Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
Tel
0207 217 6075
Information Economy
London SW1Y 5DH
Fax
www.culture.gov.uk
Rachel.Clark@
culture.gsi.gov.uk
Unclassified
Mr Phil Bradley
Your Ref
via "What Do They Know"
Our Ref
28 July 2011
Dear Mr Bradley
ICO Reference: FS50387112, BIS Reference: 10/2228
You asked for an internal review to be undertaken for the Freedom of Information
request you made to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
referred to above.
I am also replying to points raised in the letter from the Information Commissioner’s
Office to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills dated 7 June 2011.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your requests as
well as the excessive time taken to complete this review. As you have been made
aware in other correspondence from DCMS relating to other FoI requests you have
submitted, a major contributing factor in this delay has been the physical and
electronic transfer of data and staff from BIS to DCMS during the early part of the
year. In addition to this, a prolonged staff illness also led to delays in responding to
your original request for an internal review to be actionned.
You should also be aware that we did not receive clearance from Lord Mandelson’s
office for the release of this material until 27 July 2011.
On 18 October 2010, you asked BIS to provide you with:
‘Communications by Peter Mandelson to other BIS employees relating to:
- copyright (term, enforcement, policy, infringement, piracy, economy,
importance, law), or
- a Memorandum of Understanding, or
- the BPI (British Recorded Music Industry/ British Phonographic Industry) or,
- UK Music, or
Unclassified
Information Economy
- legislative consultation from 16 June 2009,
All from 1/8/2008 to 1/9/2009, with minutes please.
BIS replied to this request on 12 November 2010 informing you that it did not
possess the information you had requested.
I have now completed the internal review of this case.
You suggested that the original response should have identified more
correspondence. I would agree that the initial response seems to have taken an
extremely limited definition of the scope of the original request.
It is my view that the reply given to you on 12 November 2010 is neither credible nor
correct. It is quite clear to me that BIS did hold records which covered your request
and which should have been considered for possible disclosure when replying to
your request. Please accept my apologies for this.
Because of this we have undertaken additional searches of our records at DCMS
and BIS to provide you with a fuller reply. The results of these searches follow this
letter at Annex A.
As a result of these searches, I am now satisfied that we have identified all the
correspondence identifiable in relation to the subjects stated in your request and
which occurred during the requested timescale and these can be accessed through
the above links.
Please note that some material has been considered against the following
exemptions:
Section 35 (1a)
Formulation of government policy
Section 35 (1b)
Ministerial communications
Section 40
Personal information
Section 43
Commercial interests
The application of sections 35 (1a) and (1b) and 43 are subject to a public interest
test.
Section 35 (1a)
Formulation of government policy
Section 35 (1b)
Ministerial communications
I have considered the arguments which may weigh in favour of a decision to
disclose. It is clear that the general public interest in disclosure if it is advanced by
the specific information in question by enabling greater transparency to make
government more accountable to the electorate and increase trust. It can also be
argued that the public interest could be advanced by being able to access the quality
of advice being provided to ministers and the subsequent decision making process.
Against this I have considered the argument that good government depends on good
decision making and these needs to be based upon the best advice available and full
consideration of all the available options, without fear of premature disclosure.
Unclassified
Information Economy
There is also an argument that advice should be broad based and there may be a
deterrent effect on external experts or stakeholders who might be reluctant to
provide advice because it might be disclosed.
Equally, the impartiality of the civil service might be undermined if advice was
routinely made public as there is a risk that officials could come under political
pressure not to challenge ideas in the formulation of policy, thus leading to poorer
decision-making and ministers and officials also need to be able to conduct rigorous
and candid risk assessments of their policies and programmes including
considerations of the pros and cons without there being premature disclosure which
might close off better options.
It is my view that there needs to be a free space in which it is possible to use
imagination and offer a variety of options to a query, without the fear that policy
proposals will be held up to ridicule.
Having weighed these arguments I have not withheld any information under Section
35.
