Ofcom has published a draft code for the first stages of the Digital Economy Act's implementation, describing how copyright holders and ISPs will identify suspected unlawful file-sharers.
The draft initial obligations code was revealed on Friday and is open to consultation until 30 July. It confirms early reports that suggested ISPs with fewer than 400,000 customers, as well as mobile operators, would not have to participate in the copyright crackdown for now. The draft also confirms that three notifications will be sent to suspected file-sharers before their details are passed back to rights holders for further action, and it also provides some clarity around the issue of operating open Wi-Fi networks.
The initial obligations code will not cover the penalties for unlawful file-sharing, which might include bandwidth throttling or account suspension — these sanctions will be a matter for the business secretary to establish, once infringement notifications have been tried out for a year.
According to the draft code, rights holders will send ISPs copyright infringement reports (CIR), indicating the levels of infringement on their networks and listing the details of those thought to be responsible. These details, including the relevant IP address, port number and the start and end of the relevant session, would have to be sent to the ISP within 10 working days of the evidence being gathered.
Read this
TalkTalk vows resistance as digital bill becomes law
The UK's largest ISP will fight in court any attempt to force it to disconnect customers for suspected unlawful file-sharing, as outlined in the Digital Economy Act
CIRs would have to be accompanied by a report detailing the processes and systems used by the rights holder to gather evidence, and Ofcom says it may require these processes and systems to be audited by "an appropriate independent party".
ISPs will have to notify subscribers whose details have been mentioned in a CIR. The second notification would be triggered by the first CIR to be received at least a month after the date of the notification, with the same gap being necessary between the second and third notifications. "This time-based notification approach essentially provides a means to make subscribers aware of reported infringements and to allow escalation if they continue to be identified engaging in online copyright infringement," Ofcom said.
If a subscriber is notified three times within a year, they can be included on a copyright-infringement list — this anonymised list can be requested by any copyright holder who has made at least one infringement report about the relevant subscriber. Once they have received the list, the copyright holder would have to apply to a court to obtain specific subscribers' identities.
"In order that the identification process is sufficient to ensure that subscribers receiving notifications have been reliably identified, we propose that ISPs should have in place effective technical systems to match IP address allocation to subscribers," Ofcom said.
Mobile networks are being excluded for now, because of the low levels of infringement believed to take place on them, and because operators would have to install expensive new systems just to be able to identify who is downloading what over their networks.
The initial obligations code will also exclude ISPs with fewer than 400,000 subscribers because, in Ofcom's words...







Talkback
what about false claims, there should be a requirement for some proof that the claiming rights holder actually owns the rights
I have always purchased cd`s infact i have a massive 20,000+ cds which i have collected since the early 80`s, in that collection i have cds that are rotting or falling apart, I do download music but the music i download is of the cd i already own but is damaged in someway etc.
If i was to be prosecuted for doing this i would never buy a cd or a dvd again so i feel this law would infact stop people like myself who purchase music and films but are forced to somehow get a copy of it because of poor quality materials used in the making of the cds and dvds etc, after all when cds were first introduced we could eat off them, they would last forever etc etc, so we went out and replaced all of our vinyl with cds , i even brought mini discs and the same with videos, betamax,vhs, dvd, high def dvds and blu-rays the record and film industrys keep forcing us all to replace the same media over time.
This means that anyone participating in the FON network for instance, is liable to proscecution as they will not be providing a "service" with their open network. It's immoral.
Why should the " media mafia" be allowed to own OUR internet.
It is just absurd !