Another casual intrusion

The inherent evils of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) have been thoroughly documented - and in one case licked - by the great and the good in many places. And now there is a reasonable hope that the law can be repealed.

So why was this law created by our previous administration? And where does it belong in the canon of New Labour's other casual intrusions?

One of the best ways to exercise power is to create a rift between a body of people who might otherwise coalesce and attack you. The DEA is a wonderful example of this, as it places a lever between those whose livelihood depends on the assertion of copyrights, and those who want to encourage the growth of the internet through user content.

Very few "content creators" can calmly hold their nerve and preach fair play when they perceive that their pockets are being picked by freeloaders. While this does not, and never will justify the cursory removal of the internet from a household, even skilled liberal politicians have had difficulty separating fact from fear. For such is the divisive genius of Lord Peter Mandelson.

At some level, New Labour identified loftily held "rights" as a weak spot for liberals. Think about how the denial of nuclear weapons was used as a baton to the head of old Labour. As liberals tried to defend rights that were about to be eroded, New Labour sniped them at leisure - usually via the tabloids. The right to free association? Only kiddy fiddlers support that. The right to equal treatment by the law? Only suicide bombers support that. The right to anonymity in public? Only thieves support that.

And the right to unfettered access to the internet? Only pirates support that. In true Stalinist fashion, New Labour used its natural enemies to attack its friends. Because when energy dissipates, ruling by division is easier than ruling by consensus.

This is not to say that the Guardians of the Internet are blameless. As Andrew Keen has made a career from pointing out, the crowd is not always something you should try to follow or accommodate. In talking about rights protection, many commentators who should have known better elided the consequences of liberalisation. The consequence is often that one party gets to commoditize someone elses work. Google mugs the content Robin Hoods on a daily basis.

When the correct business models find their levels, the pay walls come down and we all learn to love the because effect, memories of the DEA and its twisted sisters will vanish. But today we are left with yet another disproportionate law whose origin lies in chaos.