DOCSLIB.ORG

외국법제동향 영국 디지털 경제법 (Digital Economy Act 2010)의 주요

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
외국법제동향 영국 디지털 경제법 (Digital Economy Act 2010)의 주요 외국법제동향 영국 디지털 경제법 (Digital Economy Act 2010)의 주요 내용 I. 입법 배경 및 경과 현실에 부합하는 건전한 디지털 환경의 구축 을 위해 노력하고 있다. 본고에서 다루고자 하 오늘날의 디지털 통신환경은 분명 이용자들 는 영국의 디지털 경제법(Digital Economy Act 로 하여금 과거에는 상상할 수도 없을 만큼 풍 2010) 역시 콘텐츠 서비스 산업의 부흥에 중점 부하고 다양한 지식 및 정보를 접근하고 공유 을 두는 영국정부가 비교적 자율적으로 운영되 할 수 있도록 하였다. 그러나 인터넷으로 대표 었던 온라인· 방송통신부문에 대한 강력한 개 되는 온라인은 수많은 장점에도 불구하고, 음 입을 선언한 것으로 이해할 수 있을 것이다. 란물이나 저작권 침해와 같은 불법 요소들이 영국 디지털 경제법의 배경 및 경과는 다음 확산되는 공간인 것 역시 사실이다. 특히 저작 과 같다. 2006년 의회에 보고된 ‘가우어 보고서 1) 권 침해로 인해, 오늘날의 디지털 통신환경 내 (Gowers Review of Intellectual Property)’ 는 의 창작· 지식산업이 위협받고 있으며, 그로 온라인에서 이루어지는 저작권 침해로 영국의 인한 경제적 손실 또한 천문학적으로 증가하는 지식산업에 막대한 피해를 주고 있다는 점을 것이 현실이다. 따라서 기존 선진국들은 기존 지적하였다. 이후 이와 관련된 여론 수렴 및 입법 2) 법률의 재· 개정이나 새로운 법의 제정을 통해 자문의 과정을 거쳤고, ‘Digital Britain Report’ 1) Gower, Andrew, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property(London: Majesty’s Stationery Office 2006): http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404830/0118404830.pdf. 2) Digital Britain Report는 2009년 12월 최종 업데이트 버전이 완성되었다. 참조: Department for Business In- novation and Skills & Department for Culture, Media and Culture, Digital Brtain: Implemetation update (December 2009): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publica- tions/DB_Implementationplan_Dec09.pdf. 066 최신 외국법제정보 United Kingdom ● 가 2008년 10월에 착수되어 이듬해인 2009년 6 II. Digital Economy Act 2010의 구성 월 의회에 제출되었다. Digital Britain Report는 및 주요내용 디지털 경제법의 주요 근간이 된 것으로서, 영 국의 디지털 및 텔레커뮤니케이션 부분의 혁신 영국의 2010년 디지털 경제법은 크게 11개 과 질적 향상을 위한 다양한 정책 및 제안으로 조항(Sections)과 2개의 부칙(Schedules)으로 구 이루어져 있다. 성되어 있다. 새로 재정된 내용 대부분이 기 2009년 11월, 엘리자베스 2세 영국여왕은 상 존의 통신법(Communication Act 2003)의 저작 원(House of Lords) 개회 연설에서 “영국정부 권 관련 법률을 강화시키는 후속법령의 성격을 는 디지털 시대에 부합하는 통신 환경의 구축, 띠지만, 방송법(Broadcasting Act 1990), 비디오 미래 경제 성장의 지원, 경쟁력 있는 통신 및 공 녹화법(Video Recordings Act 1984), 공공 대출 공방송의 향상을 위한 법안을 제출할 것”이라 권리법(Public Lending Right Act 1979), 저작 고 밝혔고,3) 개회 후 상원의원 Peter Mandelson 권· 의장 및 특허권에 관한 법(The Copyright, 이 공식적으로 디지털 경제법을 제안하여, 법 Designs and Patents Act 1988) 등의 일부 항목 률 검토과정을 거쳤다. 이후 본 법안은 2010년 을 디지털 현실에 적합하도록 개정· 보완 및 3월 16일, 하원(House of Commons)에 초안이 삭제시켰다. 