The Digital Economy Act 2010 (c. 24) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act addresses media policy issues related to digital media, including copyright infringement, Internet domain names, Channel 4 media content, local radio and video games. Introduced to Parliament by Lord Mandelson on 20 November 2009, it received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. It came into force two months later, with some exceptions: several sections – 5, 6, 7, 15, 16(1)and 30 to 32 – came into force immediately, whilst others required a statutory instrument before they would come into force.[1] However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014,[2] and other sections were repealed.
Sections 3 to 16 contained copyright infringement provisions, which were controversial.[3] These provisions established a "code" to be created which would define a system of procedures covering notifications to Internet Service Providers to notify their customers when an allegation was made of downloading copyright-infringing content online, subscriber appeals, conditions under which subscribers could be identified to third parties, and conditions for disconnecting persistent infringers. The objective was to provide evidence that copyright holders could use in court action against subscribers who repeatedly infringed. A second element of the provisions comprises the ‘technical measures’, where a sanction would be applied directly via a subscriber's Internet provider.
Under DEA Section 3 the allegations were to be transmitted to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) by the copyright holders. The ISPs would then be obliged to transmit notifications to their subscribers, informing them of the allegation. DEA Section 4 mandated the ISPs to keep a list of repeat offenders (a "copyright infringement list" ) who had reached a pre-determined threshold in terms of the number of infringements committed, and the data should be anonymous. The aim is that copyright holders could later seek a court order to identify subscribers against whom they want to take action.
The Act provided for this in the form of an Enabling Act, which required Ofcom (the communications regulator for the UK) to produce a draft Code that would then be passed by Parliament and come into force as a Statutory Instrument. However, by 2013, when the draft code was produced, the political climate had changed and a substantial controversy existed over the practicalities of the proposed Code. The draft code to create the Code was never passed into law or pursued after that date, and was "shelved" by 2014.[2]
The Code had comprised the following components:
The act does not specify the implementation detail for the measures. Instead, provides for the implementation to be drafted by Ofcom, in an Initial Obligations Code. Section 5 and Section 6 establish the process for Ofcom to write the code. Section 7 establishes in a very broad way what the code should contain, but leaves all the detail for Ofcom. The code must be approved by Parliament under the annulment procedure before it can come into force.
The decision to use the code of practice instead of specifying the measures in full within the text of the act has itself formed part of the controversy surrounding the measures. For example, the act did not specify the standard of evidence required. It also did not specify the threshold – number of infringements – for entry onto the copyright infringement list.
On 28 May 2010 Ofcom published a draft initial obligations code for consultation.[4][dead link] In June 2012, it issued a second consultation document.[5]
After the Initial Obligations Code has been in force for one year, the act provides for a second set of measures to be brought in. The technical measures specified in the act Section 9 are the restriction or limitation of the speed of the broadband connection, restricting access to particular material online, and suspension (disconnection) of the service. The most controversial of them however, was disconnection of the subscriber for a period of time. It would function as an alternative to taking people to court, and in effect an extrajudicial process. Technical measures are to be brought in under another code, known as the code about obligations to limit Internet access Section 11 and Section 12. This Code would be subject to the super-affirmative procedure in the British Parliament.
Section 13 of the act requires the provision of an independent appeals process, so that subscribers who wish to do so, may challenge a notification or (when implemented) a technical measure. Ofcom is required to set up an appeals body. This body will be an administrative body, independent of copyright holders and ISPs. Cases will not be heard in person. If technical measures are implemented, there will be a right to appeal to a First Tier Tribunal.
The act amends the Communications Act 2003. In this context, it places obligations on the ISP to apply both of the codes, and it gives Ofcom the responsibility of enforcing those obligations. Ofcom has the power to fine the ISPs up to £250,000 if they fail to meet those obligations. Section 14
The act also provides for the cost allocation to be determined by a further statutory instrument. Section 15. To date, two draft statutory instruments have been laid before Parliament but neither has been passed into law.
