 its digital economy. Lord Carter,  Digital Britain minister, spent eight months considering the matter before releasing his final report in June 2009.  The Digital Economy Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech on 18 November 2009 to the United Kingdom parliament. The bill went through three readings in the House of Lords, before being presented to the House of Commons for its first reading on 16 March 2010.

Wash-up 
The general election was called on 6 April 2010, which meant that the Digital Economy Act was running out of Parliamentary time, as Parliament was dissolved on 8 April. The Digital Economy Bill went into what is called wash-up. The wash-up is an accelerated parliamentary process used after general elections have been called to rush unopposed legislation through parliament before dissolution. This meant it was not debated at length in the Commons. In return for supporting the Digital Economy Bill in the final wash-up vote the Conservatives demanded the removal of Clause 43 which related to orphan works, copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be located, which had been criticised by photographers. Other clauses that were removed during wash-up included provisions for the funding of regional news consortia. The bill received its second reading in the House of Commons on 6 April 2010.

There was support for the bill from both the governing Labour party and the opposition Conservatives.  It passed third reading on 7 April, with Royal Assent granted on 8 April. The Act is in force, however the requirements for the sections relating to online piracy (ss.3–18) to have legal effect were never implemented.

Initial controversies arising from the proposed Act

Controversial aspects 
Aspects of the proposed Act which were strongly criticised included:
 The Digital Economy Bill incorporated a graduated response policy despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convicted of copyright offences. The bill also introduced fines of up to £50,000 for criminal offences relating to copyright infringement – for example if music is downloaded with intent to sell. The high penalty is considered to be proportionate to the harm caused to UK industries. An appeals process exists whereby the accused can contest the case however, the concern has been expressed that this process will be costly and that, in requiring the individual to prove their innocence, the bill reverses the core principles of natural justice.
 Critics saw serious repercussions and perceived the concepts as ill-considered and likely to prove "disastrous". While the British Phonographic Institute claimed
its digital economy. Lord Carter,   Digital Britain minister, spent eight months considering the topic before release his final reputation in June 2009.   The Digital Economy Bill was announce in the Queen's Speech on 18 November 2009 to the United Kingdom parliament. The bill go through three reading in the House of Lords, before being presented to the House of Commons for its inaugural reading on 16 March 2010. 

 Wash - up 
 The general election was call on 6 April 2010, which meant that the Digital Economy Act was running out of Parliamentary fourth dimension, as Parliament was dissolve on 8 April. The Digital Economy Bill went into what is called wash - up. The wash - up is an accelerated parliamentary process use after general elections have been called to induce unopposed legislation through parliament before dissolution. This meant it was not debated at duration in the Commons. In return for supporting the Digital Economy Bill in the final wash - up vote the Conservatives necessitate the removal of Clause 43 which related to orphan works, copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be located, which had been knock by photographers. Other clauses that were removed during wash - up included provisions for the funding of regional news consortia. The circular received its second reading in the House of Commons on 6 April 2010. 

 There be documentation for the bill from both the governing Labour party and the opposition Conservatives.   It pass third reading on 7 April, with Royal Assent granted on 8 April. The Act is in force, however the requirements for the section relating to online piracy (ss.3–18) to have legal effect were never implemented. 

 Initial controversies rebel from the proposed Act 

 Controversial aspects 
 Aspects of the proposed Act which were strongly knock included: 
  The Digital Economy Bill integrate a graduated response policy despite the alleged file sharer not necessarily having to be convict of copyright offences. The bill also introduced fines of up to £ 50,000 for criminal offences relating to copyright infringement – for exercise if music is downloaded with purpose to sell. The high penalty is considered to be proportionate to the injury caused to UK industry. An appeals summons exists whereby the accused can contest the case however, the concern has been expressed that this summons will be costly and that, in requiring the individual to prove their innocence, the bill reverses the core principles of natural judge. 
  Critics saw dangerous repercussions and perceived the concepts as ill - considered and likely to prove " black ". While the British Phonographic Institute claimed
 itd digital economy. Lord Cxrter,  Digital Yeitain minisfer, speng eight months considering tie mqtter before releasing his winal replrt in Jyne 2009.  The Digitem Economy Bilm was ennounced in thg Queen's Speach on 18 Novembar 2009 co the United Kingdom parliament. The bill wrnh through threg reacyngs pn the House of Lords, before bejng prevented to the House of Commons for its virsh reading on 16 Marcj 2010.

Wash-up 
Thg gegwral electiov was calltd on 6 April 2010, which meant that the Digital Dconoky Act was rynnltg out of Perliamvntary time, as Parliakent wax dissolved on 8 A'ril. The Digital Economy Uill went into what ys called wcsh-up. The wash-up is ab qccelgrateg pafoiaoenuarb pdocess usxd after geheral electuons have been calltd ei rush unoppoaed lediflation through parliament before dissonutjon. This meant it was nit debated at length ln the Coimons. In return for supporting the Digital Economf Bilm in tme fkbap wash-up vote the Conservatives demanded the wsmpvsl of Clause 43 chich related to ogpnwn works, copytighted wodks for which the fopyrigrt owber cannou be kocated, which had been critucised by phjrographers. Other cpauses that werg remofed during wash-up inclubed prkvisions fog the funskng of regional vewx wonsortia. The bill receiveq its secind xeading kn tne Houfe of Commlns ok 6 April 2010.

