Government Publishes Digital Economy Bill
The Government has published its much anticipated bill this week. BASCA's CEO Patrick Rackow looks at what the document proposes and what it might mean for music writers in the UK.
On Friday 20th November the government published the much heralded 'Digital Economy Bill'. Although the Bill runs to some sixty pages music industry attention will be focussed on the fourteen sections (4-17) covering fourteen pages which deal with measures to combat online copyright infringement.
In brief these sections provide for the Secretary of State to direct OFCOM to introduce codes binding on ISPs. Under these codes ISPs will, in response to notification from copyright owners of the infringement of their rights by the ISP’s subscribers, send notices to the specified subscribers. The content of these notices is suggested in the Bill and, in addition to pointing out the alleged infringement, will include information about copyright and its purpose and advice about how to obtain access to legal content online. The Bill provides for OFCOM to submit annual reports and quarterly interim reports to the Secretary of State dealing detailing, inter alia, how many infringement notices have been sent.
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to assess whether one or more 'technical obligations' should be placed upon ISPs. These” technical obligations” may include what are described as 'technical measures' and therein lies the nub of the Bill, from the point of view of the music industry. For these 'technical measures' may include a number of limitations on their internet connections for persistent copyright infringers. These limitations may include reductions to speed of connection, limitations on access to particular material or even suspension of service.
The drafters of the Bill also thoughtfully provide a catch-all provision allowing the Secretary of State to limit service in another way. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to establish an independent appeals process against any such technical measures. The Bill also tries to future-proof its provisions by allowing the Secretary of State to introduce amendments to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act by order in council, rather than having to introduce primary legislation (although it does not give the S of S powers to create or amend criminal offences under the Act). This should allow the law to deal with future technological developments.
Seeing it written in black and white it all seems rather mundane; however these provisions have already sparked much polarised debate in which shibboleths such as 'freedom of speech' and invasion of privacy have been toted like battle-axes.
So, was the Bill worth all of the fuss? Will it bring a new dawn for the music industry in which internet piracy becomes a distant memory? Will it bring to an end the democracy and freedom which the British hold so dear? The answer to the latter two questions is 'probably not'. The amount of parliamentary time left before the general election is very limited. Even with the promised support of the opposition and in the face of a House of Peers generally believed to be 'unwhippable' it is at least questionable as to whether there is enough time for the Bill to become law in time. Even if it does there will be a delay before the Secretary of State can or will introduce the technical measures that would limit or suspend internet access. However all of this rather misses the point.
The reason why the composers and songwriters should welcome this Bill is for the message that it sends. No one really has any idea whether it will become law and, if it does, whether the internet accounts of thousands of internet pirates will be throttled or suspended. What is clear is that at last a government is throwing its weight behind the music industry in its discussions with ISPs and with consumer bodies and making it clear that stealing music is not acceptable; that it is wrong both morally and economically. At a time when the industry is trying to encourage new and legal forms of exploitation of music online the effect of such a message of support should not be underestimated.
Patrick Rackow, CEO
In brief these sections provide for the Secretary of State to direct OFCOM to introduce codes binding on ISPs. Under these codes ISPs will, in response to notification from copyright owners of the infringement of their rights by the ISP’s subscribers, send notices to the specified subscribers. The content of these notices is suggested in the Bill and, in addition to pointing out the alleged infringement, will include information about copyright and its purpose and advice about how to obtain access to legal content online. The Bill provides for OFCOM to submit annual reports and quarterly interim reports to the Secretary of State dealing detailing, inter alia, how many infringement notices have been sent.
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to assess whether one or more 'technical obligations' should be placed upon ISPs. These” technical obligations” may include what are described as 'technical measures' and therein lies the nub of the Bill, from the point of view of the music industry. For these 'technical measures' may include a number of limitations on their internet connections for persistent copyright infringers. These limitations may include reductions to speed of connection, limitations on access to particular material or even suspension of service.
The drafters of the Bill also thoughtfully provide a catch-all provision allowing the Secretary of State to limit service in another way. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to establish an independent appeals process against any such technical measures. The Bill also tries to future-proof its provisions by allowing the Secretary of State to introduce amendments to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act by order in council, rather than having to introduce primary legislation (although it does not give the S of S powers to create or amend criminal offences under the Act). This should allow the law to deal with future technological developments.
Seeing it written in black and white it all seems rather mundane; however these provisions have already sparked much polarised debate in which shibboleths such as 'freedom of speech' and invasion of privacy have been toted like battle-axes.
So, was the Bill worth all of the fuss? Will it bring a new dawn for the music industry in which internet piracy becomes a distant memory? Will it bring to an end the democracy and freedom which the British hold so dear? The answer to the latter two questions is 'probably not'. The amount of parliamentary time left before the general election is very limited. Even with the promised support of the opposition and in the face of a House of Peers generally believed to be 'unwhippable' it is at least questionable as to whether there is enough time for the Bill to become law in time. Even if it does there will be a delay before the Secretary of State can or will introduce the technical measures that would limit or suspend internet access. However all of this rather misses the point.
The reason why the composers and songwriters should welcome this Bill is for the message that it sends. No one really has any idea whether it will become law and, if it does, whether the internet accounts of thousands of internet pirates will be throttled or suspended. What is clear is that at last a government is throwing its weight behind the music industry in its discussions with ISPs and with consumer bodies and making it clear that stealing music is not acceptable; that it is wrong both morally and economically. At a time when the industry is trying to encourage new and legal forms of exploitation of music online the effect of such a message of support should not be underestimated.
Patrick Rackow, CEO