Section 43 – Commercial interests
Section 43 sets out that information is exempted from the right to know if:
The information is a trade secret, or
Release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interest of any
person (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself,
or any other legal entity
Disclosure of a trade secret would, by definition, prejudice a commercial interest.
The act treats trade secrets differently to other information where disclosure might
harm a commercial interest, in that whether or not, the authority decides to disclose
the information, it must always confirm or deny that it holds the information.
This is a qualified exemption. A public authority can only refuse to provide the
information if it believes that the public interest in withholding disclosure, outweighs
the public interest in disclosing it. Whilst the term “trade secret” is not defined in the
Act, it is not a difficult one to understand. It can also be extended from the obvious
bounds of a “secret”. The term has a wide meaning, ranging from a secret recipe or
formula to the names of customers or a company’s pricing structure if these are not
generally known and the source of a company’s “competitive edge”.
The “right to know” provides that in responding to a request for information, a public
authority is required to inform the applicant that it holds the information (known as
“the duty to confirm or deny”) and if so to communicate that to the applicant.
By contrast, where the information requested is likely to prejudice commercial
interests, the owner of that information needs to assess whether disclosure might
harm a commercial interest.
There is also an argument to consider in respect of the effect of disclosure would
have on the development of policy of this area. During the policy development
process, public authorities come into possession of much commercial information
Unclassified
Information Economy
relating to individual businesses
In assessing the above requirements I have tested the information against six
elements:
Does the information relate to, or could it impact on a commercial activity?
Is that commercial activity conducted in a competitive environment?
Would there be damage to reputation or business confidence?
Whose commercial interests are affected?
Is the information commercially sensitive?
What is the likelihood of the prejudice being caused?
I have concluded that releasing the material into the public domain would cause
harm to the companies concerned and consider that the information is commercially
sensitive and that disclosure would affect the commercial interests of the companies.
I also believe that disclosure would affect the company’ ability to conduct its
business in a competitive environment.
Personal information has been redacted on accordance with Section 40 of the Act.
This is an absolute exemption and does not require the public interest to be applied.
Additionally, names of officials outside the senior civil service have been redacted.
You should also note that a small amount of other material has been redacted as it is
outside the scope of your request.
You could, of course, also make a new request focusing on correspondence
received before September 2009 if you wish to do so, bearing in mind the points
raised above as to what would make such a request possible to respond to
effectively. I should warn you though, that the problems around access to files
transferred from BIS still exist although all efforts are being made to resolve them.
A copy of this letter has been sent to Nicola Humphries at the Information
Commissioner’s Office as requested in her e-mail of 7 June 2011.
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to
apply directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision. The
Information commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 4AF.
Rachel Clark
Head of Creative Economy Telecoms and Internet
Unclassified
Information Economy
ANNEX A
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 07 August 2009 10:56
To: Williams Laura (PPD); 'Matthew Cope'; 'Ian Fletcher'
Cc: Clark Rachel (BR2); Brazier Adrian (BR2); Lammy MPST; McFadden MPST; Fraser MPST; Rutnam
Philip (MPST DG); Hendon David (BR2); 'ZEFF JON'; Morris Dominic (BR2); Perry Colin (BR2); 'Steve
Rowan'; Race Eve (LEGAL B); Martinez-Soto Jose (LEGAL B); Letts Shirley (Better Regulation
Executive); Towler Simon (CLG); Flynn Una (COMMS); Klym Mike (BR2); 'ALSEY PAUL'; Cooke Matt
(MPST MIN); Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN); SPAD MPST; Gettins Tim (BR2); Humphreys Jane (BR2);
Frank David (MPST MIN); Capon Catherine (MPST MIN); Mandelson MPST
Subject: RE: DA letter on a revised consultation document on unlawful peer-to-peer
Laura
I have sent across the draft DA letter to DCMS ministers for comment. Ben Bradshaw would like to
speak the Secretary of State about this so we are now trying to find a suitable slot for late on
Monday. I would therefore be grateful if you could work with Matt Cope to put together a speaking
note by 16.00 today setting out (1) summary of why we wish to issue a revised consultation; (2) why
this is preferable to other options Ben Bradshaw may suggest including ministerial statement; (3)
tight timeframe; and (4) any other relevant points.
