Guest post by Helen Milner, Managing Director, UK online centres
On 7 December, digital inclusion received the best possible present I could possibly have wished for it.
The Putting the Frontline First: Smarter Government report recognised the potential to reduce the cost of public services and improve the customer experience by moving the majority of provision online. It also acknowledged 100% online government had to mean 100% online citizens, and Gordon Brown announced £30m for UK online centres to get one million people online for the end of 2012.
It is thanks to the efforts of Champion for Digital Inclusion Martha Lane Fox that the issue gained both prominence and then financial backing from government, and the £30m will form one pillar of her wider Race Online 2012 initiative. She and I are both very clear that it is money for digital inclusion itself, via UK online centres. The vast majority of it will go directly to grassroots practitioners helping real people in real places make the most of technology.
It is, after all, at grassroots level where digital inclusion happens, and where it is made to reach the most deeply excluded – and it is at grassroots level where the credit crunch has bitten the hardest. £30m is a great boost to the sector, and will allow us to extend grassroots provision through a number of grant funding models, targeting areas and audiences to maximum effect.
To administer the process we’ll be taking on more central staff, and growing the UK online centres member network in areas of high deprivation or low provision. If you or your networks offer support and access to computers and the internet, we want to hear from you.
Alongside grant funding, we’ll also be investing in the marketing of digital inclusion – raising awareness of the benefits the internet can bring, the opportunities to get to grips with it, and the chance for everyone from individuals to corporations to Pass IT on. Again, there will be a clear focus at making this work from the bottom up, giving centres the materials, tools and support to run their own campaigns and drive their own new footfall.
Make no mistake, £30m for 1m online is a fantastic opportunity, but it is still also a challenge, and it will take the joint efforts of public, private and third sector partners in digital inclusion to distribute it, use it, and make it happen.
In the run up to Christmas I’ve been working with BIS colleagues on plans and practicalities, and when the New Year hits, I’ll be looking forward to working with more partners to make the money work its hardest. Please do get in touch at ukonlinecentres@ufi.com if you think you can play a part.
I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
(Download Power to amend copyright provisions: the details as a PDF)
Power to Amend Copyright Provisions: what is it?
This is clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill, which provides a limited capability to ‘future proof’ powers in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”) to deal with civil infringement of copyright online. It is not a power to make sweeping changes to the nature of copyright or to what constitutes copyright infringement for the purposes of Part 1 of the CDPA, as has been suggested.
Why is this clause needed?
Technology in this area moves fast and this clause will enable Government to move quickly and flexibly if the existing legislation is not able to provide adequate forms of redress for civil infringement of copyright that takes place online.
Elsewhere in the Digital Economy Bill we are legislating to create a framework to help rights holders take action against those unlawfully sharing material online via many to many services such as peer-to-peer (P2P) in a way that infringes copyright.
However unlawful file-sharing using P2P is not the only form of infringement which takes place on line. It is currently the most damaging but this may not always be the case. We need to be able to react far quicker to prevent or reduce widespread copyright infringement that is enabled by use of any new technologies in the future
Isn’t this a very wide power?
The power is quite restricted, both by limitations in the drafting of the clause itself, and by external limitations arising from the context in which the power operates, for example the requirement that the powers must be exercised consistently with human rights obligations and European legislation.
The wording of the clause requires that the power may only be used:
- to prevent or reduce copyright infringement on line if appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur
- to amend the CDPA in ways that do not create or amend any criminal offences
- following consultation
- by means of affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses
In addition to these limitations in the statute, the power may only be used in a way that is consistent with Convention Rights, with European Directives on subjects such as copyright protection, Internet Service Provider liability and privacy and in a way that is consistent with principles of administrative law.
For example, despite what some commentators have suggested, this power must be exercised consistently with the limitations imposed on general or specific monitoring of internet traffic in EU law.
As you can see, this power is not as broad as some commentators have attempted to claim. The limitation that the power may not amend any criminal offence in particular means that no alteration may be made to what constitutes copyright infringement subject to a criminal penalty, significantly restricting the uses to which this power could be put.
Does this give you a power to do things without parliamentary oversight or debate?
No, the Bill clearly requires a consultation followed by a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the power could be used to bring in secondary legislation.
