The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (MSIC) has drawn to the "special attention of the House" a number of serious concerns with the UK governments Secondary Legislation (Statutory Instrument) for sharing the costs of the controversial Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA).

The legislation is a key part of plans to tackle "illegal" (unlawful) internet copyright infringement by customers of broadband ISPs. It states that the cost of sending warning (notification) letters to end users should be split between ISPs (25%) and Rights Holders (75%).

In recent weeks a number of new concerns have been raised, not least from the European Commission (here, here and here). Most of these have been completely shrugged off by the government, although two responses about the economic benefits and the impact of BT and TalkTalk UK's Judicial Review deserve quoting.


The government clearly feels (response 5) that it is justifiable for ISPs to bear part of the cost of the implementation because they will receive benefits as a result of new "legitimate content" opportunities (we've yet to see that work) and by removing "a significant amount of economically sterile [unlawful] traffic" from their networks.

The latter point is certainly an interesting remark and does have some practical merit, although it's difficult to see how the government could have arrived at such a precise 25% figure from that reasoning. Finally, the government has sent a very loud message to both BT and TalkTalk by saying that they "will win the case" (i.e. Judicial Review) brought against the act.

In addition, rights holders raised concerns about the Appeals process and how some consumers could abuse it by launching a "concerted campaign which leads to significant numbers of vexatious or unreasonable appeals". The Creative Coalition Campaign (CCC) would rather have ISP subscribers pay to defend their assumed innocence.