Support Us

Join the Pirate Party
Donate to the Pirate Party
Bookmark and Share

Podcasts

Pirate Podcast

Follow Us

Follow us on twitter View our youtube channel Follow us on facebook

Get Involved

14th October 2009 14:10 | by Andrew Robinson

MPs start to 'get it'

Wouldn't it be good if MPs understood the futility of disconnecting alleged copyright infringers because it is so easy for file-sharers to mask their identity and activity?

Wouldn't it be good if MPs acknowledged that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it, and that identifying offenders using the IP address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection?

Wouldn't it be good if MPs called on the Government to ensure that anyone accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed?

An early day motion tabled by Labour MP Tom Watson is giving MPs a chance to say they are starting to 'get it', and agree with those 3 points.

The fact that the motion already has from MPs of 5 different parties shows that parliament is starting to wake up to the facts, and take notice of the public demand for fairness and due process. The obvious next step, having understood that enforcement is impossible, that rights holders are not necessarily losing out, and that justice requires fairness, is for an MP to be brave enough to call for the legalisation of not-for-profit file sharing.

MPs who have signed the early day motion so far:

Conservative Party
Peter Bottomley
Philip Davies

Labour Party
Diane Abbott
John Battle
Jeremy Corbyn
Paul Farrelly
John Grogan
Lindsay Hoyle
Chris McCafferty
Tom Watson,
Derek Wyatt

Liberal Democrats
Mike Hanncock
Mark Hunter
John Leech
Adrian Sanders
Jo Swinson, Jo

Plaid Cymru
Adam Price

SDLP
Mark Durkan

The full text of the motion and an up to date list of signatures can be found on the parliament.uk website.


Comments

Comments may take up to 5 minutes to appear on the blog.

Oct 14 2009 02:00 by rossstone | Reply?

Your link/blue text to the actual motion seems broken in the post? (Maybe its just my Chrome Dev Channel though.)

Either way, its here if anyone has the same issue: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39226&SESSION=899

Nice read though.

Oct 14 2009 04:43 by joe_bevis | Reply?

I asked Tobias Ellwood (Conservative MP) about this and he didn't get it :(

Oct 14 2009 11:22 by Peter Liddell | Reply?

Please write to your MP's regarding this and ask them to sign. You can do so through http://www.writetothem.com

Oct 15 2009 02:14 by EdmundRW | Reply?

I just had a google round and got a bunch of email addresses of those that signed (not all though) in case you want to email them with your support. bottomleyp@parliament.uk, daviesp@parliament.uk, johnlewiss@parliament.uk, johnbattle@leedswest.freeserve.co.uk, farrellyp@parliament.uk, selby@johngroganmp.u-net.com, hoylel@parliament.uk, admin@chrismccaffertymp.org.uk, wyattd@parliament.uk,

Oct 15 2009 03:34 by Will Tovey | Reply?

As interesting as that is, I'm a little concerned that the first of their reasons why the measures are bad is that there are work arounds - not the legal or ethical issues, the possible human rights violations, the lack of judicial insight or the imprecision of the technology used to identify alleged infringers.

They do note the falicy of the "lost sales" idea, more or less...

Oct 16 2009 01:29 by ThePilgrim | Reply?

Well I think we should give prase for a step in the right direction ... and encuragement to keep going.

Oct 19 2009 02:38 by Peter Liddell | Reply?

My MP has written to me to say he has signed it and thanking me for bringing it to his attention. I urge everyone to writetoyourmp.org