DE Act: ready steady go
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 12 September 2011
4th post in a series on the government's response to Hargreaves
The implementation plan for the Digital Economy Act stalled with the Judicial Review last March, and has been kept close to chests of the DCMS officials responsible for it. However, a few hints appeared in the government's response to Hargreaves. The plan is for the first warnings (copyright infringement notifications) to be sent
to Internet users in December 2012. That sounds like a long way away, but in terms of Parliamentary processes, it means that the gant chart of deadlines has to be prepared now.
Before the notification system can go ahead, an Initial Obligations Code, prepared by Ofcom, has to be in place, with all the relevant approvals. The Code has been written and is somewhere in the DCMS filing system, waiting for the signal to move ahead. When the signal is sounded, its first stop will be the European Commision, which has to check it - together with the Digital Economy Act - for compliance with EU law. That process can take 2-3 months.
Assuming it gets the all-clear from Brussels, the next stage for the Initial Obligations Code is to go before Parliament (note the DE Act does not go to Parliament again, just the Code). Parliament only has the power to reject it under the Annulment process, which does not allow for any debate. Parliament's approval is therefore a nominal rubber-stamp.
Once the Parliamentary stamp is obtained, the Initial Obligations Code - and the DE Act measures against peer-to-peer file-sharing which it implements - is under starters orders.
The government's stated objective is to get the first notifications out by December 2012. Working backwards, it has go to the European Commission fairly soon. The earliest it could be approved is around Christmas. It will have to be slotted into a Parliamentary schedule early next year, to give the rights-holders and ISPs maximum time to slog out the fine print and get their shiny new automated systems in place.
Of course, the European Commission might disagree with the BIS/DCMS interpretation of Article 1.3a - and that could cause a small delay.
Please attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) DE Act : ready steady go http://www.iptegrity.com 12 September 2011 .
The story of Article 1.3a is in my book: The Copyright Enforcement Enigma: Internet Politics and the 'Telecoms Package'
- Article Views: 8384
IPtegrity politics
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- 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
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
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- 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?