• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

New UK Code Pulls ISPs into the Anti-Piracy Battle

June 22, 2012 by Nora Sleeth (IPilogue Editor)

The UK will likely be implementing new anti-piracy measures through the publication of a new code this month.

In 2010, the passing of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) mandated that communication regulator Ofcom publish a code of practice procedure for Internet service providers (ISPs) aiming to combat illegal file sharing. After numerous delays, the UK government has announced that the code is expected to be passed before the end of June. The code would require ISPs to send notifications to users engaging in copyright infringement. Further, ISPs would have to maintain a record of infringing users. Copyright holders will be able to access this list and pursue legal action against infringers. Individuals accused of infringement will be able to appeal their notification letter to an independent appeal body.

The delay in the code’s publication is at least partially due to opposition by ISPs. ISPs claimed that the code would violate EU laws on privacy and data protection; however, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected these claims.

The Ofcom code illustrates the need for a broad, multi-faceted approach to copyright infringement and online piracy. Just as new technologies have created new avenues for piracy, the law must respond in new ways. This inevitably means exploring new anti-piracy measures that would not have been considered and likely did not exist in the past. ISPs, as intermediaries, would ordinarily not be subject to anti-piracy measures; however, the communal nature of the Internet has changed many aspects of the traditional copyright approach.

An approach that aims to address the involvement of ISPs is only one aspect of a successful anti-piracy strategy. There is no single method broad enough to target all elements of Internet piracy. While the Ofcom code’s involvement of ISPs is one way to target intermediaries, other factors contributing to or affecting piracy must also be considered. For example, online advertising has been targeted to prevent the appearance of advertisements promoting pirating sites. Furthermore, cooperation with payment facilitators such as Visa and Mastercard has been cited as a means of terminating payment to illegal websites.

A key issue for intermediaries that is highly relevant to ISPs is that of knowledge. It is essential that ISPs have in place measures to assist in the identification of Internet piracy when it occurs. This is reflected in the Ofcom code through the requirement that ISPs make note of the alleged infringements and the notifications that are sent. Awareness of the occurrence of piracy allows ISPs and other intermediaries to develop better strategies that can subsequently work in conjunction with various approaches to create a multifaceted piracy policy.

Nora Sleeth is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. 

Posted in Copyright, Internet, Privacy, Secondary (ISP) Liability, UK

One Response to “New UK Code Pulls ISPs into the Anti-Piracy Battle”

  1. Byron Tse (IPilogue Editor), on June 22, 2012 at 12:37 pm Said:

    I think that ISPs have an extremely vital role in assisting the battle against copyright infringement. I agree that while this may come at the cost of violating EU policies on privacy and data protection, the protection of intellectual property rights would be a valuable counter-benefit. The line, though, ought to be drawn there at knowledge and assistance, and not culpability. The idea of holding ISPs responsible for allowing their users access to websites that violate copyrights (such as The Pirate Bay) is simply too far. ISPs cannot be expected to monitor the entirety of the Internet, searching for domains that may lead its users to engage to illegal activity.

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Whose Copyright Reigns Supreme? Copyright and Reality Television Shows | Business Names Are Trademarks Made Unregistrable by Morality »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Dezso Farkas on Law, Culture, Critique
  • Anand Misir on Implications and Meaning of a Perpetual Licence
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Taking ATRIP Down Memory Lane
  • Cracking Down on Green Mountain Trolls
  • Breach of Confidence: Your “Friends” Can’t Protect You
  • Winners of the Gowlings Best Blog in IP and Technology Law Prize!
  • Beyond Knowledge and Consciousness – The Development of Liability for Misuse of Trade Secrets in the UK
  • The Office of the Privacy Commissioner Calls for Changes to PIPEDA
  • IP Osgoode Welcomes Professor Victor Nabhan
  • Sitting This One Out: SCC Refuses to Clarify “Promise of a Patent” Doctrine
  • IP Osgoode: Call for IPilogue Editor Applications
  • Mamma Mia: Nintendo Flexes Copyright Against YouTube Video Game Reviewers
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (10)
  • Announcements (33)
  • Blogs (26)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (91)
  • Competition (20)
  • Competition Law (15)
  • Contracts (70)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (58)
  • events (91)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (211)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (10)
  • General (155)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (276)
  • IP (1255)
    • Copyright (623)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (82)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (160)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (108)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (19)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (40)
    • Patents (387)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (75)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (111)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (77)
    • Trademarks (247)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (186)
    • Canada (84)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (44)
    • US (78)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (18)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (190)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (67)
  • Reputation Management (5)
  • Smartphones (15)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (31)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (37)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (247)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (10)
  • UK (21)
  • Uncategorized (104)
  • US-Canada Relations (6)
  • WIPO (19)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736