---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, my problem is often the other way round: I am told about websites that I have no wish to know about. This is done mainly through e-mails which say, "Click on this and you will go into such and such a website". I have not been blocked from using them. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we should not take the amendment too literally because, given the way that it reads at the present time, he is absolutely right. In his speech he made reference to file-sharing websites and so on, but the proposed clause does not refer to them. In fact, it could apply to any website that uses any piece of material for which it perhaps has not obtained permission or should have obtained permission and did not. It might even refer to one of the football clubs of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, playing music over its loudspeakers for the crowd at the ground which is picked up on the internet. When it goes out on the internet, is it a breach of copyright? I do not know. As the amendment is worded at the present time, it does not serve the purpose. I assume that by "gain" the noble Lord means financial gain. There are other ways in which people can make gain from using non-copyright material. He is right that, as the proposed new clause is worded, it does not make a lot of sense.