---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

Methinks that there is too much modesty there. We are talking about a graduated response. I make a plea that we should not exaggerate the approach we are taking. We have no intention of penalising communal organisations unreasonably. The approach will be to suggest ways in which they can stop these kinds of infringement. Similarly, we will say to individuals, "Look, perhaps your wireless network is not being used by you in this infringement, but it is being used by somebody. Why is it being used by somebody else? It is because you have not adopted the necessary security precautions that are easily available to people using wireless networks". I have spoken about the speed with which technology moves on. I would say at this point, as I think I said earlier, that we have not identified a non-peer-to-peer application in relation to which these provisions could be used. The provisions in Clauses 4 to 16 rely on the issue of copyright infringement notices. I have identified the point about the role of independent or Ofcom scrutiny. I cannot think of any form of online copyright infringement that we would not want to prevent. We have currently identified the primary cause as peer-to-peer applications, but if these provisions could be used to combat other forms of online infringement, I cannot see how that could be a bad thing. Indeed, I cannot see how restricting these provisions—which I stress are already restricted to online copyright infringement—to peer-to-peer could do anything other than prevent the possible future beneficial use of the provision should the occasion arise. On the basis of those explanations, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.