Also, if the call takes place late on Monday the first potential opportunity for the letter to be sent is
Tuesday morning (all being well). I would be grateful if you could confirm with the DA secretariat
that it is satisfactory for us to write on Tuesday 11 August with a deadline of 12 August prior to the
revised consultation being issued on 13 August, particularly during recess.
Many thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey
Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
020 7215 5622 / 07824342055
-----Original Message-----
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 05 August 2009 10:36
Unclassified
Information Economy
To: Brazier Adrian (BR2); Clark Rachel (BR2)
Subject: Prime Minister to Tony Burke (Unite)
Adrian / Rachel
Please see attached, for information, letter from the Prime Minister to Tony Burke of Unite.
Burke - joint policy
statement.pdf
Thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey
Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
020 7215 5622 / 07824342055
From:
Mandelson MPST
Sent:
15 July 2009 11:19
To:
Klym Mike (BR2); Carter MPST; SPAD MPST; Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
Cc:
Lammy MPST; McFadden MPST; Fraser MPST; Rycroft Philip (BIS); Fletcher Ian;
Hendon David (BR2); 'xxx.xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx'; Morris Dominic (BR2); Perry
Colin (BR2); 'xxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx'; 'HERON PAUL'; Welch Bryan (LEGAL
B); Martinez-Soto Jose (LEGAL B); Clark Rachel (BR2); Brazier Adrian (BR2);
'Matthew Cope'; Letts Shirley (Better Regulation Executive); Cooke Matt (MPST
MIN); Williams Laura (PPD); Mahoney David (BR2)
Subject:
RE: P2P: further advice on technical measures
Mike
As discussed, the Secretary of State has seen your submission and asked if Geoffrey Norris
could check that this meets the requests of Lucian Grainge set out in his recent letter
(attached for reference).
Chris / Peter - grateful if you could draw this to Geoffrey's attention.
Thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey
Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
020 7215 5622 / 07824342055
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 06 July 2009 16:14
To: 'Ian Fletcher'; Lammy MPST; Carter MPST; Morris Dominic (BR2); Fraser MPST; SPAD
MPST; McFadden MPST; Cooke Matt (MPST MIN); Clark Rachel (IE); Dunne Mike (IE);
'Andrew Jenner'; Flynn Una (COMMS); 'James Thomson'; 'IPOB'; Rycroft Philip (Chief Exec
BRE and DG Enterprise & Innovation); Benger Sophie (BIS CORP); Tavernier Vincent (HE
Briefings Coordinator); 'Katie Phillips'; Mahoney David (BR2); Sharps Samuel (IE); Morris
Dominic (BR2)
Cc: Brazier Adrian (IE); Clark Rachel (IE); 'Edmund Quilty'; 'Nicholas Munn'; 'Lisa Vango';
Unclassified
Information Economy
Baker Gillian (UKTI SG); Hendon David (IE)
Subject: RESTRICTED: Note of SoS's meeting with Lucian Grainge (CEO, Universal Music
Group International) 02.07.09
RESTRICTED Note of Secretary of State's meeting with Lucian Grainge (CEO, Universal Music Group
International) Thursday 02 July 2009 15.00-15.45
Also in attendance: Ian Fletcher and Matt Cope (Intellectual Property Office)
IF: Legislating for file sharing was a difficult issue, however the Digital Britain report had
put in place a system that would warn people by identifying connections used. A large
number of people (around 70%) change their behaviour following a warning but there
was also a need for Ofcom to have the necessary power to take measures against
persistent offenders.
LG: Not sure if all creative industries (including films, books and other intellectual
property that can be digitised and shared) are covered by the Digital Britain report.
Concerned, as the cost to protect from file sharing is very high. The acknowledgement
that internet piracy exists is a good starting point, however the warning system will not
work. Also, proposals do not go far enough, deep enough or quickly enough.
