the BPI to write our laws.

Erotic underwear advertisements should be banned from London buses to protect children from being bombarded with sexual images, a Conservative MP has said.

Nadine Dorries tabled a 10-minute-rule Bill in the House of Commons which seeks to place restrictions on images of partial nudity in advertising.

The MP for Mid Bedfordshire drew attention to a recent Armani advertising campaign on buses in the capital which featured images of Megan Fox, the film star, in scant lingerie.

The 14ft billboard space on London's double-decker buses has been used to promote underwear ranges in recent months.

Dorries said it was the sheer size of the posters that most offended her. You can't help but see these. On the Armani ads you can barely see the name of the company, she said.

Everyone knows I'm not a politically correct feminist...BUT...this is part of a wider trend towards the objectification of women.

Her Bill also calls for lads' mags such as Nuts and Zoo, which contain semi-nude photographs of women, to be removed from the lower shelves in newsagents to put them out of the reach of children. It will be introduced formally to Parliament on March 31.

Plans to make ISPs responsible for child safety online have been withdrawn in the House of Lords.

In the continuing debate over the Digital Economy Bill, the Lords discussed whether ISPs should be obliged to highlight methods of filtering internet sites and protecting children online.

But the plans were shelved for the time being as they would require substantial Government funding and an increased burden on ISPs.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote, who proposed the amendment, argued the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (CCIS) wasn't doing enough by merely promoting self-regulation by parents.

She added that it would only require ISPs to promote online safety and to provide consumers with information on filtering options, and that the plans didn't require them to produce filtering software of their own.

ISPs argue they're already offering protection advice. As an ISP we have a number of services in place to help parents but we can only do so much. Parents have a part to play too, said a spokesman for Virgin Media.

Following the recent resignation of Steven Purcell due to ill health, Councillor Jim Coleman is now the acting leader of Glasgow City Council - highly likely he now believes it was an 'act of God' and the 'crusade' to rid Scotland of any sexual pleasure/titilation must continue.

Scottish Parliament's 'Justice' Committee is calling for evidence on Trish Godman`s attempt to ban all 'paid-for sexual activity' (among other things).

See article from scottish.parliament.uk:

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill - call for written evidence on Stage 2 amendments

The Justice Committee has agreed to take evidence at Stage 2 on some of the amendments lodged for Stage 2 which it considers raise significant new issues that were not considered during the Committee's Stage 1 inquiry.

Amendment 8 (lodged by Trish Godman) proposes changes to the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 to create three new offences – engaging in a paid-for sexual activity, advertising paid-for sexual activities, and facilitating engagement in a paid-for sexual activity, all to be subject, on summary conviction, to a fine of up to £1,000.

Amendments to amendment 8 (8A-8D, lodged by Margo Macdonald) propose the addition of two further offences – causing alarm etc. by engaging in a paid-for sexual activity and profiting from coerced paid-for sexual activities – subject to the same penalties.

These amendments are grouped for debate with consequential amendments 9 and 9A, which specify which of the new offences are to be classed as “exploitation offences” for the purposes of the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004.

Oral evidence

The Committee plans to take oral evidence on all three topics at its meeting on Tuesday 23 March.

Formal proceedings on the amendments will not take place until the oral evidence has been heard.

 

Call for written submissions

 

The Committee would welcome written submissions

The closing date for written submissions is Wednesday 17 March (to enable all submissions to be circulated in advance of the 23 March meeting).  

Submissions should not normally exceed four sides of A4.  The Committee prefers to receive written submissions electronically in MS Word format. These should be sent to:

cjlb@scottish.parliament.uk

You may also make hard copy written submissions to:

Justice Committee

Room T3.60

The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh
EH99 1SP

Already some submissions have been received and published here, including some from sex workers themselves. These include those from Margo MacDonald, UK Network Sex Work Projects and Teela Sanders.

