ISPs Take Digital Economy Bill to court.

Plans to introduce a law that will force internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites accused of hosting copyright-infringing content have been condemned by ISPs, publishers, consumer groups, user rights groups and academics.


Executives from BT, Virgin Media, Orange, Google, Talk Talk, Facebook and Consumer Focus have written to the Financial Times outlining their grave objections to the proposed law and their view that while the law's aim may be laudable, it "would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring".
A proposal from Conservative peer Lord Howard of Rising and Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement Jones proposed amending the Digital Economy Bill. That change replaced ministers' much-opposed powers to amend copyright legislation without full Parliamentary scrutiny with court powers to force ISPs to block access to websites accused of hosting copyright-infringing material.
The House of Lords voted to accept the amendment to the Bill, which will be the subject of one more Lords debate before passing to the House of Commons.
"This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge," said the letter to the Financial Times.
Signatories to the letter also included actor and comedian Stephen Fry, the UK head of Yahoo!, the director of digital rights body Open Rights Group and the UK head of eBay.
"Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take," it said. "There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option."
The opponents of the amendment said that the Lords had not properly considered the implications of the amendment.
"The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the bill to date. It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences. Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended," it said.
"To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking," said the letter.
The Digital Economy Bill's measures aimed at reducing online copyright infringement have been controversial since the publishing of the Bill last year. Despite the Digital Britain Report failing to recommend the disconnection of internet access used by people accused of file sharing, the Bill included just such a provision.
That has prompted opponents to claim that disconnections will be unfairly carried out on the basis of allegations rather than evidence and that they will punish other users of an internet connection who had not infringed any copyright.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights said last month that the Bill was too vague and that it could not assess whether or not the measures to be taken were compatible with the Human Rights Act without more detail.

This was the letter sent.

Quote :

From Mr Tom Alexander and others.
Sir, We regret that the House of Lords adopted amendment 120A to the digital economy bill . This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring.





Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option. In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.




The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the bill to date. It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences. Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking.
We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain. This debate has created tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities. All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.

Tom Alexander,
Chief Executive, Orange
Richard Allan,
Director of Policy EU, Facebook
Neil Berkett,
Chief Executive, Virgin Media
Matt Brittin,
Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland
Charles Dunstone,
Chairman, Talk Talk Group
Stephen Fry
Jessica Hendrie-Liaño,
Chair, Internet Services Providers Association
Jill Johnstone,
International Director, Consumer Focus
Jim Killock,
Executive Director, Open Rights Group
Mark Lewis,
Managing Director, eBay UK
Ian Livingston,
Chief Executive, BT Group
Sarah Oates,
University of Glasgow
Jenny Pickerill,
University of Leicester
Mark Rabe,
Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland
Paul Reilly,
University of Leicester
Jess Search,
Founder, Shooting People independent film makers
Ian Walden,
Queen Mary, University of London
Tom Watson MP

Freespeech has just been finally put in the catagory of 'in theory only'. I also signed the letter above, via a link from Stephen Fry ugeing people to add their voice to this ludricious scheme dreamed up by those who live with their heads in the clouds. AKa the clueless government.

ETA- removed wierd coding.

Oh i see, we look down on the Chinese/Burmese/Iranian etc governments for blocking certain websites but its ok for us to do the same is it..?

What happens when they get pissed off with other sites after the file sharing ones..?
Conspiracy websites.
Anti government websites
Pornography websites

etc etc........


Its a very very slippery slope..

Can you put a link up to the letter Gris, if its an open petition that we can sign..?

Gaznandi wrote:

Can you put a link up to the letter Gris, if its an open petition that we can sign..?

Linkipoo's below.


Link to sign online petition.

Cheers duck..

Gaznandi wrote:

Cheers duck..

Stop calling me duck, everybody will start thinking I'm quackers.

these morons are doing there best to control us in every way possible, rumor has it that they are trying to control us beyond the grave ....

there's more gravy than grave about them

Gris Gris wrote:

Gaznandi wrote:

Cheers duck..