LG: Universal have entered into an arrangement with the Internet Service Provider (ISP)
Virgin to target legitimate broadband users with a £10 "all you can eat" offer. There is a
commercial risk with this strategy, which could be like "putting a Coca Cola pipe in your
house which would then supply the whole street". In return for a fixed fee revenue
share Virgin have agreed to anti-piracy measures, including pop-up warnings on screens.
As ISPs can monitor the amount of power used by specific users and the sites connected
to, it is possible for ISPs to pass on any details to owners of particular rights, who could
then get take legal action.
IF: Proposals in Digital Britain will be taken forwards in the Digital Economy Bill, some
of these are similar to the measures set out by LF which have been brought about
commercially. LF commented that there was the need for a level playing field between
ISPs as the main problem will be a lack of uptake. IF explained that the Digital Economy
Bill would provide Virgin and others assurance that they will face a similar framework.
LG: There are recommendations to bring into force a review in 12 months time, then
get Ofcom to make ISPs take action. Still not going quickly enough, would like phase 2
implemented now, without the 12 month delay as industries are being decimated by
illegal file sharing. MC commented that it was possible to monitor computers but not
individual users partly due to wireless communications. In particular there were possible
human rights issues on access to the internet. France has recently taken
disproportionate action and cut people off.
IF: Might be possible to get "Ofcom on the starting blocks" for the second phase. LG
commented that the creative industries and rights owners would find it hard to imagine
holding back for 12 months, particularly the music industry which was most affected.
BT, Virgin and Sky would be introducing super-fast broadband which would allow films
Unclassified
Information Economy
to be downloaded in around 90 seconds. The UK punches above its weight as the
English language sells across borders. There is an approaching tsunami of theft.
LG: Hulu.com provides access to a library of TV programmes through an advertising
funded model. Spotify.com enables file sharing. Would be good to show broadband
users what is and what is not illegal in addition to what it appropriate for particular age
groups. No point in investing in IT when "competing with free".
SoS: Would like to see options and advice, not yet convinced that the HMG position is
right. [
ACTION]
LG: The c&binet event in October should not just be a talking shop - why not an "expo
of British creative industry and design"? Need to look at what needs to happen
otherwise it should be cancelled. Instinct is that people will move quickly to arrange.
The SoS commented that he would like to see Ben Bradshaw's concept paper for the
c&binet event. [
ACTION]
Paul McCaffrey
Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
020 7215 5622 / 07824342055
Check box times at:
http://mandrin/mpst/index.html
All emails and attachments containing comments from the Secretary of State should be filed in Matrix by the
policy team.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mandelson MPST
[mailto:xxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx] Sent: 01 July 2009 09:08
To: Clark Rachel (BR2); Dunne Mike (BR2); Andrew Jenner
Cc: Lammy MPST; Carter MPST; Fraser MPST; SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST; Cooke Matt (MPST MIN); Flynn
Una (COMMS); James Thomson; IPOB; Ian Fletcher; Rycroft Philip (BIS); Benger Sophie (BIS); TAVERNIER
Vincent (HE Briefings Coordinator); Katie Phillips; Mahoney David (BR2); Sharps Samuel (BR2)
Subject: Briefing request: SoS meeting with Lucian Grainge 2 July 15.00
Dear all
The Secretary of State will be meeting Lucian Grainge (CEO of Universal Music Group International) tomorrow
15.00. The main purpose of the meeting is to discuss next steps on tackling music piracy post-Digital Britain,
and the UK's creative industries in general.
With apologies for the short notice (meeting only confirmed late yesterday), I would be grateful if briefing
could be provided by 16.00 today.
Rachel / Andrew - would you be able to coordinate?
Lucian's office have sent through some specific bullet points on piracy:
UK is the home of music
*
The UK is riding a wave of creative success. After decades of success British artists still punch above
their weight, picking up a hatful of Grammys this year including best song, best album and best newcomer.
With an amazing musical heritage, vibrant live scene, and the English language, UK music can to continue to
punch way above its weight.