Section 17 and 18 would have allowed copyright holders to apply to a court to obtain website blocking injunctions where "a substantial amount of material has been, is being or is likely to be made available in infringement of copyright", or where a location "facilitates" such behaviour. In deciding whether to grant an injunction, the court would have been required to consider:
Sections 17 and 18 would have had to be brought into force by a statutory instrument. However, following a review by Ofcom,[6] they were repealed on the basis that copyright holders already had the ability to use Section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act to take court action against websites.
Other provisions in the act include
.uk
The Digital Economy Act followed the Digital Britain report of 2009,[11] a policy document which outlined the United Kingdom Government's strategic vision for its digital economy. Lord Carter, Digital Britain minister, spent eight months considering the matter before releasing his final report in June 2009. The Digital Economy Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech on 18 November 2009 to the United Kingdom parliament.[12] The bill went through three readings in the House of Lords, before being presented to the House of Commons for its first reading on 16 March 2010.[13]
The general election was called on 6 April 2010, which meant that the Digital Economy Act was running out of Parliamentary time, as Parliament was dissolved on 8 April. The Digital Economy Bill went into what is called wash-up.[14] The wash-up is an accelerated parliamentary process used after general elections have been called to rush unopposed legislation through parliament before dissolution. This meant it was not debated at length in the Commons. In return for supporting the Digital Economy Bill in the final wash-up vote the Conservatives demanded the removal of Clause 43 which related to orphan works, copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be located, which had been criticised by photographers. Other clauses that were removed during wash-up included provisions for the funding of regional news consortia.[15] The bill received its second reading in the House of Commons on 6 April 2010.
There was support for the bill from both the governing Labour party and the opposition Conservatives.[16] It passed third reading on 7 April,[17] with Royal Assent granted on 8 April. The Act is in force, however the requirements for the sections relating to online piracy (ss.3–18) to have legal effect were never implemented.
Aspects of the proposed Act which were strongly criticised included:
There was also a high level of public activism and protest against the Act, in many forms. The Guardian reported that hundreds were expected to march outside the House of Commons on 24 March 2010.[27] Moreover, an estimated 12,000 people sent emails to their MPs, through the citizen advocacy organization 38 degrees. 38 degrees objected to the speed with which the bill was rushed through parliament, without proper debate, due to the imminent dissolution of parliament prior to a general election.[27] In October 2009 TalkTalk launched its Don't Disconnect Us campaign asking people to sign a petition against the proposal to cut off the internet connections of those accused of unauthorized file sharing.[28] By November 2009 the petition had almost 17,000 signatories[29] and by December had reached over 30,000.[30] The Pirate Party in the UK called for non-commercial file sharing to be legalized. Formed in 2009 and intending to enter candidates in the 2010 UK general election, the Pirate Party advocates reform to copyright and patent laws and a reduction in government surveillance.[31]
The provisions relating to copyright infringement and especially technical measures were highly controversial and were criticised by digital rights campaigners. The Open Rights Group, a privacy and digital rights organisation, took their concerns to the House of Lords.[32] Concerns were raised about the impact on businesses offering Internet access to their customers, such as libraries and universities.[33] Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the bill "an utter disgrace. This is an attack on everyone's right to communicate, work and gain an education". He said that "politicians have shown themselves to be incompetent and completely out of touch with an entire generation's values".[15]
