---

Digital Economy Bill [HL]

Although Amendments 128A and 128B are not in the same group, perhaps I may speak also to them to speed matters up, because they touch on related points. These are quite straightforward amendments, which reflect the argument that internet service providers are not involved in copyright infringement disputes. The current legal position is that internet service providers are bystanders or a conduit and are not directly involved in a copyright dispute that may arise between a copyright owner and an alleged infringer. They are a vehicle used by copyright owners and subscribers, rather in the way that the Post Office facilitates communications between various parties but is not a direct party to them. It is clear that the internet service provider has a role, reflected in the Bill, in providing information to the copyright owner, but it is not involved in any dispute between the copyright owner and the subscriber. Amendment 128 would require a copyright owner to indemnify an ISP for any loss or damage resulting from the owner wrongly accusing a subscriber of an infringement of copyright, were the ISP to be attacked by the owner in relation to it. Amendments 128A and 128B would make it clear that an internet service provider is not included in the definition of a copyright infringement dispute. I beg to move.