*
This success is driven by investment in new talent: Universal, the world's largest music company,
Unclassified
Information Economy
alone spends £250m on new talent every year in the UK, more than in any other European country. From
Adele to Duffy, Amy Winehouse to Coldplay we can all be proud of the UK's conveyor belt of talent.
*
UMG is now the biggest music company in the world and employs more in the UK than EMI.
But piracy could throw it all away
*
Despite this success 85% of mp3 downloads in the UK are made illegally - stolen. No revenue is
received by the artist, the music company or anyone else involved in the music's creation, performance or
production.
*
Internet music piracy appears to have become a socially acceptable norm, across all generations and
all social classes. But just because it's widespread doesn't make right. Stealing from a musician or a music
company is exactly the same as shoplifting a picture from a gallery, or stealing coins from a busker's hat.
*
It's not only immoral it's economically destructive as well. Only 10% of artists ever make a profit for
the music companies that invest in them. So without revenue the music industry will have to stop investing in
new talent - the industry's R&D. Last year alone piracy cost the UK music industry £650 million. The real
effect of music piracy is felt not by the stars at the top of the industry, but by the struggling new artists trying
to make it to the top.
Crying Wolf? - We wish we were
*
Sweden: the home of Abba, Roxette and the Cardigans has seen even greater levels of piracy and the
inevitable has happened: Universal and the other majors have virtually stopped investing in new talent. The
once thriving Swedish music scene hasn't produced a successful new act in years. In Korea - a country of
comparable size and economic success to the UK - exactly the same has happened. No investment in new
talent = no successful new music, more reliance on back catalogues and imports. Even in the US the once
mighty music scene has seen sales and investment plummet as piracy rockets.
*
The UK could be in exactly the same place in just 3 years - diversity will go first and soon the only
new music will be on the 'X Factor'. And music is just the front line. If we fail to stop piracy there will be
nothing to stop the film, live sport and book industries - and every other form of digitised content following
the same cycle of decline. With movies taking just 3 mins to download at 50Mb speed, film, sport and books
will be next unless we tackle the problem now
So what's the solution?
*
There are thousands of ways of accessing musical content easily and legally - from iTunes to Amazon.
There are now no excuses for stealing music. Earlier this month Virgin Media and Universal Music announced
the world's first unlimited music download subscription service.
*
In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's IP and drive a
material reduction in the piracy across Virgin Media's network. This will involve educating file sharers and to
raise awareness of legal alternatives. They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary
suspension of internet access. No customers will be permanently disconnected and the process will not depend
on network monitoring or interception of customer traffic.
*
But now we need Government action to create a level playing field between ISPs. Digital Britain
shows that the Government has at last recognised the threat of digital piracy.
*
But piracy is already out of control and the proposed two obligations (Ofcom's letters and the threat
of prosecution) are unlikely to reduce digital piracy
*
Even more critical that Government must start planning now for step 3 (a statutory obligation on
ISPs) and essential that this power is included in the Digital Economy Bill
*
Without investment in creative talent and content, Broadband Britain could just be back catalogues
and old films. Tackle piracy now and the UK will remain the world's most exciting creative hub.
Many thanks
Paul McCaffrey
Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 020 7215 5622 /
07824342055
From: Mandelson MPST
Unclassified
Information Economy
Sent: 26 August 2009 13:33
To: Brazier Adrian (IE); Brennan MPST
Cc: Lammy MPST; Timms MPST; Fraser MPST; Hendon David (IE); 'Ian Fletcher'; 'Matthew Cope';
'ALSEY PAUL'; 'ZEFF JON'; 'HERON PAUL'; Gettins Tim (IE); Clark Rachel (IE); Klym Mike (IE); Letts
Shirley (Better Regulation Executive); Flynn Una (COMMS); SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST; Cooke
Matt (MPST MIN)
Subject: RE: Government statement on unlawful file-sharing 25 August
Adrian
With regard to your earlier submission (specifically paragraph 7), the Secretary of State has
asked "why was is originally envisaged to wait until the end of 2012 before technical
measures were in place? Shouldn't technical measures be in place from the outset?"
