Given that all this could be avoided by taking prior court action, and using fines as a punishment, we are left with the distinct impression that disconnection is being used a symbolic punishment, rather than anything judged on its appropriateness and proportionality.

The very article you point to clarifies that suspension means temporary suspension, not disconnection as you persist in asserting. If you understand this to be the case, why do you use such dramatic language? “Draconian”, “disconnection”, “innocent people will be punished” – have you ever thought to find out what the law of Draco was like?

Over the next week, this discussion and the fabric of the issue will change. I think everyone’s getting a bit too worked up about something that hasn’t even got out of the Lords yet, and is being altered to address many of the concerns you have, and allegedly will adopt your ideas. What do you want? I just don’t understand.

On the length of time people’s account may be disconnected (or ‘suspended’ if you prefer) BIS officials this week confirmed to the Guardian that this would be set by the Secretary of State.

I have grasped the significance of it. I’ve watched people lobby on both sides of this debate. Ironically, the bigger business (the ISPs) are opposed to this legislation, it’s the smaller businesses, the record companies and media firms that argue for it.

“It would be terrible to live in a world of reduced basic rights and corporate automation, surely you can see that?”

Of course it would, what human rights are being infringed by slowing your internet speed down? Everything you’ve written seems to be on what you think the bill says, not what it says today, and certainly not based on what it’ll say after the Lords report is published on Monday. But that doesn’t matter, but you won’t of read either and you’ll still believe that is what it says.

“Stop backing the big boys of commerce and come and join the side of the truth.”

I’m not backing the “big boys” – you are. I’m backing the one man show’s all over this nation that create music, art, film, applications, games, literature, architecture and any other form of digital medium. You’re backing the big boys – the huge telecommunications behemoths that profit from stealing from the content creators that want to keep the status quo. Most digital content is not made by media giants, it’s made by one-man operations, so whose side are you on? BT? Sky? Pipex? Or UK independent music labels that have made us one of the most respected countries in the world for music like Domino, WARP, Ninja Tunes, Tru Thoughts, etc. Once we’ve lost it all, we’ll never get it back.

Firstly, the difference between suspending an account and disconnection is that suspending is temporary (24 hours was suggested) – disconnection is permanent. Would you rather be disconnected or suspended? I think on Mondays publication of the Lords report this bit will probably be missing entirely from the bill. As I said, fines and limited access seem to be the preferred stick, I think the Lords report will reflect that and all of your fear will be wasted.

“Are you arguing that this is a proportionate response to copyright infringement? ”

No, you’re arguing against it. Nobody at all is arguing that is a proportionate response – you just made that up.

“The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to decide to suspend accounts for any length of time, including indefinitely.”

Show me the passage that you got this idea from. This would only be possible if he changed the rules via Clause 17, or used a previous clause to redefine one of the terms – again, will nearly certainly be missing on Monday. I suggest you look at the tabled amendments and the Joint Committee On Human Rights report on the bill (which prompted those amendments). I don’t want clause 17, nobody does. It will obviously never make the final bill because both main opposition parties have said they’d vote against it, so you’re working yourself up about nothing, again. You’re acting hysterically regarding something that hasn’t happened, and isn’t going to happen. Your points have all been raise during the procedure and amendments have been tabled, I think when the Lords report it’ll hopefully categorically deal with your paranoia on this issue.

The bill makes an attempt to protect IP holders in the digital age. That isn’t “nothing”, it’s a very valuable tool to our economy and the progress of our country. Do you want further recession and job losses?! Other countries have a plan, we don’t – we’re losing out because of it.

Tell me, what is the differences between a “creative business in the digital era” and “analogue business-models” exactly? The digital economy works on age-old principles of business, there is simply nothing new in this model, except the delivery mechanism – which up until now has been easy to use to duplicate the product. Spotify, P2P, iTunes, etc, are all analogous to previous models and work in the exact same way and with the same concepts as “analogue business-models”…whatever that really means.

Refs:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/44/44.pdf

“Where do you get disconnections from that? It says ‘suspend’ and ‘limit’ the connection, not disconnect.”

What is the difference between suspension and disconnection? Can you connect to the Internet on an account that has been suspended? No. So are you disconnected? Yes.

The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to decide to suspend accounts for any length of time, including indefinitely. Are you arguing that this is a proportionate response to copyright infringement? Even when the suspension targets the account-holder and others who rely on that connection rather than the infringer directly? Even when that account-holder could be a library, a coffee shop, a hotel or a university?

This Bill does nothing to support creative business in the digital era. It’s a protectionist tool to prop up obsolete analogue business-models.