---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 43 is to explore with the Government what sort of defence there would be when a subscriber to an internet access service allows another person to use the service and that other person infringes a copyright. The Minister said helpfully in response to my Amendment 82 that he would write to Members of the Committee setting out a series of things that a communal network might have in its defence, and it would be similarly helpful if the Government were to think about what would be useful to an individual subscriber to an internet service. For example, if you operate an unsecured wi-fi system in your own home, are you less likely to have a defence under this provision than if you have a secured system? That is the sort of guidance to member of the public which would be helpful. Further than that, if you have an internet connection in your own home which a member of your family or a friend from next door has used, why should you be liable for their copyright infringement? Is it that you should be liable if you knew that they were downloading and you did nothing about it? But why is simply allowing others to use the connection different from, for example, allowing someone to use your car if they were insured to do so, and they were caught speeding? In those circumstances you are asked if you were using the car, to which the response is, "No, it was X who used the car". If X was speeding, X is liable for the fine and the points on their licence. But in this case, as the Bill is written, it is still the person who provides the internet connection who is liable for disconnection, throttling or any of the other sanctions provided, not the person who was actually using the internet connection. This is a particularly strange approach. There is not even a defence provided for in the Bill for the person who generously allows their internet connection to be used. The upshot of that is that if the provision stays as drafted at the moment—lacking any defence or rationale from the Government about how this might work in practice—people will become much meaner about allowing others to use their internet connection. It would be as regrettable as closing down or chilling communal networks if individuals did not feel able to say, "Yes, sure. Log on and use my computer if you want to". That is the sort of attitude I would have hoped the Government would encourage. It is important that the Government are clear on what they mean here, and that it is made clear that there would be defences for a subscriber to the internet who has no knowledge that another person using their connection, either because it was lent to them knowingly or unknowingly if someone simply logs into a wi-fi network. There is no reason why that person should be disconnected. I beg to move.