The controversial Digital Economy Act (DEA) has passed a judicial review, and thousands of Internet users suspected of illegal downloads will get warning letters, as objections by service providers BT and TalkTalk have been dismissed in court.
The ISPs argued in court that the DEA was disproportionate, that it infringed users’ basic rights, and had not had enough parliamentary discussion, when it passed just before last year’s election. All but one of their objections were over-ruled in London’s high court, and the ISPs have said they will appeal.
The judge, Justice Kenneth Parker, ruled that Parliament had not over-stepped the mark, that the Act was proportionate, and that it was in line with European law. He did identify issues with the cost of implementing it, with ISPs currently expected to pay 25 percent of policing file-sharing breaches.
“Protecting our customers is our number one priority and we will consider our options once we have fully understood the implications for our customers and businesses,” said a statement from BT. “This was always about seeking clarity on certain points of law and we have to consider whether this judgment achieves these aims.”
“We’re disappointed that we were unsuccessful on most of the Judicial Review,” said a spokesman for TalkTalk.
Copyright owners in Britain have claimed they are losing up to £400 million a year because people can get away with file-sharing, but campaigners continue to dispute this.
“It is important to remember that this is not a judgement on whether the Digital Economy Act is good public policy,” said Peter Bradwell, campaigner at the Open Rights Group. “We still believe that if enacted the Act will hurt people’s privacy and access to the Internet for no proven gain. We hope that BT and TalkTalk will appeal and we will support them if they do.”
BT and TalkTalk began their legal challenge in July 2010, and were granted a judicial review in November.
Good news for creditors. CEO John Ray III says bankrupt crypto exchange FTX will be…
Chip giants Intel and Qualcomm complain of sales impact after United States revokes some of…
Using the Digital Services Act, European Commission asks X (formerly Twitter) for details over reduction…
Payroll records of nearly all members of the UK's armed forces have been exposed, reportedly…
Updates arrive for two iPad models (iPad Air and iPad Pro) as well as some…
US government sued by TikTok in bid to block law that will force sale of…
View Comments
Expect to see more companies like ACS:Law being set up to pursue for £000s, as this effectively clears the way for this to happen.
Whatever happend to the "Human Rights Act"?
I expect we'll see a reaction from Anonymous soon enough.
the complaints are valid. however the reality is that about 90% of the people who download these contents are people who will never spend a penny on this stuff even if these alternative channels are not available. The rest are the ones who try it and end up buying a legit copy because they like the game. No one really wants to waste money one a crappy game and having these alternative channel is a safe way for people to try it without limitations. The other fact that these complaints over look is that, it's free publicity. There is some portion of their sales that is a direct result of some one seeing their friends playing these game and decide to get it. The smart solution is to encourage player to migrate to a legit copy and not try to shut down these alternative channel, because in doing so you are basically shooting yourself in the foot.