주요 내용을 살펴보면 다음과 같 제출되었다. 개인의 자유권을 지나치게 침해한 다. 다는 일부 여론의 반발과 영국 헌정사상 처음 으로 하원의 3차 토론조차 제대로 거치지 못한 1. OFCOM(Office of Communication : 법안4)이었음에도, 4월 6일, 당시 여당인 노동당 통신국)의 의무 및 권한 의 지지를 업고 찬성 189표, 반대 47표로 법안 2010년 디지털 경제법이 첫머리에서 규정한 이 통과되었다. 결국 디지털경제법은 4월 8일, 것은 OFCOM의 권한 및 감독 의무 강화이다. 여왕의 재가(Royal Assent)를 받아 법률로서 성 주요 내용은 크게 2가지로 OFCOM의 통신인 립되어 공표되었으며, 6월 12일부터 효력이 발 프라· 인터넷 도메인 등록관련 의무와 미디어 생하게 되었다. 콘텐츠 관련 권한 확대 및 보고의 의무로 나 3) Queen's Speech, Column 1 for House of Lords (18 November 2009): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91118-0001.htm#09111813000012. 4) 영국 의회에서는 법률 제정을 추진한 법안들 중 충분한 법률 검토의 시간이 없을 경우에 여당은 토론· 논의절차 를 생략하고 하원에서 관련 법률을 통과시킬 수 있다. 이 절차를 Wash up stage라고 한다. 외국법제동향 067 외국법제동향 뉜다.5) 또한 OFCOM은 도메인 등록자· 사용자· 등록업체에 의해 웹 서비스가 불건전 혹은 불 (1) OFCOME의 통신 인프라 및 도메인 인터넷 공정하게 운용되는 인터넷 도메인의 구체적인 등록 등록 관련 의무(OFCOM Reports on Infra - 사항을 국무장관이 요구할 때에 보고 및 관련 structure, Internet domain names etc) 사항을 출간해야 할 의무를 지니게 되었다(본 본 조항 Section 1은 통신법 Part 2의 Chapter 법 Section 1: 통신법 134C). 다만 OFCOM이 1 134(A~C)로 추가된다. 주된 골자를 요약하 제출한 보고서의 일부 내용이 정보의 자유법 면, OFCOM은 통신 네트워크 인프라 및 인터 에 침해된다고 여겨질 경우, 출간할 때 제외 넷 도메인 등록에 관한 내용을 반드시 보고서 시킬 수 있도록 했다(본법 Section 1: 통신법 로 작성해야 한다는 것이며, 구체적인 내용은 134C(4)). 다음과 같다. OFCOM은 다양한 통신 네트워크 인프라의 (2) OFCOM의 미디어 콘텐츠 권한 확대 및 구체적인 사항을 디지털 경제법이 발효된 첫 보고의 의무(OFCOM Reports on Media 해와 그 이후 3년에 한 번씩(three-yearly inter- Content) vals)6) 국무장관(Secretary of State)에 보고하고, 본법 Section 29와 30은 통신법 264A의 각 그 보고서는 출판해야만 하는 의무를 지니게 항목에 새로 추가되었으며, 주요 내용은 다음 되었다(본법 Section 1: 통신법 134A). 또한 이 과 같다. 본법이 발효되기 전까지는 OFCOM 보고서에 포함되어야 하는 내용들을 간추리면 의 공영서비스 관련 소관(所管: public-service 다음과 같은데, (1) 각 네트워크의 종류, (2) 각 remit) 텔레비전 방송으로 제한되어 있었다. 그 네트워크가 커버하는 지역 및 인구, (3) 각 네트 러나 개정된 본법(Section 30: 통신법 264A)은 워크의 비가동률(unavailability), (4) 각 네트워 OFCOM의 공영서비스 소관 업무를 텔레비전 크 사이의 공유 정도, (5) 외국 네트워크와 영국 방송뿐 아니라 라디오, 웹기반 스트리밍 서비 네트워크 사이의 수준 비교(본법 Section 1: 통 스(on-demand services) 및 기타 유사 웹사이트 신법 134B(1)(a~i)) 등을 꼽을 수 있다. 를 모두 포함시키고, 적어도 5년에 1회 이상의 5) 원안은 언급한 내용 외에 OFCOM이 텔레비전과 라디오 부분을 초월한 모든 미디어(all media)에 대한 감독 및 권한을 부여하자는 것이었으나, 보수당(Tory)의 강력한 반발로 폐기되었다. 참조 Guardian, “The digital economy bill: what made it,” (2010년 4월 8일): http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/08/digital- economy-bill. 6) 원안(Bill)은 2년에 1회 보고하는 것으로 제안되었으나, 3년에 1회로 수정되어 제정되었다. 