Stop calling me duck, everybody will start thinking I'm quackers.

either that or? ducks disease ....

ducks disease = something about ones rear end being to close to the ground

CSIWEMBLEY wrote:

these morons are doing there best to control us in every way possible, rumor has it that they are trying to control us beyond the grave ....

there's more gravy than grave about them

True, its always comes down to control than common sense.

thats why they do there best to control, these smeggers havent an ounce of common sense between them!

CSIWEMBLEY wrote:

thats why they do there best to control, these smeggers havent an ounce of common sense between them!

Now to be fair, they do, but it is common sense only those who live in pink palaces on fluffy clouds have only.


If the Government won't listen to the ISP's there is no hope. That is without even waving the data protection act at them.

So in England you have your Hadopi Law! In france there is Hadopi for the anti piratage of copyright material but also Lodopsi which is a so called "security" law to filter out Pédophile sites, terrorist sites etc as well as P2P sites. The governement here wants also to be able to have a look in on all mail sent!
As if pédophiles and the like use the open net to pass on their messages . All are on undercover reseaux , pc to pc , unseen by prying eyes. There are even free progs around which enable you to go "underground". I did a small subject on this on "Mes Amis" with different links.
As for reading and filtering our e-mails then that is going too far.
It seems as if those in governement, no matter where they are, have no idea of just what goes on and where. They do not seem to realise that with a good vpn or on a private reseau, they can no longer find us!

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/conservatives-and-lib-dems-push-web-blocking

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-and-link-sites-declared-legal-in-spain-100315/

Small ISPs, mobile operators and Wi-Fi providers like hotels and coffee shops will be exempt from a notification and blacklisting process under the Digital Economy Act, at least initially, according to a draft Code published by Ofcom.


The communications regulator has proposed that its draft 'Initial Obligations Code' should only apply to internet service providers (ISPs) with more than 400,000 subscribers. However, if copyright infringers migrate to smaller ISPs or mobile services, the Code will be reviewed.
The draft Code was published on Friday as part of a 73-page consultation paper. The disconnection of alleged copyright infringers, the most controversial power in the Act, is not addressed.
The Code explains the procedure for copyright owners or their representatives to notify internet service providers (ISPs) of alleged copyright infringements, the three-stage notification process for ISPs to inform their subscribers of the allegations, and lays down the rules for 'Copyright Infringement Lists' to be maintained by ISPs, which copyright owners can use if they wish to bring lawsuits. It also provides information on an appeals process.
The Act imposes obligations on ISPs where their networks may have been used for copyright infringements. It provides that ISPs must notify their subscribers if the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses associated with them are reported by copyright owners as being used to infringe copyright. It also provides that ISPs must keep track of the number of reports about each subscriber. The draft Code details how these processes will operate.
Large ISPs only


Explanatory notes to the Act say that the obligations should fall on all ISPs except those that have a very low level of online infringement. Ofcom said that it has chosen to limit its Code by size of operator.
"The seven ISPs with more than 400,000 subscribers together account for 96.5% of the residential and SME business broadband market," notes Ofcom in its consultation paper. It adds that "there is a broad correlation between the number of subscribers an ISP has and the level of alleged copyright infringement activity on their service".
The ISPs to which the Code will apply initially are: BT, Post Office, Sky, Talk Talk Group, Virgin Media and the fixed internet access subscribers of O2 and Orange.
Mobile ISPs will not be covered, partly because they "are less conducive to online copyright infringement due to speed and capacity constraints (e.g. caps on uploading and downloading) and pricing relative to fixed"; and partly because they assign IP addresses differently to most fixed ISPs.
"An IP address identified as related to copyright infringement may be in use by multiple individual subscribers at the time of the alleged infringement," said Ofcom. "The capital expenditure required to modify their systems to allow them to identify subscribers from the IP address provided in [Copyright Infringement Reports] will be significantly higher than for fixed ISPs."
Ofcom also noted that more than 95% of alleged copyright infringement incidents occur on fixed networks. "However, we propose to continue to review the level of copyright infringement on mobile networks and if necessary will require mobile ISPs to participate in the Code."
If Ofcom detects "widespread evasion of the effects of the code, resulting from migration of online copyright infringers to ISPs not covered by the Code" it said it will alter the qualification criteria for ISPs.
Wireless networks