Grateful for quick advice.
Many thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey | Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | 020 7215 5622 |
07824342055
_____________________________________________
From:
Mandelson MPST
Sent:
25 August 2009 10:54
To:
Brazier Adrian (IE); Brennan MPST
Cc:
Lammy MPST; Timms MPST; Fraser MPST; Hendon David (IE); 'Ian Fletcher'; 'Matthew Cope'; 'ALSEY
PAUL'; 'ZEFF JON'; 'HERON PAUL'; Gettins Tim (IE); Clark Rachel (IE); Klym Mike (IE); Letts Shirley
(Better Regulation Executive); Flynn Una (COMMS); SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST; Cooke Matt (MPST
MIN)
Subject:
RE: Government statement on unlawful file-sharing 25 August
Adrian
ci / Kellie, Una
The Secretary of State has seen your submission and commented "please tell Kevin and
press handlers that we need to be seen to be balanced, genuinely consulting and
sensitive to individuals who may unwittingly fall foul of the law".
Many thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey | Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | 020 7215 5622 |
07824342055
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 26 August 2009 13:23
To: Flynn Una (COMMS); COMMS - Press Office Monitoring; COMMS - Press Office Operational
Cc: Brazier Adrian (IE); Klym Mike (IE); Clark Rachel (IE); Sharps Samuel (IE); Gettins Tim (IE);
Fraser MPST; SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST; Timms MPST; Cooke Matt (MPST MIN); Cooke Matt
(MPST MIN); Loughran Patrick (MPST MIN); Abel Richard (MPST MIN); Hendon David (IE); Rutnam
Philip (MPST DG); Chambers Sarah (CCP); Brennan MPST
Subject: RE: Stakeholder commentary so far - P2P
Una
ci / Sarah Chambers
The Secretary of State has seen this summary of stakeholder commentary below and
commented "I would like to know, as a matter of record, how Larry Whitty came to express
Unclassified
Information Economy
his view. (1) Was is considered by the Board? (2) Did his officials submit analysis? (3) Is it
his personal view?" I would be grateful for a quick update on these points.
Many thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey | Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | 020 7215 5622 |
07824342055
Check box times at:
http://mandrin/mpst/index.html
All emails and attachments containing comments from the Secretary of State should be filed in Matrix by the
policy team.
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 26 August 2009 13:05
To: Brazier Adrian (IE); Flynn Una (COMMS)
Cc: Lammy MPST; Timms MPST; Fraser MPST; SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST; Clark Rachel (IE); Klym
Mike (IE); Hendon David (IE); 'Ian Fletcher'; 'Matthew Cope'; Loughran Patrick (MPST MIN);
Buchanan Duncan (PPD); Abel Richard (MPST MIN); Cooke Matt (MPST MIN); Cookson Fiona
(COMMS); Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
Subject: RESTRICTED Peer to Peer filesharing - timeline
Adrian
Slightly updated timetable attached.
Paul
Paul McCaffrey | Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | 020 7215 5622 |
07824342055
TIMETABLE: PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING
16 June 2009
Final Digital Britain Report produced
02 July 2009
SoS meeting with Lucian Grainge of Universal. SoS asked for advice on options
exploring whether Digital Britain proposals on peer to peer file sharing will go
quickly enough and far enough.
03 July 2009
Advice to Lord Carter (copied to SoS and DCMS) on possibility of SoS having a
power to direct Ofcom to go directly to introduction of technical measures.
07 July 2009
Advice (through Lord Carter) recommending that the “power to direct” process
should be adopted as preferred route (rather than Ofcom decision)
09 July 2009
Letter received from Universal stating :
Digital Britain’s two proposals: Ofcom’s letters to file-sharers and the ability for
music companies to prosecute persistent offenders are not enough on their own.
Government must start planning for step 3 now – a statutory obligation on ISPs
to crack down on persistent file-sharers by cutting bandwidth and suspending
and blacklisting their accounts. This is outlined in Digital Britain but not due to
Unclassified
Information Economy
be implemented for years. It is essential that this power is included in the
Digital Economy Bill”
10 July 2009
Advice (through Lord Carter) on removing reliance on “trigger” mechanism to judge
the efficacy of initial obligations.
