For those who don't know, the Digital Economy Bill is a set of laws that is getting rushed through the commons before the next election, and includes the following:

allow courts to force ISPs to block access to websites, for the prevention of online copyright infringement

The Open Rights group and 38degrees teamed up to allow people to email their local MPs about the issue. I received a response my local MP, the Rt Hon Keith Hill MP, and here I publish that response, both scans and text:

Thank you for contacting me to express concerns that proposals in the digital Economy Bill to disconnect internet account holders for copyright infringement will be rushed through without sufficient parliamentay scrutiny.

As you probably know, the Digital Economy Bill has just completed its stages in the House of lords. The Leader of the House Harriet Harman - whose role it is to organise government business in the Commons - is fully aware of concerns around the shoage of parliamentay time left and has recently said that "we obiously need to make sure it has proper scrutiny before it passes into legislation". I understand that Ms Harman will make a further business statement when the House returns after the Easter recess.

Although the Bill is yet to be debated in the Commons, I am aware of the concerns around the threat of restrictions to, or temporary suspension of, internet connections for serious repeat infringers of copyright. Having read some of the debates in the Lords, I believe that no-one wants to cut families' access to the internet. Indeed, the intention is to set out a serjes of steps to ensure that no subscriber is penalised for infringement of copyright without being made explicitly aware of - and in fact educated as to - the legality of the actions.

Under provisions in the Digital Economy Bill, ISPs would be required to notify their subscribers if the internet protocol addresses associated with them are reported by copyright owners as being used to infringe copyright; to keep track of the number of reports about each subscriber; and to compile, on an anonymous basis, a list of he most serious infringers. Subscribers will be kept informed of reports against them and I would expect them to be activetly advised about what they need to do to avoìd any action.

Subscribers who have been identified as apparently infringing copyright will have opportunites to appeal at each and evey stage. Individuals' names or addresses will not be passed from the ISP to a copyright owner without a court order. Subsequently, copyright owners wiIl need to send "final warning" letters direct to repeated infringers asking them to stop online copyright infringement and giving them a clear warning of likey court action if the warning is ignored. From what I undersand these steps are far more rigorous than current practice, where we have seen copyright holders obtain court orders for subscriber's addresses to take action in the first instance.

The regulator OFCOM will be under a duty to report regularly to the Secretay of State on the efficacy of these initial obtigations in reducing the level of online copyright infringement. If this approach fails to deliver the expected results, the Secretay of State may direct OFCOM to assess whether, and if so which, technical measures (eg bandwidth capping or shaping, or temporay suspension of broadband connecios) against particular subscribers may be appropriate. Such an assessment will be infomed by further consultation with all the relevant groups, including consumers.

As I have already mentione, to safeguard the interests of consumers, the provisions in the Bill also requre apeals processes to be set up as part of the underpinning codes. These would inc1ude the right to appeal decisions of ISPs to impose technical measures. The appeal would be to a person independent of OFCOM, with a further right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

I broadly support these measures. It is expected that the approach will be one of concern for the individual who has carried out an infringement - initially protecting them against potential action for copyright theft. Nonetheless, as a last resort I believe it is correct to have in place effective sanctions when the transgression is deliberate, repeated and serious. I would have thought that the role of OFCOM and, indeed, the Secretay of State in the process will ensure that there are no unintended consequences. Nonetheless, I will bear your concerns in mind as the debate develops.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Keith Hill MP

www.keithhillmp.org.uk