068 최신 외국법제정보 United Kingdom ● 해당 방송 및 콘텐츠 부문이 공영서비스 목적 다렸다가 갱신 전과 같은 이름으로 등록한다 에 준하는지 여부를 보고서로 작성하도록 했다. 거나(drop-catching), 투기를 조장하거나 소비를 본법은 또한 OFCOM이 기존에 가지고 있던 부추기는 도메인도 제재대상에 포함시켰다. 아 정보 수집 권한(information-gathering powers) 울러 이미 등록된 도메인이 의도적으로 피싱 을 통신 제공자 및 정보 제공자(업체)들에게까 (phishing), 스팸메일 보내기(spamming), 스파 지 확대했으며, 이를 위의 보고서에 추가시키 이웨어(spyware) 및 컴퓨터 바이러스 등을 이용 도록 했다.7) 자들에게 확산시킨다고 여겨질 때 역시 국무장 관의 제재를 받게 했다.8) 2. 인터넷 도메인 등록에 관련 조항(Powers 본 법안에 의한 국무장관의 구속력은 오직 영 in relation to internet domain registries) 국 도메인(.uk) 등록업체들에게만 있다. 만약 위 본 조항은 앞서 살펴보았던 OFCOM의 의무 반사항이 발생하였을 때, 국무장관은 관련 문 및 권한(본법 Section 1: 통신법 134A~C)과 밀 제를 OFCOM로부터 보고(Report) 받는다. 검 접한 관련을 가진다. 디지털 경제법의 Section 토 후 문제의 소지가 인정되면 국무장관은 등 19(통신법 124O로 추가됨)의 주요 내용은 도메 록업체에 반드시 그 사실을 공지하여야 하며, 인 등록업체· 사용자· 도메인 등록자 등에 의 아울러 문제점을 수정할 수 있는 일정기간 역 해 도메인 이름이 오용 혹은 불공정하게 사용 시 부여하여야 한다(본법 Section 19: 124O). 일 되거나, 등록업체들이 규정에 따라 문제에 적 정기간이 지났음에도 문제 해결이 되지 않았을 절하게 대응하지 못했을 경우에 국무장관(Sec- 경우, 국무장관은 법률(Section 20 및 21: 통신 retary of state)에게 해당 문제에 개입할 수 있 법 124P와 R)에 의거하여 도메인 등록업체의 는 권한을 주는 것이다. 해당 문제는 영국내의 관리자를 법정에 고소하거나, 문제 해결을 위 전자통신 서비스 및 네트워크의 명성이나 효 해 해당 업체의 정관(registry’s constitution)을 용, 그리고 영국 소비자나 공공 멤버들의 이익 법원이 개정하도록 요청할 수 있게 된다. 국무 에 반하거나 반할 가능성이 있을 때이다. 장관은 또한 문제 등록업체의 운영자를 임명할 문제가 되는 구체적인 사례는 다음과 같다. 수 있으며, 그 운영자는 본법(Section 20: 통신 의도적으로 기존 도메인의 유효기간 만기를 기 법 124Q)에 의거한 권한과 의무를 행사함으로 7) The National Archive, Explanatory Notes for Digital Economy Act 2010(Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 2010): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/notes/division/5/3/2. 8) 위의 웹페이지 참조. 외국법제동향 069 외국법제동향 업체를 정상화시킬 수 있도록 했다. 저작권 침해 사실과 그에 따른 법적 절차 등에 관한 정보를 고지해야만 한다(Section 4: 통신 3. 온라인 저작권 침해: ISP의 공지 시스템과 법 124A 3(d), 5). ISP는 저작권 침해를 받은 저 기술적 기술적 제재 & 접근 웹사이트 차단 명령 조 작권자의 요청 시, 이용자의 반복 침해 행위에 항(Online copyright infringement : notifi - 관한 저작권 침해 목록(copyright infringement cation system and technical sanctions & list)을 축적 및 제공해야 하는 의무를 지니게 되 Website-blocking injunctions) 었다. 제공 시 개인 정보와 프라이버시 보호를 위해 익명의 형태로 제공하여야 하며 저작권 (1) ISP의 공지 시스템과 기술적 제재 , 자의 소송9)을 위해 저작권 침해 목록과 관련하 ① 온라인 저작권 침해: ISP의 공지 시스템과 여 이용자의 개인 정보가 필요한 경우에는 법 기술적 제재 & 웹사이트 접근 차단 명령 원의 명령을 통해 가능하다(Section 4: 통신법 (Online copyright infringement: notifica- 124B (1)). tion system and technical sanctions) 최초 의무(Initial Obligation)의 구체적인 실 저작권자는 이용자의 저작권 침해 행위 발생 행은 최초 의무 규범(Initial Obligation Code)에 시 인터넷 서비스업자(ISP)에게 저작권 침해의 근거하도록 했다. 