---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, we discussed last week the legitimate concerns held by many over the practice by some legal firms of pursuing subscribers. I will be charitable and say that they do this overenthusiastically, which is my attempt at understatement. But we need to make a clear distinction here. Copyright owners try to avoid taking people to court for copyright breaches. Employing solicitors or other agents and attempting to settle out of court via a cash settlement is entirely legitimate and reasonable, provided that the circumstances and the means used are also legitimate and reasonable. What is not acceptable is where the evidence supporting such an alleged infringement is weak or not able to be scrutinised and where the language and tone are hostile and threatening. However, trying to restrict who may take action under these provisions to a person who is established in the UK and whose primary business is the exploitation of UK copyright works, or indeed any attempt to limit who has the right to sue to a copyright owner with links to the UK, may breach the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS as it is known in the trade. Such a provision would also appear to conflict with the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of nationality in EU law and potentially with the EU directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. We should remember that we are talking about copyright protection and not about the reform of the whole civil justice system. Nor are we able to amend international agreements. Copyright owners using our proposed measures will still be able to seek out-of-court settlements, but that will be only after the subscriber has received a number of warnings about their apparent infringing behaviour and after the copyright owner has obtained a court order to require the internet service provider to release the subscriber’s personal details. I remind noble Lords that, in the procedure that we are suggesting, notification of infringement will have to be supported by validated evidence and strict procedures will be determined under the code. In future, that might influence the courts in relation to accepting evidence that is not so soundly based. I have tried to explain the situation in relation to international copyright. I have some sympathy with the point made about the nature of the activities of some legal firms, but we do not believe that we can deal with that in this legislation for the reasons that I have outlined. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I think, used the word "fulminated". We share his concerns and believe that the procedures that we have outlined, with the criterion rules on the validated evidence that people will need to provide under our code, will be a good influence and may eventually drive out the worst excesses. While I understand the concerns expressed, we are doing everything that we can and we do not believe that the solution proposed in the amendment would solve the problem. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.