A Guide to the Digital Economy Act - Part 5

4th August 2010 00:00 | by Will Tovey

This is the final in a series of posts explaining what the Digital Economy Act will do, how it works and how it will affect individuals.

  1. Introduction and the Initial Obligations Code
  2. Technical Measures to Limit Internet Access
  3. Subscriber Appeals
  4. Web-blocking
  5. Other Provisions and Summary

This series is aimed at providing an objective and descriptive overview of the legislation, rather than opinion or comment on the content. Some parts may be legally technical

Other Provisions

So far, this guide has focussed on the provisions within the Digital Economy Act 2010 that deal with online infringement of copyright. This final part will briefly cover the rest of the Act and reiterate some key facts.

Internet Domain Names

Sections 19 to 21 of the Act create new sections 124N to 124R in the Communications Act that grant the government powers over the Internet Domain Registries. These powers are aimed at tackling "serious relevant failures in relation to a qualifying internet domain registry" and consist of the government being able to complain to the registrars about these unspecified failures and, if they fail to deal with them, appoint a manager to take over the registry in order to remedy the failures.

Television Channels

The following sections cover a variety of issues with television. Sections 22 and 23 include the duties of Channel 4 and the monitoring and enforcement of these duties. Sections 24 to 28 cover the licensing of channels 3 and 5, including public teletext services. This is followed by a section on broadcasting in Gaelic.

Radio services

Sections 29 to 39 contain a lot of amendments to the laws regarding radio licensing, including provisions for a digital switch-over for radio. They also grant the government permission to sell off further parts of the radio (or electromagnetic spectrum).

Video Games

Sections 40 and 41 amend the Video Recordings Act 1984 to introduce provisions about the censorship and classification of Video Games. Prior to the Digital Economy Act only the cinematic elements of video games needed to be classified, which was done by the BBFC and was only legally enforceable for particularly extreme cases. The Digital Economy Act removes the exemption for video games and adds various provisions for how they could be classified - it covers from 12-ratings and up. It also allows the government to appoint or establish a body to review and classify video games for them. It is expected that the existing body PEGI will take up this role from April 2011.

Copyright Penalties and Lending Rights

Finally, the Act makes some changes to the penalties for copyright infringement and the public lending right. Section 42 raises the limit on the fine that can be issued for criminal copyright infringement - the cap is raised from £5,000 in England and Wales, or £10,000 in Scotland, to £50,000. Section 43 extends the public lending right (which allows libraries to loan out works) to cover audio books and e-books. However, it still imposes limits such as not allowing a library to lend out such books electronically (i.e. through the Internet).

Summary

  • The measures on copyright infringement will not come into effect until January 2011 at the earliest.
  • All these measures will involve (initially) is sending letter to those accused of infringing.
  • ISPs are under no obligation to monitor their subscribers' Internet use.
  • Technical measures cannot come into force until further consultation has been done and the regulations have been approved by Parliament.
  • It is up to the copyright owner to prove the infringement happened and an IP address was used.
  • It is up the the accused to prove that they did not commit the infringement if "their" IP address was allegedly used.
  • The government could put in place a method whereby websites and content could be blocked by ISPs due to alleged copyright infringement.

This concludes the guide to the Digital Economy Act. If you have any further questions about the Act, or have a suggestion for what area of law could be covered next, please contact the author.

The author is a law student and Governor of the Pirate Party. Any comments, corrections or suggestions are welcome and can be emailed to duke 'at' pirateparty.org.uk. This should not be taken as legal advice.


8 comments


Aug 04 2010 08:08 by Aradiel
From the final sections:

for criminal copyright infringement


Sorry, but I thought that copyright infringement was a civil matter, not a criminal matter? What is this "Criminal copyright infringement"?
Aug 04 2010 10:08 by Duke
It can be both.
tldr: if it is non-commercial it is civil, if it is commercial it can be criminal.

Edit: Warning, this is a little technical and doesn't display properly on the blog page, but does in the forum, just about.

Now for the full details. Copyright law in the UK is still (very vaguely) based on the Statute of Anne 1710 - this was all about selling unauthorised books, and didn't really have any provisions for non-commercial copyright infringement. In fact, it wasn't really until the 70s and 80s that the average person could really infringe copyright - of course now it is rather hard not to.

The only civil provisions in against a normal infringer are those that can be used against any infringement, contained in Sections 96 and 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

96 Infringement actionable by copyright owner
  1. An infringement of copyright is actionable by the copyright owner.
  2. In an action for infringement of copyright all such relief by way of damages, injunctions, accounts or otherwise is available to the plaintiff as is available in respect of the infringement of any other property right.
    - Basically, this means that a copyright owner can sue you if you infringe their copyright.