이 최초 의무 규정은 산업계 증거, 시기와 이용자 주소의 IP 주소 등이 포함 의 제안으로 국무장관의 동의를 거쳐 OFCOM 된 저작권 침해 보고서(copyright infringement 이 승인하도록 되어 있으나(Section 5: 통신법 report)를 제출하는 동시에 ISP는 해당 이용자 124C (1), (10)), 제안이 없을 시에는 OFCOM 에 대해 고지(notification)의 의무를 지게 되었 이 승인하도록 허용하고 있으며, 국무장관의 다(Section 3: 통신법 124A(2)와 124A(4)). 저작 동의 시 최초 의무 규정을 승인할 새로운 규 권자는 침해 보고서를 1달 이내로 ISP에게 제 범(code)을 채택할 수 있다(Section 6: 통신법 출하여야 하며, ISP도 이용자에게 1달 이내로 124D (1), (8)).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ben Adamson 7242107 Phd Thesis Final Submission Sep 2017
    IP in the Corridors of Power A study of lobbying, its impact on the development of intellectual property law, and the implications for the meaning of democracy A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Ben Adamson School of Law Contents Title Page 1 Contents 2 Table of Abbreviations 7 Abstract 8 Declaration 9 Copyright Statement 10 Acknowledgements 11 Chapter 1: Introduction 13 1. What is Lobbying? 15 2. Setting the Scene 16 3. Core Themes 20 3.1 A Model of Democracy 20 3.2 The Importance of Stakeholder Input 21 3.3 Equality of Access and Influence 22 4. A Matter of Method 23 4.1 Quality vs. Quantity 24 4.2 Why Case Studies? 25 4.3 Gathering Data 27 4.4 Style and Substance 28 4.5 Objectivity and Subjectivity – The Balance of Fairness 29 4.6 Questions by Design 30 4.7 Confidentiality & Anonymity 31 5. Thesis Outline 32 Chapter 2: Conceptions of Governance and Democracy: A 34 Contemporary Model of Democracy 2 1. Governance 34 1.1 Definitions of Governance 39 1.2 Complexity and Multiple Actors 45 1.3 Relationships Between Actors & Policy Networks 49 1.4 Policy Networks in the EU Context 58 1.5 Conclusions on Governance 60 2. Democracy 62 2.1 Classical Models of Democracy 63 2.2 Organisations as Citizens? 69 2.3 Pluralism 75 2.4 A Minimal Role for the State? 82 2.5 Participation By All? 84 2.6 Towards A Working Model? 88 2.7 Wealth and Equality 89 2.8 Wealth, Equality and Lobbying 97 2.9 MPs: Delegates or Trustees? 101 2.10 All Party Groups 102 2.11 Who to Lobby? 102 2.12 Opening Up Access 104 2.13 The Media 105 2.14 Digital Media and Participation 107 2.15 Concluding Remarks 110 3.