38 Degrees, who worked with the Open Rights Group to mobilise opposition to the Act, state that over 22,000 people have emailed their MPs through their web site. 38 Degrees have also raised over £20,000 in donations to fund newspaper advertisements against the bill.[34] More than 35,000 people signed a Number 10 petition,[35] started by Andrew Heaney at ISP TalkTalk, objecting to being disconnected without fair trial. Over 100 people protested outside Parliament on 24 March 2010, including Labour MPs Tom Watson and John Grogan, Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate Bridget Fox, and writer and activist Cory Doctorow.[36][37]
TalkTalk, Britain's second-largest ISP, has been a vociferous critic of the act. They opposed it from its earliest stages by staging media events,[38] declaring that they would fight against the new laws in court, and commissioning research to demonstrate that music fans would simply transition to other, non-P2P tools (such as "applications which scan thousands of internet radio stations and download the desired tracks").[39] TalkTalk have also argued that the requirement in Ofcom's draft code of conduct that only ISPs with 400,000 customers or more would initially be subject to the Act "could [lead to] huge swathes of customers moving to smaller ISPs to avoid detection". BT said that they felt compelled to act "for our customers who otherwise run the risk of being treated unfairly".[citation needed]
The Pirate Party UK were strongly opposed to it.[40] The Green Party, whose Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) sit with the two Swedish Pirate Party MEPs in the same group, opposed the bill. "The Digital Economy Bill is deeply flawed and illiberal...Any Green MPs will provide a rallying point for opposition to the Digital Economy Bill."[41] The Liberal Democrats opposed the parts that relate to the blocking of people's Internet connections.[42] These parts were later dropped by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government (see below).[43]
The Secretary of State Lord Mandelson was widely believed to be responsible for the copyright infringement provisions that would see the disconnection of internet subscribers. The Independent reported that according their Whitehall sources Lord Mandelson was persuaded that tough law were needed to reduce online copyright infringement following an intensive lobbying campaign by influential people in the music and film industry.[44]
It was also reported that there had been a meeting with DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen at the Rothschild family villa on the Greek island of Corfu. Lord Mandelson's spokesperson claimed that there had been no discussion of internet piracy during the Corfu dinner and suggested that the decision to reverse Lord Carter's findings had been taken in late July before the trip. The Times reported after the Corfu meeting that an unnamed Whitehall source had confirmed that before this trip, Mandelson had shown little personal interest in the Digital Britain agenda, which has been ongoing for several years. According to The Times, Mandelson returned from holiday and effectively issued an edict that the regulation needs to be tougher.[45] At the time Mandelson denied that the two events were linked.
In August 2011 a Freedom of Information (FOI) request showed that Lord Mandelson had decided to approve the inclusion of technical measures, such as the disconnection of internet access, some time before public consultation had finished. Letters from Lord Mandelson's office document talks with Lucian Grainge, CEO of Universal Music Group on 2 July 2009, and that on the following day Lord Mandelson advised Lord Carter about the "possibility of [the Secretary of State] having a power to direct Ofcom to go directly to introduce technical measures". The government made an announcement that disconnection, was being considered for inclusion in the Digital Economy Bill on 25 August 2009.[46][47]
