On her Majesty's secret server

What if pollies could no longer twitter? What if Malcolm Turnbull could no longer put his explosive blogs on his site? Well at least in that case Tony Abbott would be happy. We see access to the internet's free availability of information as an inalienable right. Even temporary disconnection is at best an annoyance, at worst a Gen Y hell. But this is exactly the proposal in the UK, with a new three-strike rule for illegal file sharing. The recently introduced Digital Economy bill would give powers to Business Secretary Lord Peter Mandelson to require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to slow or suspend people's access for an undetermined period with no parliamentary oversight. In the process, essentially asking ISPs to spy on users. The British internet community is livid, but could this ever happen in Australia?

Communications Minister Stephen "internet filter" Conroy, recently voted Internet Villain of the Year, has alluded to the three-strike/suspension idea before as a possible solution to the file-sharing issue. British commitment to the idea along with a poor outcome for internet providers in the ongoing iiNet case in Australia would certainly point him in that direction. So could this hell become reality?

The problem of copyright on the web exists within all communication industries; music, TV, film and, of course, the news industry. The question for all of them is how do you get people to pay for online content when it is easily and freely available elsewhere? The UK has tried to plug this hole, introducing legislation that says if you download files illegally three times you will be sent warning letters to scare you into stopping. And from there the secretary would have wide ranging powers to force ISPs to slow or suspend your access to the web.

ISPs would spy on your online activity for the government to detect any illegal file sharing; somewhat akin to the post office opening your mail. Disconnection would not just be directed at the individual downloader but those you live with would be cut off as well. This leaves unprotected wireless networks particularly vulnerable. There would be no official trial to prove your innocence or guilt, merely notifications and worst case scenario; bam no more internet and even a £50,000 ($A90,000) fine.

Mandelson, a member of the House of Lords who has had to resign twice over abusing his position, has defended the bill and says that mass suspensions would be a last resort. Adding, "it must become clear that the days of consequence-free widespread online infringement are over". The hope is that just sending out warning letters will be enough to scare people away. But the UK's internet community has been up in arms with mass online petitions, plenty of comment anger in the blogosphere as well as the general community. There has even been a digital economy bill song, sung by UK musician Dan Bull, musically pointing out some of the angst about this legislation.

When I mentioned the idea of internet suspension to a member of Gen Y, his immediate reaction was "horrific". "What about work? What about uni? How would you live your life?" The other immediate thought: "This system will be abused by the very angry entertainment industries who will sue the pants off any 14-year-old fan boy downloading the latest Lady GaGa single." And that is basically the idea; put small time peer-to-peer file sharers' heads on a stick (see this recent case in the US to frighten others and boost music and DVD sales, which have slumped since illegal file sharing came into existence in the late '90s.

But what the UK policy neglects to understand is that there will always be illegal file sharing. Period. It is the basic function of the internet to share information, regulating and restricting what information and how would be practically impossible. I understand that particularly the music industry is cut because it won't be able to sell as many copies of Britney Spears, Beyonce and the like. But frankly, too bad. The file sharing toothpaste is out of the tube.

As University of Queensland's intellectual property expert, Kimberlee Weatherall, told the National Times, to actually stop illegal file sharing you would have to establish "a great big bureaucracy", including ways to find people (a nightmare in itself), notify them of a breach of copyright, establish an independent body or court to prove innocence or guilt and then impose effective disincentives. Perhaps investing less in government lobbying and suing and more in legal file sharing (which has gone up 35 per cent in Australia on last year) would be an idea. More carrot and less stick; where the stick is practically impossible anyway.

A big judicial/bureaucratic system with money and time devoted to it, would be the only way for people sitting anonymously at their computers to feel some heat. But who would pay for it? No one is shooting up their hands to pony up the dough and in the end it may well be consumers paying for higher internet prices. So every now and again murmurings of radical state intervention occur, just so governments can stop the fighting between Big Content and the ISPs.

In the end despite the UK legislation and Conroy chatter about a three-strike rule in Australia, would they actually cut people off from the internet in Australia? Who knows but it's unlikely to be permanent. Slow servers or suspension for a period would be the option at most (France's legislation has at most a year). But if the amount of angst that even the thought of suspension causes in the British community is anything to go by, for Conroy it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle.