It is an important bill. Not just for the issues I am really concerned - the ones related to IP. The Digital switchover, availability of broadband and the rest are important but I'm not going to write about them. I still don't fully understand the logic to have all of the above bundled together in one bill. The only connection is topical - the internet, but mixing management issues with ones related to freedom of expression leads to some dodgy arguments, like "the law has to go through, as the management issues can't wait" and then mixed with "We have to do something now, will revise later". Anyone who has written software knows the logic. We have heard it and used it, with a difference - we don't release with known critical bugs. Debugging and fixing a release is not fun.
But let's go back to intellectual property, sorry imaginary property. There several kinds of issues. One is the whole disconnection debacle. Another is the 'copying is theft' stance. The bill puts the cart in front of the horse. Before solving, or even attempting to solve the issues of copyright and intellectual property in the age of the internet, the government is pushing for enforcement of known broken principles. That is wrong. And no, there was time, you were clueless and listened too much to big content lobbyists, which has a stake in preserving the status quo.
What are the problems of copyright today? It is too strong in some cases and too weak in others. As it stands, in practice it is hard to enforce. It does not adequately protect the authors, and performers. It is unfair to the creators. It is quite biased towards distributors. By treating it as property, it encourages unscrupulous practices, which verge on defrauding the creators.
The gray area of 'Fair Use' in the net reality became far broader. Nobody knows what is fair these days. There are no answers in the copyright law, and the bill doesn't provide them. Copying for personal use, is it fair? Making backups in the cloud? What is the difference? Sharing content, is it or should it be illegal? What is the difference with me lending a book or a disk to my friends? Should copyrights and patents be treated like property or are they different. These issues have to be debated. Carefully. With a lot of care and attention. These are the foundational issues of the future society, not just economy. By wise men and women who are actually present in the debating chamber.
And what do we get instead? Enforcing the unenforceable, for the sake of greed and corruption. Yes, I do say corruption, as the law looks like the product of lobbyist interests. It tries to enforce the undefined and protect the profits of the greedy (ask the photographers about orphan works).
The curious thing is that nearly the same level of enforcement is possible, without the law. Through the courts, easy. Expensive, slow, but doable. The law as it stands now can protect from commercial 'piracy', it doesn't tackle the unknown and unresolved issues as the ones I mention above, which is fine - they have to be solved first.
Anyway, I'll stop. I probably talk to the hand anyway. Or the donkeys backside. Sorry donkey, that's not a dig at you.
