Business piracy Regs surveillance & privacy

Government response to TalkTalk petition says infringers won’t be disconnected #DEAct

Just for reference the Andrew Heaney of TalkTalk petition against the Digital Economy Act has had a response from the government.

It is clear that online copyright infringement inflicts considerable damage on the UK’s creative economy including music, TV and film, games, sports and software. Industry estimates place this harm at £400m pa.

The Digital Economy Act includes a number of measures to tackle the problem and we expect these to be successful in significantly reducing online copyright infringement. However this is an area of rapid technological change and developing consumer behaviour. The Act therefore includes a reserve power to introduce further “technical” measures if the initial measures do not succeed. These technical measures would limit or restrict an infringers’ access to the internet. They do not include disconnection.”

I’m not sure the technical measures were ever specified but at least this, together with the inquiry discussed in the previous post, is evidence that he huge furore following the passing of the act is starting to show some effect. Long way to go though.

Trefor Davies

By Trefor Davies

Liver of life, father of four, CTO of, writer, poet,

4 replies on “Government response to TalkTalk petition says infringers won’t be disconnected #DEAct”

I agree. If they continue to try to implement this failed washed up act there is certainly a long way to go. Right back to the beginning would be a good place to start. The whole act is so badly flawed I don’t think it can ever be fixed. The digital dinosaurs are trying to hold back innovation and it Won’t Work.

Hypo. case :
Cable modem at 20Mb/2Mb (down/up) nominal (reality = 50-75% of that);
User is tagged as a violator (who knows if due process had been followed);
DEAct enforcement throttles user down to ISDN (128Kb) speed.

I’m a dial-up user (56Kb max) and a speed drop that severe would amount to slow strangulation. Here across the pond the fundamental “Freedom of Speech” has morphed into a “Freedom of Expression”. I suspect that a talented barrister could make a substantial case that throttling back a user’s service without due process is the equivalent of denying that user his / her right to express himself / herself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.