The consultation paper explains that its definition of an ISP may include internet access providers like community Wi-Fi operators and coffee chains like Starbucks. "It is important to ensure that it is clear to these different types of provider and to Copyright Owners whether they are ISPs under the 2003 Act, and therefore potentially Qualifying ISPs if they pass the relevant threshold."
Ofcom said that a Wi-Fi operator will be caught if it has an agreement with users, even if that agreement is not in writing.
"In principle, operators of Wi-Fi networks would fall within the definition of internet service provider where the service is provided by means of an agreement with the subscriber, even where this is oral or implicit," said Ofcom in its consultation paper.
"It may not, however, apply to open access Wi-Fi networks where there is no payment from, and no agreement with, those making use of them," it said. "In those circumstances, the person making open access Wi-Fi available would themselves be a subscriber".
"Where a Wi-Fi network is provided in conjunction with other goods or services to a customer, such as a coffee shop or a hotel, our presumption is that the provider is within the definition of internet service provider," said Ofcom.
"We recognise, however, that there may be circumstances where there is an issue as to whether the agreement for goods or services extends to the use of the internet access service," it said. "Nevertheless, Ofcom’s proposal for the threshold for determining a Qualifying ISP would initially exclude those operators since the number of subscribers would not meet the required threshold."
Consequently, hotels and coffee shops are likely to be ISPs for the purposes of the Code, though initially they will not be Qualifying ISPs and therefore will not be subject to the infringement notification regime. Ofcom noted that if such businesses become Qualifying ISPs, they will need to obtain users' postal or email addresses.
An individual or small business that receives internet access for its own purposes is a subscriber, not an ISP, under the Code, even if they also make access available to others, according to the Ofcom paper. This would include people who run unprotected Wi-Fi networks.
"Those who wish to continue to enable others to access their service will need to consider whether take [sic] steps to protect their networks against use for infringement, to avoid the consequences that may follow," notes Ofcom.
Infringement reports


The Code sets out who can file a Copyright Infringement Report, or CIR, with an ISP. It also sets out the information that must be contained in a CIR, such as identification of a work and the IP address associated with an apparent infringement. The CIR must be sent to the ISP within 10 working days of the required evidence having been gathered by the copyright owner or its representative body.
The first CIR will trigger the first notification by an ISP to its 'subscriber'. The second notification would be triggered by the first CIR received on or after one month from the date of the first notification. The third notification would be triggered by the first CIR received on or after one month from the date of the second notification. At this point the ISP's subscriber would be added to the Copyright Infringement List.
No CIR more than 12 months old can be taken into account for the purposes of a notification. Therefore, someone subject only to two CIRs in any 12-month period will not be added to the list. Also, ISPs will be required "as far as is reasonably practicable" to destroy information they hold in the relation to a notification 12 months after receipt. The Code sets out the required content of the notifications and provides template first, second and third notification letters and a template information sheet to accompany the letters.
Infringement lists


The consultation paper explains how the Copyright Infringement Lists will operate.
"ISPs will have to keep a record of the CIRs linked to each subscriber along with a record of which Copyright Owner sent the report. A Copyright Owner can request an ISP to provide them with relevant parts of those records on request, but in an anonymised form to comply with data protection legislation. This is called a Copyright Infringement List," it says.
"The information in the Copyright Infringement List is intended to help Copyright Owners to target any litigation against those subscribers that appear to have infringed against them to the greatest degree."
ISPs have the choice of issuing the first and second notifications by email or post. The consultation paper does not address the risk of these notifications not being received by the subscriber. This risk has been raised previously by critics of the legislation, who point out that many ISPs have assigned email addresses to their subscribers that subscribers may ignore.
Consequently, the draft Code leaves open the possibility that a subscriber only becomes aware of allegations against him when the third notification is issued, which must be sent by recorded delivery to the subscriber's postal address and to the subscriber's email address. By then, the subscriber will feature on the copyright infringement list.
A copyright owner will need a court order to identify a person appearing on a copyright infringement list, unless the subscriber gives written consent to such disclosure. Copyright owners may not make more than one request for a copyright infringement list to each ISP within any period of three months.
Remedies


