> Est-ce possible d'obtenir le lien vers le texte complet ? Oui, pour eviter d'envoyer un .doc a la liste voici un copier coller.
Thomas ------- Urgent plea concerning the Digital Economy Bill I am writing on behalf of LINX, a membership association of nearly 350 major Internet network operators, to ask you to raise our concerns with the Digital Economy Bill when it receives its Second Reading next Wednesday 2nd December. You may have heard that Clause 17 of the Bill is a so-called “Henry VIII” clause that allows the Secretary of State to re-write the whole of Part I of the Copyright Act by Statutory Instrument. What is more insidious is Clause 11 of the Bill, which would empower the Secretary of State to require Internet Service Providers to introduce “technical measures” to restrain copyright infringement online. This effectively empowers the Secretary of State to fundamentally redesign the network, infrastructure which our members have invested billions of pounds to create, and which is critical to the economic success and general well-being of the UK. The success of the Internet is founded on one core engineering principle, that the underlying network machinery is able to transmit packets of data without having to understand the contents of those packets. This flexibility is what distinguishes the Internet from other communications systems. The spectacular growth and innovative services we have seen online, and the future innovation that is to come, rest wholly on this principle. However this fundamental principle is placed in jeopardy by Clause 11 (Obligations to limit Internet access), which would enable the Secretary of State to require that network operators invent and deploy new machinery to inspect all Internet communications, determine which elements do or might infringe copyright, and take selective action against those communications. This would be disastrous to our sector, and disastrous to businesses and individuals that rely on a broad range of Internet communications services. Many critics are saying that powers in the Bill to disconnect from the Internet customers accused of repeated copyright infringement are disproportionate, not least because they amount to the collective punishment of families. We agree – and point out that consumers are not the only ones in jeopardy: the Bill makes no particular distinction for business customers, and even substantial enterprises could face catastrophe if they lose their Internet connection. Nor is it rational to encourage consumers to use legal music download services by slowing down their Internet connection to the point where all downloads (legal and illegal) become equally impractical, yet this is one of the ways in which the government suggests using the powers in clause 11. Our members also point out the basic injustice of forcing innocent ISPs to subsidise the protection of the entertainment industry. In our view the only long-term solution to online copyright infringement in audiovisual content is the development by the entertainment industry of new business models appropriate to the Internet. Rewarding rent-seeking behaviour with ever greater protection, as the Digital Economy Bill does, will only make the conservative elements in that sector more intransigent. This undermines the efforts of more entrepreneurial companies to bring new services to market, to the detriment of artists and consumers alike. Absent this market-based solution, we do not doubt that the problem of online copyright infringement will persist. We can only imagine what political favours the copyright holders will ask for next, using the powers contained in Clause 17. At the heart of the copyright holders’ complaint is the assertion that the court system does not provide an effective and economically viable route to protect their rights from piracy. If the government accepts this, the scandal and scope for reform is in the courts system and procedures. It is wrong to place the communications sector at risk, whose health is so critical to the UK, for the benefit of a few politically connected record and film companies. A more satisfactory alternative approach, for example, would be a “small claims” procedure for online copyright infringement that make those individuals actually engaged in infringement pay a proportionate financial restitution to copyright holders. We respectfully urge you to raise these concerns at Second Reading on Wednesday, and to seek removal from the Bill of Clause 11 (and consequently also the related clauses 10, 12 and 13, and the related references in clauses 14 and 15) More detailed comments are available in our reply to the government’s consultation (written before the Bill was published). You can download a copy from http://publicaffairs.linx.net/?p=1176 If I can assist you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at malc...@linx.net or on 0207 645 3523. Yours sincerely, Malcolm Hutty Head of Public Affairs