    [Show full text]
  • “Site Blocking” to Reduce Online Copyright Infringement
    “Site Blocking” to reduce online copyright infringement A review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has redacted some parts of this document where it refers to techniques that could be used to circumvent website blocks. There is a low risk of this information being useful to people wanting to bypass or undermine the Internet Watch Foundation‟s blocks on child sexual abuse images. The text in these sections has been blocked out. Advice Date: 27 May 2011 1 Contents Section Page 1. Executive summary 3 2. Introduction 9 3. Understanding how the internet operates 17 4. Blocking sites 26 5. Effectiveness of Section 17 & 18 46 6. Conclusion 50 Annex Page 1 Technical Glossary 52 2 Whois domain privacy service output 54 Section 1 1. Executive summary The Secretary of State has asked Ofcom to consider a number of questions related to the blocking of sites to reduce online copyright infringement. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has asked Ofcom to report on certain technical matters relating to sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA). Sections 17 and 18 provide the Secretary of State with the power to grant the Courts the ability to require service providers, including internet service providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries, to prohibit access to sites on the internet that are found to be infringing copyright. Specifically, we have been asked to consider the following questions: Is it possible for internet service providers to block site access? Do
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Piracy: Can File Sharing Be Regulated Without Impeding the Digital Revolution?
    CYBER PIRACY: CAN FILE SHARING BE REGULATED WITHOUT IMPEDING THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION? Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester Michael Robert Filby School of Law University of Leicester May 2012 Cyber Piracy: Can File Sharing be Regulated without Impeding the Digital Revolution? Abstract This thesis explores regulatory mechanisms of managing the phenomenon of file sharing in the online environment without impeding key aspects of digital innovation, utilising a modified version of Lessig’s modalities of regulation to demonstrate significant asymmetries in various regulatory approaches. After laying the foundational legal context, the boundaries of future reform are identified as being limited by extra-jurisdictional considerations, and the regulatory direction of legal strategies to which these are related are linked with reliance on design-based regulation. The analysis of the plasticity of this regulatory form reveals fundamental vulnerabilities to the synthesis of hierarchical and architectural constraint, that illustrate the challenges faced by the regulator to date by countervailing forces. Examination of market-based influences suggests that the theoretical justification for the legal regulatory approach is not consistent with academic or policy research analysis, but the extant effect could impede openness and generational waves of innovation. A two-pronged investigation of entertainment industry-based market models indicates that the impact of file sharing could be mitigated through adaptation of the traditional model, or that informational decommodification could be harnessed through a suggested alternative model that embraces the flow of free copies. The latter model demonstrates how the interrelationships between extant network effects and sub-model externalities can be stimulated to maximise capture of revenue without recourse to disruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Economy Bill [HL]
    Digital Economy Bill [HL] EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, are published separately as HL Bill 1—EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Lord Mandelson has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Digital Economy Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights. HL Bill 1 54/5 Digital Economy Bill [HL] CONTENTS General duties of OFCOM 1 General duties of OFCOM 2 OFCOM reports on infrastructure, internet domain names etc 3 OFCOM reports on media content Online infringement of copyright 4 Obligation to notify subscribers of reported infringements 5 Obligation to provide infringement lists to copyright owners 6 Approval of code about the initial obligations 7 Initial obligations code by OFCOM in the absence of an approved code 8 Contents of initial obligations code 9 Progress reports 10 Obligations to limit internet access: assessment and preparation 11 Obligations to limit internet access 12 Code by OFCOM about obligations to limit internet access 13 Contents of code about obligations to limit internet access 14 Enforcement of obligations 15 Sharing of costs 16 Interpretation and consequential provision 17 Power to amend copyright provisions Powers in relation to internet domain registries 18 Powers in relation to internet domain registries 19 Appointment of manager of internet domain registry 20 Application to court to alter constitution
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Economy Act 2010: Copyright
