Lords suggest 74 amendments to Digital Economy Bill

The Lords called for the right to appeal to be made clear to anyone accussed of copyright infringement

The Digital Economy Bill underwent the first of five committee stage readings yesterday in the House of Lords, during which 74 amendments were proposed, underlining the huge scope of different opinions the Bill is generating.

Perhaps most controversially, Lord Lucas suggested that copyright holders should have to inform ISPs of the "value of infringement(s)" in order to set out how much they believe it had cost them financially.

This would see copyright holders being able to equate downloads to a specific figure which they assert the infringements had cost them in revenue, something which would be open to debate.

However, Lord Clement-Jones called for an amendement that would force copyright holders to include a sworn statement with any report submitted on alleged infringements.

This amendement stated that all information obtained must be done so in " compliance with all relevant laws, including data protection and privacy laws, and by persons entitled to gather such information".

Lord Mandelson's proposals to disconnect those found guilty of copyright infringements were also subject to amendment proposals from Lord Razall and Lord Clement-Jones that could benefit end users.

"The secretary of state must demonstrate before such action is implemented that he has considered whether it is (a) necessary and proportionate to the goal of protecting and enforcing copyright, and (b) appropriately balances the interest of rights holders and the interests of the public in due process, privacy, freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights," the amendment stated.

Furthermore, Lord Lucas insisted that those threatened with disconnections should have the right to appeal made clear when issued with any threat of action.

Lord Clement-Jones also said that it is important that users are told how they can appeal if they believe the disconnection decision is "based on an error of fact, wrong in law or unreasonable".

Robin Fry, a partner at law firm Beachcroft LLP, maintained that it is highly doubtful that copyright holders will be able to provide any meaningful or realistic figures on potential losses.

"The damage copyright owners can prove from an unauthorised download is likely to be minimal, and they'll be embarrassed to state this small amount publicly since it will show how disproportionate any resulting legal action might be," he said.

Fry also suggested that the number of amendments the Lords had proposed was not surprising given the controversy the Bill is causing and the number of different parties with a vested interest in its progress.

"The Bill is very complex and very contentious and I would expect to see it undergo many more revisions during the forthcoming committee debates before it goes before the House of Commons," he said.

Additionally, Fry believes that the government and copyright owners are over-stating the extent to which illegal file-sharing is taking place.

"By the time this Bill becomes law, together with the setting up of its related tribunals, codes and structures, I suspect that we'll all have moved on and wonder why such an edifice was ever created," he said.

The Bill will be debated again on 12, 18, 20 and 26 January.