For what is the power to be used?
We can envisage today some potential areas where this power could be required, for example to clarify or otherwise streamline the injunctive procedure available under section 97A (this section may offer rights holders a course of action for example against the use of certain website hosted services for copyright infringement, but has never to our knowledge been used). However, the point of this clause is to allow the Secretary of State to respond quickly to threats when they arise in the future. By their very nature we do not know precisely what those threats are today. That is why this power is drafted in general terms, with appropriate safeguards, so that it remains useful as technology and behaviours develop.
Background facts
The creative industries are a significant source of employment and national wealth creation, as well as delivering cultural and social benefits. They contribute 6.4% of GVA and have grown by an average of 4% over the past decade compared to 3% for the economy as a whole.
Creative industries have indicated they suffer considerable losses from unlawful peer-to-peer file- sharing. The BPI claims that unlawful file-sharing using P2P costs the UK music industry £180m pa (2008), while IPSOS gives a loss in the UK for TV and films of £152m (2007).
(Download Online infringement of copyright: the details as a PDF)
What is online infringement of copyright?
There are many forms of online infringement of copyright, including people unlawfully swapping copyrighted music or films with friends or unlawfully downloading copyrighted material from particular sites. The majority of the clauses in the Bill are particularly intended to tackle unlawful many-to-many file sharing also known as unlawful file-sharing on peer-to- peer (P2P). Details about copyright changes in the Bill are available in a separate factsheet.
How is it used?
P2P technology has many legitimate uses – providing opportunities and benefits to Internet users. For example, Linux open source software is shared this way, and the music streaming service Spotify is also based on P2P. Academic and research institutions use it to send very large files. It is not the intention to interfere with such use or to create barriers to the legitimate use of this technology. However, it does enable users to share information that they are not entitled to share – for example, by sharing software or audiovisual materials without permission, in breach of copyright law.
How does it work?
The software typically used in file-sharing was developed in order to allow people to make the most effective use of computer networks. Rather than relying on a central file server (people going to a common source which holds millions of files in one place), a P2P computer network has no central store of files. Instead, it uses a series of ad hoc connections between participants in a network and the cumulative bandwidth of network participants. This first took the form of a central file server which acted as “index” and introduced two users together (one with the content; the other seeking the content). This was the original “Napster” model (diagram 1). Later, the need for a central index was dropped and P2P networks became de-centralised (diagram 2). Such networks are used for many purposes – sharing files (i.e. file-sharing) containing audio, video, data or anything in digital format is very common, and real-time data, such as telephony traffic, is also passed using P2P technology.
The advantage of a P2P network is that all users provide resources, including bandwidth, storage space, and computing power. As additional users arrive, and demand on the system increases, the total capacity of the system also increases. This is not the same for client- server architecture with a fixed set of servers, where adding more clients could mean slower data transfer for all users. As there is no one central server, P2P networks are typically more robust. Furthermore, as individuals use a number of different connections to download the (same) information, this avoids bottlenecks.
Many of the most popular file-sharing sites (such as Limewire) use BitTorrentTM technology. This is a protocol (a set of rules and a description of how to do things) which allows users to download files by allowing those downloading the file to upload parts of it at the same time. It therefore works by downloading small bits of files from many different web sources at the same time.
A key feature of P2P file-sharing software commonly used in illicit file-sharing is that in order to participate and download files, the user is expected to make available the files on their computer. In other words, if you want to copy files from someone, then your own files should be equally available for others to copy. It is such reciprocal arrangements that enable P2P in illicit copyright to happen on the scale it does.
How do copyright owners detect copyright infringements?
It is also this feature which allows the rights holders to identify who is unlawfully copying material. The act of joining a P2P network and actively accessing copyrighted material for download provides them with the IP address of the up-loader. In order to take legal action against infringer uploading these files the rights holder needs to relate this IP address to an account holder and a physical UK address – the computer records held by the ISP can provide this information, and is obtainable via a court order. Under the Digital Economy Bill, this will not change – except that the Bill will enable rights holders to identify those account holders who have been identified by them as infringing most often (which they would not know from the IP address alone, since this is generally dynamic – it changes each time you log on).