    Digital Economy Act 2010: copyright Standard Note: SN/HA/5515 Last updated: 28 June 2013 Author: Philip Ward Section Home Affairs The Digital Economy Act 2010 received Royal Assent at the very end of the last Parliament. Sections 3 to 18 of the Act cover online infringement of copyright. Several provisions have proved controversial and have not yet been implemented. Section 17 grants the Secretary of State a power to bring in regulations for the blocking of infringing websites. The present Government has indicated that it does not intend to use this power. Copyright owners have brought successful court actions against infringing websites under existing laws. The Government is proceeding with implementation of an “initial obligations code” (allowed for under section 11 of the Act). Under the proposed system, an internet service provider would send a warning letter to a customer detected downloading copyright material for free from the internet. If the infringing activity continued, two follow-up letters would be sent. Once the third letter was dispatched, the customer’s download history could be released to the owners of the copyrighted material, enabling legal action to be initiated against the infringer. However, the copyright owner would first have to gain a court order to determine the identity of the filesharer, as the download history provided would be anonymised. Customers thus accused would be able to file an appeal for £20, which would be refunded if the appeal were successful. The proposed notification system has survived the challenge of a judicial review instigated by BT and TalkTalk. Ofcom has conducted public consultations on the draft code and on the allocation of costs for administering the regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Better Protecting BBC Financial Independence an Exploratory Report for the BBC Trust
    Better protecting BBC financial independence An exploratory report for the BBC Trust Martin Moore King’s College London January 2016 The Policy Institute at King’s About the Policy Institute at King’s The Policy Institute at King’s College London acts as a hub, linking insightful research with rapid, relevant policy analysis to stimulate debate, inform and shape future policy agendas. Building on King’s central London location at the heart of the global policy conversation, our vision is to enable the translation of academic research into policy and practice by facilitating engagement between academic, business and policy communities around current and future policy needs. We combine the academic excellence of King’s with connectedness of a think tank and the professionalism of a consultancy. Moore, M., Better protecting BBC financial independence: an exploratory report for the BBC Trust, Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power, the Policy Institute at King’s College London, January 2016. About the author Martin Moore Dr Martin Moore is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at the Policy Institute at King’s College London. He has twenty years experience working across the UK media, in the commercial sector, the third sector and in academia. 1 Preface This report was commissioned by the BBC Trust in order to explore ways to better protect the BBC’s financial independence beyond Charter Renewal. The ideas presented in the report are derived from ten interviews with expert sources conducted for the study in October and November 2015, supplemented by relevant publicly available information.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010: Draft Initial Obligations Code Communications Consumer Panel Consultation Response
    Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010: Draft Initial Obligations Code Communications Consumer Panel Consultation Response 1. Introduction The Communications Consumer Panel (the Panel) is an independent panel of experts established under the Communications Act 2003. Its role is to influence Ofcom, Government, the EU and service and equipment providers, so that the communications interests of consumers and citizens are protected and promoted. The Panel pays particular attention to the needs of older people and people with disabilities, to the needs of people in rural areas and people on low incomes, and to the needs of small businesses, which face many of the same problems as individual consumers. The Panel is made up of part-time members with a balance of expertise in consumer issues in the communications sector. There are members representing the interests of consumers in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Panel Members are appointed by Ofcom, subject to approval by the relevant Secretaries of State. They are appointed in accordance with Nolan principles and are eligible for re-appointment. The Panel is assisted by a small advisory team. 2. Background The Panel noted during its discussions about the Digital Britain Final report in 2009 that debates around online copyright infringement appeared to be dominated by the interests of copyright holders (rights holders) and internet service providers (ISPs). Communications Consumer Panel Consultation Response: Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010: Draft Initial Obligations Code The Panel emphasised the need for consumer bodies to be properly involved in the debate when it responded to the last Government’s June 2009 consultation on legislation to address illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing.
