Music industry organisation says Culture Show report misled and was biassed towards opinion of presenter Mark Thomas
UK Music has filed a formal complaint to the BBC over what it believes is a breach of the corporation's editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality. The complaint relates to an an edition of The Culture Show broadcast on BBC2 on 4 February, 2010, which featured a segment on the Digital Economy Bill (DEB), which includes measures on clamping down on illegal filesharing.
The umbrella organisation that promotes the interests of Britain's music industry claimed the programme-makers misrepresented certain facts relating to the bill that had been presented to them in advance. In a letter to the editor of the show, UK Music stated that this resulted in a broadcast it believes was not only grossly misleading and inaccurate, but also misinformed the audience in a biased and prejudicial manner.
In reference to the lack of impartiality, UK Music pointed out that The Culture Show's 10-minute DEB report only afforded one minute and 40 seconds to those who didn't support presenter Mark Thomas's viewpoint.
UK Music claimed that Thomas's assertion that the bill is 'another example of the Labour government giving excessive powers to corporations and actually intruding on our privacy' is wrong.
Feargal Sharkey, the chief executive of UK Music, who was featured in the show, said: 'We very much welcome an open debate on the Digital Economy Bill. We would have expected a distinguished broadcaster like the BBC to present a balanced feature, based on facts and with all sides of the discussion being represented. On this occasion, however, we believe the BBC fell short on all accounts.
'Due to the seriousness of these breaches, we believe that the only appropriate and effective remedy would be an on-air retraction and apology.'
I was also interviewed for the programme and referred to the Featured Artist Coalition's official statement, which supports temporary throttling of the internet connection for repeat offenders, but my contribution wasn't broadcast.
In the report Thomas also stated that the bill 'gives the film industry and the music industry the right … to actually seek a court order to get you cut off from the internet with a bare minimum of evidence being presented'.
Another contributor to the report, Cory Doctorow, said the bill meant copyright holders could submit 'three false accusations and then taking bolt cutters to someone's internet'.
However, Sharkey said Thomas was presented with evidence in advance of the broadcast that the DEB proposal suggests a person suspected of infringing copyright will be sent approximately 50 copyright infringement notices before being considered to be a 'serious repeat infringer'. Rights holders will not know the person's personal details at that time.
A parliamentary explanatory note says it is only at this point that 'technical measures' might be taken against serial offenders. These could be anything from port blocking, bandwidth throttling or temporary account suspension. From that point the person will have the right to appeal to an ombudsman – most likely working for Ofcom – with the option of appealing to a first-tier tribunal.
The programme also stated that the DEB will 'criminalise' filesharers. Sharkey points out that the DEB deals exclusively with civil law.
Thomas said that clause 17 of the bill allows the secretary of state to change the law on copyright without having to put a new law before parliament. But the UK Music complaint stated that, from the outset, clause 17 required the secretary of state to seek and gain parliamentary approval to amend copyright legislation.
'We would find it somewhat difficult to believe that a mere lack of oversight or due diligence alone would account for such a gross misrepresentation of fact,' said Sharkey.
Since the draft bill was published, clause 17 has been amended so that parliament's oversight of the order has been considerably strengthened, according to UK Music. As it stands, the secretary of state must consult those affected by the order, before including the response in a draft of the order laid before parliament. Parliament then have 60 days to examine, debate and change the order, during which a committee of either house can block the progress of the order.
A BBC spokesperson said: 'We are aware of the letter [from UK Music] and will be responding in due course.'
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment