Industry says that 7.7 million Britons regularly download content for free in the UK.

Parts of the Digital Economy Act that accommodate illegal file-sharing are being challenged in the High Court. Web suppliers BT and TalkTalk demanded the judicial review, arguing that the legislation was rushed through parliament without correct debate.
They claim that the measures unnecessarily impact users' privacy and force ISPs to police copyright infringement on the web. If the court finds in their favour, the act would no longer be enforceable.
"It's a massive deal to be judicially reviewing primary legislation but we have a tendency to took recommendation and there were terribly clearly were some real problems," said Simon Milner, BT's head of business policy. "It might realize that it's all fine - I'd be surprised if it absolutely was - however we are visiting court to induce legal clarity," he added.

Letter campaign
Continue reading the most story
“Start Quote"

    Peer-to-peer file-sharing is yesterday's game. Individuals now are going off the network where they won't be detected - swapping hard-drives, and obtaining music via blogs and upload sites”
Finish Quote Mark Mulligan Forrrester Research
The courts will take into account whether or not the act is consistent with European legislation, in explicit because it relates to users' privacy and therefore the role of ISPs. The previous government brought within the powerful measures to accommodate the growing issue of internet piracy.

Under the present legislation, content providers will have to observe peer-to-peer networks for criminal activity and collate the IP addresses - the numerical code that links a explicit computer network to an illegally downloaded file.
They will then apply to a court to force ISPs to surrender the important world address that's connected to that IP address. Letters might then be sent to alleged net pirates, advising them that their pc affiliation has been used in criminality. The inventive industry is keen that the stress will be on education initially, although folks will go on a blacklist that might in future be used to require individual infringers to court.

Other penalties, like slowing down internet connections or maybe cutting individuals aloof from the web entirely have not been dominated out, however would wish additional legislation. The letter-writing strategy bears similarities to the ways of discredited law firm ACS: Law, which sent over ten,zero00 letters to alleged net pirates.
Unlike content providers, which will not be levying fines, ACS: Law collected some £three hundred,000 from individuals - who were charged a median of £five hundred per infringement.
Not everybody paid up and 27 cases recently went to court in highly controversial circumstances. Lead solicitor Andrew Crossley tried to discontinue the cases shortly before the hearing was due and was accused of obstructing the court process.
In the center of the case, Mr Crossley said he no longer wanted to be within the business of chasing net pirates and the cases were eventually thrown out. But he faces an investigation for his conduct from the Solicitors' Regulation Authority and might be hit with legal costs for the cases he brought.

Tougher measures may follow, including cutting persistent offenders off from the net.

Yesterday's game
During the court case, doubt was forged over whether or not an IP address was suitable proof of wrong-doing because it does not establish the individual user - solely the situation of their connection.
Consumer watchdog That? highlighted many cases where individuals claimed to possess been wrongly accused. Charles Dunstone, chairman of TalkTalk, thinks the same thing can happen if the govt's measures go ahead.
"Innocent broadband customers can suffer and citizens will have their privacy invaded," he said.
Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group, said that he's significantly worried about how the legislation will affect public wi-fi hotspots.
"We would like to start out once more and notice a brand new policy settlement that embraces, instead of tramples on, the exciting potentialities that the digital age offers," he said. John McVay, chief executive of PACT (Producers Alliance for Cinema and TV), who will represent the UK's creative industries at the judicial review, defended the act.
"The Digital Economy Act is the result of several years of consultation and presents a cheap and balanced resolution," he said. But Mark Mulligan, an analyst with Forrester Research, warned that even if the act remains intact, the measures won't work as a result of they're already out-of-date.
"Peer-to-peer file-sharing is yesterday's game. People currently are going off the network where they won't be detected - swapping exhausting-drives, and getting music via blogs and upload sites," he said.