Part of Business of the House – in the House of Commons at 10:30 pm on 7 April 2010.
Denis MacShane
Labour, Rotherham
10:30,
7 April 2010
I rise as a parent and a former president of the National Union of Journalists to humbly suggest to the Committee that the labourer is worthy of his hire. If someone puts his intellectual effort into writing an article, making some music or creating something, it should not be stolen from him and handed out free through the power of the internet.
As a parent, I have to say that it may not be the most unwelcome thing in the world for a father or mother to tell their child, "Actually, you can't spend all evening on the internet." I understand why the Liberal Democrats-representing big capitalism-generally oppose the measure, but as a socialist I am astonished that any Labour MP-
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Annotations
Alex Butcher
Posted on 8 Apr 2010 3:14 pm (Report this annotation)
Copyright infringement is not the same thing as stealing. The latter permanently deprives the owner of their right to use or sell an item.
Children infringing copyright can do so in mere seconds (if the file is small) or minutes if the file is somewhat larger (e.g. a song compressed using MP3).
This Bill will not ensure that artists get paid, and may not even help the big capitalist content companies (who have lobbied for it) to to be paid. It may even reduce their sales as people cease to be exposed to new works and artists at zero risk or expense to themselves.