The Design and Artists Copyright Society and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies support the orphan works provision.[48] The Community Media Association supports the Act for the radio clauses stated to bring significant benefits to the community broadcasting sector as FM spectrum becomes available following digital radio switchover.[49] Attitudes of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) towards the copyright infringement provisions in the bill were mixed. In interviews with ISPs by TechRadar, Virgin Media said that they shared the commitment to address copyright infringement, but that persuasion not coercion is the key; a heavy-handed, punitive regime would simply alienate Internet users. Sky, which is both an ISP and a content provider, was supportive of the government's commitment to underpin the fight against illegal file sharing through legislation, but not directly of the "website banning" proposal.[50][51][dead link]
Following calls by citizens to repeal all or part of the Digital Economy Act on the Your Freedom website,[52] the government asked Ofcom in February 2011 to review whether sections 17 and 18 of the act on website blocking are technically workable.[53]
Following the review by Ofcom, the government announced on 3 August 2011, that sections 17 and 18 of the act were to be dropped as they were not practically enforceable, and also as the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 had been successfully used to block access to a website on the grounds of copyright infringement.[43][54]
In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request Ofcom disclosed that it had spent £1.8 million in the 2011/12 financial year on the implementation of the online copyright infringement provisions, section 3 to 16 of the Digital Economy Act, and the site blocking provisions, section 17 and 18. Ofcom planned to spend another £4.0 million in 2012/13. These figures include £100,000 spent on reviewing the technical workability of section 17 and 18, a review commissioned by the Government in February 2011. According to Ofcom the Digital Economy Act provides that internet service providers and copyright owners bear the cost of section 3 to 16, including the cost to Ofcom and an appeals body. They are also liable to pay Ofcom's cost incurred prior to actual implementation. However, Ofcom notes that the April 2011 ruling by the High Court on the judicial review of the online copyright infringement provisions provides that internet service providers are not liable to pay towards Ofcom' cost or that of an appeals body.[55]
On 8 July 2010 TalkTalk were joined by BT, Britain's biggest ISP, in seeking a judicial review of the Act on the grounds of it receiving "insufficient scrutiny" and having the potential to "harm citizens and impact both businesses".[56] They questioned whether the provisions were proportionate, respected privacy law, complied with EU law on ISP liability, and suggested that they would hinder a single European market in telecommunications services.[57]
The High Court of Justice granted the review permission on 10 November 2010.[58] Mr Justice Kenneth Parker ruled in favour of the government on 20 April 2011.[59] BT and TalkTalk appealed the ruling, however their appeal was dismissed. [60][61]
On 10 November 2010, the same day as the judicial review, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Parliament announced an inquiry into the act. The inquiry will consider "the implementation, practicality and likely effectiveness of the relevant measures contained in the act", and "the scope for additional and new approaches to ensure that original work is appropriately rewarded in online".[62]
This legislation was updated by the Digital Economy Act 2017, which updates the anti-infringement provisions of existing laws, creates or updates criminal copyright breach provisions, and provides for a wider range of sentencing for criminal infringement.