It is not difficult to identify which Internet Service Provider (ISP) is responsible for the IP address (lists of who holds what batches of addresses are readily obtainable), and so this is not something that should exclude smaller rights holder organisations from entering the process. Under the provisions in the Bill, they will have to comply with the standard of evidence to be set out by the code, and to pay the flat fee for sending the notification, plus a share of the regulator’s costs.
Diagram 1
Central file-server acting only as index “introducing” two users to each other
Diagram 2
No central server. Each user (peer) will directly contact the other to source content.
Q&A
What’s the difference between uploaders and downloaders?
In this context, an uploader is someone who makes copyright material available for copying by others. A downloader is the person who takes a copy of that material. Doing so without permission of the copyright holder or their agent or under a specific copyright exception are breaches of copyright.
Why is the uploader the focus of the approach?
The way in which copyright owners find out about online copyright infringement is to go on- line and search for their material. As they know who is entitled to offer their content, they are able to identify unauthorised sources – this is the uploader. By downloading material from the uploader they are able to establish that it is their material and thereby gain evidence which can be used to identify the uploader. For the data transfer – the copying – to take place the uploader and downloader reveal their IP address to the other.
The only way to identify the downloader would be to offer material for copying (i.e. become the uploader). However, in doing so the copyright owner is arguably inciting such actions.
Doesn’t some P2P technology allow you to download and not upload?
It is possible to only download – although the default setting is to upload as you download. This is something many people are not aware of and so they may be unaware they are uploaders. It is possible to alter P2P settings and download only. However, most P2P facilities require upload and download.
What will be the effect on wi-fi or free wireless sites (e.g. Starbucks)?
Typically, such locations offer a limited amount of bandwidth, sufficient for e-mails or web browsing. They are not well suited for large-scale data transfer. Whether or not a provider of a public wi-fi network is a ’subscriber’ in the terms of the Bill and therefore subject to notifications, being put on the serious infringers’ list and potentially technical measures, will depend on whether they are receiving the internet access service as a ‘ communications provider ‘ within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 . We think that for some wi-fi hubs this will be the case but for others it may not, depending on the terms and conditions on which they take the service. What we can be clear about is that a subscriber with a personal account who simply allows others to use it by means of not securing it, is a subscriber for the purposes of the Bill.
Where a wi-fi provider is a subscriber they would receive the notification letters. This is because the file-sharer using the wireless connection would be using the IP address allocated to the wi-fi site. Our expectation is that if an organisation providing wi-fi started getting notification letters, they would take action to prevent users from accessing or using file-sharing sites. Software is freely available to block access to such sites. This would not prevent access to email or other core applications.
What is happening elsewhere in Europe?
France
France is introducing a “3 strikes” system (HADOPI3), whereby after two warnings internet access can be suspended for up to one year after a court ruling. During this period the subscriber is prohibited from transferring to another ISP. It is also an offence for a subscriber to have an unprotected wireless broadband connection. However, the French position is different to the UK. In France, copyright infringement is a criminal not civil offence.
Sweden
Sweden introduced new laws in April 2009 which are reported to have reversed a decline in music sales (both on-line and physical sales). The law now requires ISPs to hand over the personal data associated with an IP address if directed by a court. This allows copyright owners to take legal action against infringers. In addition, copyright owners undertook a successful legal action against “the Pirate Bay”. This is a Swedish based website strongly linked with unlawful copyright infringement.
European legislation – Amendment 1382
Following completion of the Conciliation Process, the European Parliament has voted to pass the Telecoms Package which included “Amendment 138”. This limits the ability of Member States to restrict internet access to individuals and requires certain safeguards, notably “a prior, fair and impartial procedure” and that “access to a judicial review has to be ‘effective and timely’”. Any measure must also be “appropriate, proportionate and necessary”.
We are satisfied that our proposals which involve multiple warnings and a robust and rapid route to an independent body backed up with access to a First Tier Tribunal is consistent with the Telecoms Package.
What’s stopping me from signing up with a non-UK ISP?
Several of the main UK ISPs are foreign-owned. However they all offer internet to subscribers in the UK and use UK infrastructure. As such, they will be bound by the obligations in the Bill and the underpinning code.