    [Show full text]
  • COPYRIGHT and BUSINESS MODELS in the EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Isabellaalexanderf
    ALL CHANGE FOR THE DIGITAL ECONOMY: COPYRIGHT AND BUSINESS MODELS IN THE EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY IsabellaAlexanderf TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL WORLDS........ 1351 II. THE ECONOMY AND THE BOOK TRADE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY............................ 1354 III. THE PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE OF ANNE AND CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONTROL OF THE BOOK TRADE .............. .............................. 1356 IV. PARTIAL TAKING AND THE STATUTE OF ANNE.................... 1362 V. THE FIRST CASES ............................. ...... 1368 VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................1377 I. INTRODUCTION: ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL WORLDS In 1998, the United States Congress labelled the current era the "digital millennium" when it passed a copyright act of that title.' Eleven years later, the United Kingdom echoed that language when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published the Digital Britain Report in June 2009.2 The Report examines the country's communications infrastructure, public sector broadcasting, broadband access and take-up. It also addresses the effect of digitization on the "creative content industries," wherein lies its specific relevance to the law of copyright. In light of the Report, the © 2010 Isabella Alexander. t Newton Trust Lecturer in Law, University of Cambridge, Beachcroft LLP Fellow in Law and Director of Studies in Law, Robinson College, Cambridge. All errors are of course my own, but I am grateful to H. Tom:s G6mez-Arostegui for advice and assistance in researching the eighteenth century material, as well as helpful comments on the draft. 1. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998). 2. DEP'T FOR CULTURE, MEDIA & SPORT & DEP'T FOR Bus. INNOVATION & SKILLS, DIGITAL BRITAIN FINAL REPORT, Cm 7650 (2009) [hereinafter DIGITAL BRITAIN FINAL REPORT], available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-final report-jun09.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMERCIAL Install the Customer Data
    Issue 70, May 2010 marketing advice and support to its franchisee and by failing to COMMERCIAL install the customer data. MGB Printing and Design Ltd v Kall Kwik UK Ltd This case adds nothing new to the law on negligence. [2010] EWHC 624 (QB) However, it highlights that a franchisor may owe its franchisee MGB Printing and Design (MGB) entered negotiations to a duty of care that exists separately from its contractual purchase an existing printing franchise with the franchisor, Kall obligations under the franchise agreement. In such a situation, Kwik UK Ltd (Kall Kwik). It became clear that the current exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in respect of pre- franchisee’s premises required refitting. Kall Kwik advised contractual statements and discussions, designed to prevent that this would cost between £10,000 and £20,000; £15,000 claims in misrepresentation, will not be of use. Care must thus was therefore included in the relevant cash flow document. be taken by franchisors when advising any potential franchisee, Kall Kwik also advised MGB that historical client data stored before entering into agreements. by the existing franchisee would be installed on MGB’s computers before the business launch. MGB made clear that it Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH v would not purchase the franchise without this and Kall Kwik Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV 15 C- confirmed that the installation would happen. 511/08 April 2010 (Unreported) Heine, a German mail-order company, had standard terms and The parties duly entered into a franchise agreement. MGB also conditions of sale that the consumer would pay a standard flat- entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the current rate of EUR4.95 for delivery costs and that this would not be franchisee.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom
    FREEDOM ON THE NET 2014 United Kingdom 2013 2014 Population: 64.1 million Internet Freedom Status Free Free Internet Penetration 2013: 90 percent Social Media/ICT Apps Blocked: No Obstacles to Access (0-25) 2 2 Political/Social Content Blocked: No Limits on Content (0-35) 6 6 Bloggers/ICT Users Arrested: No Violations of User Rights (0-40) 15 16 TOTAL* (0-100) 23 24 Press Freedom 2014 Status: Free * 0=most free, 100=least free Key Developments: May 2013 – May 2014 • Filtering mechanisms, particularly child-protection filters enabled on all household and mobile connections by default, inadvertently blocked legitimate online content (see Limits on Content). • The Defamation Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2014, introduced greater legal protections for intermediaries and reduced the scope for “libel tourism,” while proposed amendments to the Contempt of Court Act may introduce similar protections for intermediaries in relation to contempt of court (see Limits on Content and Violations of User Rights). • New guidelines published by the Director of Public Prosecutions in June 2013 sought to limit offenses for which social media users may face criminal charges. Users faced civil penalties for libel cases, while at least two individuals were imprisoned for violent threats made on Facebook and Twitter (see Violations of User Rights). • In April 2014, the European Court of Justice determined that EU rules on the mass retention of user data by ISPs violated fundamental privacy and data protection rights. UK privacy groups criticized parliament for rushing through “emergency” legislation to maintain the practice in July, while failing to hold a public debate on the wider issue of surveillance (see Violations of User Rights).
