Is IP under threat in the EU?

-Internet - Copyright - Politics - Breaking views-

A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms Due August 2013.

Digital Britain

Britain is influential in European policy for telecoms and online content. It is not as loud as France, but in a quieter way, lets its views be known. British policy is often the point from which the EU takes its lead in this field. Within the European Commission, the British influence on telecoms policy is evident in the ongoing initiatives to establish and maintain a deregulated market.

The dominant policy which I discuss is the Digital Economy Act which was forced through in the dying hours of the last Parliament under the old discredited Labour regime.

More than one third of the content of the Digital Economy Act deals with copyright enforcement, and includes provisionsl to address peer-to-peer filesharing by means of 3-strikes measures. Within it are proposed measures to to either suspend or terminate the user’s access or to slow their bandwidth to make it impossible to do file-sharing or any other advanced applications. These measures involve the use of network technology against the users, they will have implications for the neutrality of the network, and the neutral ‘mere conduit’ status of the network provider. They potentially will entail the implementation of deep packet inspection – the same equipment as used in China. The broadband provider will be liable to do this, at risk of a quarter of a million pound penalty.

However, since the coalition government has been in power, other issues have arising, and in particular, the government is holding talks with industry about various forms of Internet blocking. I will reports on these events too.

The 84 million-a-year bill for DE Act

Monica Horten

Published on 29 September 2011

The British government’s assessment of DE Act implementation costs to justify the SI Costs Order presents a positive cost-benefit. But is the government painting too rosy a picture?

The government presented a one-off cost of £11.5 million, and “average annual costs” of between 6-20 million, against a benefit, calculated using Net Present Value techniques, of between £84m - £164m. But the government figures did not include the running costs for Ofcom. More significantly, they fail to include the costs of the Appeals Process. When those costs are factored in, the picture changes quite significantly. Using the

Ofcom invites private bids to run Appeals Process

Monica Horten

Published on 23 September 2011

5th post in a series on the government's response to Hargreaves

Did the DE Act intend private companies running (Indian?) call centres to be the Appeals Body?

Under proposals published in August, Ofcom plans to privatise the Appeals process for the Digital Economy Act copyright enforcement measures. Ofcom plans to run a commercial tender for a private company to run the new Appeals body, which will sit in judgement on allegations of downloading copyrighted material and ultimately on whether people are cut off. Effectively, the Appeals Body, which will perform a quasi-judicial function, will be outsourced,

Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt’s Chinese-style web blocking plans

Monica Horten

Published on 15 September 2011

British Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt, having been wined and dined by the copyright industries, has said tonight that he wants to bring in a regime of blocking for websites, search engines, ISPs and hosts. The primary reason is to protect the interests of the copyright industries. However, he includes a proposal which is tantamount to censorship for ‘protecting children’. His proposals suggest blocking on a scale that has not yet been introduced anywhere except China.

About Iptegrity.com

Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy writer and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. Iptegrity offers expert insights into Internet policy. Iptegrity is read by lawyers, academics, policy-makers and citizens, and cited in the media. Please acknowledge Iptegrity when you cite or link. For more, see IP politics with integrity