Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Digital Economy Bill [HL].


Digital Economy Bill [HL]

My Lords, when the Minister responds, it would be worth him answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, although he is no longer in his place. Why are the ISPs so exercised about such issues? Why were they allowed to get into the position where this sort of thing was nothing to do with them? We debated that in Committee. As we know, the ISPs are strongly against this amendment because they have traditionally taken the view that they are like the Royal Mail. When you send a letter through the Post Office and the Royal Mail delivers it, nobody suggests that the Royal Mail should be responsible for the content of the letter, even if it is defamatory or in breach of copyright. That is how the ISPs regard themselves. Clearly, it is a major issue to get the balance right between the ISP in the role of the Royal Mail and the ISP taking down material that is illegal or in breach of copyright. This amendment is the first time that the issue has been addressed. The Minister indicated that the ISPs take down material relating to paedophilia and illegal hard pornography, but I understand that that is only by voluntary agreement among the ISPs and that not all of them sign up to it. This is a significant step forward and it explains why the ISPs are against it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c474 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Codes of practice Broadcasting Costs Computer networks Copyright Digital broadcasting Communication Licensing ICT Internet Mobile phones Parliamentary scrutiny Ofcom Performing arts Subscriptions Internet service providers
Legislation
Digital Economy Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk