![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper argues that the Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010, already much delayed in its implementation, is fundamentally flawed in three respects. First, there are internal inconsistencies in the complex provisions to be enacted under secondary legislation. In particular, the problem of relying on Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to identify alleged infringers has proved problematic. Secondly, the proposed measures are disproportionate in terms of the offence and severity of the punishment involving a warning-system leading to possible disconnection from the Internet for copyright infringement. Thirdly, the Act is unlikely to succeed in its central purpose to control unauthorised digital copying because of its technological specificity in a fast moving environment, and a lack of consumer acceptance. Finally, by comparing the treatment of these issues under legislation in other countries, in particular New Zealand, alternative copyright enforcement models are explored.
Keywords:
Notes
Digital Britain Report at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm76/7650/7650.pdf Chapter 1 p. 12. The Digital Britain Report is a policy document that outlined the UK Government's strategic vision to place the UK at the helm of the global digital economy (and introduced the Digital Economy Bill).
Farrand, B. 2010. The Digital Economy Act 2010 – a cause for celebration, or a cause for concern? EIPR 32(10): 536–541; De Silva, S., and Weedon, F. 2011. The Digital Economy Act 2010: past, present and a future ‘in limbo’. CTLR 17(3): 55–62; Walden, I., and Wasik, M. 2011. The internet: access controlled! CLR 377–387; Koempel, F. 2010. Digital Economy Bill. CTLR 16(2): 39–43; Cusack, N. 2011. Is the Digital Economy Act 2010 the most effective and proportionate way to reduce online piracy? EIPR 9: 559–564; Barron, A. 2011. ‘Graduated Response’: à l'Anglaise: Online Copyright Infringement and the Digital Economy Act 2010. Journal of Media Law 3(2): 305–347.
Richardson, M. 2009. Internet giants join up to fight new law. Sky News Online at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Google-Facebook-eBay-UK-And-Yahoo-Join-Forces-To-Fight-Digital-Economy-Bill/Article/200912115485504 (3 December 2009); Fildes, J. 2009. Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan. BBC News at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8390623.stm (2 December 2009).
Hansard (House of Commons), Column 1142 (7 April 2010, 11.30 pm); available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100407/debtext/100407-0032.htm
Sections 5-8 of DEA require OFCOM to draw up Code of Practice and enforce it. See also OFCOM Consultation Report, ‘Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010’: Draft Initial Obligations Code (28 May 2010) at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement/condoc.pdf pp. 1–33; 42–65. The Initial Obligations Code was open for consultation from 28 May – 30 July 2010. Following consultation, the much delayed Initial Obligations Code was published on 26 June 2012 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/online-notice/summary/notice.pdf p. 92.
Draft Statutory Instrument at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Draft-Sharing-of-Costs_statutory-instrument.pdf which was drawn up to clarify the format and structure of cost allocation. The draft Statutory Instrument which was consulted publicly between March–May 2010 was published and notified in draft to the European Commission in September 2010 and laid before Parliament in January 2011.
See also, Impact Assessment of draft SI: The Online Infringement of copyright (Initial Obligations) (Sharing of Costs) Order 2011 at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/IA_Sharing_of_Costs_Sl.pdf pp. 7–8.
Independent Review of IP and Growth: An independent report by Professor Ian Hargreaves at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview Government's Response to Hargreaves Review titled ‘Next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act’ (August 2011) at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Next-steps-for-implementation-of-the-Digital-Economy-Act.pdf
Cellan-Jones, R. 2012. Digital Economy Act's anti-piracy measures are delayed BBC News at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17853518 (26 April 2012).
R (BT and Talk Talk) v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin); Case No. CO/7354/2010 (March 2011); R (BT and Talk Talk) v. Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport [2012] EWCA Civ 232 Case No. C1/2011/1437 (Judgement delivered 6 March 2012).
On 7 October 2011, the High Court granted BT and Talk Talk leave to appeal the decision delivered in March 2011. See Sweney, M., and Halliday, J. 2011. BT and Talk Talk given last chance to challenge Digital Economy Act (7 October 2011) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/07/bt-talktalk-digital-economy-act?newsfeed=true
Geere, D. 2011. Universal music boss: ‘Streaming is the future’ (16 February 2011) at http://www.wired.co.uk.news/archive/2011-02/16/universal-music-streaming; David Joseph, Universal Music boss believes that streaming music services are the future, claiming they are ‘eclipsing everything’. He also pointed out that ‘The revenues [from streaming] [sic] are significantly growing and I fundamentally believe that streaming and subscription models with unlimited access on all devices are the future of our business’.
