The UK Federation Against Software Theft (FAST), a not-for-profit group that campaigns for the legitimate use of software, has called on opponents of the controversial Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) to give the new laws time to "bed in and demonstrate it can work".

The DEA aims to clamp down on internet copyright infringement (piracy), most of which is conducted by "illegal" file sharing (P2P) customers of UK broadband ISPs. However critics say that flaws in its tracking methods could lead to innocent individuals being wrongfully accused of committing an offense for which they are not liable, among other things.

Human concerns over protecting personal privacy, a weak appeals process, poor standards of "evidence" (IP data) - see yesterdays ACS:Law news for examples - and the significant potential for accusing innocent people of a "crime" (civil offense) that they have not committed has, much as you might expect, never appeared to bother the Rights Holder fold.


Lovelock's comments appear to have come far too early. The technical and economic design stage of the act is still progressing its way slowly through Ofcom's long winded consultation process. A process that was recently delayed by three months until March 2011, due in no small part to government delays over a decision on related cost apportioning (ISPs 25% : Rights Holders 75%).

Opponents to FAST's viewpoint would perhaps argue that it is perfectly right and proper, democratically speaking, to challenge a legal framework for which there is so much clear doubt and concern. A framework that is still very much under construction and open to feedback.

Few could argue against the need to crack down on real commercial piracy and possibly even excesses of casual civil internet piracy, although an inability to easily identify the correct culprit (only the connection owner is made responsible, assuming the data itself is accurate) and forcing everybody to pay for the mistakes of others with higher ISP bills probably isn't the best solution.