The Closing of the Net  "original and valuable"  Times Higher Education

'We had no evidence for anti-piracy law' UK government admits

by Zack Whittaker

In ZD on 21 November 2011

In a remarkably similar prose to my own, We had no evidence for DEAct, UK gov’t confesses   ZD Net carried this report:

Summary: The UK government had ‘no evidence’ to support the Digital Economy Act, the UK’s
anti-piracy and censorship law, it has emerged in a parliamentary select committee.
A key civil servant who worked on the UK’s anti-piracy law, the Digital Economy Act, revealed during
a select committee hearing in Parliament that the UK government did not collect or verify any
evidence to support the copyright enforcement policies.
At the UK Parliament’s select committee for Business, Innovation and Skills, it was also shown that
the piracy statistics were not compiled, as rights holders were not willing to do so.
The committee was hearing evidence regarding the Hargreaves Report, a government review on
intellectual property and copyright. While the proceedings were not intended to discuss the Digital
Economy Act, Labour MP Anne McKechin questioned the evidence at hand.
“If I could turn to the quality of evidence. The Open Rights Group asked DCMS for evidence about
illegal web content, and were told it wasn’t available. They had a similar experience with the Digital
Economy Act methodology. How would you comment on their assertions? Is this consistent with
basing policy on evidence?” McKechin asked Adrian Brazier, head of the Digital Economy Act
implementation team.
Braizer’s response shed light on the lack of evidence used to put forward the bill.
“It is reasonable to acknowledge that the Open Rights Group has something of a point
about the evidence used around the Digital Economy Act. It was somewhat opaque. The
impact assessment was not based on new evidence or new research. We had
no independent source of information. It is probably also fair to say that the
evidence we had — had been offered by the rights-holders — they were unwilling to lift
the bonnet and let us see the engines, if you like the workings and methodology”.
To clarify, McKechin said that the Open Rights Group, an Internet civil liberties organisation and
critic of the Act, had not seen any methodology for the evidence to support the government’s claims.
She went on to ask if the Digital Economy Act team had also not been given access to the relevant
Braizer responded:
“That is correct. We were trying to make the best brick we could with what straw
we could find. In those circumstances, I would say, however, that we were always very
clear as to the provenance of the figures we were quoting. We never claimed they were
government figures. We were clear that these were figures that were provided by the
rights-holders. We were as transparent as we could be in those circumstances, but we
could not be transparent about the workings themselves.”

In closing remarks to the questions posed to him, he stated: “This is not a comfortable position for us
necessarily to be in”.
The Digital Economy Act has been awash with controversy since it was first announced. When the
draft bill was voted upon by members of the lower House of Commons, less than 30 members of the
House voted, with the majority of those voting in favour during the ‘guillotine’ of the previous
It was also found that lobbyists had held ‘closed-door’ meetings with government ministers in a bid to
discuss how copyright infringers could be held accountable for their actions, with a plan to establish a
committee of experts to determine whether websites and domains should be shut down or not.
Internet analyst Dr. Monica Horten argues that while the Act has now passed into law, there is only so
much that can be enforced at this stage for ISPs and alleged copyright infringers.
“The Act’s code of practice is needed in order to trigger the initial obligations which is the
notifications sent by the ISP, to inform subscribers that they have infringed copyright and must stop”,
Horten said. “The code of practice sets the process between the copyright rights holders and the
“Because the code of practice has yet to be made public, the industry is unsure of what can and
cannot be enforced. The bill could be annulled by the UK Parliament. But until that code is made
public, ISPs are not obliged to send copyright infringing notifications to its customers”.
The law still has yet to be heard at the European Parliament and be presented to the UK House of
Commons, which is expected in next year.


ZD Net did contact me, after I had published my own piece, and the quote is authentic. They also asked me how to find the verbal quotes on the webcast.







The Copyright Enforcement Enigma tells the story of the 2009 Telecoms Package and how the copyright industries tried to hijack it.

'accurate and absorbing account of the story of the Telecoms Package' -Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology

'...a must read for those interested in knowing in depth about copyright enforcement and Internet.' -Journal of Intellectual Property Rights.  

Read more  

Ask your library to get it!

Order direct from the publisher.

Go to   Amazon

Copyright Enforcement Enigma launch, March 2012

European Parliament launch for Copyright Enforcement Enigma

Don't miss Iptegrity!  RSS/ Bookmark is the website of Dr Monica Horten, European expert on Internet policy and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics & Political Science. She is an independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee on Cross-border flow of Internet traffic and Internet freedom (MSI-INT). She was shortlisted for The Guardian Open Internet Poll 2012. Iptegrity  offers expert insights into Internet policy. 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