Government Statement On The Proposed P2p File Sharing Legislation ...
GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED P2P FILE-
SHARING LEGISLATION
Following the Digital Britain report we published a consultation on 16th
June 2009 setting out how we proposed to legislate to tackle the
problem of unlawful peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. The objective of the
legislation and the nature of the obligations we proposed remain
unchanged. However, our thinking on the process supporting the
objectives and the obligations has developed, and we thought it would
be helpful to share these thoughts with stakeholders at this point, so
that they can take them into account when responding to the
consultation.
We would therefore welcome comments on these latest ideas in addition
to comments on the existing consultation. In light of this we will be
extending the deadline for responses to 29th September 2009.
In the consultation we set out proposed legislation that would introduce two
obligations to be imposed on ISPs by Ofcom – to send notifications to
subscribers alleged by rights holders to be infringing copyright, and to monitor
the number of notifications each subscriber is associated with; the ISP would
then make this data available to rights holders on receipt of a court order. We
also proposed a mechanism whereby Ofcom would be granted reserve
powers to oblige ISPs to utilise specified technical measures against repeat
infringers should these two obligations prove to be deficient in reducing
infringement. It is the mechanism around this introduction of potential
further technical measures where our thinking has evolved. In addition
we are considering the case for adding into the list of technical
measures the power, as a last resort, to suspend a subscriber’s
account. Finally, we feel it would be better if we were able to be more
specific in the legislation about the way costs are shared by industry
parties.
Power to direct the introduction of technical measures
We would welcome comments on the proposal that the Secretary of State
be given a two-part power of direction. The first part would enable him to
direct Ofcom to carry out preparatory work on the mechanics of introducing
technical measures, including an assessment of their efficacy on different
networks, as well as developing the code that will apply to implementing
such additional measures, and to consult on their conclusions.
The second part would allow the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom to
introduce the measures they had determined were effective and
proportionate should he conclude that such measures are necessary to
achieve the overall objective. Ofcom will still have a duty to monitor the
overall position and report on the effectiveness of the original obligations in
order to provide an evidence base for the Secretary of State’s decision, but
this advice would not be binding on the Secretary of State and he would be
able to take into account other, wider factors and other sources of
information before taking any decision on the introduction of technical
measures. Any technical measures deemed necessary and appropriate by
the Secretary of State would be introduced by Ofcom via secondary
legislation. It would be important to ensure as far as possible that innocent
people who may be affected by such technical measures would retain
access to the Internet services they need, including online public services.
There are two key arguments that we think are persuasive in making this
change in comparison to the more explicit “baseline and trigger” approach
previously proposed for Ofcom in the 16 June consultation (sections 4.23 -
4.28):
• Timescale – the previous proposals, whilst robust, would take an
unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for
urgent action. We continue to believe that these two obligations will
make a significant difference in the level of unlawful P2P activity, and
represent the most effective way in dealing with unlawful file-sharing.
But this is a complex area which has not been tackled in legislation
before, and we acknowledge that if the original proposals are shown
not to be fully effective, this could mean it would be a very long time
before further steps could be taken.
• Evidence – although we have no doubt Ofcom would have carried out
their research under the original proposals in their usual thorough
manner, measuring unlawful P2P activity across a range of networks
and different content is extremely difficult. On reflection, using a
precisely defined “trigger” as the basis for introducing technical
measures would not be sufficiently flexible (for example it would not
allow the wider health of the broadband or content markets to be taken
into account), and under-estimated the inherent difficulties of
measuring this unlawful activity with precision.. The key will be to base
decisions on robust and transparent evidence of the general direction
and pace of change. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State
will have to carefully weigh the evidence available to him and make any
order on the basis of defendable information based largely but not
exclusively on the reports from Ofcom. But even so, the Secretary of
State can do this much quicker than the process which the regulator
would have to go through if acting alone.
Suspension of accounts
The original proposal lists six technical measures that Ofcom might require
ISPs to impose on repeat infringers. Since the issue of the consultation some
stakeholders have argued strongly that none of those technical measures is
powerful enough to have a significant deterrent effect on infringing behaviour.
Also we cannot know how P2P technology might develop in the short to
medium term, and we want to ensure that Ofcom has a full tool-kit from which
to select the most appropriate measure should technical measures be
deemed necessary. Taking those points into account, although we continue to
regard the uptake and use of Internet services as essential to a digital Britain,
we are considering the case for adding suspension of accounts into the list of
measures that could be imposed. This does not necessarily mean that
suspension would be used - this step would obviously be a very serious
sanction as it would affect all members of a household equally, and might
disrupt access to other communications, so it should be regarded as very
much a last resort. Accordingly a thorough examination of the proportionality
and effectiveness of the measure (as with any of the other measures) would
have to be undertaken before ISPs would be required to implement it, even if
the decision to move to technical measures is taken. As ever we would need
to ensure any such measure fully complied with both UK and EU legislation
Costs
The initial obligations to notify and collect data on notifications will not apply
until a code is in place, endorsed or written by Ofcom. In the consultation
(section 4.18 and question 7) our preference was for cost allocation to be
decided as part of the code discussion. However, since the consultation was
published all parties have made it clear this would be a very complex and
controversial issue which would dominate and delay development and
agreement of a code. In order to expedite the process of agreeing the code,
and to introduce greater legal certainty, we think it would be more helpful to all
parties if we specified how costs should be borne for the initial obligations on
the face of the Bill.
We are minded to allocate costs so that essentially individual parties will have
to bear the costs they incur as a result of these obligations apart from the
operating costs of sending notifications, which will be split 50:50 between
ISPs and rights holders. However, we recognise this does raise a number of
issues and therefore would welcome views from stakeholders as to how costs
should be apportioned.
Timetable
We recognise that this comes mid-way through the on-going consultation.
However we consider it very important that all interested parties are made
aware of these developments in our thinking now so that they can make their
views known. We also recognise the impact the holiday season has on
stakeholders and their ability to respond.
At the same time we need to be able to properly consider responses in time to
take account appropriately of views and evidence in the construction of the
legislation. In order to allow us to do so and to give people more time to
consider their response, we will be extending the deadline to 29th September
2009. We would also welcome additional comments from those stakeholders
who have already submitted a response.
Further information:
Contact: Adrian Brazier or Mike Klym (email: adrian.brazier@bis.gsi.gov.uk
/mike.klym@bis.gsi.gov.uk, address: Communications & Content Industries
Unit, BIS, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET, telephone: 0207 215
1295/4165)
URN 09/1211
