By: MarkJ - 7 February, 2011 (12:42 AM) - Score: 19037 - Fixed Line Broadband, Piracy, Ofcom Regulation
pirate flagofcom ukThe UK communications regulator , Ofcom , has informed us that its controversial Code of Practice for tackling internet copyright infringement by file sharing (P2P) customers of broadband ISPs, which is a requirement of the Digital Economy Act (DEA), is now just six weeks away from being published.

The news emerged while we were seeking Ofcom's response to European Commission (EC) concerns over how the DEA's cost sharing legislation would impact ISPs (Internet providers are forced to pay 25% but gain nothing). The EC raised fears that the UK governments new Secondary Legislation on cost sharing (here), which is a statutory instrument, might not comply with Article 12 of the "Authorisation Directive" (2002/20/EC).

Last week an independent London barrister, Francis Davey, took a closer look at the EC's concerns and concluded that the new cost sharing legislation had potentially been "misdrafted" and "may also be unlawful" (here). Unfortunately Ofcom could not comment on the governments cost sharing consultation but they did say this.

An Ofcom Spokesperson told ISPreview.co.uk

"With regards to the Code, we are working through a number of procedural and process points with Government but we expect to publish it in the next 6 weeks."

The Initial Draft Code was first opened up for public consultation last May 2010 (here) and had originally been due to surface before the end of last year, although it was later delayed until March 2011 due to a multitude of issues (e.g. the Judicial Review and government cost sharing delays etc.).

Ofcom has yet to launch its own consultations on both the codes appeal process and cost sharing implementation, the latter of which cannot be done until after the new secondary legislation has been pushed through parliament. However the EC's concerns, which pointed out that cost sharing may not be "objective" because "[ISPs] do not appear to benefit in any way", could yet delay things. We also asked the Internet Service Providers Association for their thoughts on this (see more ISP reactions from last year).

Nicholas Lansman, ISPA Secretary General, told ISPreview.co.uk:

"[The] ISPA is concerned about the delays in implementing measures from the Digital Economy Act and believe this can be attributed to the lack of scrutiny and debate when the Bill was passed.

ISPA believes that ISPs should not be paying any costs towards notifying their customers about potential copyright infringement and administration of the appeals process. To maintain consistency with the established principle of beneficiary pays, rights holders should be responsible for all actual costs associated with this.

ISPA strongly believes that the Internet offers excellent opportunities for rights holders to access their target market with relevant lawful content without the significant costs associated with a non-digital environment and views the decision as contrary to the promotion of the digital economy."

On top of all this the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), a body that represents the interests of 750,000 library and information services around the world, has also raised objections to the wider DEA (here).

Most recently the influential Taxpayers Alliance, which bills itself as Britain's independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes, has joined in to criticise the cost sharing proposals. To cap everything off the government has just ordered Ofcom to review the DEA's website blocking measures (here).

It might understandably seem quite strange to some that, at a time when the DEA is coming under such scrutiny, the act's cost sharing measures are still progressing. A wiser move would be to pause and wait for the outcome of the various legal and procedural reviews.
Share: Slash., Stumble, Facebook, Digg, Blink, Reddit, Delicious, Diigo
Option: Link | Search

Comments: 14

asa logoQwerty
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 12:05 PM
Link to comment

If the judicial review doesn't hold things up further can I ask

What are the next steps that have to be followed after this and when is it likely that rights holders can utilize this code.

What is the likely timeframe for people receiving letters through their doors?
asa logoMarkJ
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 12:17 PM
Link to comment

By the end of 2011 would be my guess and possibly as early as this summer. It's very hard to tell.
asa logoDekker
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 1:26 PM
Link to comment

If people streamed or purchased legal content instead of D/L illegal content then this bill will not affect them whatsoever (unless IP sharing comes into it, which is another matter) but the easiest way around that is to go with an ISP that does NOT IP share, or offers individual unique static IP addresses for internet connection.
asa logoMarkJ
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 1:42 PM
Link to comment

Dekker,

Just a quick FYI - it's "unlawful" and not "illegal" because no financial gain is had by the individual. Likewise the collected IP details can sometimes be incorrect, especially if your Wi-Fi has been hacked or your address cloned/spoofed.

