Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP | Giving you a lot more than just law... » debill

Internet piracy could cost over one million European jobs by 2015

Mark Weston — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:08:38 +0000

The growth in illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing on the Internet has a real impact on the European economy. There will be a loss of over one million jobs across Europe by 2015 and over £200bn due to the effects of the unlawful practice on creative industries. Those are the claims of a report commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce. The TUC has also claimed that the results show that piracy was a real threat in terms of loss of revenues and employment and was proof that it was imperative for the Digital Economy Bill to become law. The Bill is controversial and is currently proceeding through Parliament. It includes a proposal to stop file-sharing by having a ‘three strikes’ deterrent which would see pirates ultimately cut-off or suspended from using the Internet. The Open Rights Group – which has criticised the Bill – has attacked the report as being ‘corporate propaganda’ to justify intrusions to free speech and privacy.

Government clause in Digital Economy Bill to amend copyright laws without going through Parliament is defeated in House of Lords

Paul Gershlick — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:22:45 +0000

The Government’s controversial clause in the Digital Economy Bill, in which it could have changed copyright laws without having to go through Parliament, has been struck out by the House of Lords. A Conservative and LibDem backed amendment would instead require Internet service providers to block certain web sites on receipt of injunctions. Their amendment aims to catch web sites that are outside of the jurisdiction but which are getting away with doing what they like. Rights holders could have a swift recourse to the courts to stop their rights being infringed. However, that amendment has also proved controversial with the Open Rights Group saying that the approach is likely to produce straightforward threats, bans and withdrawals of sites with user generated content. The BPI – a group representing record labels, likes the amendment and said there was no evidence for suggesting that sites would be blocked based purely on accusation.

Change of stance from Government on cutting off peer-to-peer file-sharers under Digital Economy Bill?…

Mark Weston — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:47:39 +0000

There is some uncertainty whether the Government has shifted its position in the Digital Economy Bill and adopted a more lenient line in respect of illegal peer-to-peer file-sharers. If passed, the Digital Economy Bill would see file-sharers being identified, warned and ultimately stopped from having full Internet access. Instead of cutting off persistent file-sharers from the Internet, the Government now says that their accounts will be ‘temporarily suspended’. Is this a change or not? According to Jim Killock, of the Open Rights Group – a body against the proposed legislation – nothing has really changed. He says that temporary account suspension still means that families will be stopped from using the Internet.

Rights holders to fund 75% and ISPs 25% for cost of dealing with Internet pirates

Paul Gershlick — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:43:22 +0000

The Government has announced that rights holders will have to pay 75% of the cost of dealing with Internet pirates under the Digital Economy Bill. Internet service providers would only be required to foot 25% of the cost. The entertainment industry had hoped for a 50/50 split. If passed, the Digital Economy Bill would see file-sharers being identified, warned and ultimately stopped from having full Internet access.

Virgin controversially trials new software to get info on peer-to-peer file-sharers

Mark Weston — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:34:35 +0000

Virgin Media is planning to trial new software called CView which would analyse file-sharing by its customers. Privacy International – a privacy rights watchdog – has taken issue with the Internet service provider’s actions and has asked the European Commission to report on the legality of the proposed software use. Privacy International claims that the trial would breach the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, under which it is a criminal offence to intercept communications without consent unless certain exemptions apply. However, Virgin Media counters that it is not actually identifying individual users. Instead, it is conducting the trial to see how much of the traffic through its service is illegal file-sharing. It wants to find out what it can do to reduce illegal file-sharing and the trail will give it useful information to help to achieve that. Virgin Media has admitted that it would be possible technically to use the deep packet inspection software to identify Internet protocol addresses (from which individual users could be identified) but this was not currently the plan.

The Government is introducing new laws through the Digital Economy Bill, which (if passed) would involve file-sharers being identified, warned and ultimately stopped from having full Internet access. Virgin Media claims that CView will not help with that. It said the software does not actually identify anyone.

Government softens controversial clause 17 of Digital Economy Bill which would give Ministers general power to make any change to copyright laws without Parliament scrutiny

Paul Gershlick — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:38:18 +0000

The Government has softened its line on the highly controversial clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill. That clause would give the Government a very general power to amend, repeal or revoke any provision under the main UK copyright law: the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This would give the Government the power to make widespread changes to crucial intellectual property rights laws without having to go to Parliament. Lord Mandelson sought to avert a rebellion by softening the approach. Clause 17 would now involve a 60-day consultation period with Parliament and the amendments to the copyright law would have to be sufficiently serious before that power was used. After going through the consultation process, the Government would also have to produce an explanatory document to Parliament that would describe the infringement of copyright which is having the serious adverse effect on business or consumers, describe the effect and explain why the Government is satisfied that making the amendment in that way is the proportionate way to deal with things.

A lot of people have expressed disquiet about the amount of power given to the select few by clause 17. However, some have said that as long as the powers are not misused, it is a way for the law to keep track with technology changes.

Amendment proposed to Digital Economy Bill which would clarify that search engines are exempt for copying web pages

Paul Gershlick — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:00:02 +0000

Search engines crawl the world wide web and copy pages for the purpose of providing their search services to web users. That use may be an infringement of copyright on a massive scale of the owners of all of the relevant web pages. However, that may just be a technical infringement, because most web site owners are happy for Google and others to scour their site and copy the pages for the purpose of giving the site a ranking in response to users’ search requests. It has been thought that web site owners give the search engines an implied licence to copy and use the material for the purpose of providing search engine services. That has never been properly tested in court, though.

A Conservative peer, Lord Lucas, now wishes to put that argument beyond doubt. He has proposed amendments to the Government’s Digital Economy Bill which would give search engines a presumption that they have the right to copy material for the purpose of providing their search engine services. Web site owners could still refuse permission if they want. In practice, the permission would be refused by technical measures taken by the web site.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘This proposal seems sensible. It’s one of those cases of the law having failed to catch up with the technology. The change may not be needed in practice, but if it helps to give search engine service providers comfort that their essential web services are not illegal, then that would not be a bad thing.’