13 July 2009
E-mail sent to officials stating: The Secretary of State has seen the letter from
Lucian Grainge and commented "I think we should examine, including step 3 power
in Bill. What is Stephen Carter's view? Officials need to meet and discuss asap as
Lucian suggests". Geoffrey Norris begins series of meetings with key stakeholders
to canvass views.
17 July 2009
Advice (through Lord Carter) on being more specific within legislation on how costs
should be considered.
29 July 2009
Draft advice to SoS on DA clearance letter from officials. It recommended: "That
you agree to the attached draft letter being sent to DA Committee on 31st July.
This sets out the new approach, the reasons for it and how it differs from that
consulted on in June. The changes made are more than process issues, and reach to
the heart of how the legislation will deal with P2P infringement, so it is appropriate
for DA Committee to be consulted."
31 July 2009
Geoffrey Norris and officials met Universal’s legal counsel.
30 July 2009
SoS spoke to Ben Bradshaw. One of the issues raised was views SoS had been
hearing on IP.
11 August 2009
SoS signed DA clearance letter for issue.
Unclassified
Information Economy
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 26 August 2009 09:23
To:
Flynn Una (COMMS)
Cc:
Lammy MPST; Timms MPST; Fraser MPST; SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST;
Clark Rachel (IE); Klym Mike (IE); Hendon David (IE); 'Ian Fletcher';
'Matthew Cope'; Loughran Patrick (MPST MIN); Buchanan Duncan
(PPD); Brazier Adrian (IE); Abel Richard (MPST MIN); Cooke Matt
(MPST MIN); Cookson Fiona (COMMS); Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
Subject:
Peer to Peer filesharing - timeline
Una
As discussed, the Secretary of State is concerned about the comments made the
BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones yesterday evening alleging that the change in thinking re
peer-to-peer file sharing only came about following his holiday in Corfu and contact
with David Geffen.
I would be grateful if you could draft a brief generic statement emphasising that
work on this was already well in hand before the SoS's holiday, which we could then
deploy to the BBC et al later today if needed. As you mentioned, coverage may die
down today so this may not be needed. The table below sets out the timetable for
information. The statement should not include specific dates. Adrian may wish to
update details below.
Thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey | Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | 020 7215
5622 | 07824342055
02 July 2009
SoS meeting with Lucian Grainge of Universal. SoS asked for
advice on options commissioned following meeting exploring
whether Digital Britain proposals on peer to peer file sharing will
go quickly enough and far enough.
09 July 2009
Letter received from Universal stating :
Digital Britain’s two proposals: Ofcom’s letters to file-sharers
and the ability for music companies to prosecute persistent
offenders are not enough on their own.
Government must start planning for step 3 now – a statutory
obligation on ISPs to crack down on persistent file-sharers by
cutting bandwidth and suspending and blacklisting their
accounts. This is outlined in Digital Britain but not due to be
implemented for years. It is essential that this power is
included in the Digital Economy Bill”
13 July 2009
E-mail sent to officials stating:
The Secretary of State has seen the letter from Lucian Grainge
Unclassified
Information Economy
and commented "I think we should examine, including step 3
power in Bill. What is Stephen Carter's view? Officials need to
meet and discuss asap as Lucian suggests".
29 July 2009
Draft advice came up on DA clearance letter from officials. It
recommended:
"That you agree to the attached draft letter being
sent to DA Committee
on 31st July. This sets out the new
approach, the reasons for it and how it differs from that
consulted on in June. The changes made are more than process
issues, and reach to the heart of how the legislation will deal
with P2P infringement, so it is appropriate for DA Committee to
be consulted."
31 July 2009
Geoffrey Norris and officials met Universal’s legal counsel.
30 July 2009
SoS spoke to Ben Bradshaw. One of the issues raised was views
SoS had been hearing on IP.
