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

Hargreaves Digital Opportunity Report of intellectual property published

Mark Weston — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:51:55 +0000

Professor Ian Hargreaves has published his report on intellectual property rights that had been commissioned by David Cameron in November last year. His report makes ten recommendations, which include the following:

Creation of a Digital Copyright Exchange. This would be a centralised digital copyright works marketplace where licences to copyright content could be readily bought and sold, akin to a copyright shop. This would extend what currently happens with through music collections agencies such as PRS. The aim is to have this implemented by the end of 2012. In addition, the UK should support the European Commission’s proposals to establish a framework for cross-border licensing.
Introduction of legislation to permit use of orphan works – copyright works where the rights owner has not been ascertained. The European Commission has also come up with similar plans recently.
Allowing wider exceptions for lawful copying, such as to include format shifting between a laptop and mp3 player, which is still unlawful. This may also include copyright exceptions for non-commercial research, such as digital copying of medical journals for computerised analysis in research. Parody and library archiving would also be exceptions to copyright. The exceptions would be enshrined in law and non-excludable by contracting out by agreement between the parties. There is no place in the report for anything as extensive as the “fair use” exception along the lines that US law has, as that would not be compatible with European Union law.
Increasing the Intellectual Property Office’s ability to give legally binding opinions on changes to intellectual property law in response to economic or technological changes.
A careful look at the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Government should look not just to enforcement but also education, growing legitimate markets and modernising copyright law. Other countries’ experiences should be considered when the Digital Economy Act starts to become operational in 2012.
Try to remove patent thickets that stifle innovation. Thickets arise where there are overlapping patent claims by multiple applicants, resulting in delays and extra costs in innovation. This should involve cutting backlogs in patent applications. There should also be a disincentive – perhaps through cost of additional fees for patent renewals – to discourage patents that do not add much value. Computer-related patent rules also need to be clearer and stricter to avoid patents being granted for non-technical inventions or business methods.
Investigate whether the system of protection for designs should be made clearer. The Intellectual Property Office should conduct an assessment based on evidence within the next 12 months to consider the relationship between design rights and innovation.

It now remains to be seen what the Government will do in terms of implementation of the recommendations within the report. There have been other intellectual property reviews previously – most notably the Gowers Review – which were not then followed-up significantly.

Digital Economy Act judicial review challenge fails – R (on the application of BT) v BIS, High Court

Paul Gershlick — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:38:48 +0000

BT and TalkTalk have failed in their bid to get the Digital Economy Act judicially reviewed. The Act was rushed through just before the last Parliament broke up prior to last year’s General Election and was passed in a rush in the so-called ‘wash-up’ procedure. The Internet service providers argued that the controversial parts of the Act that require them to deal with fire-sharers on their networks should not be brought into law. They said this was because the Government had failed to inform the European Commission of its actions, the Act failed to comply with European Union Directives on privacy and e-commerce, and the Act lacked proportionality. What the ISPs most objected to, though, was that the provisions restricting or suspending Internet access to potentially millions of innocent users would be unfair if someone else accessing their Internet connection – even someone not in their household – was the one responsible. The ISPs may yet well appeal this High Court ruling.

The Digital Economy Act – never far away from controversy

Mark Weston — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:17:47 +0000

The Digital Economy Act is soon to be the subject of a judicial review. Now, in a somewhat contradictory move, the Government has both put its proposals for the workings of the Digital Economy Act before Parliament, whilst, at the same time and following months’ of debate, asked Ofcom to review the practicalities of whether the clampdown on illegal file-sharing will actually work.

The Digital Economy Act requires Ofcom to introduce a system to reduce web piracy by ensuring co-operation between rights holders, such as record labels, and Internet service providers (ISPs).

Under the proposals put before Parliament, ISPs would need to warn a subscriber three times that they are breaking the law by file-sharing, after which, if the subscriber continues to be active in file-sharing, the ISPs must pass the details of the subscriber to the rights holder to allow them to enforce their rights.

The proposals split the cost of the system between copyright holders, who must pay 75% of the costs, and ISPs, who must pay the remaining 25%. The reasoning for this seems to be that it is copyright holders that benefit and therefore they should pay for the system, but ISPs are critical of the cost split as they do not benefit at all – they argue the rights holders should be responsible for the full cost of the system.

The proposals seem to be a step in the right direction for the Digital Economy Act. However, at the same time as the proposals have been laid before Parliament, the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has asked Ofcom to review whether such a clampdown on file-sharing by blocking access to file-sharing, copyright infringing websites, or part of those websites, is practicable. Many critics of the Digital Economy Act argue that blocking websites is not workable and extremely expensive.