The proposed notification regime does not provide for new remedies against alleged file-sharers. Instead, it creates a mechanism by which copyright owners or representative bodies like the BPI can add alleged persistent infringers to a blacklist that could be used to assist court proceedings. Such proceedings would be based on established remedies.
The Act's explanatory notes state that the Government hopes the "initial obligations" will "significantly reduce online infringement of copyright." The Act tasks Ofcom with producing an annual report on the level of online copyright infringement. If it does not fall significantly, the Secretary of State can by Order direct Ofcom to require ISPs to impose 'technical measures' on subscribers.
The Act provides that these measures include limiting a subscriber's broadband speed or suspending service. Such an Order will need the approval of Parliament and cannot be made within a period of 12 months from the date on which the Initial Obligations Code comes into force.
Ofcom's consultation asks 16 specific questions. It is inviting comments until 30th July 2010. Enforcement of the Code and the handling of industry disputes will be the subject of a second consultation in July. A third consultation, on sharing the costs of implementing and fulfilling the Code's requirement, is scheduled for September

ISPs take Digital Economy Act to the courts

Two of the UK's biggest ISPs will ask the UK courts to scrutinise the controversial Digital Economy Act to determine whether or not it conflicts with existing laws on privacy and electronic communications.


BT and TalkTalk have asked the High Court to conduct a judicial review of the law, which was passed amidst the horse-trading and rushed compromise of the controversial 'wash up' process that took place just before this year's general election.
That process allows the passing of potentially large numbers of laws as long as the opposition does not seek to block them. This gives the opposition significant power and deals are made between Government and opposition without the usual Parliamentary or public scrutiny.
The progress of the Digital Economy Act was already seen as rushed before it entered the wash-up period and it has been criticised for imposing significant obligations on ISPs without proper consideration of the effects of its measures.
The law allows for the passing of regulations that would, for the first time, force ISPs to disconnect their customers if intellectual property rights holders believed that an account was used for the unauthorised sharing of copyrighted material.
BT and TalkTalk said in a statement that they are "seeking clarity" from the High Court on the legality of the law's provisions before spending significant sums on systems to implement them.
"The companies share a concern that obligations imposed by the Act may not be compatible with important European rules that are designed to ensure that national laws are proportionate, protect users’ privacy, restrict the role of ISPs in policing the Internet and maintain a single market," said the statement.
The UK has laws that implement EU directives on data protection and electronic privacy that control how organisations gather, process and use information online. They also govern what information can be gathered from electronic communications and say that ISPs should not be responsible for material sent over their network unless informed about infringements of the law.
The ISPs want the High Court to rule on whether the Digital Economy Act conflicts with existing laws based on these directives.
"If clarity is not gained at this stage then BT, TalkTalk and other industry players may end up investing tens of millions of pounds in new systems and processes only to find later that the Act is unenforceable and the money wasted," the companies said in a statement.
"The Digital Economy Act's measures will cost the UK hundreds of millions [of pounds] and many people believe they are unfair, unwarranted and won't work," said TalkTalk chairman Charles Dunstone. "It’s no surprise that in Nick Clegg’s call for laws to repeal, this Act is top of the public’s ‘wish list’."
"Innocent broadband customers will suffer and citizens will have their privacy invaded. We think the previous Government's rushed approach resulted in flawed legislation," he said. "That’s why we need a judicial review by the High Court as quickly as possible before lots of money is spent on implementation."
once a law has been passed by the country's elected representatives in Parliament there is little that unelected judges can do to change it.
"It is not in the power of the courts to throw out a primary Act of Parliament," said Robertson. "All the court can do is make a declaration that a law is in breach of other obligations. That declaration would put pressure on Parliament to revisit the Act."
"This law was rushed through Parliament and didn't get the scrutiny it deserved. It's a bad law, in my view. Unfortunately, it won't be easy to change it unless and until there is political will to do so," he said. "The courts can't just strike it down."
"It’s disappointing that we feel the need to take action but we feel we have no choice," said BT Retail chief executive Gavin Patterson. "We have to do this for our customers who otherwise run the risk of being treated unfairly. Our dispute is not with the current Government but with the previous administration which pushed this through without due process. We need clarity about whether this legislation is compatible with important EU laws.”

