Digital Economy Act: Judicial Review
I think a lot of people will remember the Digital Economy Act getting as lot of press in the U.K. back around the time of the general election. It's been relatively unheard of since1, which just goes to show how easily a voting public can be distracted (oh, look, there's some kind of wedding going on. Shiny).
Then, in July, BT and TalkTalk moved for a Judicial review. And, a couple of weeks ago, it was granted, albeit in February. Now, some of the people I've talked to have taken this as a good step: the fact it is coming up for review might be chance to end the dispute and have it removes from the statute books. However, too things worry me. First, the scope at which it being reviewed2:
In particular, the companies share a concern that obligations imposed by the Act may not be compatible with important European rules that are designed to ensure that national laws are proportionate, protect users’ privacy, restrict the role of ISPs in policing the Internet and maintain a single market. If clarity is not gained at this stage then BT, TalkTalk and other industry players may end up investing tens of millions of pounds in new systems and processes only to find later that the Act is unenforceable and the money wasted.
The grounds that they called for review on, and are thereby seeking 'clarification' on were3:
49.1. The contested provisions contravene the requirements of the Technical Standards Directive; 49.2. The contested provisions are incompatible with the E Commerce Directive; 49.3. The contested provisions are incompatible with the PEC Directive; 49.4. The contested provisions are disproportionate in their effect, in that they unduly restrict the ability of ISPs established in other Member States to provide internet services in the United Kingdom and/or infringe Articles 8 and/or 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and equivalent provisions found in the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.Now, these are all very good grounds (the E Commerce Directive which rules that ISPs cannot be held liable for traffic on their networks4) but, apart from the fourth, don't really attack the core problem that well. And, if the fourth ground is declared to be invalid, then precedent is against freedom on the internet.
And, 11 days ago, the response was signed. I'm not going to go into too much analysis of this (mainly because my knowledge of High Court procedures isn't that in depth, and also because I've been unable to find the reference evidence from the defendant (State Sec. for Business, Innovation, and Skills). The most important paragraph is, perhaps:
10. Ultimately, I do not consider the Defendant's submissions so compelling that it would be correct to categorise any of the grounds as unarguableWhich is good news.
However, some of the other points raised around ground 4 are slightly disconcerting. And the entire thing seems to much more of a money saving exercise than a defence of freedom - in the current schedule (which may be enforced in some way that I'm not aware of) one has full enforcement of this act occurring in 2012. I think I would have preferred that something similar to what happened in Ireland a couple of months ago took place.
In other news, I have now been alive for over 662.7 million seconds. For some reason, some of the people around me seem to view this as some sort of achievement (give or take a few thousand here and there). Perhaps I'll get some upgrade points to spend? Somehow, I doubt it. Many some shinies, although I don't deserve them on account of using the word 'some' 3 or 4 times in this rather short paragraph.
More importantly, it means a number of CDs have/are/will turn up. And this is always good because, as much as I know that I'm generally supporting all of the big music companies by doing so, I think that music should be paid for. I only wish I could afford more of it...
- 1 ↑ At least in the circles I move in. I suspect there are some hard-core bloggers who are still talking about it. You know, the kind who mutter on about the GPL in their spare time. Not that's there anything wrong with muttering on about the GPL. It just wares a little thin after the first couple of hours.
- 2 ↑ From http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=98284B3F-B538-4A54-A44F-6B496AF1F11F - BT Press Statement, 8th July 2010
- 3 ↑ High Court Claim #???6 Between THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF (1) BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC, (2) TALKTALK TELECOM GROUP PLC ("Claimants") and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ("Defendant")
- 4 ↑ No citation here, apart from another BBC news article. It might be worth a read some time