Apologies for the length, but this is the reply I received from my (Lib Dem) MP as of yesterday...
'Digital Economy Bill
Thank you for your message regarding the Digital Economy Bill. I have received a great many letters about this Bill in the last few weeks. People have raised a wide range of issues and due to the impending general election and dissolution of Parliament there is understandable concern that the Bill will be rushed through without proper consideration. This Bill has seen several major developments in recent weeks and so, although some of the letters I have received are older than a couple of weeks, I have found myself having to redraft this letter several times in order to ensure that I could discuss all of the issues that people in Bristol West have contacted me about, rather than presenting a piecemeal response.
Now that the election has been called this means Parliament will be recalled for two days "wash up" of all Bills that are yet to complete their parliamentary stages. Some Bills are non controversial and will go through with all-party support. This does not include the Digital Economy Bill. While I cannot be certain of the outcome at this stage, my position, and that of my Lib Dem colleagues is that, while we recognise the need to update the law, we have some major areas of disagreement with aspects of the Bill. If these concerns are not addressed then we will vote against the Bill at the final stage. What is likely to happen today (Tuesday) is that the Bill will get a Second Reading. This is approval in principle, which allows the Bill to move forward to the committee stage. It is at this stage that a Bill is normally considered line by line, clause by clause. However, the "wash up" means the consideration will last for only a matter of hours. This is deeply unsatisfactory, and in the five years that I have been your MP I have already seen too many bad laws pass that have not received adequate scrutiny...and that is in a normal Parliamentary period! To rush an important Bill through in a few hours is not acceptable when there are important differences to iron out. Therefore, if our concerns about aspects of the Bill are not addressed at the rushed committee stage, then we will vote against it at the final stage, the Third Reading, which will be later this week.
The Digital Economy Bill is wide ranging and covers issues such as a new remit for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV as well as the issue of illegal downloading and file sharing. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support the creative industries and believe that many aspects of this Bill are vitally important to the continuing success of our radio, television and content industries. The digital and new media industries play a significant and growing role in the economic development of Bristol but we must make sure that any new law balances economic protection with citizens' rights.
The first major area of controversy in the Bill is the set of proposals relating to website blocking and file sharing. I recognise the significant damage to the creative industries of downloading from illegal websites and the need for new counter-measures. However, there has been limited time for consultation and very little time before final decisions are made. The Liberal Democrats therefore do not believe that measures to address blocking of illegal websites can reasonably be included in the Digital Economy Bill and we will not support any such measures at the Committee Stage.
There has been much longer and wider debate about actions to address illegal peer-to-peer file sharing. The Liberal Democrats are unconvinced of the merits of measures such as temporary account suspension or bandwidth throttling. We will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that they cannot be introduced without proper consultation and not until evidence has been produced to prove that they are the best available option.
During the House of Lords consideration of the Bill we sought major changes to the Bill so that "technical measures" such as account suspension or bandwidth reduction will never be possible unless:
1. copyright infringers are notified by letter, without any risk of their internet connection being affected, for at least a year
2. an evaluation of the effectiveness of such "soft measures" is undertaken
3. an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical measures has been completed
4. further consultation has taken place
5. proposed legislation is brought before Parliament for decision, and
6. any process to disconnect users explicitly assumes their innocence until they are proven guilty
We have also urged the music, film and videogames industries to work more urgently to develop easy and affordable ways to legally access their products in the hope that, combined with "soft measures" and an effective education campaign, disconnection is never required.
We believe that there is still more to do in respect of the proposed system for tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing. We will take further action in the Commons to improve the legislation. For instance,
- We believe there is inadequate protection in the Bill for schools, libraries, universities, wi-fi areas and internet cafes and other businesses offering internet access to the public.
- When the Bill is passed, Ofcom will have to draw up a code regulating how the notifications system works. We do not think Ofcom will have enough time to draw up this code. If the public are to have confidence in the new system, Ofcom will need more than the six months it is given by the Bill.
- We have already opposed - and helped defeat in the Lords - government proposals to give itself powers to change copyright law almost at will. We will oppose any attempt to reinstate such powers in the Commons.
We will also be seeking clarification on Clause 43 of the Bill, which deals with so called "orphan works" such as photographs, where the originator cannot initially be traced. I have met with a local photographer to discuss the concerns of photographers about this clause. I have also met with the Director of the British Library about the digitisation of their vast collection and indeed have seen digitisation of images at the Bristol Record Office in Cumberland Basin. I can see clear cultural and community benefit in making archived works more accessible. However, I believe there are too few safeguards in the Bill to protect the actual originators of the works (should they be identified) both in terms of copyright and their wishes as to the uses of their work. These dangers are even more apparent with contemporary or recent works, many of which are circulated on the internet. I believe that this clause needs a fundamental rethink.
A report published on 17th March 2010 predicted that a quarter of a million jobs in the UK's creative industries could be lost by 2015 if current trends in online piracy continue. Commenting on it, Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, said: "The results of the study stress that the growth of unauthorised file-sharing, downloading and streaming of copyrighted works and recorded performances is a major threat to the creative industries in terms of loss of employment and revenues. The scale of the problem is truly frightening now - let alone in the future if no firm actions against illegal file-sharing are taken."
Our goal is to support the creative industries while at the same time fully acknowledging the issues of rights and freedoms for the individual that arise as internet technology advances. In other words action should only be taken if it is appropriate, proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. There are some who believe that no action should be taken to address the problems caused by copyright infringements on the internet. While we accept that the initial proposals from the government and the much later proposals in respect of website blocking went too far, we do not believe that the problems can be ignored.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that many of the measures in the Bill that do not relate to illegal file sharing are important and must be allowed to go into law. However, in respect of those that do relate to illegal file sharing we will not support them in the Commons if we are not satisfied that the procedures in place are fair and allow for full consultation and scrutiny before their introduction in the future.
Please be assured that the Liberal Democrats will do everything in our power to avoid allowing this Bill to be passed as law without having been properly considered through Parliamentary debate. As the situation is likely to have changed by Thursday I will send a short update later this week.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Williams MP'
I shall now check up to see what he actually did. 
