Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/p2p_disconnection/

UK.gov revives net cut-off threat for illegal downloaders

Mandelson to get new powers, suggests Mandelson

By Christopher Williams

Posted in Law, 25th August 2009 09:55 GMT

The government has today unexpectedly revived plans for laws to disconnect persistent illegal filesharers, in a move to delight the entertainment industry and anger ISPs.

The unscheduled changes to the Digital Britain consultation also envisage a more powerful, direct role for Lord Mandelson. Despite denials last week, the news will reignite speculation that the First Secretary of State's stance against illegal peer to peer was hardened by a summer holiday meeting with Hollywood mogul David Geffen.

The internet industry believed it had fought off pressure for the government to suspend internet access. Indeed, many in the recording industry had dropped support for a "three strikes" policy before the Digital Britain consultation began in June.

Today, however, Mandelson's Department for Business said responses to the consultation had persuaded it to reconsider introducing the threat of disconnection from the internet.

"Since the issue of the consultation some stakeholders have argued strongly that none of those technical measures [short of suspension] is powerful enough to have a significant deterrent effect on infringing behaviour," it said.

The statement included some hope for lobbies who have argued such a measure would be disproportionate and possibly illegal.

"This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used," the government said.

"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."

ISPA, the internet industry trade association responded: "ISPA is disappointed by the proposal to force ISPs to suspend users' accounts. ISPs and consumer groups consider disconnection of users to be a disproportionate response, a view that was recently supported by the European Parliament."

The government said it would also significantly speed up the introduction of sanctions because the original schedule - which may not have seen a regime come into force until 2012 - "might be too long to wait given the pressure put on the creative industries by piracy".

As announced in June, the enforcement regime will be run by Ofcom. But under the revised timescale proposals, Mandelson himself would be granted powers to decide which technical measures to bring into law by statutory instrument and when.

"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," his Department said, "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."

Such a discretionary power for Mandelson to introduce technical measures would effectively override the previously envisaged "baseline and trigger" approach suggested in June, which would have measured the impact of less severe sanctions before sharpening the legal weaponry.

Those lesser sanctions against illegal filesharers will include blocking access to download sites and reducing broadband speeds.

ISPA said it would be concerned "if, as is proposed, the Secretary of State were given the power to determine when a system that included imposing technical sanctions on users should be introduced. This would politicise the process and would be a negative step."

Internet industry fears regarding the cost of protecting copyright online today also appeared to be realised, as the government said it wanted the burden to be split 50-50 between ISPs and the entertainment industry.

"However, we recognise this does raise a number of issues and therefore would welcome views from stakeholders as to how costs should be apportioned," it said.

UK Music, which represents British labels, publishers and managers welcomed the news. "Throughout this debate, UK Music has voiced concerns that the original time frame of proposed legislation, and particularly the trigger mechanisms that would grant Ofcom reserve powers to implement technical measures, would have failed to meet these ambitions," it said.

"More than that, these trigger mechanisms would have required our members to take legal action against individuals - a move the UK music industry has consistently resisted."

The government extended the deadline to respond to its plans until 29 September. We've reproduced today's statement in full on the next page. ®

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):

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.