In addition to the reasons listed in the main suggestion; the Act is seen as badly flawed, even by those who supported it. It is inefficient, even in its own terms.

A bill so fundamentally lacking understanding of the technological landscape that it would be laughable if it hadn't entered the statute books.

Ill-informed, misguided, unworkable.

@chriswalton - indeed; when it was in the House of Lords, one person allegedly described it as "a spatchcock that does part of the work it was intended to do but not all of it" (although I should note that I never found evidence of that in Hansard).

Thanks both of you for your support.

Not shown to work, expensive and does the public a disservice by threatening open networks.

I have an identical proposal on the "Civil Liberties" section of this site and it is currently the joint top "most commented".

How Parliament signed away it's powers to define what was legal and place it in the hands of one man (the Secretary of State for Business)and who never had to justify any such changes to Parliament beggars belief.

But that is what they did!

The Digital Economy Act has some important provisions which deserved far better oversight and review than to be rushed through in wash-up. Please repeal and have a sensible engagement with industry (on both sides of the argument) to develop a vision for regulation of the digital economy which is forward looking and "fit for purpose" to make UK *the* place to be.

@maxbiaggi I was asked a couple of hours ago to draft another suggestion as it was pointed out that yours went some way but not far enough.

This suggestion refers to the Act, rather than the Bill, and goes specifically into *why* the DEA is a bad thing and why it must be repealed, instead of merely stating that it should be, and also adds the request for the less objectionable parts of the Act to be rewritten and passed again, democratically this time.

I have also contributing to another suggestion, which I belueve will be put forward by the Open Rights Group.

Please note that the more suggestions there are asking the Government to repeal the Act, the more obvious it is that people hate it, so having more suggestions on the same topic is a good thing.

The DEA is a disgrace, written in haste to address the fact that big business has yet to realise their distribution and production models are out of date.

It causes legal conflicts within itself and produces no discernible progress for any party other than criminalisation of yet another set of individuals.

While I agree with every point in the above proposal, I would go further in my criticism of this Act than the original complaint does:

Firstly, the arguments made by the vested interests that lobbied for the Digital Economy Bill contain a number of logical fallacies, the most obvious of which is the way in which they calculate their 'losses' to piracy. Every download does not equal a lost sale, regardless of what they say. It is simply untrue to assume this. Secondly, that piracy harms future art is also highly debatable: In many ways music and film culture has never been richer than it is now, and live music is thriving. The truth, is that powerful rights holders are not as necessary as they used to be, nor making as much money as they think is possible, but this does not mean art and culture are suffering as a consequence.

My second point is a more technical one. There has been no explaination, that I am aware of, of how the detection of copyright infringers will occur. Without accurate inspection of data transfers, false positives will invariably arise. For example, how can my ISP ascertain whether my fast download was legitimate or not? They would have to either monitor my traffic in detail, or else just assume that a large download means piracy. Neither solution is acceptable,in the latter case there is the probability of the punishment of users based on flimsy evidence, in the latter case a gross invasion of privacy must occur to ensure an accusation is correct. I don't want anyone listening to my phonecalls, likewise I do not want a 3rd party monitoring my internet useage. Individuals deserve the right to a modicum of privacy, and I do not agree with compromising that based on the flimsy logic of large rights holders, rushed through parliment without proper debate.

Finally, the potential for the Digital Economy Act to be used to suppress free speech cannot be underestimated. Blocking access to websites based on accusations from rights holders is simply not acceptable. For example, much of the material on Wikileaks is copyrighted, and therefore the site could be blocked under the new legislation. Ministers promised this won't happen. However, ministers have promised many things and not delivered, and it is my understanding that if there is a power that can be abused or misused, it invariably will be.

In Finland the internet is a legal right now. Compare this to here, the digital economy act; where the internet is taken away from people for speaking in the wrong way. However it will not affect those that misuse it. It will in-fact have the most impact on those that do not understand it. People with unsecured wifi, people with children etc. The people that make money from illegally using copyrighted work will still be able to do it.