Here in france , people are starting to question the feasability of the Hadopi law. The judges have come out against it , they are saying that with the workload they already have , such cases might take years to treat. Members of Sarko's own majority are coming out against it as well. Those who voted it in the first place. They are coming to the fact that it will cost them more money than thought. The ISP's are not too hot hot either as for them it will mean losses in advertising and such. Plus apparently some-one has found a weakness in the law which means that either the internaut cannot be cut-off or if he is then he can either resiliate his contract or take the ISP to court for non respect of his contract. Possibly the judges and Members of Parlement are worried about finding their children or grandchildren in court!

More than likely they are. Would not do for ones grandsprogs to be up in front of grandpappy.

The other thing is that somehow the list of those who voted for the law was published in a blog here. So everyone knows who voted. And as the life as member of parlement is a cushy one then many of them are thinking of what will happen at the next general elections.

Good I hope none of them get back in.

Copyright enforcement should be governed by economic evidence, says IP report


The Government should be wary of relying on enforcement powers created by the Digital Economy Act (DEA) to reduce copyright infringement, a Government-commissioned report has said.



The economic impact of file sharing on creative businesses has been minimal and estimates of the scale of illegal downloading are not reliable, the report said.

Professor Ian Hargreaves has said in his review of IP law that the Government should adapt its approach when it has more evidence and that enforcement against file sharers should be only one of a number of copyright-supporting strategies.

Hargreaves said that the evidence is unclear about the amount of illegal downloading but is clear that creative businesses are not suffering major negative economic impact from the activity.

"No one doubts that a great deal of copyright piracy is taking place, but reliable data about scale and trends is surprisingly scarce," said the report. "A detailed survey of UK and international data finds that very little of it is supported by transparent research criteria." "Meanwhile sales and profitability levels in most creative business sectors appear to be holding up reasonably well," it said. "We conclude that many creative businesses are experiencing turbulence from digital copyright infringement, but that at the level of the whole economy, measurable impacts are not as stark as is sometimes suggested."

In that context the Government should be careful about major planned changes to the copyright enforcement regime, the report said.

"We should be wary of expecting tougher enforcement alone to solve the problem of copyright infringement," said the report. "Instead, Government should respond in four ways: by modernising copyright law; through education; through enforcement and by doing all it can to encourage open and competitive markets in licensed digital content, which will result in more legitimate digital content at prices which appeal to consumers."

"The strong online enforcement measures made possible by the Digital Economy Act should be carefully monitored so that the approach can be adjusted in the light of evidence," said the report

Copyright law must focus on industry not creators' rights, says Government report

OUT-LAW News, 18/05/2011


UK industry has been damaged because copyright law has been too focused on the rights of creators, a Government-commissioned report has said. Copyright law restricts important industrial growth and must change, the report said.



The law hampers innovation and medical research according to a review of intellectual property (IP) law conducted by Cardiff University professor Ian Hargreaves.
The Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, published this morning, said that current laws are not fit for the digital era.

"Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth? The short answer is: yes," said Hargreaves in his introduction to the report (130-page / 1.1MB PDF).

Hargreaves said that businesses involved in research and development are being hindered by "patent thickets" that "obstruct entry to some markets and so impede innovation". He also said that industries based on designs should be better protected by IP law.

Currently, designers are protected by design rights, which are different to copyright. Hargreaves said in his report that the design industry's IP needs "had been neglected".

"Designers believe a patchwork of intellectual property right (IPR) provision puts them at a disadvantage in comparison with sectors fully covered by copyright law," he said. "With the emergence of fabrication through 3D printing, new technological challenges also arise, indicating the need for a thorough reassessment of IP and design."

Business lobby group the CBI said that any action on patent and design rights must not risk undermining the rights of patent holders.

"While we accept that these can present barriers to innovation and growth, the Government must be careful to avoid action that will penalise genuine patent clusters and the risk of undermining investment in these important industries," said Katja Hall, chief policy director of the CBI.

