---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, our Amendment 66 has a very similar effect to my noble friend’s Amendment 65 in that it ensures that the subscriber is made aware of the possibility that, should he continue to carry out illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing, he may face technical measures at a future date. We all hope that the initial obligations process will be enough to deter the vast majority of those who undertake illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing. We agree that receipt of a letter outlining the unlawful activities that have been taking place on one’s internet account should be sufficient to make most people desist from doing so. Indeed, numerous polls suggest that such a warning would be enough to make a significant number of people stop this unlawful activity. However, there is a danger that some may well decide that such a warning is simply an empty threat. It is worth noting that many final reminder notices for utility bills, for instance, include the possibility of court action if the customer continues to default on payment. Such a warning acts as a significant incentive for the consumer to pay up. Clear notification that technical measures may well be used in future would act as a similar deterrent to alleged copyright infringers. Such a warning would increase the chances that someone would cease illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing activities and would, we hope, mean that fewer cases would actually result in technical measures being used. The Government may well think that such warnings would be included under "(g) anything else", but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm this or inform us otherwise. As regards Amendment 70 of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I entirely agree that the notification letter should include information about how the subscriber should proceed if he believes that the ISP or the rights holder has made a mistake in identifying either his IP address or his account. May I also ask the Minister what measures there will be for errors to be ironed out quickly and cheaply? We have later amendments looming that relate to appeals. I am sure everyone here would agree that easily correctable errors should be sorted out long before it gets to that level, and that no allegation of guilt should remain attached to a subscriber who is simply the victim of mistaken identity.