Platform responsibility? Get the backstory - check my book The Closing of the Net - only £15.99!

Lord Mandelson today accused the bankers of being the "unacceptable face of capitalism".  Isn't this somewhat hypocritical, given that he wants the Internet industry to spend £500 million on an electronic fence to protect the rich in the music industry (ie, the Digital Economy Bill)?  Is this acceptable when the country is virtually  bankrupt?

A quick search of the Sunday Times rich list produces a veritable catalogue of rich musicians. These are the beneficiaries of the graduated response and website blocking measures proposed by Lord Mandelson in the Digital Economy Bill.

Estimates of the cost of Lord Mandelson's measures have been as high as £500 million. Moreover, the actual cost is not known, because ISPs will have to invest in new infrastructure to implement the measures in the Digital Economy Bill. That will take away money from investment in the broadband fibre network. And the Internet users will have to pay for it in increased subscription charges, as well as the threat to their rights to freedom of expression.  

Moreover, an article in the Daily Telegraph today says that it will cost consumers £300 million as they will have to buy additional IT equipment to meet the obligation in Clause 14 of the bill to protect their Internet access. 

I've pasted a sample of the  the Sunday Times Rich list below, from the search results for musicians and others who have made their money from music: 

Rank Name Worth Source of wealth
28= Clive Calder £1,300m Music
52= Lord Lloyd-Webber £750m Entertainment, Music
120= Sir Paul McCartney £440m Music
146= Sir Cameron Mackintosh £350m Entertainment, Music
178= Simon Fuller £300m Entertainment, Music
297= Sir Mick Jagger £190m Music
309= Sting £180m Music
322= Keith Richards £175m Music
322= Sir Elton John £175m Music
333= Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas £170m Films
388= Olivia and Dhani Harrison £140m Inheritance, Music
388= Sir Tim Rice £140m Music
406= Jamie Palumbo £130m Entertainment, Music
406= Sir Tom Jones £130m Music
426= David and Victoria Beckham £125m Football, Fashion, Music
438= Eric Clapton £120m Music
438= Ringo Starr £120m Music
438= Simon Cowell £120m Music
492= Barry and Robin Gibb £110m Music
503= Phil Collins £108m Music

To view the full list, go to The Sunday Times Rich List search page and type "music" in the search box.  

Lord Mandelson's comments were reported by The Times



States v the 'Net? 

Read The Closing of the Net, by me, Monica Horten.

"original and valuable"  Times higher Education

" essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces at play behind the web."

Find out more about the book here  The Closing of the Net


FROM £15.99

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

In 2012, I presented my PhD research in the European Parliament.

Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark is the website of Dr Monica Horten. She is a policy analyst specialising in Internet governance & European policy, including platform accountability. She is a published author & Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She served as an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on  Internet Freedom. She has worked on CoE, EU and UNDP funded projects in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. In a voluntary capacity, she has led UK citizen delegations to the European Parliament. She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012.

Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy (and related issues on Brexit). Iptegrity has a core readership in the Brussels policy community, and has been cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link.  For more, see IP politics with integrity is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review