The report recommends that the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) consult with the design industry on whether it should be included in his proposed copyright exchange system.

Hargreaves has proposed a copyright exchange in which owners of copyrighted material could make licences to that material available in a standardised way. He said that it would make it easier for users of copyright material to obtain the right licences and encourage legal use of copyrighted content.

"This will make it easier for rights owners, small and large, to sell licences in their work and for others to buy them," the report said. "It will make market transactions faster, more automated and cheaper. The result will be a UK market in digital copyright which is better informed and more readily capable of resolving disputes without costly litigation."

The exchange would be an online mechanism that would improve the prospects for the UK's creative industries across the world, the report said. It would also make it easier for small companies and new entrants to the copyright market to establish themselves, the review said.

"The prize is to build on the UK’s current competitive advantage in creative content to become a leader in providing the services global players use to license their content for world content markets," it said.

Like the author of the last major review of IP policy, Andrew Gowers, Hargreaves has said that individuals should be allowed to change the medium on which they play music they have bought. They should, for example, be able to save music from CDs to computers or music players.

The fact that copyright law stops the 'format shifting' of content is leading to much material "rotting away", he said. EU law allows countries to exempt format shifting from copyright law and the UK should take that opportunity, he said.

"The UK [does not] allow its great libraries to archive all digital copyright material, with the result that much of it is rotting away," the report said. "Taking advantage of these EU sanctioned exceptions will bring important cultural as well as economic benefits to the UK. Together, they will help to make copyright law better understood and more acceptable to the public. In addition, there should be a change in rules to enable scientific and other researchers to use modern text and data mining techniques, which copyright prohibits."

Hargreaves did not recommend that the UK adopt a US-style 'fair use' approach to copyright material that allows works to be reproduced for reporting or comment purposes. The approach was unlikely to be "legally feasible" in Europe, the report said.

UK copyright law has a more limited exemption for 'fair dealing' in copyright-protected material, which permits the use of content in news reporting or for criticism or review, amongst other things.

"Hargreaves’ decision not to recommend an American-style ‘fair-use’ defence to copying works is good for rights holders and entrepreneurs alike," said IP law specialist Iain Connor or Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM. "Leaving law making to litigation by asking judges to decide whether copyright use constitutes ‘fair use’ or not was not going to assist anyone but the rich."

Hargreaves said that the Government should solve once and for all the problem of 'orphan works', copyrighted material that cannot be used because its creator is unknown. "[This] represents the starkest failure of the copyright framework to adapt," said the report.

"As long as this state of affairs continues, archives in old formats (for instance celluloid film and audio tape) continue to decay, and further delay to digitisation means some will be lost for good," said the report. "Beyond this cultural negligence, the unnecessary restriction on access involved in orphan works can, when applied to scientific papers, even affect life saving research ... action on this issue cannot be deferred any longer."

The report proposes that any material whose owner cannot be found in the online copyright exchange can be considered to be an orphan work. A system of collective licensing should be established which would collect royalties for the use of that work, the report said.

"The aim to grant easier and quicker access to copyright for SMEs and include access to ‘orphan works’ should assist everyone to stay on the right side of the law," said Connor. "It will be interesting to see how this operates in practice and whether the rights holders will be persuaded or even compelled to move away from their own copyright management and licensing systems."

The proposals were welcomed by digital rights lobby group the Open Rights Group.

"Professor Hargreaves has given us the design manual to a 21st century copyright policy," said group spokesman Peter Bradwell. "He shows that we can allow useful activities like new medical research techniques or parodies and maintain flourishing creative industries. This evidence-based blueprint should finally help government balance copyright in the interest of creators, consumers and innovators. It is vital they follow it."

Hargreaves Report will call for an online copyright exchange system, say reports[u]


People and companies will be able to exchange the rights for using copyright material online if new changes to UK copyright law are implemented, according to a newspaper report.



Professor Ian Hargreaves, who was asked by the Government to conduct a review of intellectual property (IP) law, will call for a digital rights exchange when his report is published later this week, according to a report in the Financial Times (FT).

The online exchange will "make the UK the best place in the world to do business in digital content,” the report will say, according to the paper.