Kuncik, J.A. 2011. Navigating the cloud. MIP 210: 58–60. This article identifies and discusses the security risks inherent in storing intellectual property rights on cloud computing platforms and advises on ways of guarding against them.
Richmond, S. 2011. 3D printing: the technology that could re-shape the world (28 July 2011) The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8666516/3D-printing-the-technology-that-could-re-shape-the-world.html. See also, Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A., and Haufe, P. 2010. The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. Script-ed 7(1): 5–31, Mendis D., “The Clone Wars”: Episode 1 - The Rise of 3D Printing and its Implications for Intellectual Property Law - Learning Lessons from the past? [2013] EIPR 35(3): 154–168; The Pirate Bay wants you to really download a car (12 January 2012) TorrentFreak at http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-wants-you-to-really-download-a-car-120124/
Clarke, S.D. 2010. Editorial: there's life in the old cat yet … Legal Information Management 10(1): 1–2 discusses the intellectual property and copyright issues relating to Web 3.0 or the ‘semantic web’.
Cellan-Jones, R. 2012. Digital Economy Act's anti-piracy measures are delayed. BBC News at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17853518 (26 April 2012).
See also, Farrand, B. 2010. The Digital Economy Act 2010 – a cause for celebration, or a cause for concern? EIPR 32(10): 536–541; De Silva, S., and Weedon, F. 2011. The Digital Economy Act 2010: past, present and a future ‘in limbo’. CTLR 17(3): 55–62; Cusack, N. 2011. Is the Digital Economy Act 2010 the most effective and proportionate way to reduce online piracy? EIPR 9: 559–564.
Media C.A.T. v Adams [2011] EWPCC 6; Golden Eye (International) Ltd & Anor v. Telefonica UK Ltd., [2012] EWHC 723 (Ch); Twentieth Century Fox et al v. BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
Svensson, M., and Larsson, S. 2012. Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms. New Media and Society 1–17 also available at http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/09/1461444812439553.full.pdf+html
A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a private network that interconnects remote (and often geographically separate) networks through primarily public communication infrastructures such as the Internet. VPNs typically require remote users to be authenticated and make use of encryption techniques to prevent disclosure of private information to unauthorized parties present on the network(s) the VPN goes through.
Tor is free software and an open network that helps a user defend against a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships. Available at https://www.torproject.org/
A & M Records Inc, v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al. 545 U.S. 913; 125 S. Ct. 2764; 162 L. Ed. 2d 781; 2005 US; Pirate Bay case B 13301-06 17 April 2009. These cases highlighted the problems of illegal file-sharing. For a discussion of the cases see also, James, S. 2008. The times they are a-changin': copyright theft, music distribution and keeping the pirates at bay. Ent LR 19(5): 106–108; Stylianou, K. 2009. ELSA copyright survey: what does the young generation believe about copyright? IPQ (3): 391–395.
France was the first European country to implement the ‘three-strikes’ legislation. The French system is more popularly known as the HADOPI law taking its name from the government agency set up to administer the three-strikes law: Haute autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur internet – National Authority for the Diffusion of Works and Protection of Copyright on the Internet. The legislation itself implemented under ‘HADOPI II’ is known as ‘The Protection of Intellectual and Artistic Property on the Internet through Criminal Law’. This law came into force on 1 January 2010.
Section 3(1)(a)-(b) DEA 2010; section 4(4)(a)-(b) Obligations Code (June 2012).
Section 4(5) Obligations Code (June 2012).
Section 4(5) Obligations Code (June 2012).
Section 3(3) DEA 2010; section 5(1)(e) Obligations Code (June 2012).
Section 3(6)(a)-(i) DEA 2010; section 16(1)(a)-(j) Obligations Code (June 2012).
Section 4 DEA 2010; section 19(1)(b) Obligations Code (June 2012).
Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Ors v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. The House of Lords held that where an innocent third party had information relating to unlawful conduct, a court could compel them to assist the person suffering damage by giving them that information. See also section 3(8)(c) DEA 2010.