It is possible for a UK subscriber to sign up to a non-UK ISP who does not use UK infrastructure to deliver broadband via satellite. In theory, such a ISP would be caught by the obligation (they are an ISP offering services to a UK subscriber and would be responsible for allocating the IP address to that subscriber), in practice they could not be obliged to comply with the obligation. As a non-UK based company, Ofcom’s powers would not apply to them.
However, this is a small part of the market. It is (relatively) high cost and the bandwidth available to a subscriber is limited. Although it is possible to use such a service to file-share, the high cost and lower speed mean it is not currently regarded as a significant problem. Finally, the IP address allocated to the subscriber would not be identified as a UK one or one allocated to a UK company. Therefore, if an infringement was detected and linked to the IP address, the copyright owner would not identify it as a UK infringement and pursue it in the country in which the satellite ISP was based.
Notes
“Measures taken by Member States regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks shall respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.
Any of these measures regarding end-users’ access to or use of services and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.”
(Download Digital Radion Upgrade: The details as a PDF)
What are we trying to do?
The Digital Britain White Paper set out the Government’s ambition of achieving a Digital Radio Upgrade by the end of 2015. In order to meet this target, we want to achieve three things:
- To amend the licensing regime to allow for further renewals of analogue licences based on the provision of DAB services;
- To facilitate changes to the local multiplex map to improve DAB coverage; and
- To reduce the regulatory burden on local radio, giving it more freedom to invest in its digital future.
Details of the changes to digital radio in the Digital Economy Bill are included in a separate Digital Radio Factsheet.
We set out in the White Paper the criteria which must be met before a date for digital switchover can be nominated. These criteria require 50% of listening to be to digital, and DAB coverage to be comparable to FM. Ofcom and the BBC will produce reports that refer to these criteria, which the Secretary of State must consider before deciding on a date for switchover. Although 2015 is the target the Government and radio industry are focussed on, it is not included in the Bill as it will be the consumer-led criteria which will determine when the switchover takes place.
What is digital radio?
The principal benefit of digital radio is more effective use of spectrum which allows for more services on a single frequency. This is achieved by compressing the audio signal for a number of radio stations into a single radio frequency (multiplex) which is de-compressed and decoded by the digital receiver. A multiplex, which transmits the compressed radio signals in a given transmission area, can carry up to 10 stations along with data services. This provides listeners with more choice and more functionality.
Digital radio can also be broadcast via other digital services such as the internet and digital TV. However, none of these platforms are suitable as the primary distribution platform for radio, particularly as they were not designed to support reliable outdoor delivery and a significant proportion of radio is consumed ‘on the move’. In the UK, the technology adopted to provide portable digital radio is Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB), which is delivered via a number of multiplexes across the country. In addition to providing listeners with more radio stations, to cater for all interests and communities, DAB also offers better reception than AM, and in some cases FM, allows for easy tuning that finds stations at the push of a button, and provides more information with scrolling text, slide shows, and an electronic programme guide to plan your listening in advance.
How is radio currently licensed?
The BBC’s radio stations are regulated by the BBC Trust, under the terms of the BBC Charter and Agreement. Licensing the commercial and community sector is the responsibility of Ofcom. Ofcom awards national commercial licences by means of a cash- bid auction, while local commercial licences are judged on merit in what is known as a ‘beauty contest’. Both licences have been or can be renewed for 12 years subject to the provision of a simulcast, or substantially similar, service on a relevant DAB multiplex.
However, within these renewals Ofcom has only limited powers to revoke licences. In order to enforce the switchover date it will be necessary for Ofcom to terminate licences for analogue services, in effect creating a common end date for licences on the nominated date for digital switchover.
In respect of radio infrastructure, in the UK there are 2 national multiplexes (one commercially owned and one BBC) and 46 local commercial multiplexes. Ofcom award the frequencies for these commercial multiplexes and license and regulate them with the statutory aim of securing a range of services from a number of providers to meet the diverse needs of listeners.
The UK local multiplex map requires a “re-design” to improve DAB coverage as, firstly, in some areas multiplex capacity is greater than the demand from broadcasters and, secondly, there are parts of the country still not covered by a local DAB multiplex, which cannot be filled by licensing a new multiplex.
Details on how the Digital Economy Bill will address these limitations to current licensing regimes are found in the separate Digital Radio Factsheet.
