Digital Economy Act update, draft SI

[Andrew Cormack]

Just spotted an article this morning in the FT (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ef01288-248d-11e0-8c0e-00144feab49a.html); most of it is about the decline in growth in music sales (based on an IFPI report), but it ends:

"The coalition government is also reviewing intellectual property law relating to the internet. Asked by Julian Huppert, a Liberal Democrat MP, whether the digital economy act might be repealed, Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister, said that he agreed "there are legitimate concerns about the workability of some aspects of the Digital Economy Act. The government are looking actively at those questions now, and we will make an announcement in due course."

He added: "This government do not believe that people should be able to share content unlawfully but we are disappointed that the industry has not made faster progress towards adapting its business models to meet consumer demand.""

Interesting times!

Andrew

--
Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser, JANET(UK)
Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell, Didcot. OX11 0SG UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
Blog: http://webmedia.company.ja.net/edlabblogs/regulatory-developments/

JANET, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Andrew Cormack
> Sent: 20 January 2011 22:08
> To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
> Subject: RE: Digital Economy Act update, draft SI
> 
> James
> Well spotted, thanks. It's now in the draft SI section of
> legislation.gov.uk as
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111505779/contents
> 
> But it is only the cost sharing part, i.e. implementing the 75:25 split
> that was consulted on last spring by DBIS, and pretty much unaltered in
> their response in September. It may be (comments from those better
> informed very welcome) that once the two paths (cost sharing and
> obligations code) went into separate bodies (the former in DBIS the
> latter with OFCOM) then they have to be kept separate as SIs too?
> 
> Come to think of it, this one is *draft* and specifies things that must
> be in the initial obligations code. So I wonder whether that means that
> Ofcom *can't* publish the draft Code SI until this one has gone from
> draft to final? So there could be a minimum of two SI approval windows
> to go, perhaps?
> 
> However I note that the definitions section of this one still seems to
> expect the notification period to *end* on either 31st March 2012 or
> 31st March 2013. I note that it *doesn't* say that that period will
> start on 1st April 2011...
> 
> Andrew
> 
> --
> Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser, JANET(UK)
> Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell, Didcot. OX11 0SG UK
> Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302
> Blog: http://webmedia.company.ja.net/edlabblogs/regulatory-
> developments/
> 
> JANET, the UK's education and research network
> 
> JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
> by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
> and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
> Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto-
> > bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of James Firth
> > Sent: 20 January 2011 16:12
> > To: 'UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group'
> > Subject: Digital Economy Act update, draft SI
> >
> > For anyone on this list following the progress of the Digital Economy
> > Act,
> >
> > I got a tip that Ofcom has released a draft of the Statutory
> Instrument
> > for
> > the Initial Obligations Code as required by the enabling primary
> > legislation
> > passed last year.
> >
> > When I downloaded it (from Europa EU - MS Word doc caution - draft
> not
> > yet
> > available on parliament or legislation.gov.uk):
> >
> http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/pisa/cfcontent.cfm?vFile=120100633E
> > N.DOC
> >
> > ... It was clear this was only half - or less than half of the
> required
> > legislation for the Initial Obligations Code.  It only covers
> > distribution
> > of costs between ISPs and rights holders.  (A whopping 75% to rights
> > holders, 25% to ISPs).
> >
> > On one hand one could assume work on the code has been delayed
> > following the
> > Judicial Review pencilled in for March 22nd.  But what if the JR
> > failed?
> > Then by my reckoning Ofcom is well behind the timescales to produce
> the
> > code
> > outlined in S6 of the Digital Economy Act.
> >
> > I'm hearing on the grapevine that the Culture Secretary is keen to
> get
> > the
> > full obligations code out soon, which makes sense, given I know
> > constituents
> > of Jeremy Hunt who were told point blank that Mr Hunt supported the
> > moves to
> > stamp out online piracy.
> >
> > So why split the code and push this SI out now, as the JR approaches?
> >
> > Monica Horten at IPTegrity has blogged this could be due to cost
> > saving, as
> > it gives the government a mandate to include costs ALREADY incurred
> by
> > Ofcom
> > in the overheads of running the graduated response scheme:
> >
> >
> http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=610&
> > Itemi
> > d=9
> >
> > I'm not convinced by this explanation, as a graduated response scheme
> > can't
> > be operated until the full Initial Obligations Code is passed by both
> > houses
> > - unless I'm missing something.  So why publish the cost split
> > legislation
> > ahead of the full code?
> >
> > Really I wondered if anyone else on the list was following this car
> > crash
> > and had any thoughts?
> >
> > James Firth
> >
> >
> >
>