As someone whose livelihood is threatened by illegal file sharing, I welcome ANY measure that stops the thieving behind closed doors. It does NO one any good. Companies are made up of artists: authors, musicians, composers, actors, photographers, etc. All of them lose when someone steals. Because sales are threatened, companies and artists make less profit, so pay less tax. The government loses tax and VAT. We ALL end up paying so a few can steal. The real profiteers are the pirate companies. Do you think for a second they pay tax? Three strikes are two too many. You should be barred and fined £3000 without warning! Do you get warnings if caught stealing from a store? Stealing copyright material is NO different. You want it, pay for it, or create it. No one is stopping you. You have the same freedoms as to become a great composer, author, photographer or musician. I do NOT feel my right to the internet threatened in any way by the Digital Economy Act 2010.

Whatever you think of the content of the bill, this should've never been rushed through.

Especially by Peter Mandelson, especially after having met days before with David Geffen and especially on the Rothchilds' yacht in Corfu.

Go Google it, it's unbelievably true.

Walrus, you should be opposed to the measures in the DEA because they will not "stop the thieving behind closed doors". They not only infringe on our civil liberties; more importantly, they will not work. Imagining that copyright infringement can be detected with some algorithm is magical thinking, pure and simple. Laws based on magic have no place in the modern world.

The main enemy of the struggling artist isn't "illegal" filesharing, it's anonymity - and this terrible Act does nothing to assist us in our struggle to get known.

Please leave filesharers alone by repealing sections 3 to 18, we need their help to spread the word of our existence. They do so for no cash, no profit and no exchange of goods and we thank them for doing so.

I think its an insult to all of us.. to rush this bill through parliament at the end of the last goverment without public consultation to apease the corporate music industry. Didn't the Lib Dems say they were going to repeal this bill anyway?

I totally agree that this should be removed. This is a step too far in state control and is moving the internet closer to that which is found in China.

This sort of control actually will hinder innovation and freedom of speech. This act will only be the start of things and we know that Governments will use this law to filter anything from the internet that they dont like.

This is a law that needs repealing as soon as possible.

The Digital Economy Act is an old world order trying to fight a new world order. When printing arrived people tried to control it but it was no use. Information needs to be free as someone once said.

This act should never have been passed in it's current form and the MPs passing it didn't really understand the issues. The Act was rushed through by a Government in its last days.

A recipe for bad law which we are now stuck with. a law that is in conflict with natural justice!

Repeal the entire act and start again, this time giving proper considation to the views of a wider range of interested parties.

Never before have the views of a few, mainly american, firms in one industry been listened to so readily to protect their outmoded revenue model and criminalised an entire society.

This will put the kybosh on the technologically creative industry that the uk is good at - one of the few hopes to actually make money in the uk economy in the future.

This ACT will do nothing except further encourage the shyster and the forger. It will prove to be useless - the RIAA are in denial about this - since modern encryption techniques will soon enable everyone to conduct whatever business they like free of government sight.

A disgusting law that aims at restricting peoples freedom to communicate whilst simulatously appeasing greedy corporations. Repeal completely!

The promised repeal of this was one of the reasons I supported other parties in the general election, please don't let us down.

Just another example of this previous government not understanding anything about the modern world and how the internet works or if you’re smart how you can use the internet without being spotted.

My father’s Wi-Fi was cracked and an unknown and was using his wi-fi, but if the Hollywood Lawyers had come a calling he would have been a fault.

This bill has been made just to make Hollywood and the music industry more money.

Frankly, to allow such an obvious reminder of Labour's legacy of needlessly restrictive, anti-citizen policies to remain while other, far less abysmal laws are scrapped would be nothing short of hypocrisy on the grandest scale.

This is a disgrace that this legislation was rushed through in the 'wash up' without being properly debated in the House. Many MPs who had only the faintest grasp of the technology involved voted for it without properly understanding what they were voting for.

To my mind this is another example of a lazy audio and video industry using Government to do their dirty work for them and also saving them money.

The industry has the resources to protect their property but such moves would probably compromise their marketing using 'free' files to entice us into online purchases.

This is an badly thought out Bill and having watched the debate I was alarmed at the ignorance of the MPs concerning matters to do with Internet.

Many musicians do not mind having their music downloaded for free (Billy Bragg for one), so if someone is caught doing so and has their Broadband suspended, is it a defence if the artist concerned says its OK to do so?