The Hargreaves Report will say that copyright holders will benefit from improved exposure for their works; from being able to record ownership of rights, and from a clearer understanding of the terms and conditions of licensing copyright material, the FT said.

“The prize is to build on the UK’s current competitive advantage in creative content to become a leader in licensing services for global content markets; in short to make the UK the best place in the world to do business in digital content,” Hargreaves will say in his review, the FT said.

“It is not fanciful to suggest such a development would be of comparable importance over time to the UK’s position as the leading service support centre in the European timezone in financial services,” Hargreaves will say, the paper said.

Hargreaves will advise that industry should set up the digital rights exchange, but will call on the Government to appoint someone to oversee its design and implementation, and persuade companies to join the system, according to the FT.

The Hargreaves Report will also recommend altering UK copyright law to reflect public behaviour, the FT report said. Currently the law does not allow people to transfer music from a CD to an MP3 player.

The Government has already promised to modernise the current copyright system, with simplified payments and minimal transaction costs, in response to Hargreaves' review as part of the Treasury's Plan for Growth (131-page / 1.7MB PDF). The report also commits the Government to no further broad IP rights reviews during this Parliament.

Speaking to industry representatives in November 2010, the Prime Minister had said he wanted to see a US-style approach to IP laws, including a 'fair use' exemption to allow copyrighted material to be used freely without permission under certain conditions.

Strong opposition to the idea was expressed in submissions to Hargreaves' review panel from media industry bodies such as ITV and News Corporation.

An imminent review of EU laws on IP, also due this month, will likely offer similar protections to creators' rights.

BT and TalkTalk denied appeal hearing over Digital Economy Act


The Court of Appeal has refused to hear an appeal by internet service providers (ISPs) against measures in the Digital Economy Act (DEA) which could lead to them being forced to disconnect copyright-infringing customers.



BT and TalkTalk demanded a judicial review of the Act, claiming that it violated EU laws on privacy and electronic communications. In April the High Court rejected their claim and the Court of Appeal has now refused to hear an appeal.

Following the High Court's decision TalkTalk said it was considering taking the case to the European Court of Justice, but in May the two firms decided to ask the Court of Appeal to review the High Court's decision instead.

Neither BT nor TalkTalk would confirm if they would present further legal challenges to the Act following the Court of Appeal decision not to hear their appeal.

"We are currently considering our position," a spokesman for TalkTalk told OUT-LAW.

The DEA allows for regulations to be made that force internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect users if copyright holders believe the user is violating their rights.

BT and TalkTalk challenged the plans in a judicial review by the High Court, challenging the parts of the Act that they said could make ISPs responsible for the copyright infringement of users.

Ofcom, the UK's media regulator, drafted plans last year that would force ISPs to hand over details of customers who were illegally sharing files of copyrighted material to copyright holders to allow them to take action. If the Government enacts Ofcom's draft code ISPs could have to suspend users' internet access if they are found to be illegally downloading copyrighted material.

Mr Justice Kenneth Parker said in his High Court ruling that provisions in the DEA for the new copyright infringing measures would have a "positive effect" on illegal infringement and said it was acceptable for copyright holders to obtain personal data about suspected infringers of their rights.

Following the ruling BT and TalkTalk asked the Court of Appeal to consider whether the DEA breaches the EU's Technical Standards Directive, Authorisation Directive, E-Commerce Directive, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive.

The Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive governs what information can be gathered from electronic communications and says that ISPs should not be responsible for material sent over their network unless informed about infringements of the law.

Technology lawyer Claire McCracken of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, said that the refusal to hear the appeal of the judicial review comes as a blow for the ISPs.

"A declaration that the DEA was incompatible with EU laws would have put pressure on the UK Parliament to revisit the Act, which was rushed through in the final days of the last Parliament", said McCracken.

"ISPs are concerned that they will invest millions of pounds to comply with the provisions of the DEA, only to find out in the long run that it is contrary to EU laws. The fact that BT and TalkTalk may now have to consider a reference to the European Court only adds to the uncertainty and regulatory burden for the ISPs".

A spokesman for the Department for Culture Media and Sport told OUT-LAW last month that it did not expect to implement Ofcom's copyright infringement rules into the DEA until 2012.



