Copyright debate

Britain's Digital Economy Bill has sparked protest and debate since its passage on April 8. The legislation introduces a host of new measures for the digital realm including updated videogame classifications, modified licensing procedures for broadcasters and new copyright regulations.

The bill's provisions on downloads of copyrighted material have drawn the most public attention. The Digital Economy Bill requires Internet service providers (ISPs) to track users downloading copyrighted files and notify them of their infringement. If users do not stop illegally downloading files after three notifications, the bill authorizes the Secretary of State to impose limits on the violators' bandwidth or to cut off their Internet access entirely.

The government intends the new law to make Britain more attractive to artists and others affected by copyright infringement. Fergal Sharkey, who heads the group UK Music, supports the bill.

"About 94 percent of song writers and composers get less than five thousand pounds a year, and 80 percent of musicians make less than fifteen thousands pounds a year. They want a normal life," Sharkey said. "If we want to enjoy the quality of music we have, at some point we have to start paying for it."

False accusations

However, opponents have raised two major objections to the Digital Economy Bill. They view its punishments as too harsh, and, moreover, they argue that many people will be falsely accused under the new law.

For instance, those who are tech-savvy enough to be heavily involved in file sharing may just hide their activities by using other people's Internet connections, said Mark McLaren of the consumer watchdog group WHICH. The bill includes measures that would "only identify the Internet connection and provider but not identify the file sharer," said McLaren.

British ISP Talk agrees and has stated it will refuse to disconnect any user's Internet service on the basis of the new act.

Critics also claim the Digital Economy Bill does not adequately address the complicated issues that go beyond file sharers hacking into other users' connections to download. Opponents like Florian Leppla point to situations including on-campus computer networks or wireless hubs in libraries and cafes, where it becomes difficult to identify who downloaded what.

"The threat is that a whole library is disconnected," said Leppla of the Open Rights Group, which opposes the legislation. "No one can believe it, but there is no exception for libraries or universities. This means they can't do their jobs."

"Clear and effective" appeals

The bill's authors hoped to address objections like these by specifically including what they deem a "clear and effective" appeals procedure in the legislation. The appeals body would be independent of the ISPs and rights holders. The bill's language also makes it clear that persistent copyright violators are the target of the new law.

But Leppla still worries about the ambiguity of several elements included in the Digital Economy.

"The period of disconnection is not defined. Whether it's a day a week, or a year is not clear, and that's a draconian measure for downloading a couple of songs whose market value would be ten or twenty pounds," he said.

As for the appeals procedure, it may be tested soon. Around 200 citizens have contacted WHICH after receiving copyright infringement letters directly from copyright holders that they say were in error. Although copyright holders will now be encouraged to work within the new legal framework, the bill does not prevent them from continuing to take private action against suspected downloaders and file sharers.

Author: Catherine Drew (gsw)
Editor: Anke Rasper