Ofcom invites private bids to run Appeals Process
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 23 September 2011
5th post in a series on the government's response to Hargreaves
Did the DE Act intend private companies running (Indian?) call centres to be the Appeals Body?
Under proposals published in August, Ofcom plans to privatise the Appeals process for the Digital Economy Act copyright enforcement measures. Ofcom plans to run a commercial tender for a private company to run the new Appeals body, which will sit in judgement on allegations of downloading copyrighted material and ultimately on whether people are cut off. Effectively, the Appeals Body, which will perform a quasi-judicial function, will be outsourced,
and it is not clear what kind of oversight there will be or how its duties will be defined.
What is clear is that cost will be a significant factor in Ofcom's final selection - up to 30 per cent of the decision will be down to cost. This means that the successful bidder will be under pressure to keep costs down.
The funding for the Appeals Body will come from the rights-holder groups, notably the BPI and the Motion Picture Association. It is not transparent whether or not they will have any say in either the tendering process or the budget.
The way the costings have been prepared is suggestive of a call centre operation. This is especially concerning.
Just imagine the successful private bidder, under cost pressure, sets up the call centre in India. Will we be facing the scenario of an Indian call centre meting out British justice?
The role of the Appeals body is to review allegations of copyright infringement made against British citizens, who stand to be taken to court if their appeal fails - and in future, the appeal could directly concern a punishment.
Under the Digital Economy Act, people who are accused of copyright infringement, and who are sent warning notices by the ISP, may appeal against the notices. They may also place an appeal against going on the so-called Repeat Infringers List. The reason why the appeal could be important to them, is that the notification and the List, are the preparatory stages of a judicial process. Under the Act as it currently stands, rights-holders will be expected to take court action against the people on the Repeat Infringers List.
If the Technical Measures are ever brought in, then the Repeat Infringers list would form the basis of a suite of automated punishments - including cutting off Internet access.
The Appeals Body must legally be independent of Ofcom, but under such a privatised system, there will be obvious questions of oversight. It risks, among other things, creating a massive bureaucratic hierarchy which was not intended under the DE Act.
It is of course totally outrageous for Ofcom to even propose a privatised system for the appeals process and is yet another pointer to Ofcom's failure to take on board the citizenship aspects of copyright enforcement.
Please attribute this article: Monica Horten (2011) Ofcom invites private bids to run Appeals Process http://www.iptegrity.com 23 September 2011 .
- Article Views: 8290
IPtegrity politics
- Why would the UK take on Apple?
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- 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
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?