One of the other problems is that the act only targets the connection owner and they are often not the guilty individual but the act assumes guilt. Anybody who shares their internet among family, friends, neighbours, libraries, schools or a business network now risk being cut-off. Some of the main Wi-Fi encryption methods are also easily hackable, so effective security is often not available (unless your kit supports WPA2 with good PW's).

If you could actually identify the responsible individual from such data then I would agree but plenty of cases show that you cannot, which is the root cause for many of the acts problems.
asa logot0m5k1
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 2:11 PM
Link to comment

@markJ
are you sure it's unlawful!
there is a very very big difference between something that is unlawful & something that is illegal.

I would say that as this pertains to an ACT then that would mean it is illegal
asa logoMarkJ
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 3:14 PM
Link to comment

Google the "difference between criminal and civil offence" in the UK and decide for yourself. Also check through the government reports, the vast bulk of which appear to describe it as a civil offence and not a criminal one. But I'm more interested in the real-world technical and financial workability of the act than the rights and wrongs of such abuse.
asa logoAgrajag
Posted: 7 February, 2011 - 3:33 PM
Link to comment

@t0m5k1

The Digital Economy Act only makes it easier (and cheaper?) to identify those who are allegedly distributing material around the internet, it doesn't include any new penalties for those found doing it (yet).

Once the identity of the alleged copyright infringer is known, then it's still up to the copyright holder to initiate any court action through the civil courts, under the CDPA or whatever.

There is of course the "three strikes rule", but I doubt that will ever see the light of day.
asa logoMartin Pitt - Aquiss Internet
Posted: 8 February, 2011 - 7:57 AM
Link to comment

@markJ

I'm reading your replies that the DEA is a bad thing? The napster generation has brought this on us all. There are many aspect contained which tidy us a lot of loose understanding of copyright and those infringing it.

Surely this is a wake up call to many that you can't go about taking stuff which has a price tag?

I also don't personally buy the line "my wifi is hacked etc". There is no excuse for poor quality security by anyone. If your operating wireless, then you should make yourself aware of who and what is using it.

@Agrajag. I can asure you Aquiss will most certainly use the "three strikes rule". We have operated such a process for over 3 years already. The process has generally worked very well over that time.
asa logoMarkJ
Posted: 8 February, 2011 - 10:56 AM
Link to comment

Ah you see it's often hard to point towards the problems of this act without somebody assuming that you are against the whole of it, which is very frustrating. I am in favour of warnings but do not approve of disconnection due to the harm it could cause to innocent individuals; the standards of evidence are not good enough. Other service restrictions are more palatable but rely on still flawed evidence. The bill was fairly ok until Mandelson involved himself.
If your operating wireless, then you should make yourself aware of who and what is using it.
You shouldn't have to know the inner workings of something in order to use it (car, oven, microwave etc.), otherwise we'd all need to get qualifications for every device we own; that's not realistic. I know more people, both young and old, whom would have no idea what WPA2 is than those who do.

How many people would ever know how to or check who is using their Wi-Fi?
asa logoGuest
Posted: 9 February, 2011 - 12:37 PM
Link to comment

Once the code has been published is that it done and dusted or is it open to further scrutiny and consultation. Or once publishe do ISPs immediately have to abide by it?
asa logoJessica
Posted: 22 February, 2012 - 6:14 AM
Link to comment

akak sjk dulu lgi gune cleocm je..sgt laju..tapi seme tu bergantung coverage 3G..jika xde 3G..mmg line GPRS/EDGE shj..depend pada kwsn coverage 3G..
asa logoqrlfajdo
Posted: 23 February, 2012 - 10:57 AM
Link to comment

FdOpET <a href="http://uzmosnbqujig.com/">uzmosnbqujig</a>
asa logoenalxlsugps
Posted: 23 February, 2012 - 5:07 PM
Link to comment

wTj6A1 , [url=http://zazlsnmyfttw.com/]zazlsnmyfttw[/url], [link=http://hvhtsvdpcljq.com/]hvhtsvdpcljq[/link], http://olrtpgpafwfy.com/
asa logodvmfxihpwvv
Posted: 29 February, 2012 - 11:42 AM
Link to comment

weh61l <a href="http://pclbncynufhr.com/">pclbncynufhr</a>



Generated in 0.75112 seconds.
DB queries: 8

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).