Skip Navigation

Ofcom will introduce robust appeals process for illegal file sharers
Tuesday 13 April 2010 12:17:06 by John Hunt

Ofcom have released a terms of reference document today to cover its planned approach to deal with illegal file sharers which now comes under its remit following the adoption of the Digital Economy Act last week.

The initial obligations to ISPs will come under a code of practice that will require them to notify subscribers of any allegations made by copyright owners that the customer has been using their account to illegally share files. Service providers will also be required to maintain a list of notifications that have gone unchallenged by their customer which can be passed to relevant copyright owners, but will require a Court Order. Users will be able to challenge any notifications, and the information sent to users must contain enough information to allow users to be able to challenge the basis under which the notification was sent. A "robust" appeals process will be developed by Ofcom to allow customers to object if they deem the information sent to be inaccurate.

Ofcom will also provide quarterly reports to the Secretary of State detail estimates of levels of file sharing. If numbers don't fall, the Secretary of State can impose technical measure upon service providers, a step that has been heavily criticised by the industry.

Much like the law that was rushed through government that imposes this task upon Ofcom, they will also have to rush this through consultation with just 8 months before this code of practice must be adopted, 3 months (minimum) of which will be seeking approval from the European Commission.

Thankfully, Ofcom are willing to work with ISPs to get things drawn together and are currently considering allowing industry to draft the code of practice if sufficient stakeholder input can be taken. If not, it will draw up the draft itself, to which it will seek input from all relevant stakeholders. The draft code is expected to be published for consultation no later than May 2010, with a draft statutory instrument to be submitted to the European Commission in September 2010. This will put things in place for the new rules to begin at the start of 2011.


Posted by cyberdoyle over 7 years ago
jobs for the boys, total waste of time and taxpayers money. They can never stop pirates. the music and film industry has to move with the times and give the customer what he or she wants. Government should not be protecting an obsolete business model with OUR money. People would pay if downloading was easy and affordable. The wrong folk are gonna get caught. This act has set back digitalbritian for 10 years.
Posted by TonyHoyle over 7 years ago
As is typical for rushed legislation, it's both overreaching and has holes you can drive a truck through...

There's a nice human readable breakdown here:
Posted by tommy45 over 7 years ago
Just has a read,lol i like yhe loophole bit,sounds a good plan, saves using the VPN
one this is clear copyright infringement is a Civil matter,and has nothing to do with criminal law, But your propaganda spreading BBC and Tims ect keep referring to copyright infringement as it was a crime,(illegal)which if it was so, then it would not be infringement but would be theft ir a similar offence, and the accused would have a right to free legal assistance(just like several MP's caught stealing have)
Posted by tommy45 over 7 years ago
CONT:and they would also have a right to a fair trial, as this is not the case then it should not be referred to as illegal, (if it was they would never be able to secure any convictions)
Posted by legalgeeza over 7 years ago
filesharers are also amongst the biggest music buyers... Ridiculous approach and innocent people will get harassed by legal firms and forced to pay up, not because they are guilty, but because they are bullied and frightened. This has already started...
Posted by Aqualung over 7 years ago
So this robust appeals process, is where you have to prove yourself innocent i assume....

With so many lawyers as MP's it is perhaps no coincidence they will be rubbing their hands at the thought of handling cases from a law that is wide open to interpretation on every level.
Posted by tommy45 over 7 years ago
Well one certainty if i got a letter from some law firm demanding wonga the only thing they would get from me would be the 2 finger salute,And even if they took me to Court and won ,i still wouldn't pay em,
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
tommy - what do you think copyright is?

No problem if you don't pay fines, free holiday.
Posted by rian over 7 years ago
I have been a victim from the Davonport case. I don't know how many more of innocents will waste their time from those letters.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
Regarding the bill this is about censoring the internet not copyright, copyright is merely a tool used as a means to an end, the entertainment industry knows this along with the likes of Rothschild.

There can be no NWO with a free internet.


I hope you used the BeingThreatened site and got your self out of it, I heard a large amount have, no fine or court.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago
I also wonder if the stuff on BeingThreatened could be used against Ofcom as well.
Posted by tommy45 over 7 years ago
@SOMERSET: Fines? this will be a civil matter by a private company, in a county court, defendants don't even have to attend the court,as for fines, no they don't dish out fines if you are said to owe money to private companies/individuals only get them for owning the government money,(Perish the thought)as they again get preferential treatment
Posted by tommy45 over 7 years ago
Basically the most they can do is send in bailiffs but if you dont have anything worth them taking at the time they call, (if you let em in)or you get ccj'd which lasts for 5years
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
aaisp listed loopholes are funny but will work. I think the government are just going to end up embarassed with this legislation and we may well see it dropped after the election. Regards to the copyright been used as a tool so they can censor the net, I wouldnt rule it out could well be some truth in that. The internet is evil to people like the rothschilds.
Posted by otester over 7 years ago

Those listed measures could actually make the previous CDPA unenforceable hence we could all get away with it.

Only worry is the secretary of state could try and play wack-a-mole with the legislation.
Posted by pigfister over 7 years ago
this legislation was designed to bypass the courts process thats all, WE will have to pay for the appeals process and will NOT be entitled to ANY legal aid.
Posted by pigfister over 7 years ago
also there is NO entitlement for us to make a counter claim, if found to be vexatious so we are guilty by defult, have to pay to fight it, then even if we are innocent we still have to pay our legal fees and CANNOT claim against the media industry or whomever made the accusation! this bill was designed to bypass are legal system.
Posted by Firefalcon over 7 years ago
Epic fail and what happens if the tories get in and sack all of ofcom?

Not to mention all the rest of the nonsense to do with this stupid bill.
Posted by pigfister over 7 years ago
@ Firefalcon

the tories are as much to blame as labour, they have both been lobbied by the industry and both were going to pass this bill. both labour and conservative represent the corporations not us, they bend to fat wallets and promises of top jobs.
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
the serious problem here is simple, users are presumed guilty and will have to successfully appeal to say otherwise. Also how does one make a claim against a media company who makes a false claim against them?
Posted by m101dream over 7 years ago
that'sthe reason i have been downloading average 150gb worth of data monthly . well they did say unlimited download anyways since 2008 i have 2800gb worth of films spread out on 3 hd all torrents from the biggest site get the utorrent.exe software the whole world is doing this they can never stop it . we should all share what we can right .
Posted by pigfister over 7 years ago
@ chrysalis

there is a clause to protect media companies against vexatious litigation so they will NOT be held to account, so it would be in their financial interest to send out a huge fishing net of letter and see what they catch!
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
pigfister why am I not not surprised :(
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.