---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 195. As the Bill is drafted, both the internet service provider and the rights holder can claim back some sort of financial recompense if either of them behaves improperly. It is noticeable that this is not true of the subscriber. We have discussed data protection previously and have heard the Minister’s assurances that there is no intention for subscriber information to be shared unjustifiably. However, this does not take account of improper behaviour by either of the two bodies. An internet service provider or an employee of one might take the opportunity to sell such information illegally, or copyright owners might group to form a blacklist of their own, based on infringement lists, of subscribers whom they suspect but have not been able to sue. Bad behaviour could lead to enormous damages for a subscriber separate from data protection issues, particularly via technical measures. A technical measure that limits or suspends access to the internet can impose a real cost on a subscriber. Not only is there the loss of benefit from ongoing subscription costs to the ISP, since an ISP is unlikely to stop charging the subscriber the monthly fee just because a technical measure has been imposed, but there is also the time and cost spent fighting a wrongful allegation through the appeals system. I know that the Minister said earlier that the subscriber would get their costs back, but it is rare for all costs to be recovered and the appeal has to be financed in the mean time. If there has been substantial damage to one’s business, one might find it difficult to be able to fund such an appeal. Potentially most costly is the loss of revenue that many subscribers will experience from third parties if their subscription is limited. A large number of subscription services, from iTunes to online data sources such as Reuters or Bloomberg, use client site IP addresses to ensure that certain services are accessible only by those who have paid. There are several much more sophisticated online services, especially in the financial world, where the sudden loss of an IP address would mean enormous loss of information, leading directly to loss of revenue. The Minister might argue that no one will get to the stage of technical measures without going through certain levels of checking and opportunities for correcting wrongful accusation. Can he therefore confirm that no technical measure will be imposed until the appeal process has been completed? I beg to move.