Or is this Bill only protecting the companies who make a fortune out of their signed artists already?

The Bill also changes the premise of British Law (innocent until proved guilty) by stating that the Internet account holder user has to prove they DID NOT download material instead of the complainant providing evidence that they did. A nasty and worrying change to an important principle.

Multiple users in a household is an obvious problem here, as are hotels, pubs, etc. with open public Wi-Fi access. I wait for a major hotel to be prosecuted! Any judge worth his salt would through the prosecution out immediately.

This Bill needs to be scrapped as a matter of urgency.

This is weighed heavily in the favour of the music and movie industries, both industries that get tax relief and as a result should have absolutely no say on how the UK is run, much less band up with Sackee Mandelson to introduce a music/movie industry based law.

As with the above poster, this Bill needs to be repealed, thrown to the docks, and nobody speak of it again.

By default, all laws should be innocent until proven guilty, and IP address is not enough information, and should also be struck out as a means to identify file sharers.

The music and movie industries aren't special and should not be entitled to special treatment in law. They should be treated like a normal company or organisation, just like any other company or organisation.

Wulrus:

got some news for you. Computers dont work that way. The problem with how computer communicate is impossible to identify what things have been downloaded and by who. I work as a developer other developer type people come and go from my house with laptops. If one of them come to my house and they access the internet though me. It is impossible for me to tell what content they are download without snooping on their data (this should require a warrent). However it will be identified that it came from my connection. Should I be liable for this because I provided transport for the data?

If so then royal mail should also be liable for transport for a copied cd. Its a good comparision because its the same operation you are actually doing. Opening every letter and looking inside to check the content's event the ones which my include private data.

Last time I check this is indeed an invasion of privacy.

The solution that the pirates use is simple. Encrypt everything and relay it though a node in another country.

There are point an click programs already available on the internet to do this and they cost around 10-20 euro's a month. Fort he data bandwidth that is used.

Again these have a valid use and are hard to detect. Companies typically use the same systems to link office's together instead of using costly leased lines.

This should be scrapped. It does not matter what the law says in regards to this. there is no way todo it without punishing the innocent people using a guilty until proven innocent system.

The act is an arse - it encourages you to set up your WiFi with no security as in this state anyone can access it and it can't be proved it was you accessed any site - as IP addresses etc can be faked.

A utterly farcical piece of legislation, rushed through by very few MP's in an un-democratic manner. Any MP who was even 1/2 way tech-savvy voted against this Bill, because they know it wont work.
Anybody who knows anything about computers (especially those who d/l in order to make copies & profit from it, surely the main targets) will not be caught as they know about VPN's, proxys and tracker-less torrents (and that's if they aren't just using news groups.)
On another level, the whole bill seems to me to be in breach of the Human Rights Act and the European Act, the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial. Do we really want to see the UK govt found in breach AGAIN?? After spending millions of pounds on trying to defend the in-defensible?
Repeal this bill straight away, it is un-democratic, probably illegal and certainly wont work. I give it 0/10.

This bill is an affront to human rights, civil liberties and good law. It should be repealed at the earliest opportunity.

This bill was written by industry lobbyists who want the ISPs to bear the costs of the music/film industries. It does not represent the interests or the will of the British people. Scrap it.

Badly drafted, rushed through, ill understood issues by the previous parliament. Needs repeal until a proper debate is held on a better piece of legislation.

Walrus: "As someone whose livelihood is threatened by illegal file sharing, I welcome ANY measure that stops the thieving behind closed doors."

The Digital Economy Act is highly unlikely to achieve this. It may cause a slight reduction in the ease of file sharing, which may make it slightly less convenient to use and deter a few percent of the people who might occasionally use it, but it will do so at a cost of making completely innocent people liable for others' copyright infringements. Example: I live in a house with several friends, at least one of whom is a regular file sharer. The phone line is in my name. Under DEA, if my housemate is caught sharing a file without permission, then *I* can be sued for the damages to the file's copyright owner, and *my* Internet connection can be cut off. I would have no redress against the housemate, as I have no legal rights in this situation.

Nobody's mentioned the demise of VHF and its replacement by vastly inferior DAB. Radio 3 will have a degraded bandwidth, and millions of radios will have to be scrapped. DAB radios use more power than conventional units.

