The bosses of several major broadband ISPs and Internet firms, such as BT , Virgin Media and Google, have issued an open letter to the FT criticising the governments last-minute addition of Amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill (DEB). 120A would force ISPs into blocking websites deemed to contain "a substantial proportion" of content that infringes copyright, which could just as easily apply to YouTube as it would a dodgy P2P links site (original news).

The letter itself warns that such blocking could damage business in the country, would widely disrupt the internet and could even threaten Freedom of Speech. It also attacks the serious lack of consultation and rushed nature of the approach, calling it "very poor lawmaking".


The concerns are certainly understandable and appear to give Rights Holders cart blanch to have any website they please blocked from view without prior fair and impartial legal oversight. Internet access providers who fail to comply could find themselves hauled up before the courts, an expensive and risky process for all concerned.

However ISPs are unlikely to defend websites that they have nothing to do with in the courts. Most would simply, albeit begrudgingly, roll over and do as asked by what is starting to look like a new commercial copyright police force of Rights Holders. That's an awful lot of power to give the creative industry.

The BPI has obviously dismissed such claims as "pure scaremongering," though a group of 25 Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates have already called for the bill to be debated at their party conference this weekend. Somewhat ironic considering two Lib Dem peers helped put 120A forward in the first place.

Elsewhere BT Retail has proposed an equally questionable alternative of fining those accused of copyright infringement. People who refuse to pay would instead be dragged before the courts. Of course several controversial solicitors, such as ACS:Law, have already tried that one with mixed degrees of success and huge unpopularity.