Naturally BT and Talk Talk are appealing this ludricous decision.

US could use extradition agreement to force UK copyright infringing suspects to face trial in the US, media reports say


The owners of UK websites could be extradited to the US if the sites host links to pirated copyright works, a US intellectual property (IP) rights enforcement body has said, according to media reports.



The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is currently targeting owners of websites that violate US copyright laws even if the websites have no direct association with the country, Erik Barnett, the agency's assistant deputy director said, according to the Guardian.

ICE has already courted controversy over its claims that it can apply US copyright laws abroad.

Spanish company Puerto 80 has launched legal proceedings against ICE claiming the agency acted unlawfully by seizing control of two of its sports-streaming websites. ICE cut off access to the sites claiming the content violated US copyright laws despite a Spanish court previously ruling that the sites did not break Spain's copyright laws.

"The jurisdiction we have over these sites right now really is the use of the domain name registry system in the United States. That's the key," Barnett said, according to a Guardian report.

Any website registered with domain name registrar Verisign and which has a generic web address ending like .com or .net web address can be legitimately targeted by ICE, Barnett said, according to the report.

Barnett said that it was legitimate to target website owners whose sites only link to sources of pirated material.

"A lot of drug dealing is done by proxy – you rarely give the money to the same person that you get the dope from. I think the question is, are any of these people less culpable?".

US copyright holders stand more chance of winning a copyright infringement case against a linking website in the US than in the UK, an intellectual property (IP) law expert has said.

Iain Connor, who works for Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW, said that provisions within the UK's Extradition Act would give the legal means for suspected criminals to be summoned to the US.

The UK-US extradition treaty agreement allows either country to surrender a criminal suspect to the other if the crime carries a minimum punishment of a year's prison sentence.

"US companies are likely to try and secure a conviction in the US where they know that they could succeed on the basis of an offence of 'authorising copyright infringement' which in the UK is not a well defined offence," Connor said.

"The only case where this was looked at was the 'TV-links' case where, based on the criminal burden of proof which requires the person to be found guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt' rather than the civil burden of proof 'on the balance of probability', it had proved unsuccessful," Connor said.

"It appears that US copyright owners are seeking to rely on the Extradition Act and the US case law to secure a prosecution for the authorisation of copyright infringement by the provision of links to infringing content. Whether this will succeed is no doubt a case that will run and run if the previous case involving Gary McKinnon is anything to go by," Connor said.

Gary McKinnon was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of hacking into US computer systems, including those belonging to NASA and the Pentagon. US authorities have called for McKinnon to be extradited but McKinnon is fighting the summons on medical grounds.

UK student Richard O'Dwyer also faces extradition to the US for alleged copyright offences. O'Dwyer ran a website called TVShack until last year when he took the website down following a visit from police and US officials.

The website provided links to other sites where pirate copies of films and TV programmes could be downloaded. O'Dwyer's lawyers insist that he should only face criminal charges in the UK.

The Government should change the extradition agreement with the US so that the UK courts can intervene to "bar extradition in the interests of justice where conduct leading to an alleged offence has quite clearly taken place on British soil," Isabella Sankey, director of policy for free speech campaigners Liberty said, according to the Guardian.

The public should not be subject to different legal standards on copyright infringement, Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group said, according to the report.

"This seems absurd," Killock said. "If you don't have some idea that there's a single jurisdiction in which you can be prosecuted for copyright infringement that means you're potentially opening an individual to dozens of prosecutions."

Erik Barnett said that ICE was committed to enforcing US copyright laws, and said that copyright pirates were making huge profits from illegal online filesharing activities.

"The general goal of law enforcement is to arrest and prosecute individuals who are committing crimes," Barnett said, according to the Guardian's report. "That is our goal, our mission. The idea is to try to prosecute".

"We seized one bank account for one individual running one sports streaming site. He lives with his parents and has no other source of income. He had $500,000 (£311,013) in his bank account.

"Most of the individuals that we've targeted were earning estimated amounts of between $10,000 and $20,000 a month. You've got to remember that the overheads are fairly low – your product isn't being paid for," Barnett said.