{{cite web}}
Artikel ini sebatang kara, artinya tidak ada artikel lain yang memiliki pranala balik ke halaman ini.Bantulah menambah pranala ke artikel ini dari artikel yang berhubungan atau coba peralatan pencari pranala.Tag ini diberikan pada Februari 2023. Heterachthes w-notatus Klasifikasi ilmiah Kerajaan: Animalia Filum: Arthropoda Kelas: Insecta Ordo: Coleoptera Famili: Cerambycidae Genus: Heterachthes Spesies: Heterachthes w-notatus Heterachthes w-notatus adalah spesies kumbang tanduk panjang yang bera…
Estonian footballer Signy Aarna Playing for Estonia in 2009Personal informationFull name Signy AarnaDate of birth (1990-10-04) 4 October 1990 (age 33)Place of birth Ahja, Põlva County, EstoniaHeight 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in)[1]Position(s) ForwardTeam informationCurrent team Åland UnitedNumber 7Youth career2002 Ahja Sipelgas2003–2008 Põlva FC LootosSenior career*Years Team Apps (Gls)2008–2013 Põlva FC Lootos 111 (153)2014–2017 Pallokissat 90 (45)2018– Åland Unite…
Slovak former competitive figure skater (born 1995) Monika SimančíkováSimančíková in 2012Born (1995-08-14) 14 August 1995 (age 28)Piešťany, SlovakiaHometownPiešťanyHeight1.65 m (5 ft 5 in)Figure skating careerCountrySlovakiaCoachVladimir Dvojnikov, Karel FajfrSkating clubTJ AKO PiešťanyBegan skating1999Retired2014 Medal record Women's figure skating Representing Slovakia European Youth Olympic Winter Festival 2011 Liberec Girls' Monika Simančíková (born 1…
This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (August 2021) Storytelling and oral history Part of a series onAfrican Americans History Periods Timeline Atlantic slave trade Abolitionism in the United States Slavery in the colonial history of the United States Revolutionary War Antebellum period Slavery and military history during the Civil War Recon…
ЕнкканжHinckange Країна Франція Регіон Гранд-Ест Департамент Мозель Округ Форбак-Буле-Мозель Кантон Буле-Мозель Код INSEE 57326 Поштові індекси 57220 Координати 49°11′26″ пн. ш. 6°26′49″ сх. д.H G O Висота 200 - 302 м.н.р.м. Площа 6,07 км² Населення 336 (01-2020[1]) Густота 50,25
1980 painting by David Inshaw The River Bank (Ophelia), David Inshaw, 140 cm × 120 cm (55 in × 47 in), Victoria Art Gallery The River Bank (Ophelia) is a 1980 painting by the English painter David Inshaw. The subject is from William Shakespeare's play Hamlet. It was made for a joint exhibition of the Brotherhood of Ruralists, where each artist made his own interpretation of the subject. Since 2015 it belongs to the Victoria Art Gallery in Bath, Somerset. Descripti…
Расінг — термін, який має кілька значень. Ця сторінка значень містить посилання на статті про кожне з них.Якщо ви потрапили сюди за внутрішнім посиланням, будь ласка, поверніться та виправте його так, щоб воно вказувало безпосередньо на потрібну статтю.@ пошук посилань сам
هذه المقالة يتيمة إذ تصل إليها مقالات أخرى قليلة جدًا. فضلًا، ساعد بإضافة وصلة إليها في مقالات متعلقة بها. (يوليو 2019) ألان فولكس معلومات شخصية الميلاد 8 أغسطس 1958 (65 سنة) براولي، إمبيريال، كاليفورنيا مواطنة الولايات المتحدة الحياة العملية المهنة لاعب كرة قاعدة …
ابتهال كاصد الزيدي معلومات شخصية الميلاد سنة 1965 (العمر 57–58 سنة) الكاظمية مواطنة العراق الحياة العملية المدرسة الأم جامعة بغداد المهنة بروفيسورة، وسياسية موظفة في جامعة بغداد تعديل مصدري - تعديل الدكتورة ابتهال كاصد ياسر حسين الزيدي هي سياسية عر…
Hilde Domin, geborene Hildegard Dina Löwenstein, verheiratete Hilde Palm (geboren am 27. Juli 1909 in Köln; gestorben am 22. Februar 2006 in Heidelberg), war eine deutsch-jüdische Schriftstellerin, dabei aber erklärtermaßen nicht jüdischen Glaubens.[1] Sie war vor allem als Lyrikerin bekannt und eine bedeutende Vertreterin des „ungereimten Gedichts“. Nach ihrem Exil in der Dominikanischen Republik, der Domin ihren Künstlernamen entlehnte, lebte sie von 1961 an in Heidelberg. I…
Corvo-do-paraíso-de-halmaera Estado de conservação Pouco preocupante (IUCN 3.1) [1] Classificação científica Reino: Animalia Filo: Chordata Classe: Aves Ordem: Passeriformes Família: Paradisaeidae Género: Lycocorax Espécie: L. pyrrhopterus Nome binomial Lycocorax pyrrhopterus(Bonaparte, 1850) O corvo-do-paraíso-halmaera (Lycocorax pyrrhopterus)[2] é uma ave-do-paraíso semelhante a um corvo de tamanho médio. Uma das poucas aves-do-paraíso monogâmicas, este corvo-do-paraíso é end