What are we doing to minimise the impact on listeners?
Listeners’ ability to move to digital is an important consideration in the switchover. DAB receivers are already easy to use and affordable with the cheapest sets available from about £25. The Government welcomes manufacturers’ commitment for sub-£20 sets in the next two years and is looking closely at market opportunities for a ‘set-top box’ solution for analogue radio which would allow existing analogue radio sets to receive DAB.
To ensure that future policies take account of the wide range of listener needs we have invited the Consumer Expert Group, which brought together key consumer representatives to inform the Digital TV switchover process, to extend its scope to cover radio. In addition, we will conduct a full Impact Assessment, the results of which will help determine whether there is a case for a Digital Radio Help Scheme and, if so, what might be its scope.
How do car radios fit into this?
The Government is working with car manufacturers, with the aim that vehicles sold with a radio are digitally enabled by 2013. For cars with analogue radios, we believe the price of DAB sets will fall, but also “set-top” FM converters should become more widely available and be included in devices such as satellite navigation systems.
(Download Public lending right as a PDF)
What is our ambition?
To give libraries the authority to legally lend books in digital formats by exempting libraries from certain aspect of copyright law, removing the need for libraries to negotiate individual contracts with publishers. The changes also extend eligibility for compensation under PLR to rights holders of non-print book formats, including authors, narrators and producers.
What is Public Lending Right?
PLR payment is a small amount of funding paid directly to authors as recognition for the loan of their books by public libraries. The legislation also allows public libraries to lawfully loan books by exempting them from certain copyright legislation. Currently only printed books can be registered for Public Lending Right (PLR) payment.
What are the changes?
The clause in the Bill responds to and reflects the changing nature of book publishing and the increasing demand for the loan of books in formats other than print by extending the eligibility for PLR to non-print books, extending PLR to lending rights holders in respect of these non-print works and expanding the definition of a ‘loan’ by a library to include digital media loans. (Non-print formats will include CDs, tapes and downloads of e-books and audiobooks.)
Why are the changes needed?
PLR legislation needs to be amended to reflect the growing market for books in non-print formats such as audio and e-books and allow libraries to keep pace with digital technology. We want libraries to be best-placed to meet consumer demand for books in these formats, but only authors of printed and bound books currently receive PLR payments. There is no coordinated compensation for creators of non-print books. Instead, they must negotiate compensation for their lending rights independently with the 210 library authorities in the UK – a complex and time-consuming process. It is possible that contracts currently negotiated between libraries and publishers for the loans of non print books do not protect libraries from legal challenges in respect of authors’ lending rights. We believe that digital lending will encourage access by new users especially children and young people, and continue to attract them to the literature and information which libraries hold.
What are the benefits to business?
The changes will smooth the process of digital lending for libraries (within the library premises) and remove the need for libraries to negotiate individual contracts with publishers. This is therefore likely to encourage digital lending. If rights holders are being compensated through PLR the guaranteed source of income might incentivise creators to enter the market who would otherwise be put off by the complexity of licensing negotiations. This could in turn encourage investment in product development and, as more titles become available in more and newer formats (e.g. on CD, as digital download within the library or loaded and loaned on hardware etc), demand for this material in libraries could increase, stimulating increased sales.
What are the benefits to consumers and citizens?
If sales are stimulated as a result of extending PLR to these new formats and rights holders, the choice of material available to library users will improve. This could particularly benefit visually impaired people, 62% of whom, according to a survey conducted in 2001, prefer to ‘read’ fiction as an audiobook over other book formats, e.g. Braille.
What about publishers?
We do not believe that extending PLR to books in digital formats will undermine the ability of publishers to extract revenues through bookselling. PLR will only be extended to audiobook and e-book files downloaded within library premises. Libraries will be able to continue to make their own arrangements if they want to provide digital library services to the home. There may also be sales opportunities for publishers that partner with libraries providing digital lending.
What about illegal copying of digital files borrowed from libraries?
Digital lending will be restricted to one loan to one user per copy of the work held by the library and will be for a limited period only. Digital Rights Management will be an important factor and obligations around DRM will need to be defined in secondary legislation. Publishers will have a significant role in ensuring that digital content is secure.
