Tuesday, August 25, 2009

UK Flip Flops into Controversy on Three Strikes

The UK government is stepping into major controversy by ignoring Lord Carter's Digital Britain recommendations, the views of former Cabinet Secretary Tom Watson, the wishes of major ISP's and risking serious consumer (i.e. voter) potential backlash by caving into recording industry demands for some sort of three strikes policy. There are allegations that Lord Mandelson insisted on this after a recent dinner with David Geffen. If this somehow becomes law, court challenges can be expected. "Human rights" are now a matter of EU jurisdiction and it is generally accepted that internet access is a human right in Europe. This especially makes sense if internet access for a entire household is lost because the activities of one member, perhaps a child. This is what "three strikes" will mean.

One is surprised that Lord Mandelson and Prime Minister Brown have not learned the lessons that have cost the French culture minister her job and created so much controversy in New Zealand.

Closer to home, becoming too friendly with the entertainment industry apparently contributed to Sam Bulte losing her seat in the 2006 election. If she had kept her seat and if the Liberals had formed the government, she might have been the Minister of Heritage.

Former Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who led the fight for Bill C-61 last year, is now Minister of the Environment. One doubts that he has pleasant memories of the reaction to and aftermath of his very one-sided bill.



  1. I guess they completely missed what 13,500 in Trafalgar Square had to say a few months back:


    Coming to a capitol hill near you if this law shows it's ugly head in Canada.

  2. If it's wrong to sue, and worse to extract damages, and unconstitutional to deny access, what is a reasonable remedy?

  3. @Anonymous:
    It's fine to sue, assuming it isn't Frivolous.

    It's fine to extract damages, so long as you are accurate in what you define as "damages".

    It is only unconstitutional to deny access if it is done without the opportunity to defend oneself. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is the only one of the three things you mentioned that, at the moment, does not involve the courts and cannot be contested by the accused.