Harry S. Truman, Presiden Amerika Serikat, 1945-53 Doktrin Truman adalah kebijakan yang ditetapkan oleh Presiden AS Harry S. Truman pada 12 Maret 1947 yang menyatakan bahwa AS akan mendukung Yunani dan Turki dengan bantuan ekonomi dan militer untuk mencegah mereka jatuh ke dalam lingkup Soviet.[1] Truman menyatakan bahwa doctrine kebijakan Amerika Serikat untuk mendukung masyarakat bebas yang melawan mencoba penaklukan oleh minoritas bersenjata atau oleh tekanan luar. Truman beralasan, k…
Sapsan (bahasa Ukraina : «Оперативно-тактичний ракетний комплекс« Сапсан » ) adalah sistem rudal balistik jarak pendek Ukrania yang sedang dikembangkan oleh Yuzhnoye Design Office dan A.M. Makarov Southern Machine-Building Plant untuk Angkatan Bersenjata Ukraina.[1] Sapsan harus menggabungkan fitur sistem rudal taktis dan beberapa peluncur roket. Kisaran rudal yang disebutkan hingga 280 kilometer. Referensi ^ Kyiv Post (28 Januar…
MancasanDesaKantor Desa MancasanPeta lokasi Desa MancasanNegara IndonesiaProvinsiJawa TengahKabupatenSukoharjoKecamatanBakiKode pos57556Kode Kemendagri33.11.10.2002 Luas... km²Jumlah penduduk... jiwaKepadatan... jiwa/km² Mancasan adalah desa di kecamatan Baki, Sukoharjo, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Desa ini merupakan desa yang begitu dikenal luas oleh masyarakat Kota Solo dan sekitarnya, terutama dalam sentra produsen/Kerajinan Gitar.[1], bahkan penjualannya pun tembus ke mancanegara.…
Tatsuno KingoTatsuno KingoLahir(1854-10-13)13 Oktober 1854Karatsu, Prefektur Saga, JepangMeninggal25 Maret 1919(1919-03-25) (umur 64)Tokyo, JepangKebangsaanJepangAlmamaterKolese Teknik Kekaisaran, Universitas LondonPekerjaanArsitekGedungStasiun Tokyo 1914 Dalam nama Jepang ini, nama keluarganya adalah Tatsuno. Tatsuno Kingo (辰野 金吾code: ja is deprecated , 13 Oktober 1854 – 25 Maret 1919) adalah seorang arsitek asal Jepang kelahiran Karatsu, Prefektur Saga, Kyushu. Tat…
Vui lòng đọc trước khi bạn cập nhật các bảng: Chỉ tỷ số kết thúc: Quan trọng nhất, đảm bảo điểm số cuối cùng. Không cập nhật dựa trên trò chơi mà vẫn đang tiếp diễn. Cả hai đội: Cập nhật các bản ghi của cả hai đội (không chỉ là chiến thắng hoặc đội bạn hỗ trợ). Mỗi cột: Cập nhật mỗi cột (không chỉ Đ). Hãy chú ý đến GF, GA, và GD (lỗi này sẽ rất khó phát hiện). Vị …
American novelist (1936–2021) Larry McMurtryAuthor photo on the book jacket of his novel The Last Picture Show, 1966BornLarry Jeff McMurtry(1936-06-03)June 3, 1936Archer City, Texas, U.S.DiedMarch 25, 2021(2021-03-25) (aged 84)Archer City, Texas, U.S.OccupationNovelistscreenwriteressayistantiquarian booksellerEducation University of North Texas (BA) Rice University (MA) Years active1961–2021 Larry Jeff McMurtry (June 3, 1936 – March 25, 2021) was a prolific American …
Fiction genre This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (March 2022) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable s…
Manipulation of sand to create animation Sand animation performing A Ukrainian film, Кіт та півнек (Cat and Rooster), created using sand animation on glass. Sand animation is the manipulation of sand to create animation. In performance art an artist creates a series of images using sand, a process which is achieved by applying sand to a surface and then rendering images by drawing lines and figures in the sand with one's hands. A sand animation performer will often use the aid of an o…
1980 film by Navodaya Appachan TheekkadalPosterDirected byNavodaya AppachanWritten byFazilScreenplay byFazilProduced byNavodaya AppachanStarringPrem NazirMadhuSukumaranSrividyaCinematographyAnandakuttanMusic byGuna SinghProductioncompanyNavodaya StudioRelease date 3 April 1980 (1980-04-03) CountryIndiaLanguageMalayalam Theekkadal is a 1980 Indian Malayalam-language film directed and produced by Navodaya Appachan under Navodaya Studio. The film stars Prem Nazir, Madhu, Sukumaran an…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.15.149.82