11 August 2009
SoS signed DA clearance letter for issue.
Unclassified
Information Economy
From: Mandelson MPST
Sent: 26 August 2009 10:18
To: Loughran Patrick (MPST MIN); Flynn Una (COMMS)
Cc: Lammy MPST; Timms MPST; Fraser MPST; SPAD MPST; McFadden MPST; Hendon David (IE);
Clark Rachel (IE); Klym Mike (IE); 'Ian Fletcher'; 'Matthew Cope'; Buchanan Duncan (PPD); Brazier
Adrian (IE); Abel Richard (MPST MIN); Cooke Matt (MPST MIN); Cookson Fiona (COMMS); Norris
Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
Subject: URGENT: Peer to Peer filesharing letters to the Guardian and Independent
Patrick / Una
David Geffen has been in touch with the SoS, following an
approach from the Times (see below) The SoS has said "we
should have acted on this and got David's statement earlier in
the week. It would have been helpful to know that the Guardian
were doing their trailer story yesterday".
The SoS has asked if letters can be quickly drafted to (1) the
Guardian readers' editor setting out the facts - when he dealt
with the issues in the Department in July/Aug before going on
holiday including Geffen quote below and (2)to the Independent
(which needs to go to Any Grice this morning to get into the
paper tomorrow).
Many thanks
Paul
Paul McCaffrey | Private Secretary to Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | 020 7215 5622 |
07824342055
-----Original Message-----
From: Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
Sent: 06 August 2009 17:16
To: Clark Rachel (BR2); Mandelson MPST; Sharps Samuel (BR2)
Cc: Capon Catherine (MPST MIN); Perry Colin (BR2); Williams Laura (PPD); Morris Dominic (BR2);
Hendon David (BR2); SPAD MPST; Fraser MPST; Flynn Una (COMMS); Martinez-Soto Jose (LEGAL B);
Brazier Adrian (BR2); Klym Mike (BR2); 'xxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx'; Rutnam Philip (MPST DG);
'xxxxxxx.xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx'; 'xxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx'; Race Eve (LEGAL B); Norris Geoffrey
(MPST MIN)
Subject: SoS views on P2P
Rachel,
To summarise what we just discussed:
- a telescoped process with us taking power to direct Ofcom;
- further consultation with us suggesting a power for suspension to be included in the technical
measures
Geoffrey
Unclassified
Information Economy
----- Original Message -----
From: Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
To: Clark Rachel (BR2); Mandelson MPST; Sharps Samuel (BR2)
Cc: Capon Catherine (MPST MIN); Perry Colin (BR2); Williams Laura (PPD); Morris Dominic (BR2);
Hendon David (BR2); SPAD MPST; Fraser MPST; Flynn Una (COMMS); Martinez-Soto Jose (LEGAL B);
Brazier Adrian (BR2); Klym Mike (BR2); 'xxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx'
<xxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx>; Rutnam Philip (MPST DG); 'xxxxxxx.xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx'
<xxxxxxx.xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx>; 'xxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx' <xxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx>; Race
Eve (LEGAL B)
Sent: Thu Aug 06 15:45:31 2009
Subject: Re: Summary of introductory meetings with Stephen Timms 05.08.09
Am seeking clarification
-----Original Message-----
From: Norris Geoffrey (MPST MIN)
Sent: 06 August 2009 13:16
To: Clark Rachel (BR2); Mandelson MPST; Gillatt Debbie (BR2); Reeves Alice (BR2); Sharps Samuel
(BR2)
Cc: Capon Catherine (MPST MIN); Perry Colin (BR2); Williams Laura (PPD); Anderson Jillian (LEGAL B);
Brumwell John (BR2); Morris Dominic (BR2); Hendon David (BR2); Smith Geoff (BR2); SPAD MPST;
Fraser MPST; Flynn Una (COMMS)
Subject: Re: Summary of introductory meetings with Stephen Timms 05.08.09
Rachel,
Peter wants to go further on technical measures to include suspension. Apologies I have not got
back sooner. What are the next steps?
Geoffrey
Unclassified