Department for Business Innovation & Skills. 2010. Digital Economy Bill: online infringement of copyright: libraries, universities and wi-fi providers (February 2010) at http://www.bis.gov.uk/digitaleconomybill/ See also, Universities UK response to the Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010, Initial Obligations Code at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/copyright-infringement/responses/University_UK.pdf
Media C.A.T. v Adams [2011] EWPCC 6. See also, Qassim, A. 2011. United Kingdom: internet: UK ruling questions use of IP addresses to support copyright lawsuits. World Communications Regulation Report 6(3): 28.
Hofman, M. 2011. Why IP addresses alone don't identify criminals (24 August 2011) EFF at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/why-ip-addresses-alone-dont-identify-criminals
Ibid.
Media C.A.T. v Adams [2011] EWPCC 6.
Ibid., at para. 31.
Ibid., at para 28. For a further analysis of this case, see also, Tumbridge, J. 2011. MediaCAT scratches the Norwich Pharmacal Order. EIPR 10: 659–661.
[2012] EWHC 723 (Ch).
Ibid.
Ibid., paras 131–138.
Ibid., para 1.
See supra p. 4.
Section 13-14 Initial Obligations Code (June 2012).
Sections 8-14 Initial Obligations Code (June 2012).
Section 10(5)(a)-(b) DEA 2010.
Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property (SABIP) Report, ‘Copycats? Digital consumers in the online age’ (May 2009); SABIP commissioned a research team from University College London which identified 6.7 million illegal file-sharers quoting the Forrester Research Study 2008 – see pp. 6–7. The report can be accessed at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-copycats-200905.pdf
Ibid., at p. 10.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf (16 May 2011).
Ibid., at para 49.
Ibid., at paras 78–79.
Open Rights Group, Petition Against Disconnection and Web Blocking at http://action.openrightsgroup.org/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=1422&ea.campaign.id=6538 As at January 2013, 8276 persons have signed this petition.
Section 13(2)(c).
Section 30(1)(c).
Section 27 of the Initial Obligations Code (June 2012).
Technical Standards and Regulations Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC). It applies to information society services supplied at a distance by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. The aim of the Directive is to prevent the creation of new technical barriers to trade and it lays down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulation.
R (BT and Talk Talk) v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin); Case No. CO/7354/2010, paras. 184-200.
R (BT and Talk Talk) v. Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport [2012] EWCA Civ 232 Case No. C1/2011/1437 (Judgement delivered 6 March 2012).
Section 3, The Online Infringement of Copyright (Initial Obligations) (Sharing of Costs) Order 2011.
Ibid., sections 1-2.
Ibid., section 5.
Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive). The aim of the directive is to harmonise and simplify the rules and conditions for authorising electronic communications networks and services in order to facilitate their provision throughout the Community.
R (BT and Talk Talk) v. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin); Case No. CO/7354/2010, para 200.
Independent review of IP and growth: an independent report by Professor Ian Hargreaves at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview. Government's Response to Hargreaves Review entitled ‘Next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act’ (August 2011) at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Next-steps-for-implementation-of-the-Digital-Economy-Act.pdf
Ibid., at p. 5.
Ibid. See also section 38 Obligations Code (June 2012).
Hansard (House of Lords) Lord Earl Erroll, Column 478 (15 March 2010).
Section 17(3)(a)-(c) DEA.
Twentieth Century Fox et al v. BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch).
[2010] EWHC 608 (Ch).
OFCOM, ‘Site Blocking’ to reduce online copyright infringement: A Review of sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act (Published 27 May 2011) at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at Section 6. The systems mentioned above have already been used for a number of years to carry out website blocking to impede access to child abuse images on the Internet.
Ibid., OFCOM Report, Section 6.
Rowlands M., UK: Internet censorship looms as government finds alternative to flawed Digital Economy Act (07 September 2011) Statewatch Analysis at http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-147-internet-censorship.pdf p. 6.
OFCOM Report, (Published 27 May 2011) at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/internet/site-blocking.pdf at Section 6.
Twentieth Century Fox et al v. BT [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch), para 123.
Ibid., at para 149.
Government's Response to Hargreaves Review: ‘Next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act’ (August 2011) at UK: Internet censorship looms as government finds alternative to flawed Digital Economy Act (07 September 2011) Statewatch Analysis at http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-147-internet-censorship.pdfhttp://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/Next-steps-for-implementation-of-the-Digital-Economy-Act.pdf p. 7
Statewatch is a non-profit making voluntary group which carries out critical research in the fields of state, justice, home affairs, civil liberties, accountability and openness.
