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.
4 replies on “Government response to TalkTalk petition says infringers won’t be disconnected #DEAct”
Tref you have to read between the lines of political speak, they always say “doesn’t include disconnection” but that’s not regarded by them as being equal to “account suspension” 😉
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.
chris
I find it slightly worrisome that theDEAct gives Government the power to introduce some as yet completely unspecified technical measure. Is it normal to create the power to do something that you haven’t thought of yet? It could be anything!
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.