The Internet Service Providers Association yesterday called the latest amendment to the Digital Economy Bill a "fucking disgrace". Well, they actually said they were outraged and that "the many associated legal, technical and practical issues [of this provision] have simply not been debated in nearly enough depth; for a policy of such gravity, this is negligent".

As previously reported, the controversial Clause 17 that would give future ministers the power to introduce new anti-piracy systems without going through the full parliamentary process was dropped this week, to be replaced by a Lib Dems proposal that the High Court be able to issue injunctions to close down websites that primarily exist to infringe copyright. Such injunctions would basically force the ISPs to block access to offending websites. In theory, such injunctions can be applied for under existing UK copyright laws, though the new provision would formalise the process, and, the ISPA says, tip the balance of power too far in the content owner's favour.

The outraged net firms' trade body continued: "This amendment is misjudged and disproportionate and this Bill is a wholly inappropriate place to introduce this debate. ISPA is particularly disappointed that the Lords supporting this amendment drew parallels with the model of network-level blocking administered by the Internet Watch Foundation. The suggestion that a framework developed to fight against the distribution of criminal images of child sexual abuse is appropriate to tackle allegations of civil copyright infringement is incomprehensible".

Needless to say, record label trade body the BPI thought the new amendment was groovy, groovy, uber-cool. In fact, everyone who works there had a jam tart to celebrate. Their original support for Clause 17 (support which was controversial and, in part, motivated Pure Mint Recordings chief Anthony Hall to quit the body's Rights Committee) was based on the fear that while the DEB's three-strikes proposals potentially deal with the P2P file-sharing problem, they don't help with other forms of online piracy, which are arguably on the rise. The BPI feel that the strengthened injunctions proposition will overcome that issue, without the need for the rather vague Clause 17. 

Between bites of his jam tart, a BPI spokesman told Music Week: "We are pleased that parliament have recognised that legislation to tackle non-peer-to-peer piracy needs to be as robust as that planned to limit peer-to-peer. Rights holders will continue the dialogue with government and opposition to ensure that the final Bill allows new digital markets to flourish".

You know what all this makes me think about? That a jam tart would be nice with my post-Daily coffee. Mmmmmmmmmmmm.