Not So Liberal Democrat peers have proposed a new clause for the Digital Economy Bill that sets the ball rolling for state internet filtering:

Lord Razzall and Lord Clement-Jones have proposed the following new clause

Preventing access to specified online locations

In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert—

97B Preventing access to specified online locations

(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court.

(2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—

(a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,

(b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringing content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),

(c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location, and

(d) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

(3) An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought.

(4) Where—

(a) the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and

(b) the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken, the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner's costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider's failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.

(5) In this section—

copyright owner includes a licensee with an exclusive licence within the meaning of section 92 of this Act,

infringing content means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright,

online location means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,

operator means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and

service provider has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act.

Update: Shared Interests

5th March 2010.

Lord Clement-Jones one of the proposers of the  new clause became the talk of the internet when it was noticed that he receives significant money from a law firm standing to gain from measures in the Digital Economy Bill

See Register of Interests from publications.parliament.uk

CLEMENT-JONES, Lord

Partner of DLA Piper (international law firm) and adviser to its global government relations practice.

The member is paid £70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper's global government relations practice

Update: Amendment Passed

5th March 2010. Based on article from guardian.co.uk

One of the most contentious parts of the controversial digital economy bill was voted down by the House of Lords last night – only to be replaced by a clause that campaigners say is even more draconian.

The Liberal Democrats forced through a surprise amendment to the bill's notorious clause 17 on Wednesday – in a move that dealt a defeat to the government but troubled critics, who suggest it will have the opposite effect that its creators intend.

Instead of sweeping new powers that threatened sweeping alterations to British copyright law, the Lib Dems added a clause that gives extra oversight to the high court.

The new proposal – which was passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140 – gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a substantial amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.

Putting forward the amendment, Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones said that it would placate concerns over the so-called three strikes rule – which could see those accused of sharing files illegally online having their internet connections cut off – and added that it was a more proportionate, specific and appropriate way to approach infringement than the previous proposals made by the government.

But instead of making the proposed system more transparent and accountable, critics say it will simply leave it open to abuse.

This would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies, said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive 'copyright attacks' that could shut them down, just by the threat of action. This is exactly how libel law works today: suppressing free speech by the unwarranted threat of legal action. The expense and the threat are enough to create a 'chilling effect'.

In particular, there are concerns that the amendment could follow in the footsteps of America's controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been accused of encouraging companies to file bogus copyright claims to block material they dislike.

The high costs and dangers of dealing with copyright claims in court mean that many web hosts simply take down the material in question without checking whether the copyright case is legitimate – even going as far as shutting down entire websites in some cases.

The new amendment could also have dire implications for websites like YouTube, where users can upload copyright-infringing material without the knowledge of the site's owners.

Update: A Good Summary from Metro

6th March 2010. Based on article from metro.co.uk

Video-sharing websites such as YouTube could be blocked in Britain after a last-minute change to a new law

They are facing a major clampdown on using copyright material under an amendment passed by the House of Lords.

The change grants TV and music companies the right to demand their material is taken down. If the request is refused, they can take their challenge to court, where high legal costs will make it pointless to launch a defence.

Under the new law, copyright holders must ask ISPs and the website itself to remove the material or any links to other sites hosting it. If it is not taken down, a court order can force the ISP to block the site.

The amendment is aimed at websites with substantial amounts of copyrighted material. However, critics say the law, which is set to be passed in April, is unclear about what substantial means and that it is unfair to block an entire site over a few minor breaches. They say ISPs would simply shut out a site rather than risk the high legal costs of defending a case.

Nicholas Lansman, secretary-general of the Internet Service Providers Association, said: Our members are extremely concerned that the full implications of the amendment have not been understood.

James Coleman, the mean minded deputy leader of Glasgow City Council, is at the forefront of the End Prostitution Now initiative, which - according to the city council - has attracted support from MSPs, fellow councillors, unions and religious nutters.

