Q&A: The Digital Economy bill

ISPs could soon be asked to monitor the online activities of their users The Digital Economy Bill is due for its second reading in the House of Commons and could become law during the wash-up period, which sees outstanding legislation rushed through before a general election. But the most controversial aspects of the bill - which could see persistent illegal file-sharers disconnected from the web and copyright holders given the power to block access to websites hosting illegal content - deserve greater debate say critics.

What does it mean for me?

Nothing yet. If the Digital Economy bill becomes law the wheels will be set in motion but initially this will mean those identified as downloading illegal content will be sent letters asking them to stop and pointing out legal alternatives. If this is considered to be ineffective, regulator Ofcom will be able to introduce technical measures down the line, which could include limiting the speed or capacity of an individual's service or suspending their service completely.

How big is the problem?

It is notoriously difficult to measure how much illegal file-sharing is going on. It is reported that more than half of all the traffic on the net in the UK is content being shared illegally but service providers say they cannot measure it exactly. The creative industries estimate that six million people in the UK regularly file-share copyright content without permission, costing the industries revenue that they cannot recoup. A recent study, by economics firm TERA Consultants, estimated that the UK's creative industries experienced losses of £1.2bn in 2008 due to piracy. Pressure from the rights owners has been met with resistance from the ISPs and digital rights campaign groups who argue that there is no sign of reduction in the amount of file-sharing.

What do those opposed to the measures say?

ISPs have long said they do not want to become the internet police, and have also pointed out that under the law as it stands they are mere conduits of the traffic on the net. Many ISPs signed up to a voluntary agreement that saw them send letters to users they suspect of sharing content illegally but this scheme ended in January 2009. The full-time role of monitoring traffic on their networks will fall to rights-holders although ISPs will have to bear some of the costs. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has proposed that the costs of tracking down file-sharers be split between the ISPs and the rights owners. The Open Rights Group has been very vocal in its opposition to aspects of the Digital Economy Bill, most notably the plans to disconnect users from the web. Together with digital rights campaigners 38 Degrees it has raised over £20,000 to roll out advertisements in national newspapers condemning the bill. As a result of its campaign, over 20,000 people has written to their MPs asking them to vote against the bill. Is cutting people off from the net the only controversial aspect of the bill? No. Opponents are also concerned about plans to force internet service providers to block websites that host copyright free material. The part of the bill that refers to this, Clause 18, has been rewritten by the government over the last week. Originally the clause was intended to future-proof the legislation against other methods of copyright theft not yet thought about. While it still allows copyright owners to force service providers to block access to certain sites, the process will now to subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Copyright owners would also need evidence that the downloading of material from the site was having a "serious effect" on businesses or consumers. There are also concerns about how the file-sharing measures will affect public wi-fi services. As the law stands, the owner of a connection could be held liable even if they are not personally responsible for downloading pirated material so, for instance, if someone used wireless connectivity in a cafe to download free content, the cafe owner would be held responsible.

What are the UK creative industries asking for?

Nine bodies representing the creative industries - among them the BPI, the body representing British record labels, the Federation Against Copyright Theft, and trade five unions, including the Musicians' Union - have in the past expressed a desire for the government to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to warn, throttle the speed of connection and ultimately disconnect persistent illegal file-sharers. They want a commitment to stopping file-sharing and the responsibility for doing so to be placed on the ISPs and for that to be enshrined in legislation. The games industry has already begun a clampdown of those illegally sharing videogames and the methods it uses would broadly be similar to those the music and film industry want. A handful of law firms have begun sending letters to those identified as downloading illegal content, demanding they pay a one-off fine or face court action. The BPI has condemned this approach.

How will illegal file-sharers be detected?

ISPs routinely monitor traffic sent over their network, for maintenance and security purposes. While it is relatively simple to monitor traffic sent using file-sharing programs, it is technically more challenging to know what exactly is being shared. If the bill becomes law, the responsibility of tracking down pirates will lie with content rights owners. They plan to monitor websites which offer links to copyright content and then obtain the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the online computer being used to share that data. ISPs tend to own blocks of IP addresses, so it is relatively simple to identify the broadband account holder that is tied to a particular IP address at a particular time. But this is a slow, and time-consuming procedure. One solution is to employ deep packet inspection (DPI) to look at the content of the "packets" of data being sent over the net. DPI can examine the contents of shared data and then using digital fingerprinting technology to see if the file is being exchanged with consent or not.

Will banning persistent file-sharers work?

The creative industries believe illegal file-sharing is almost endemic while the government has set a target of reducing the problem by at least 70% in the next two or three years. The difficulty is that the problem is a moving target. More persistent file-sharers are already beginning to use software which masks their IP address while online, and the files being exchanged are encrypted, so it is harder for ISPs to use DPI technology. However, the music and film industries are more likely attempting to target the "soft, underbelly" of file-sharing: the teenagers who are doing it because they are either apathetic or believe they can get away with it. That raises another difficult issue in the debate about disconnecting file-sharers: they may be sharing their internet connection. Teenagers are likely to be using a connection at their parents' homes, and shared housing may see a number of independent users with just one file-sharer in their midst.

How have other countries dealt with the problem?

Countries around the world are grappling with how to control internet piracy. In the US, student Joel Tenebaum, who has admitted downloading 800 songs, was last year ordered to pay $675,000 (£412,000) to various record labels after being found guilty on 31 charges of sharing music online. In May 2009, the French parliament passed legislation which would see a new state-agency sending warning letters to file sharers. If they are caught three times, they will be cut off. There have been protests against similar proposed legislation in Australia and New Zealand. In response to the French legislation, European politicians ruled that cutting off someone's internet connection could be a breach of their human rights.(my view)-This topic and"law" sickens me to my core,its wrong to spy on people and use"Copyright"to get what you want,WE BUY YOUR SHIT....SO LEAVE US ALL THE FUCK ALONE