97 Provisions as to damages in infringement action
  1. Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy.
    - If you didn't know the stuff was under copyright, you can't be made to pay damages.
  2. The court may in an action for infringement of copyright having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to—
    1. the flagrancy of the infringement, and
    2. any benefit accruing to the defendant by reason of the infringement,
    award such additional damages as the justice of the case may require.
    - this means that if you profit in some way, or infringe a huge amount or particularly openly, damages could go up.

This is why we haven't seen lots of RIAA-style mass-suing, only threatening letters; there is no statutory minimum fine, only damages - i.e. financial compensation for the damage done to the copyright owner - which shouldn't be much if you just downloaded a couple of tracks. There are a few other things, like allowing a copyright owner to seize infringing objects (which could be used to seize hard drives, but I really hope not - this is where case law would be useful) and also some stuff about encouraging copyright owners to issues retro-active licences, rather than bothering to sue.

Now, onto criminal provisions. These are included in Section 107 of the CDPA, which has been messed around with quite a bit, mainly by Section 26 of The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2498).

107 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c
  1. A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—
    1. makes for sale or hire, or
    2. imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or
    3. possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or
    4. in the course of a business —
      1. sells or lets for hire, or
      2. offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
      3. exhibits in public, or
      4. distributes, or
    5. distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright
    an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
  2. A person commits an offence who—
    1. makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work, or
    2. has such an article in his possession,
    knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business.
2A. A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
  1. in the course of a business, or
  2. otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.
[BBCode failed me at the end there.]

Basically, what this means is that if you are commercially infringing copyright, you can be arrested for it (and locked up for up to 10 years, depending on which section). 2A(b) is the particularly nasty one, and seems to be designed to tackle mass online infringement through p2p networks etc - although "affecting prejudicially" could be hard to prove. This is the bit that (I think) has been used in the very few criminal cases against copyright infringers that have used the CDPA. In the big cases (TV-links, OiNK) they didn't even bother with copyright law and used trademark and fraud laws respectively. Mainly Section 2A(b) seems to exist so FACT can get the police to harass people over it.

Anyways, that turned into a bigger rant than it probably should have - I hope, at least, it was informative. As always, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my personal interpretation.
Aug 05 2010 12:08 by Aradiel
Thanks for that, very informative.


affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

I don't like this term, as it seems quite vague (though maybe it isn't when translated from legalese) - it seems almost as if it's also saying "You cannot use our copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism"
Aug 05 2010 01:08 by Duke
Criticism is an explicit exemption to Copyright - use for criticism, review and news reporting are covered by Section 30 of the CDPA (be warned, that link is out of date). Because it isn't an infringement, then it can't be a criminal infringement, so that section doesn't apply. Of course, it is still unpleasantly vague.
Aug 06 2010 08:08 by epriezka
Will,

This is very good work that you've done in reviewing and summarizing the DEA.

I hope that we use this analysis as a foundation we build upon. For example, this should be the starting point for stating, point-by-point, PPUK's arguments for reform/repeal of the DEA and what we would do instead or why the requirement implied in the DEA is invalid. It would be shame if we don't make maximum use of this effort by Will to help consolidate and structure both policy-making and briefing of candidates on the 'party line'.
Aug 06 2010 01:08 by Duke
Well volunteered, Eric - see viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2412
Sep 04 2011 10:09 by Jamela_V
I agree with epriezka, and I'm also looking forward to a good improvement of DEA. However, there's nothing wrong with those reviews and criticisms about this issue, in fact it could be a big help on developing]Digital Economy Act. We are all aware of copyright infringement, and this is the concern of many groups. Concerns over protection of businesses have also been raised. Not only the business industry is affected with this, institutions such as banks, school, universities and libraries do have also the same concerns. So, what we're hoping is to build a good foundation of Internet privacy and security for a better technology future.
Sep 04 2011 10:09 by george23
The passage of the Digital Economy Act was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the last government, pushed through as it was with minimal debate, and largely at the behest of industry lobbyists. If the present coalition had wanted to prove that it was making a clean break with the past, one way would have been to repeal the Digital Economy Act and to start again, taking things calmly and with input from all interested parties. Sadly, that has not happened, and disturbing evidence is emerging that, on the contrary, the current government is just as bad as the last lot.
George
Post a comment
X
We use cookies to provide you the best possible experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. If you would like to, you can change how your browser controls cookies at any time.
You can also view our Privacy Policy
I understand. Don't show me this message again.