West Renfrewshire MSP Trish Godman is one of the supporters. She has now proposed legislative amendments in the Scottish Parliament as follows:

Engaging in, advertising and facilitating paid-for sexual activities

11A Engaging in a paid-for sexual activity

(1) A person (A) commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging in a paid-for sexual activity, if A knowingly engages in a paid-for sexual activity with another person (B).

(2) A sexual activity is paid for where B engages in that activity in exchange for payment.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is immaterial whether the payment is made—

(a) by A or by another person, or
(b) to B or to another person on B's behalf.

11B Advertising paid-for sexual activities

A person commits an offence, to be known as the offence of advertising paid for sexual activities, if that person knowingly advertises, by any means, the availability of sexual activities that can be engaged in for payment.

11C Facilitating engagement in a paid-for sexual activity

(1) A person (A) commits an offence, to be known as the offence of facilitating engagement in a paid-for sexual activity, if A knowingly facilitates the engagement of another person (B) in a paid-for sexual activity with another person (C).

(2) A sexual activity is paid for where C engages in that activity in exchange for payment.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is immaterial whether the payment is made—

(a) by A, by B or by another person, or
(b) to C or to another person on C's behalf.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), facilitating the engagement by B in a paid for sexual activity includes (but is not limited to)—

(a) arranging B's engagement in the activity,
(b) making payment to C or to another person on C's behalf,
(c) making available premises in which the activity takes place, or
(d) transporting B, or arranging transport for B, to where the activity takes place

Update: Who is Behind the End Prostitution Now campaign?

28th February 2010. From Melanie-H  on the Melon Farmers Forum

This amendment criminalises all selling and buying of sexual services. Prostitution definitely but if Councillor Jim Coleman gets his way could apply to strip clubs, peep shows, lap dancing.

All Saunas and Agencies would be illegal. No advertisements in any paper, or Internet. (The Sport advertisements would be illegal, only foreign websites would work, adult-work maybe, but punter link would stop). Escort sites would have to be hosted offshore.

No doubts the End Prostitution Now propaganda tool will have a major influence on the outcome.

From their website www.endprostitutionnow.org

End Prostitution Now is a campaign led by Glasgow City Council which aims to raise awareness of the harm caused through prostitution and put the focus on the buyers of sex - the DEMAND - who have in the past been invisible from public debate.

But Glasgow Council seem to be denying that they are running it

There are no references to this campaign in the most recent annual Company report of the Glasgow Community and Safety Services Limited Company and even stranger when Glasgow City Council were approached under the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland 2002).

See article from whatdotheyknow.com

Dear Glasgow Council

Please could provide me with the following information, regarding the political campaign initiated by Glasgow City Council to change Scotland's laws regarding prostitution:

a) The cost to the Glasgow taxpayer of your 'End Prostitution Now' political campaign and associated activities.

b) Any additional funding or assistance received from other sources towards the End Prostitution Now' political campaign and associated activities.

c) Details of the number of people employed by Glasgow City Council working on this political campaign and associated activities, and of any other persons involved in this Glasgow City Council political campaign and associated activities not employed by the council.

d) Minutes of the meeting at which funding and approval for this political campaign and its associated activities was given.

e) Copies of any communication, or details and minutes of any meetings, between Glasgow City Council employees and outside campaign groups, campaigners, or politicians regarding the setting up or operation of this political campaign.

f) Brief details of any other political campaigns currently or recently being run by Glasgow City Council.

Glasgow Council replied:

The Council is treating your request as a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

On inspecting our records, it would appear that Glasgow City Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold it on our behalf. Accordingly we are unable to comply with your request.

I can confirm that Glasgow City Council does not run political campaigns.

Controversial proposals that would give Lord Mandelson unprecedented powers to amend censorship laws will be jettisoned next week when the Government suffers the first large defeat of its flagship media plans.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat lords will unite to vote down Clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill, which has been criticised by internet giants such as Google and Yahoo!, when the Bill is put to vote in its report stage.

The Government maintains that the plans are necessary to future proof the Bill against emerging methods of piracy.

