W1 Insight

Don’t get me wrong, I do think people should be properly paid for what is theirs, but this Act has been flawed from the start with too much given to holders of IP and copyrights. It is currently the subject of a judicial review and earlier this week the LSE’s Bart Cammaerts and Bingchun Meng claimed the Act “gets the balance between copyright enforcement and innovation wrong” and that it will “stifle innovation” in the content industry.

Cammaerts and Meng say in their blog the Act is weighted too heavily in favour of copyright holders against ISPs, users and new entrants to the industry, and advise the music industry to “innovate and actively reconnect” – not treat people like criminals. They also question whether filesharing is the key reason for declining profitability, suggesting that the music industry should focus on finding other ways to make money instead of “actively monitoring the online behaviour of UK citizens”.

To boot, The Open Rights Group (ORG) have also weighed in, submitting a ‘friend of the court’ brief to the High Court ahead of the judicial review hearing, arguing that “the act will undermine vital public Wi-Fi provision, makes it likely that people’s sensitive personal information will be exposed, presumes people are guilty of infringement without good proof, and is reliant on insufficient evidence of wrongdoing”.

The judicial review hearing itself began yesterday, at the request of BT and TalkTalk, who claim the Act is not EU law compliant and that the enforcement process is fundamentally flawed.

In my view this Act need to be redrafted. The balance needs to be re-addressed between the IP/copyright holder, the ISP and the end user, and reflect how IP addresses actually work. The mediaCAT case highlights precisely why.