Rowlands, M., UK: Internet censorship looms as government finds alternative to flawed Digital Economy Act (07 September 2011) Statewatch Analysis at http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-147-internet-censorship.pdf
Voluntary Website Blocking Proposal, Working Paper submitted by the Rightsholder Group, ‘The Potential for a Voluntary Code’ (15 June 2011) at http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Voluntary_Website_Blocking_Proposal See also, Minutes of the meeting which took place on 15 June 2011 at http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/responses-to-org/freedom-of-information-request:-site-blocking-working-group-15-june
Ibid.
Ibid. Minutes of the meeting.
Rowlands, M., supra n. 72.
Voluntary Website Blocking Proposal at supra n. 79.
Sky, Everything Everywhere, Talk Talk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site. Dramatico Entertainment Ltd., & Ors v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., & Ors [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch) Case No: HC11C04518. See also, Smith, J., and Burke, S. 2012. Record companies win first round v The Pirate Bay in the United Kingdom but pirates remain at large: Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd. European Intellectual Property Review 416–419.
See supra n. 20 and n. 21.
Geere, D. 2012. Pirate Bay claims record traffic, posts advice on getting round court block. Wired UK at http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/03/get-around-pirate-bay-block. Knowles, J. 2012. UK Pirate Party sees more than 1.8m visits in 24 hours after ISP block. The Next Web at http://thenextweb.com/uk/2012/05/18/uk-pirate-party-sees-more-than-1-8m-visits-in-24-hours-after-isps-block-the-pirate-bay-website/. Ball, J. 2012. The Pirate Bay copyright crackdown is unsustainable. The Guardian (1 May 2012) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/pirate-bay-copyright-crackdown?CMP=twt_gu
Pirate Bay ready for perpetual IP-Address Whac-A-Mole TorrentFreak (28 May 2012) at http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-ready-for-perpetual-ip-address-whac-a-mole-120528/. The article also gives a link to a list of Pirate Bay proxies that can be used to circumvent the ISP blocks.
Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. See also Monetary Penalty Notice issued to Jonathan Crossley formerly of ACS:Law (9 May 2011) at http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/taking_action/dp_pecr.aspx#monetarypenalties
Scarlet Extended SA v. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL (24 November 2011) C-70/10. See also, Trends of the year: Copyright owners sue the messenger: Rights owners switch tactics, but are inevitably one step behind pirates (December 2011/January 2012) MIP p. 48.
Supra, pp. 17–21.
Trends of the year, supra n. 89 at p. 48.
Rudkin-Binks, J., and Melbourne, S. 2009. The new ‘three strikes’ regime for copyright enforcement in New Zealand – requiring ISPs to step up to the fight Ent LR 20(4): 146–149 at 147.
New Zealand Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122643.html#DLM1230403 For an analysis of this Act, see ibid., Rudkin-Binks, J., and Melbourne, S., pp. 146–149 at p. 147; Gray, E., and Walters, K. 2009. The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008: updating New Zealand's Copyright Act for the digital age. CTLR 15(4): 88–89.
Fogarty, S. 2011. The NZ Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 [2011] July/August. IP Magazine pp. 82–83.
New Zealand Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0011/latest/DLM2764312.html; For an analysis of the 2011 Act, see also, ibid., Fogarty, S., pp. 82–83; Frédérique, P., Maureen, D., Jeong, Y., and Simon, F., 2011. How three strikes is working. MIP (209): 18.
Section 122P, 2011 Act.
Section 122A(1) 2011 Act. For an analysis of the 2011 Act, see also Frédérique, P., Maureen, D., Jeong, Y., and Simon, F., 2011. How three strikes is working. MIP (209): 18; Simon F., supra n. 94 p. 18. See also, 3strikesNZ at http://3strikes.net.nz/information/law-basics
Section 122(C)(1); sections 122(B)-(C) 2011 Act.
Section 122(B)(3); Sections 122(D)-122(F) of 2011 Act.
Section 122(c)(1), 2011 Act.
Section 122(F)(3)-(5) 2011 Act.
Fogarty, S., supra n. 94 pp. 82–83.
Apostolou N., New NZ copyright law means ISPs could cash in – Illegal downloaders on your network? Charge the content owners, 18 July 2011, The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/12/nz_three_strikes_law/
Ibid.
Section 122(B)(4)(a) 2011 Act.
Section 122(B)(4)(b) 2011 Act.
