U.K. About-Face on Cutoffs for Infringement Angers ISPs, Activists

The inquiry started in June with the publication of the Digital Britain report. It proposed requiring ISPs to warn subscribers identified as infringers and to keep anonymized records -- to be handed over under court order to rights holders -- of the number of violations connected to a customer (WID Jan 30 p5). Those obligations would be enforced by the Office of Communications, which could impose additional requirements if it thought necessary. Ofcom would have limited power to order ISPs to use technical measures such as blocking against repeat offenders.

Officials’ thinking has evolved since then, the department said. “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,” it said. Some contend that technical measures aren’t strong enough to deter infringers, and, because P2P technology could develop in coming years, Ofcom should have a “full tool-kit” to choose from, the department said.

The consultation document noted the unpopularity of suspending subscribers’ accounts. Efforts by the French government to create a “three-strikes” system of notices, warnings and access termination ran into constitutional (WID June 11 p6) and political problems. The European Parliament blocked overhaul of EU telecommunications rules by adopting an amendment barring Internet access cutoff without a court order (WID May 7 p1). Ireland’s incumbent telecommunications provider agreed to a three-strikes approach but other ISPs didn’t, the U.K. government said. New Zealand was prepared to enact the approach but a consumer campaign may have stopped it, it said.

Despite these obstacles, the government is now willing at least to consider termination, the department spokeswoman said. “It’s just an idea at the minute,” but it must be dealt with adequately.

Industry umbrella group UK Music praised the change, saying the timetable and the triggers for Ofcom intervention originally proposed would have failed to meet the government’s goal of cutting illegal file-sharing 70-80 percent within two or three years. Moreover, it said, the triggers would have required its members, including labels, publishers, composers, collecting societies, artists and others, to take legal action against individuals, a step that the industry “has consistently resisted.”

But the Internet Services Providers’ Association complained that changes in the legislative proposal were made without consulting ISPs and before those interested had time to respond to the original consultation. The association said it’s “disappointed” by the “disproportionate” proposal to make providers suspend users’ accounts. It’s also upset about the idea of letting the secretary of state decide when to introduce a system that includes imposing technical sanctions on users. “This would politicize the process and would be a negative step,” the association said.

Termination would conflict directly with the government’s goal of universal broadband access and curtail people’s freedom of expression, the Open Rights Group said. It promised a formal complaint against “policy swerves” that the group said violate the government’s consultation guidelines. The proposals are likely to ignite protests, challenges and public debates before next year’s general election, it said. “Popular movements in France, Sweden and elsewhere have kick-started over similar measures,” the group warned.

The government extended the comment deadline two weeks to Sept. 29 adrian.brazier@bis.gsi.gov.uk/mike.klym@bis.gsi.gov.uk. Final proposals will appear in the Digital Economy Bill in November, the department spokeswoman said.