Day 2 DE Act Judicial Review: was the Act built on hope alone?
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 24 March 2011
BT and TalkTalk v Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
BT - "You cannot justify national measures on the optimistic hope that they might just work.".
**This report is my own view, having spent the day in court.**
On day 2 of the court case at the High Court in London which will determine the legality of the Digital Economy Act, BT tackled the arguments against the DE Act regarding the dis-proportionality of the copyright enforcement measures.
BT argued that the measures address only a fraction of the problem which they claim to solve, are based on a flawed calculation of their effectiveness, based on a false set of assumptions. In particular, BT sought to ‘put a cricket ball through the stump of the government's cost /benefit analysis'. Moreover, BT suggested that the government misconstrued one of its main justifications for the Bill.
BT claims that the government gave out a misconceived
justification for the Bill. The court heard how the Digital Economy Bill was justified by the then Labour government on the basis that it was not possible to identify those people who had infringed copyright more than once, and to distinguish them from one-off downloaders, for the purposes of taking court action. The government had, according to BT, stated this repeatedly in documentation that the Digital Economy Act was required for the specific purpose of identifying ‘repeat infringers'.
BT informed the court that ‘this identified need is illusory'. There is alternative method which enables ‘repeat infringers' to be identified and for the rights-holders to obtain, via a court process, their identities. This uses the established Norwich Pharmacal procedure, for which an adapted version of the court order has been drawn up. This procedure does more or less the same job as the Digital Economy Act is designed to do, and does not cost industry or the State any extra money, BT argued.
BT suggested that this evidence cuts a hole in the government's case. According to BT, the government has not responded on this point.
There is therefore, according to BT, no need for the Digital Economy Act, and indeed, on this basis, the DE Act imposes an unreasonable burden on the ISPs, which they will of course have to pass on to consumers.
BT told the court that it is receiving requests from rights-holders for as many as 25,000 user details at a time.
BT placed a serious challenge to the government's target of reducing online copyright infringement by 70%. The DE Act primarily addresses P2P file-sharing. The target fell flat straight away when it was illustrated that only 40% of all alleged infringements are via P2P . Moreover, BT cited the arguments - well known in the user commnity but perhaps less known in the legal community - of how easy it will be for determined users to find alternative methods to download or distributec copyrighted material, and thus render the DE Act measures useless.
BT finished off this line of argument by stating that the government has not challenged this evidence, and that the government appears to be simply hoping that the measures will successs.
" You cannot justify legislation which places restrictions on both the right to provide services, and Article 8 of the (ECHR) on that basis. You have to show that it will be proportionate and appropriate" the court was told.
There was quite a long technical discussion on proportionality. The judge several times in the case so far has raised questions about what it is he is being asked to balance. Is it the right to property vs the right to services?
BT spent some time arguing the ‘chillling effect' of the measures, citing evidence from the Open Rights Group and a joint submission by consumer Focus and Article 19. BT argued that whilst the government apparently acknowleges the existence of some level of chilling effect, it did not take this into account when assessing the proportionality of the DE Act.
One already gets the feeling already that this one could be kicked upstairs - either to the Supreme Court or to the European Court of Justice. The judge commented on a previous case where the presiding judge had declared that it was impossible to for a court to make a determination on issues which concerned the balancing of societal ethics.
The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2011) Digital Economy Act Judicial Review Day 1 http://www.iptegrity.com 23 March 2011
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed.
- Article Views: 7891
IPtegrity politics
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Not a blank cheque: European Parliament consents to EU-UK Agreement
- UK border safety alert - mind the capability gap
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?
- Copyright-style website blocking orders slipped into Online Safety Bill
- 2 billion cost to British businesses for Online Safety Bill