The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) have announced
today that the costs of the Copyright Infringement Notice process which is
being brought in following the passing of the Digital Economy Act will be borne
mostly by the rights holders.
Broadband service providers will be expected to meet 25% of the cost of
notification and appeals processes whilst rights holders will pay for 75%.
Consumers who appeal against a notification will not be charged a fee to do
so.
“Protecting our valuable creative industries, which have already suffered
significant losses as a result of people sharing digital content without paying
for it, is at the heart of these measures. The Digital Economy Act serves to
reduce online copyright infringement through a fair and robust process and at
the same time provides breathing space to develop better business models for
consumers who buy music, films and books online.We expect the measures will benefit our creative economy by some £200m per
year and as rights holders are the main beneficiaries of the system, we believe
our decision on costs is proportionate to everyone involved.”Ed Vaizey, Minister for Communications
The government has indicated that it may introduce a small appeal fee if the
free appeals process result in frivolous appeals. The process is excepted to
come into force in the first half of 2011.
Test your broadband speed
Follow us on X for the latest broadband news 
It will all end up in the pockets of the ambulance chasers anyway. The artists won’t see a penny I bet. The digital economy act is far too flawed to be of any use. It was written for the meeja suits by digital dinosaurs who got conned. I even pity ofcom for a change,- having to try to sort it out, but I am glad the ISPs aren’t gonna pick up the whole tab or there would have been a free for all with the industry suing the world and his wife.
FFWD 2yrs – “More than 2yrs after the Copyright Infringement Notice process was born out of the rushed through Digital Economy Act at the back end of Labours time in office it has now been shelved indefinitely for a number of reasons…”
Come on why are they still going on about this? ISP’s couldn’t give a hoot, the government is making noises like it cares but it doesn’t (Its got more pressing things on at the moment.)
I don’t think it matters if the rights holders pay all of the costs, ISP’s still don’t want to enforce it and don’t want to loose customers because of it.
I think right holders should pay 100% of the cost! The whole thing is flawed anyway.
It would be so ironic if a rights holder got caught downloading music from another company because of this new crappy law! 😛
Even 100% wouldn’t matter, and % of what exactly the drafting of the letters/emails? Or the % of cost for deep packet inspection, the % of counter claims against invasion of privacy/human rights (no doubt someone will spin that one soon enough). Exactly what are they trying to achieve here? Is it a deterrent or are they actually going after X amount of people with a view to fining them 100’s of thousands of pounds? Are any other countries trying to push this through?
This is about censorship of the internet, not file-sharing.
No, it’s about file sharing. Stopping copyright theft isn’t censorship. There are far more insidious sections of the DEA that are prone to abuse for censorship purposes.
Nice, Dixi. Calling it copyright theft is simply incorrect. Why not call it copyright rape? Copyright paedophilia!
It’s infringement. If you’re going to try to sway people to your opinion, at least try to be correct.
…but, CARPETBURN, my clicking this article link has caused me to download copyright material. Is it possible then that in my doing so I may have infringed copyrights?
So why is TBB distributing copyrighted material!? I don’t want to get in trouble for illegally stealing the copyrights…
So, if TBB were to infringe on copyrights by using logos improperly at some point, then would I be held liable to be charged with copyright infingement by downloading the page?
This page is copyrighted, and by me being here, I have downloaded it. How am I to know whether TBB hold the necessary rights to distribute, that I may defend myself against being held liable for infringement?
Dixinormous how can you steal copyright over the internet? I am interested.
So if I was to download music, and that music turns out to be being distributed without the proper consent of the copyright holder, then I’m not to be held liable, the distributor is?
How could I be held technically liable for infringement? The source duplicates the information and distributes it without authorisation, therefore, by simple logic, they are responsible for the rights infringement.
I intentially downloaded this copyrighted TBB page, too.
You cannot make a copy of something you do not have. It’s the remote computer that duplicates the data before it gets sent. That machine is the copier and distributor. Copying and distributing is what copyright is about.
Are you saying music/film copyrights are to be treated differently than others? Where is the law that differentiates these?
The stated rule on copying is illogical and contradicts itself.
You do indeed have the right to download copyrighted material. The legality of the act comes down to whether the distributor holds the necessary rights to do so.
You’re arguing that there’s a distinction between different types of copyrighted material that sees each treated differently. Where is this law?
“Err yeah and TBB staff give you permission to do so.”
TBB claim the right to distribute the content. The onus is on them that they do so legally.
“Of course you can, click file and print, one copy of what im typing.”
You have to have the data in your possession to be able to make a copy. You cannot copy something you do not already have. The server distrbutes the data after it has duplicated it. I have a copy of this TBB news article because TBB’s server served it to me. I cannot copy this article myself without TBB first sending me a copy.
“If that were true then theres nothing stopping anyone downloading content”
I downloaded copyrighted material from iTunes this week. I downloaded music for free using Spotify this week. I downloaded copyrighted TBB news articles this week.
Are you now going to claim that my downloading of copyright material from these sources is illegal? And, yes, there is something to stop me from selling it on; it’s called copyright. I could be done for selling an illegitimate copy, but not making it.
And, CARPETBURN, don’t go assuming you know anything about me and the way I act. This argument is not a justification for handling infringing material in any regard. That is an incorrect interpretation on your part. This argument is about the rationality of the situation with regard the act of downloading of copyrighted content, and where liability ultimately occurs.
That you can’t see why it is wrong is a big reason for we are losing our rights.