The Digital Economy Act

Template:Use dmy dates Template:AboutTemplate:Short descriptionTemplate:Infobox UK legislation The Digital Economy Act 2017 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is substantially different from, and shorter than, the Digital Economy Act 2010, whose provisions largely ended up not being passed into law. The act addresses policy issues related to electronic communications infrastructure and services, and updates the conditions for and sentencing of criminal copyright infringement. It was introduced to Parliament by culture secretary John Whittingdale on 5 July 2016. Whittingdale was replaced as culture secretary by Karen Bradley on 14 July 2016. The act received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Provisions

The provisions of the act include:

• Allowing data sharing between government departments in order to provide Digital Government.<ref name=Rigg/>
• Creating an age-verification regulator to publish guidelines about how pornographic websites which operate "on a commercial basis" should ensure their users are aged 18 or older.<ref name=Perrigo>Template:Cite magazine</ref> The regulator is empowered to fine those who fail to comply up to £250,000 (or up to 5% of their turnover), to order the blocking of non-compliant websites, and to require those providing financial or advertising services to non-compliant websites to cease doing so.<ref name=Rigg/> The regulator's proposals have to be approved three months before coming into effect.<ref name=Perrigo/> The BBFC has been commissioned to fulfil the regulatory role.<ref name=Burton>Template:Cite news</ref> Age-verification was expected to begin in 2018<ref name=Kleinmann>Template:Cite news</ref><ref name=delay>Template:Cite news</ref> but has been delayed until spring 2019.<ref name=Matthews-King>Template:Cite newspaper</ref>
• Requiring Internet service providers to use Internet filters to block all websites that have adult content, unless customers have opted out.<ref name=Rigg/>
• Introducing a Universal Service Obligation which allows users to request broadband speeds of at least 10 Mbps. The obligation is to be introduced by 2020, and Ofcom are empowered to subsequently increase the minimum broadband speed requirement.<ref name=Rigg>Template:Cite news</ref>
• Requiring Internet service providers to provide compensation to customers if service requirements are not met.<ref name=Beeb1/>
• Allowing Ofcom, the communications sector's regulator, to financially penalise communications providers for failing to comply with licence commitments.<ref name=Beeb1>Template:Cite news</ref>
• Requiring mobile telephony providers to offer a contract cap to customers limiting monthly spending to an agreed figure.<ref name=Rigg/>
• Providing for increased penalties for nuisance calls.<ref name=Beeb1/>
• Updating the Ofcom Electronic Communications Code to make it easier for telecommunications companies to erect and extend mobile masts.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
• Extending Public Lending Right to remotely lent e-books<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> (section 31 of the Act).
• Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to raise the maximum sentence for Internet copyright infringement to 10 years in prison,<ref name=Rigg/> and allowing English and Welsh courts a greater range of sentencing options in such cases.<ref name=Beeb1/>
• Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to allow public service broadcasters to charge retransmission fees.<ref name=Rigg/>
• Giving Ofcom oversight of the BBC<ref name=Beeb1/> as its external regulator.<ref name=Rigg/>
• Empowering Ofcom to require public service broadcasters to include a minimum quantity of children's programming made in the United Kingdom.<ref name=Rigg/>

Timetable

The bill completed its passage through the House of Commons during the Autumn of 2016. It then moved to the House of Lords. Royal Assent was achieved by the end of Spring 2017.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> The final stages of the legislative process occurred during the wash-up period before the 2017 general election, as was the case with the Digital Economy Act 2010 which completed its course through parliament during the wash-up before the 2010 general election.<ref name=Fiveash>Template:Cite news</ref>