It is interesting to note that piracy in France has grown by 3% since the implementation of the HADOPI law in 2009. Albeit a small-scale study of 2000 people, the results illustrated that pirates had changed their habits by turning to streaming services and download sites not covered by the law in obtaining pirated music and films. The study showed that use of peer-to-peer or file-sharing services fell among those questioned from 17.1% to 14.6% since October 2009. By contrast, the use of sites and services not covered by the HADOPI law grew by 27% over the same period. See BBC News, French pirates ‘dodge’ tough laws (29 March 2010) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8592444.stm; For a full report (French language) see, Dejean, S., Pénard, T., and Suire, R. 2010. Une première évaluation des effets de la loi Hadopi sur les pratiques des Internautes français. At http://www.marsouin.org/IMG/pdf/NoteHadopix.pdf; Geiger, C. 2011. Honourable attempt but (ultimately) disproportionately offensive against peer-to-peer on the internet (HADOPI) – a critical analysis of the recent anti-file-sharing legislation in France. IIC 42(4): 457–472.
Frédérique, P., Maureen, D., Jeong, Y., and Simon, F., supra n. 95 p. 18.
Outlaw.com, Lib-Dems back repeal Digital Economy Act's copyright infringement measure (21 September 2011) at http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011/september/lib-dems-back-repeal-digital-economy-acts-copyright-infringement-measures/.
Kantar Media. 2010. Illegal file-sharing pilot survey report for Ofcom (May) available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/filesharing/kantar.pdf; GfK NOP Social Research. 2011. Qualitative research into online digital piracy (August 2011) available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/filesharing/gfk.pdf
Times Lab, Record Companies lose, artists gain from file-sharing at http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/record-companies-lose-artists-gain-from-file-sharing/
What's working in music: Having a Ball (7 October 2010) The Economist at http://www.economist.com/node/17199460
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2008. A better way forward: voluntary collective licensing of music file sharing at https://www.eff.org/files/eff-a-better-way-forward.pdf (April 2008).
Gervais, D. 2003. The price of social norms: towards a liability regime for file-sharing. Journal of Intellectual Property 12(1): 39–73 at 41, 73.
Ibid.
Kretschmer, M. 2011. Private copying and fair compensation: an empirical study of copyright levies in Europe. A Report for the UK Intellectual Property Office (October 2011). Economic Rationales (Study III) pp. 6–9. See also, Varian, H.A. 2005. Copying and copyright. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(2): 121–138 at 129.
Gervais, D., supra n. 114 at p. 73.
Svensson, M., and Larsson, S. 2012. Intellectual property law compliance in Europe: Illegal file sharing and the role of social norms. New Media and Society 1–17; also available at http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/04/09/1461444812439553.full.pdf+htm
EFF Report, supra n. 113.
Ibid.
Wessel, M. 2011. Why Spotify will kill iTunes (22 July 2011). Harvard Business Review at http://www.businessweek.com/management/why-spotify-will-kill-itunes-07222011.html
Gobry, P. 2011. How Spotify's business works (12 October 2011). Business Insider at http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-12/research/30269526_1_spotify-revenues-cost
Allworth, J. 2011. Why I'm not going near Spotify (and why you shouldn't either). (22 July 2011) Harvard Business Review at http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/07/why_im_not_going_near_spotify.html
EFF Report, supra n. 113 p. 3.
Kallinikou, D., Papadopoulos, M., Kaponi, A., and Strakantouna, V., Alternative system for non-commercial use of intellectual property in consideration of free P2P file-sharing (September 2009) at http://europe.creativecommons.org/webfm_send/14 pp. 5–6.
Naylor, G., and Frank, K.E. 2001. The effect of price bundling on consumer perceptions of value. Journal of Services Marketing 15(4): 270–281.
Wintour, P. 2012. ISP asks new customers to set access controls (6 February 2012). The Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/06/isp-customers-access-controls-talktalk
For a discussion of copyright collecting societies and issues surrounding collusion and competition see, Mendis, D. 2009. Universities and copyright collecting societies, chapter 5 (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press/Cambridge University Press).
EFF Report, supra n. 113 pp. 4–5.
Svensson, M., and Larsson, S., supra n. 118.
Larsson, S., and Svensson, M. 2010. Compliance or obscurity? Online anonymity as a consequence of fighting unauthorised file-sharing. Policy and Internet 2(4): 77–105.