This Government seems to be doing what the last government should have done before passing the Digital Economy Act in a rush before dissolving Parliament – seeing if the law is actually viable. However, there is confusion at the way in which it is pressing on regardless, especially as there is a judicial review in play too.

Digital Economy Act to undergo judicial review

Mark Weston — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:01:34 +0000

The Digital Economy Act is going to be judicially reviewed. The Act was rushed through just before the last Parliament broke up prior to this year’s General Election. The Act was passed in a rush in the so-called ‘wash-up’ procedure, despite controversial provisions not being debated fully and very few Members of Parliament attending the sessions. BT and Talk Talk, the Internet Service Providers, have argued that the controversial parts of the Act that require ISPs to deal with fire-sharers on their networks should not be brought into law. They say this is because the Government had failed to inform the European Commission of its actions, the Act failed to comply with European Union Directives on privacy and e-commerce, and the Act lacked proportionality. What the ISPs most object to, though, is that the provisions restricting or suspending Internet access to potentially millions of innocent users would be unfair if someone else accessing their Internet connection – even someone not in their household – is the one responsible.

The law is not automatically unfair, but the High Court may decide that it is when it undertakes the judicial review.

ISPs angry at Government decision to require ISPs to pay 25% of costs of notifications for users’ infringements

Mark Weston — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:20:47 +0000

The ISP Association has reacted angrily to a Government decision that Internet service providers should have to foot 25% of the costs involved with notifying their subscribers and rights holders of continued copyright infringement by ISPs’ users. Under the Digital Economy Act 2010, ISPs have to give their subscribers three warnings against their infringements, and then provide relevant subscriber details to copyright owners for those rights holders to take appropriate legal action. The Government consulted over whether rights holders should foot all of the costs or whether they should be shared. Following the consultation, the Government has decided that ISPs should pay a quarter of the notification costs of the ISPs and Ofcom, the communications regulator. The ISP Association has said that copyright owners should pay the costs in defending their own interests; however, the Government feels that requiring the ISPs to pay a share of the costs will create a more robust system.

ISPs seek judicial ruling over legality of Digital Economy Act

Mark Weston — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:43:32 +0000

BT and Talk Talk – the Internet service providers – have asked the High Court to provide a ruling as to whether the Digital Economy Act is unlawful. They complain that the Act was scrambled through in a rush to pass legislation just before the General Election and that it conflicts with European Union laws protecting privacy and electronic communications. The ISPs say that implementing systems and processes that would enable them identify, communicate with and cut off users who share copyright material without authorisation would cost tens of millions of pounds. They say it would be better to get a court ruling now as to whether the new laws will be lawful rather than waste money on implementing something where the law turns out to be unenforceable.

Alleged file-sharers face crackdown from Ministry of Sound

Mark Weston — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:46:26 +0000

The Ministry of Sound has sent 2,000 letters out to people who it alleges have unlawfully infringed its copyright by downloading or uploading its tracks without permission. The letters ask for compensation of a few hundred pounds and threaten court action if the sums are not paid. Some recipients of the letters pay up, whilst others have protested their innocence and do not understand why they have been targeted for something they claim to know nothing about.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, told the Trusted Reviews web site at www.trustedreviews.com the following:

‘If music is shared without the copyright owner’s permission, the copyright owner has the right to ask people who have distributed or obtained the music without their authorisation for money to cover their losses, costs and expenses. Even if the copyright owner is mistaken about some of the alleged infringement activity, there is nothing to stop them sending the letters. Copyright is different from some other intellectual property in this regard, such as trade marks and patents, where people have to take greater care before making claims.

‘Equally, there is nothing to stop anyone receiving these letters from simply ignoring them. It is up to them what they decide to do, as few, if any, of these sorts of actions have actually reached the courts to date. However, if their case does get to court, any person found to have done wrong may have to pay more, which is why some people simply pay up to take away the worry.

‘As frightening as it may be to receive these letters, especially for people who have done nothing wrong, they do not simply have to pay up. It is for the person making the claim to be able to prove what has happened. A recipient of the letter could deny it and question the evidence alleging the infringement. If the case is contested, recipients of the letter may wonder how likely it would be that the person sending them the letter would be prepared to obtain sufficient evidence and attend a trial, considering the relatively small sums involved in fighting each contested case. To be able to feel confident of winning their case, the claimant would either want to be in possession of a written admission of wrongdoing or the hard drive of the computer.

‘The implementation of the recently passed Digital Economy Act could make the position more concerning for households. The Act allows for the Government to introduce new laws that would put the onus on people with an Internet connection if it can be shown that copyright infringement had occurred through that connection, regardless of who actually did the infringement. This could affect people sharing a home or people whose Internet connections have been used by cybercriminals. Those new laws have not been introduced yet and would have to undergo Parliamentary scrutiny first, but there could well be pressure to do so if the music industry continues to suffer lost revenues as a result of continued peer-to-peer file-sharing.’