But internet firms and the Opposition said that despite attempts by Lord Mandelson to water down the proposals and increase parliamentary scrutiny of any fast-tracked legislation, via measures such as a 60-day consultation period, the proposals still allowed ministers to impose arbitrary measures.

Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Shadow Culture Secretary, said his party will vote against the clause next week. He added: The Government has failed to address any of the concerns we raised with them. They still want a wide ranging and unconstitutional power yet can't tell us what they want to use it for.

When the culture, media and sport select committee began its work more than a year ago, many feared the worst.

Yet the more they probed and the more they heard from organisations defending free expression, the more the MPs began to understand the vital need to distinguish between investigative journalism, a noble cause, and prurient journalism, a less salutary one. Some aspects of the report are disappointing. One that relates to privacy is potentially alarming. On balance though this is an important step forward, giving cross-party support for fundamental change to England's hideous libel laws.

The committee details the enormous costs faced by publications, particularly small ones, in defending themselves. The report criticises law firms for deliberately stringing out suits so they can ratchet up costs and force people into settling and apologising, even where they have nothing to apologise for. It stops short of reversing the burden of proof, but it does suggest reinforcing the defence in court for brave reporting and making it harder for companies to sue to protect their reputations. The committee's chairman, the Conservative MP John Whittingdale, says he and his colleagues were eager to correct the balance which has tipped too far in favour of the plaintiff.

The MPs denounce the ease with which foreign-based oligarchs, sheikhs and their like have used avaricious legal firms and pliant judges to chill the free speech of NGOs, authors and others – so much so that US Congress has considered legislation to protect Americans from British courts. They criticise Jack Straw, the justice secretary, for not tackling the problem of libel tourism, and the damage to the country's reputation, describing the measures taken by US legislators as a humiliation.

...Read full article

See also article from business.timesonline.co.uk

Rules for reporting:

• No legislation on privacy
• Press Complaints Commission to recommend prior notification to the subject of articles, subject to a public interest test
• A new law to clarify Parliamentary privilege and ensure free and fair reporting
• The burden of proof should be reversed in the case of big corporations so that they must prove libel and not the defendant
• Action to curb the use of super-injunctions and research to discover the extent of their use
• A new regulator, a Press Complaints and Standards Commission, with powers to fine and halt publications

Tougher powers for the Press Complaints Commission and an end to the right of companies to sue for libel will be proposed next week in a long awaited report by MPs. But the much criticised press watchdog will escape calls for its abolition or for any form of state regulation of the press.

The PCC needs a radical shake-up to turn it into a body that is proactive, rigorous and is taken seriously by the public, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will say. New powers could extend to halting the printing of a newspaper edition. John Whittingdale, the committee's chairman, says the watchdog should also have the ability to impose large fines.

The commission has come under fire this week for failing to uphold complaints about a Daily Mail article into the death last October of the Boyzone singer Stephen Gately. The column attracted 25,000 complaints from readers who perceived it to be homophobic. But the PCC said it should be slow to prevent columnists from expressing their views, however controversial they might be. It was a point of principle that newspapers could print views that might offend people, it said.

The complaint made to the PCC that the Daily Mail's column on Gately's death was inaccurate, intrusive and discriminatory was not upheld. Gately died at his holiday home on the island of Majorca. His civil partner Andrew Cowles made a complaint to the PCC about what had been written by the columnist Jan Moir. The PCC said that it could fully understand why Cowles and a record number of complainants were upset, but ruled that Moir's comments had not breached press guidelines.

In a second move that will please media organisations, the committee is expected to reject calls by Max Mosley, the former Formula One chief, for victims of media exposés to be notified in advance. There are fears that a requirement for prior notification will lead to judges imposing injunctions that would prevent many investigative stories going to print.

A third key recommendation expected in the report, to be published next week, is that businesses with more than ten employees will lose the right to sue for defamation.

The wideranging report by MPs will cover press standards, privacy, libel and libel tourism, super-injunctions and costs in defamation cases.