Skip to main content

1-20 of 220 results for subject:Subscriptions

Subject X
Tribunals

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Tribunals (220)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords, I feel that I barely need to speak to my amendment, such has been the brevity of the previous contributors. I think that Amendment 136 is self-explanatory. The wording, ""an assessment of the extent to which any such proceedings against subscribers have been successful"," seems to be an...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1053
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we will certainly return to this on Report, because the noble Lord has not answered my question at all. I meant that writing a letter, if he so wishes, might be the best way of responding to this. The question is simply: if I am presented with one...

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1028
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the point is that, if traffic doubles, how do you know whether it is because of a vast increase in legal or illegal activity? Without measuring it, you cannot know. Obviously we are not going to get much further on this tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the...

Member
Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1049
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification and education, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 153 withdrawn. Amendment 154 Moved by

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1086
House
House of Lords

I am feeling rather confused by all this. It seems that, quite rightly, we are trying to bring about a system that does not penalise the subscriber. That might be me or it might be any other Member. If I receive a letter, I will probably say, "Fine, I have...

Member
Lord Maxton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1079
House
House of Lords

152: Clause 10, page 13, line 2, at end insert "(but any such measure may not involve the reconstruction of a subscriber’s traffic)"

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1082
House
House of Lords

My Lords, perhaps I may take advantage of Committee stage rules, because this is extremely important. We just knocked down a whole lot of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and alternative proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the constitution of the tribunal. We were told that...

Member
Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1070
House
House of Lords

The noble Lord is describing a cumulative effect—all kinds of little ways in which Ofcom will not set out to help the consumer and all kinds of little ways in which someone accused under the Bill will find their life made difficult and tiresome, with a great deal of effort...

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1031-2
House
House of Lords

My Lords, on that note, I thank the Minister for his reply—

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1081
House
House of Lords

134: Clause 9, page 12, line 12, at end insert— "( ) an assessment of the measures needed to encourage competition in electronic communications services provided over electronic communications networks;"

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1051
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that this is what the Secretary of State might include in a direction to Ofcom or that, when the Minister comes back to this on Report, there will be scope to introduce something that will...

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1054
House
House of Lords

My Lords, half the thought behind Amendment 154 leaps ahead to Clause 42. Under new Section 116B in Clause 42, the Government talk about copyright licensing agencies and the idea that material can become freely available, but that you have to pay the copyright licensing agency, as is the case...

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1086-7
House
House of Lords

I was pleased to listen to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s explanation of his Amendment 154. I may be misunderstanding his intention, but we would have some concerns about using technical measures as a penalty, if that is what is intended. We feel, as I think we discussed earlier, that...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1087
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am very happy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to other noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. Suspensions of accounts as a technical measure has been somewhat misrepresented in the media and more widely. In particular, terms such as account termination have...

Member
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1086
House
House of Lords

My Lords, it is interesting that in all the descriptions of technical measures temporary account suspension is referred to. But, of course, that is not what the Bill says. It has rather different language and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to probe this aspect.

Member
Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1086
House
House of Lords

154: Clause 10, page 13, line 3, after "subscriber;" insert— "( ) requires the payment of an additional fee by the subscriber for the maintenance of unrestricted internet access, which is to be remitted to a licensing body established under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;"

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1086
House
House of Lords

155A: Clause 10, page 13, line 4, at end insert— "( ) A subscriber to an internet access service is "relevant" if the subscriber is a relevant subscriber to the service, within the meaning of section 124B(3), in relation to one or more copyright owners." Amendment 155A agreed. Amendment 156...

Member
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1089-90
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I did not expect the amendment to appeal to the Front Benches. The noble Lord has misinterpreted what I am after. I was not suggesting that the amendment is a permission to continue downloading any more than limiting someone’s internet access is a permission to continue downloading. It...

Member
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1088-9
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this amendment suggests that, alongside the sort of technical measures proposed, subscribers should have the option instead of paying an amount to a copyright collecting society. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with his fertile imagination, has come up with this proposal. Internet access is becoming...

Member
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1087-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I had not understood the implications of the noble Lord’s amendment when I read it. However, from a consumer point of view and an acceptability point of view, requiring people to pay a fee is a much more effective remedy than the disproportionate one of cutting off their...

Member
Lord Whitty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
20 January 2010
Reference
716 c1087
House
House of Lords