To go to the Trusted Reviews article, click here: http://www.trustedreviews.com/multimedia/news/2010/07/19/Ministry-of-Sound-Gets-Legal-on-Downloaders/p1

Music, movies, moolah – free online?

Mark Weston — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:25:31 +0000

The new Digital Economy Act includes provisions about online copyright infringement (including ‘file-sharing’ and ‘peer-to-peer’ transfer). Under the Act, over the next few months OFCOM is to supervise (or produce) a supporting code under which internet service providers (ISPs) will have certain ‘initial obligations’ to:

notify a subscriber (i.e. an internet user) if an internet protocol (IP) address associated with that subscriber (i.e. a person’s ‘address’ on the Internet) is reported by a copyright owner as being used to infringe copyright;
keep track of the number of reports about each subscriber; and
on request by a copyright owner, compile – on an anonymous basis – a list of those subscribers who are reported to be copying - if a subscriber passes a certain threshold level to be set in that initial obligations code.

A copyright owner can then, after obtaining a court order to obtain personal details of who a subscriber is in the real world, take action against anyone included in that list.

What is described above is the initial obligations on ISPs. However, if the initial obligations on ISPs prove insufficient to reduce significantly the level of online copyright infringement, under the Act, the government is allowed to impose further technical obligations on ISPs. These would be imposed on the basis of reports from OFCOM no sooner than 12 months after the code about ISPs’ initial obligations enters into force. These technical obligations would require ISPs to take measures to limit internet access to certain subscribers – but these technical measures can only be used against subscribers who meet the threshold for inclusion in a copyright infringement list under the initial obligations. (Technical measures would be likely to include bandwidth ‘capping’ or ‘shaping’ that would make it difficult for subscribers to continue file-sharing, but other measures may also be considered. If appropriate, temporary suspension of broadband connections could be considered too.)

To safeguard the interests of consumers, the provisions also require appeal processes to be set up as part of the underpinning codes. These include the right to appeal decisions of ISPs to impose technical measures. Appeals are required to be to a person independent of OFCOM, with a further right of appeal to what is known as a “First-tier Tribunal” in the case of technical obligations. No technical measure can be imposed if an appeal is in the process of being considered.

Watch this space…

Court of Appeal victory for price comparison websites

Shimon Shaw — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:29:06 +0000

Two companies operated websites, by which prospective customers were provided with a ‘comparison service’ for insurance cover from various insurers. They received commission from the insurers to whom they introduced clients.

They treated their supplies as exempt from VAT on the basis that they were insurance intermediaries and did not register or account for VAT. HMRC issued a ruling that the companies were not within the definition of an ‘insurance agent’ partly on the basis that there was no negotiation with customers – rather the websites provided click through services.

HMRC therefore ruled that they were required to register for VAT and account for output tax on their supplies.

The companies appealed, contending that they were acting as ‘insurance intermediaries’ and that their supplies qualified for exemption. The Chancery Division accepted this contention and allowed the appeal, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On the evidence, the companies were providing services which were characteristic of an insurance broker or agent, and which were vital to the process of introducing those seeking insurance with insurers. Accordingly, the supplies qualified for exemption.

Digital Economy Act to cost millions of pounds for ‘innocent’ ISPs

Mark Weston — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:00:35 +0000

The newly passed Digital Economy Act will cost at least £15m a year to Internet service providers. Those figures have been revealed from a Government consultation document. They just cover the estimated cost of sending warning notices to users who are alleged to have committed persistent copyright infringement by illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing, and not the cost of dealing with suspending or blocking access to the Internet – which are potential sanctions that may be required by the Government in at least a year’s time. ISPs have complained that the costs being imposed on them are unfair as they are simply innocent intermediaries that facilitate people’s access to the important tool that is the Internet. They say they are not responsible for what users do with that access in the same way as the Post Office is not responsible for the content of any messages sent through their service.

Digital Economy Bill passes through Parliament in controversial ‘wash up’ process before anyone has a chance to say ‘cut off’

Mark Weston — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:49:44 +0000

The Digital Economy Bill has been passed by the House of Commons without much chance for Parliamentary debate with the aim of getting it on the statute books before the General Election – a process known as ‘wash up’. The Bill does a number of things, but controversially goes much further than had been originally proposed by the Digital Britain Report – the root consultation document at the heart of the Bill. Unlike the Report, the Bill sets up a framework to enable copyright infringing file-sharers to have their Internet access cut off and to cut off web sites that are likely to be a source of infringing material.

The Bill contains these provisions:

To allow the Government to make laws that could require Internet service providers to cut off the Internet connections of suspected copyright infringers and impose other technical measures on them. The burden of proof would be on the copyright owner to prove that the Internet user’s connection had been used for copyright infringement, and the Internet user would then have a right to appeal, but he would then have to show that he did not commit the infringing act or he took reasonable steps to prevent other people from committing the infringement via his Internet connection. Any introduction of this provision into law would require further scrutiny from Parliament first. The effects would be severe, particularly for whole households who would suffer because of the actions of one teenager or another person living there. People may also suffer if other people use their Internet connection for unlawful activity without their knowledge.
The courts to have the power to grant orders to ensure that certain web sites are blocked if they satisfied that the sites have been used or are likely to be used in connection with copyright infringement. However, this new measure can only be introduced if Parliament has approved it and if the Government is satisfied that using the Internet for copyright infringement activities has a serious adverse effect on businesses or consumers and the sanctions are not a disproportionate measure. Blocking a particular site would be reserved for the most serious offenders.
The right for copyright owners to notify ISPs if they suspect that copyright material has been infringed, and to have the right to receive anonymised lists of the Internet Protocol addresses (ie the web addresses) of the computers at the centre of the notifications.

Interestingly, this long-awaited measure for the benefit of the entertainment industry may be a matter of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. In this cat and mouse game, the copyright infringers are already ahead of the game. They may become ever more immune to the measures in this new legislation by increasingly using private networks that do not need a public web site in order to facilitate the file-sharing, and by the use of so-called proxy servers that hide the real identities in order to avoid detection.

French file-sharing on the rise despite a change in the law

Mark Weston — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:28:46 +0000

Illegal online file-sharing behaviour has increased in France by 3% since a law was passed in late 2009 (the “three-strikes law”) which allowed persistent pirates to be thrown offline. A small-scale study shows that some French people are changing their habits and getting pirated music and films from sources not covered by the law.

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.

Government unveils processes to cut off illegal peer-to-peer music file-sharers with controversial Digital Economy Bill

Mark Weston — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:58:45 +0000

The Government has unveiled the processes by which illegal peer-to-peer music file-sharers would be harshly dealt with under the new Digital Economy Bill. Illegal file-sharing on the Internet has been a major concern for the entertainment industries, in that the royalties have been affected by the unauthorised sharing of copyright material without the right-holders’ consent. The Digital Economy Bill aims to set up a framework to crack down hard on the wrong-doers.

Under the Bill, the rights holder would submit a copyright infringement report with evidence to the infringer’s Internet service provider. The ISP would then inform the user of this and provide details of how to lawfully obtain copyright material. The ISP may also need to tell the infringer that his details can be revealed and that this may lead to legal proceedings being taken against him. The ISP would also need to provide a serious infringers list to the rights holder so that the rights holder could obtain a court order for the user’s details if necessary. Meanwhile, the rights holder cannot require the ISP to take technical measures against the infringer to slow down their Internet access speed (so as to make it hard to be involved with peer-to-peer file-sharing), but instead the Government could require ISPs following advice from Ofcom (the communications regulator) to take technical measures against serious offenders.

Meanwhile, the Bill imposes various obligations on Ofcom:

To approve a code of practice made by ISPs.
To deal with infringement disputes involving ISPs, subscribers and rights holders.
To provide reports to the Government on the amount of copyright infringement and actions taken by rights holders.
To create a code of practice dealing with ISPs’ obligations to impose technical measures against serious offenders.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of www.Upload-IT.com, comments: ‘This Bill, if passed, would give some serious teeth to the entertainment industry to try to enable them to boost their revenue streams once more. However, whether or not it will work in practice remains to be seen. It may also prove to be controversial if innocent people’s Internet access will be cut off (which could happen when the unlawful use may have been by one householder and the rest are collectively punished, or when people’s Internet connections are used by third parties without their knowledge), especially as Internet access is becoming thought of as a fundamental human right.’

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.’

Government goes for illegal P2P file-sharers with Digital Economy Bill…

Mark Weston — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:41:04 +0000

The Government has introduced its Digital Economy Bill in the Queen’s Speech. Amongst the changes to the law to be introduced by the Bill are provisions that could see illegal peer-to-peer file-sharers cut off from the Internet. The BPI – a body that represents the record industry – thinks that it is a good thing to protect the creative sector. However, The Open Rights Group is concerned that people could be stopped from engaging in everyday activities like shopping and social networking. In addition, the Government plans to introduce age ratings on all video games aimed at children aged 12 years or older.