UK: DEA Enforcement delayed until 2012

[HarryT]

From the Daily Telegraph:

The [British] Government has admitted that it cannot implement legislation to curb internet piracy until spring 2012 at the earliest, as it prepares for a legal battle in the High Court.

The already-delayed Digital Economy Act (DEA) will be challenged by BT and TalkTalk on Wednesday in a judicial review. The two companies aim to block a new copyright enforcement regime that could force them to slow down broadband access to customers accused of unlawful downloading.

The Act, passed in the final days of the last Parliament, had been due to come into force in January. But as well as this week’s judicial review, it has been held up by a series of unanticipated administrative and regulatory hurdles.

Under the DEA, film and music groups will collect data about downloaders, which broadband providers will be forced to match against their customer databases. They will write to those accused to warn them they are infringing copyright.

If this “mass notification system” does not curb unlawful downloading by 70 per cent in a year, further provisions of the Act will be triggered which mean those who have ignored the warnings will have their internet access slowed or even temporarily suspended.
...

Full story here

[TallMomof2]

In the US, DEA is the abbreviation for Drug Enforcement Agency and I was trying to figure out how the US DEA was involved with copyright infringement in the UK. Too early in the day for me.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

In the US, DEA is the abbreviation for Drug Enforcement Agency and I was trying to figure out how the US DEA was involved with copyright infringement in the UK. Too early in the day for me.

I was thinking the same thing.

[HarryT]

More info here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...conomy_review/

[tubemonkey]

Under the DEA, film and music groups will collect data about downloaders, which broadband providers will be forced to match against their customer databases. They will write to those accused to warn them they are infringing copyright.

If this “mass notification system” does not curb unlawful downloading by 70 per cent in a year, further provisions of the Act will be triggered which mean those who have ignored the warnings will have their internet access slowed or even temporarily suspended.

At least they're not prosecuting off the bat. That's good.

What's bad is the implementation. Data collected should be turned over to a court to see if there's enough evidence for specific search warrants. I don't trust the industry.

Additionally, the ISP's are being forced to punish "offenders". Why? It's not their fault if someone violates copyright law.

This law is so wrong and needs to be repealed.

[mr ploppy]

I wasn't sure if it was okay to mention something that isn't strictly book related, but I saw this yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...esharing-sites

That could have ramifications for this site's ebook library if taken to the extreme.

[CleverClothe]

I have to say UK, you give US Neo Cons a run for their money. Handing over law enforcement duties to private corporations? Genius!

[snipenekkid]

With all the very obvious wanna be neo-cons running around this site and the mood I am in today I best just laugh at the absurdity of what is the UK today. I mean I love the place but then stuff like this pops up and it hurts my brain making me not want to never want to visit anymore. I feel so badly for all the great people I have known and know who still live there. I also am learning more and more every day why many left long ago.

[wyndslash]

for some reason, what they want to do is really scary

[HarryT]

This law was actually introduced by the last labour government, and received broad cross-party support. Personally, I'm very much in favour of it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This law was actually introduced by the last labour government, and received broad cross-party support. Personally, I'm very much in favour of it.

Your ISP's don't agree with you. Why should they be forced to intervene?

This law goes against net neutrality.

[Xoanon]

Unless the government also plans to go around shutting down every single website that provides instructions on how to bypass the ISP blocking, I can't see this accomplishing very much apart from providing a massive advertising boost to the websites concerned.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xoanon

Unless the government also plans to go around shutting down every single website that provides instructions on how to bypass the ISP blocking, I can't see this accomplishing very much apart from providing a massive advertising boost to the websites concerned.

ISP Blocking? Sorry, not with you there. What blocking?

[Xoanon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ISP Blocking? Sorry, not with you there. What blocking?

The Guardian article that mr ploppy posted talks about ISP's being forced to block access to websites that host torrent files.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Your ISP's don't agree with you. Why should they be forced to intervene?

You're right, they don't agree with me. I believe that are wrong, but that's just my personal opinion, of course. Why should they be forced to intervene? Because they are really the only ones in a position to do so.

This law goes against net neutrality.

If you mean that people should be free to break the law with impunity, then I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Copyright infringement is an issue that needs to be tackled, and I hope that this law will go some of the way to do that. Time will tell.