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Economy Act Appeals Process
    Digital Economy Act Online Copyright Infringement Appeals Process Options for Reducing Costs The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has redacted some sections of this document as they refer to on-going policy development. The text in these sections has been blocked out. Contents Section Page Executive summary 2 Introduction 6 The cost drivers of the appeals process 8 Options for reducing the costs of the appeals process 14 Annex Page 1. International perspective 21 2. Digital Economy Act appeals grounds and determinations 26 3. Cost scenarios for the introduction by Government of an appeals fee 27 4. Comparisons to other appeals schemes 33 1 Section 1 Executive summary The online infringement of copyright provisions inserted into the Communications Act 2003 by the Digital Economy Act, 2010 place an initial obligation on internet service providers (ISPs), when informed by Copyright Owners, to notify subscribers of their unlawful behaviour by generating Copyright Infringement Reports (“CIRs”). It also requires that ISPs maintain records of the most frequent offenders, with a view to allowing Copyright Owners to take targeted legal action against these infringers. The Act gives Ofcom duties to draw up and enforce a code of practice to regulate the initial obligations imposed on ISPs. This Code must confer on internet subscribers the right to bring appeals relating to allegations of online copyright infringement and to acts or omissions under the code. Ofcom must also establish an independent Appeals Body to determine such appeals and sets out the minimum grounds for appeal. In the light of these functions, and with a view to ensuring effective implementation, DCMS has asked Ofcom to assess the likely cost and level of appeals under the existing proposals and advise on whether a subscriber fee might be needed in order to deter frivolous appeals, and how frivolous appeals could be avoided without the introduction of a fee.
    [Show full text]
  • Next Steps for Implementation of the Digital Economy
    Next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act August 2011 Department for Culture, Media and Sport Implementation of the Digital Economy Act Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries. Department for Culture, Media and Sport 3 Implementation of the Digital Economy Act Introduction The Government has published today its response to Professor Hargreaves’ Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. The report is clear that intellectual property is of fundamental importance to economic growth, and that maximising its contribution relies on both enabling use of intellectual property and protecting it. The Government’s response makes it clear that the UK copyright regime does need modernising to enable use of intellectual property rights to promote growth and innovation, and we will pursue the recommendations that Professor Hargreaves makes. Protection and enforcement are other factors which need our attention. Alongside our response to Hargreaves, we have published the UK Intellectual Property Crime Strategy, which sets out how we will better co-ordinate action on intellectual property crime enforcement. This paper sets out our plans to move forward with implementation of the enforcement measures in the Digital Economy Act (DEA): Following a judicial review ruling, we are removing the obligation on internet service providers (ISPs) to contribute towards the costs of Ofcom and the independent appeals body in setting up and administering the regime. We do not intend to revisit the sharing of other costs between ISPs and copyright owners; We have received further advice from Ofcom on the potential costs of the appeals system, which we are publishing today.
    [Show full text]