The Digital Economy Act seems simply like a precursor to censorship, something most of us would abhor. We all know there are good and bad things on the internet and I would like to believe we are all able to self-censor what we don't want to see.

Illegal file sharing is not going to be successfully combated by law - what we really need is shorter copyright periods in the digital age. The law does not shape society, society shapes the law - a lesson we frequently learn but too easily forget.

The Digital Economy Act seems simply like a precursor to censorship, something most of us would abhor. We all know there are good and bad things on the internet and I would like to believe we are all able to self-censor what we don't want to see.

Illegal file sharing is not going to be successfully combated by law - what we really need is shorter copyright periods in the digital age. The law does not shape society, society shapes the law - a lesson we frequently learn but too easily forget.

The controversial parts of the Act that relate to file sharing and the three-strikes rule should never have made it into law without the proper debate that they deserved. The Act should be repealed and the subject matter should be properly debated.

Drafted by the media companies. Please repeal this.

I agree , it was another dark day for our democratic system when this rubbish was rushed through with out proper debate .

It seems to me that the way this bill was rushed through the 'wash-up' was a victory for the lobbyists. Something we should all be concerned about for the future.

It seems to me that the way this bill was rushed through the 'wash-up' was a victory for the lobbyists. Something we should all be concerned about for the future.

I believe this bill contravenes in parts, one of the fundamental charters in this country's history. That Charter being the Magna Carter of 1215.

Extract :

XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

i.e. the right of due process, or innocent until PROVEN guilty, not assumed...

Disgraceful Act.

British law making at its best, unelected twice forced to resign Peter Mandelson, made a lord so he can be shoehorned back into power, with American media mogul David Geffen and billionaire Rothschild rubbing their hands together. All stitched together on Rothschild’s yacht while parliament was away on their long happy holiday.
Another reason I am so glad to see the back of the tyrannical bullying lying labour government. At least Mandelson’s book is cheering those ex pm’s up.

This act definitely needs repealing.

Open wifi promotes a healthy civil society for the majority. This Act will kill it.

This act opens the way for Internet 2, a model of a state/media controlled internet in the style of communist China.

Movie company profits are huge, as are those of music companies. These same organisations bleeted on about tape-to-tape killing music all those years ago. You only have to listen to radio6 music for an hour to realise that the music scene in this country is more vibrant and alive than it has ever been.

The act is ridiculously unworkable, modern file encryption and anonymising networks make a complete mockery of it.

Get rid of it, it's sinister,oppressive and downright stupid.

This act tips the balance too far in favour of greedy entertainers. Surely, once a product is sold, it is sold? No strings attached.

I share half of my WiFi router to public BTOpenZone and BTFon customers, so my internet connection is available to many people I do not know and have no control over. It seems to me that this bill puts me at risk of having my connection removed if a member of the public connects through my router. The only way to protect myself would seem to be to remove open access. This means that internet access for many may be shut down to protect the commercial interests of the few. Surly this is wrong.

I've just checked all of the wifi networks that are in range of my flat, 3 out 5 are using WEP security which means that they can be hacked in roughly 5mins or less using freely available software that requires very little knowledge to use. Following this I found a VPN service in Sweden which costs 40sek per month (about £3.60) which offers full encryption, supports bittorrent with no usage restrictions and doesn't keep any usage records. It seems to me that the only people likely to be cut off by the three strike rule are those who simply don't understand network security and therefore it's a complete farce.

@walrus: When a random stranger who you have no connection to physically steals from a shop, you are not punished for it so this analogy is very weak. Pubs and cafes with free open-wifi can be charged if someone comes in and uses their wireless access point to download copyrighted material so in what way is this fair? In fact, after a while less pubs and cafes will be inclined to allow people to go on the internet for free from their wireless access point which can only be a bad thing. Furthermore, I'm sorry to hear that your company is suffering from decreased profits, however to blame it solely on piracy is completely wrong. 1 illegal download does not equate to 1 lost sale by any means and your company's decreased profits can be attributed to other factors such as the general population having less money to spend on movies/music/etc. due to the economic recession and possibly unemployement.