Amendments

• An amendment to the bill making it an offence to use "digital purchasing software" to purchase an excessive number of event tickets for ticket resale<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> was withdrawn at the committee stage.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> However, a subsequent amendment giving the government the power to create a new criminal offence of using Internet bots to bypass limits on maximum ticket purchases set by event organisers was included in the final bill, with offenders potentially subject to unlimited fines,<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> and this came into force in July 2018.<ref>Template:Cite newspaper</ref>
• An amendment to the bill was put forward making it an offence to publish or host on-line footage or photographs in cases where the distributors "knew or ought to have known" that it "involved exploited persons". The amendment was subsequently withdrawn.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
• An amendment to the bill was tabled clarifying the employment rights of workers employed via a digital service such as Uber.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
• An amendment to the bill was tabled by the shadow minister for digital economy Louise Haigh, extending the legal obligation on television broadcasters to include subtitles, sign language and audio description when providing video on demand.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> A government amendment to the same effect was subsequently published by the minister responsible for digital policy Matthew Hancock<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> and became part of the act.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
• An amendment requiring the universal prominence of public service broadcasters in digital television electronic program guides was modified so that the act as passed requires Ofcom to report in 2020 on how such prominence can be ensured in the context of greater on-demand viewing.<ref name=Rigg/>
• In October 2016 a clause entitled: "Power to provide for a code of practice related to copyright infringement" was proposed after a lobbying campaign led by copyright holders.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> The amendment would have required search engines to de-list sites linked to piracy from their search results. It would also have granted the government powers to investigate and sanction search engine operators for failure to comply.<ref name="Burton"/> The clause was not included in the final act.<ref name=Rigg/>
• In November 2016, following pressure from MPs, the government proposed<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> an amendment to the bill<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> to allow the age verification regulator to require internet service providers to block pornographic websites that do not offer age verification.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> As the BBFC were expected to become the regulator, this caused discussion about ISPs being required to block content that is prohibited even under an R18 certificate,<ref name="Ars 2016-11-24">Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="Guardian 2016-11-23">Template:Cite news</ref> the prohibition of some of which is itself controversial.<ref name="Guardian 2016-11-23"/>
• An amendment in the House of Lords raising the Universal Service Obligation for broadband to 30 Mbps was abandoned as being too ambitious.<ref name=Rigg/>

Although privacy and technical safeguards for the sharing of citizens' data are not included in the act, the government stated that it intended to publish codes of practice following a public consultation.<ref name=Fiveash/> The consultation took place in the Autumn of 2017.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Reaction

The Open Rights Group (ORG), a digital rights campaigning organisation, raised concerns over aspects of the Bill. The provisions for the age verification of pornographic website users raised concerns about the privacy implications of collecting user data, and the possible ineffectiveness of a method focused on restricting payments to pornographic websites.<ref name=ORG2016>Template:Cite web</ref> Myles Jackman, ORG's legal director, highlighted the potential vulnerability of age verification systems to hacking, and suggested that it would result in more people using virtual private networks, or anonymous web browsers such as Tor.<ref name=Kleinmann/> A public consultation on the BBFC's draft guidance to age verification service providers began in March 2018.<ref name=delay/> The age verification provisions were due to come into effect in April 2018, were delayed until the end of 2018<ref name=Perrigo/> and then further delayed until spring 2019.<ref name=Matthews-King/>

The ORG also raised concerns over the risk of misuse of bulk data sharing.<ref name=ORG2016/> The provisions regarding copyright infringements were criticised for the vagueness of the definition and the severity of the maximum sentence (10 years in prison). BILETA, the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association, also criticised the proposal to increase maximum jail term in its submission to the Government's consultation. The proposal was described as 'unacceptable', 'unaffordable', and 'infeasible'.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> It has been suggested that this provision may be intended to dissuade users of technology such as Kodi software from downloading content that breaches copyright regulations.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

A number of expert witnesses to the Digital Economy Bill Committee expressed concerns about the bill. Jerry Fishenden, co-chair of the Cabinet Office’s Privacy and Consumer Advisory Group until he resigned in protest on 2 May 2017,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> expressed the opinion that the bill was based on an "obsolete" model of data sharing. He commented: "I find it surprising the bill doesn’t have definition of what data sharing is, both practically and legally… I’d like to see some precision around what’s meant by data sharing. The lack of detail is concerning." He also said that the bill "appears to weaken citizens’ control over their personal data", something that is "likely to undermine trust in government and make citizens less willing to share their personal data". Jeni Tennison, CEO of the Open Data Institute, commented on the lack of transparency regarding existing public sector data sharing agreements and how the bill's measures fit with them. She spoke of her belief that the bill lacks the transparency needed to avoid the kind of problems that arose with NHS Digital's abandoned Care.data programme. Mike Bracken, chief digital officer at the Co-operative Group and former head of the Government Digital Service, expressed the opinion that "the government relies on bulk data sets too often, instead of simply asking for the individual data set pertaining to the information needed". The civil liberties and privacy advocacy group Big Brother Watch told the committee said that bill overlooked the work of the Government Digital Service in setting up the GOV.UK Verify scheme, a model based on the government not centrally storing data.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

See also

• Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Further reading

• Romero-Moreno, F and Griffin, J (2016), "Criminal copyright proposals: are they appropriate in the information era?", in European Journal of Law and Technology, 25 September 2016