By: MarkJ - 7 September, 2010 (8:11 AM) - Score: 12861 - Fixed Line Broadband, Piracy, Ofcom Regulation
Market regulator Ofcom UK, which launched its first of three internet copyright infringement and "illegal" UK broadband ISP file sharing (p2p) consultations on 28th May 2010 (here), has blamed delays with its final two consultations upon government dithering over cost sharing (between ISPs and Rights Holders) and the potential need for a more extensive set of rules to tackle enforcement measures.Ofcom's first consultation - Online Copyright Infringement Initial Obligations Code - set out how ISPs should tackle Copyright Infringement Reports (CIR) and send notifications (Warning Letters) to customers accused of unlawful file sharing (p2p) activity. A requirement of the controversial 2010 Digital Economy Act (DEA).
The first consultation closed on 30th July after just two months (summary of key ISP and Rights Holder responses) and was expected to be closely followed by two similar consultations.
* Enforcement of the code and the handling of industry disputes [Original ETA - July 2010]Much as we reported at the end of last month (here), neither of the final two consultations have begun. The government was supposed to issue some form of public response to its own "cost sharing" consultation at the end of August, although this never materialised. Meanwhile Ofcom's "enforcement" consultation is now roughly two months overdue.
* Tariff setting - i.e. sharing costs - from implementing and fulfilling requirements in the code
[Original ETA - September 2010 - but dependent on the progress of Government's cost sharing consultation and statutory
instrument]
An Ofcom Spokeswoman told ISPreview.co.uk today:
"On the enforcement of the code and industry disputes, we are looking at whether our existing guidelines on enforcement are sufficient. If not, we will run a broader piece of work on enforcement to make sure we have a consistent approach across all our activities."
"On the enforcement of the code and industry disputes, we are looking at whether our existing guidelines on enforcement are sufficient. If not, we will run a broader piece of work on enforcement to make sure we have a consistent approach across all our activities."
Ofcom also confirmed that it was still completely "dependent on the Government's cost sharing consultation" and could not proceed to issue its own paper until that one had been concluded. The original Digital Economy Act is partly to blame for imposing such tight deadlines, which given the complexity of this issue were never realistically achievable.
On top of all this both BT and TalkTalk have launched a judicial review of the DEA, which will no doubt conspire to hinder the process and cause additional hassle for the government. As it stands Ofcom is likely to miss its target of completing all the necessary consultations by the end of this year. At the time of writing they were not able to say when the final two would air.
Tweet
Comments: 2
David at the TrustPosted: 10 September, 2010 - 6:11 PM
Link to comment
It's a shame that steps such as the DEA are needed, however, with so much content from across the creative industries being shared illegally online, the problem of copyright infringement has a real impact on the income of those whose hard work and time goes into creating content.
For the Film and TV industry (who I work with) the perception is often that copyright infringement doesn't matter because large companies can afford to lose their profits. However, it's an industry all about reinvestment, so all lost money means less money to make future films, and therefore fewer jobs for those that make them.
Bill in ScotlandPosted: 25 October, 2010 - 4:25 PM
Link to comment
I received a demand notice from ACS Law for £295 for having a music track on my computer that others may have attempted to download to their computer. I was not aware that anything on my computer was available to others - and feel that I am being targeted - where the real infringement is by people who download or copy form anywhere - like Cds from a lending library, radion and TV transmissions.
If I am liable, then sure libraries, radio and TV stations must be liable too.
I strongly believe in copyright - but the people who download or copy are the ones who should be targeted!!
I also note that the consulation on this amtter will probably continue until the end of the year. So how can firms like ACS Law issue demands such as the one I received. I further note that ACS Law alledgedly allowed hundred or thousands of names and addresses etc to be leaked to the Internet (secure?).
Generated in 0.5379 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).