Platform responsibility? Get the backstory - check my book The Closing of the Net - only £15.99!

4th post in a series on the government's response to  Hargreaves

The implementation plan for the Digital Economy Act stalled with the Judicial Review last March, and has been kept close to chests of the DCMS officials responsible for it. However, a few hints appeared in the government’s response to Hargreaves.  The plan is for the first  warnings (copyright infringement notifications) to be sent

to Internet users in  December 2012. That sounds like a long way away,  but in terms of Parliamentary processes, it means that the gant chart of deadlines has to be prepared now.  

  Before the notification system can go ahead, an Initial Obligations  Code, prepared by  Ofcom, has to be in place, with all the relevant approvals. The Code has been written and is somewhere in  the DCMS filing system, waiting for the signal to move ahead.  When the signal is sounded, its first stop will be the European Commision, which has to check it – together with the Digital Economy Act – for compliance with EU law. That process can take 2-3 months.

 Assuming it gets the all-clear from Brussels, the next stage for the Initial Obligations Code  is  to go before  Parliament (note the DE Act does not go to Parliament again, just the Code). Parliament  only has the power to reject it under the  Annulment process, which does not  allow for any debate.  Parliament’s approval is therefore a nominal rubber-stamp.

Once the Parliamentary stamp is obtained, the Initial Obligations Code – and the DE Act measures against peer-to-peer file-sharing which it implements -  is under starters orders.

 The government’s stated objective is to get the first notifications out by December 2012. Working backwards, it has go to the European Commission fairly soon. The earliest it  could be approved  is around Christmas. It will have to be slotted into a Parliamentary schedule early next year, to give the rights-holders and ISPs maximum time to slog out the fine print and get their shiny new automated systems in place.

 Of course, the European Commission might disagree with the BIS/DCMS interpretation of Article 1.3a – and that could cause a small delay.

 Please attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) DE Act : ready steady go  12 September 2011 .

 The story of Article 1.3a is in my book: The Copyright Enforcement Enigma: Internet Politics and the 'Telecoms Package'



States v the 'Net? 

Read The Closing of the Net, by me, Monica Horten.

"original and valuable"  Times higher Education

" essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces at play behind the web."

Find out more about the book here  The Closing of the Net


FROM £15.99

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

In 2012, I presented my PhD research in the European Parliament.

Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark is the website of Dr Monica Horten. She is a policy analyst specialising in Internet governance & European policy, including platform accountability. She is a published author & Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She served as an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on  Internet Freedom. She has worked on CoE, EU and UNDP funded projects in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. In a voluntary capacity, she has led UK citizen delegations to the European Parliament. She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012.

Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy (and related issues on Brexit). Iptegrity has a core readership in the Brussels policy community, and has been cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link.  For more, see IP politics with integrity is made available free of charge for  non-commercial use, Please link-back & attribute Monica Horten. Thank you for respecting this.

Contact  me to use  iptegrity content for commercial purposes

The politics of copyright

A Copyright Masquerade - How corporate lobbying threatens online freedoms

'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review