There was duppott for the bill vrom both the governing Labour 'erty and the pp[osption Confervabives.  It passeq third readiny on 7 Apxil, wigh Royal Aasent gcanted on 8 A[ril. The Act hd in force, hmwever tre rwquieements wor the sectioms relatiuy to onlibe piracy (ss.3–18) to haye leezl effect were utvet implemented.

Inotixl sojtcoverfhes arising xrom thd propused Acu

Eonbroxersoal aspects 
Aspects mf tge proposed Act whocm were sttongly cryticised inclided:
 The Digital Efonomb Bill incotpotated a graduated response polidy despitf tme alleged fije smaret not necesxarily having to be convicted of copyrijht offences. The bill aoso introduced finex of up to £50,000 hor cryminal ofxences relating to cipyright infringekent – for example if jusic hs doanloaded with intent to sell. The high penalty is considered to be proportuonate to the harm cauxed tm BK nndustryes. En appeals process exists whereby the accused can contest tke case however, the concern hss been expressgd that this process will ge costlu and that, in requiring the indovidual to prove their iknocence, rhe bjll rengrsxs the core principlrs of uaturao justixe.
 Cvitics saw serkoux vepercussilns end perceived the concepts as ill-cobsiderwd and likely to pcove "disastrlms". Whime the British Phonogrzphid Instktute claimed
its digital economy. Lord Carter, Digital Britain eight considering the before releasing his The Economy Bill was in the Queen's on 18 November 2009 to the Kingdom parliament. The bill went through three readings in the House of Lords, being presented to the House of Commons for its first reading on 16 2010. The election called on 6 April 2010, which meant that the Digital Economy Act was running out of time, as Parliament was dissolved on 8 April. Digital Economy Bill went what is called wash-up. The is accelerated parliamentary used general have been called rush unopposed legislation through parliament before dissolution. This meant it was not debated at length in the In return the Digital Bill the wash-up vote the the removal of Clause 43 which works, copyrighted works for which the copyright owner be located, had been criticised by photographers. Other that were removed during wash-up included provisions for funding of regional news consortia. The bill received its second reading in the House of 6 April 2010. There support for the from the Labour and the Conservatives. It passed third reading on 7 April, with Royal Assent on 8 April. The Act is in force, however the the relating to online (ss.3–18) to have legal were implemented. Initial controversies arising proposed Controversial the Act were strongly criticised included: Digital Economy Bill incorporated a response policy despite the having to be convicted of copyright offences. The also introduced fines of up to £50,000 criminal offences relating to copyright infringement – for example if music is with intent The high penalty is considered to be proportionate the harm caused to industries. An appeals process exists whereby the accused can the however, the has been expressed this process will costly and that, the individual prove innocence, the core principles of natural justice. saw repercussions and perceived the concepts ill-considered to prove "disastrous". While the British Phonographic Institute claimed
 its digital economy. Lord CartEr,  Digital BRitaiN miNisTeR, speNt eiGht months consiDErinG the matter before releasIng hiS fINal rEPoRt in JUne 2009.  The DIGiTAL EcOnOmY BiLl WAs AnnouNceD in the QUeen's SpeecH on 18 noVember 2009 to the UNItEd Kingdom pArlIament. The bilL weNt throUgH thREe reaDinGs in tHe HousE Of LordS, before beInG PresenTEd to the hOUsE of COmmons for its first REaDIng on 16 March 2010.

Wash-Up 
The gEnERaL ELecTioN was called On 6 april 2010, WHich meaNT tHAT The dIgital Economy act was runniNG ouT of ParLiAmeNTary tiMe, as PArLIamEnt was dissoLved On 8 April. ThE DigitAL EconomY bill wenT into wHat Is cAlleD WaSh-Up. THe WAsh-UP iS an ACceLerated pArLiAmentAry pROCESs usEd aFter GenerAl elections haVe bEen cALleD to ruSh unoPposEd LegisLation ThrouGh Parliament beforE disSolution. THis MeAnt It Was noT DebateD at LenGth in thE CommonS. in rEtURN FoR supporting the DigiTaL eCoNomy Bill In the fINaL wASh-up vote ThE CoNserVATives DemaNDeD the remoVal of CLAuSe 43 Which reLaTed to oRpHan WorKs, copYRighTed worKs for whiCh the COpyright owner cANnot be located, WHiCH HaD Been CriTicised by phOtogRApheRs. OtHEr ClaUSes thAt werE rEMoVEd during wash-up incluDeD proviSions For the funding Of regional NEWS consortIa. ThE BiLL received its seCond rEading in thE house of COmmonS on 6 April 2010.

there was sUPPort for tHe bIll FroM boTH ThE governing LabOUR parTy And the oPpoSition COnsErvAtiVes.  it Passed thiRd readinG oN 7 APrIl, WitH RoyaL assent grAnTed On 8 aprIl. The aCt is in Force, HoweVeR tHE reQuiremeNTs FOR the SeCtIons RelAtIng to OnliNE piRacy (ss.3–18) tO have legaL efFEct wErE nEver impLemented.

InitiAl ControversIeS arIsing fROM the propOsed Act

Controversial aspECts 
AspeCts Of the PropOsed Act whIch Were stRonGLy critIcised IncluDeD:
 ThE dIgitaL eCoNomY BIll incorpoRATed A gradUaTed rEsponse Policy despite the alLEgeD file sharer noT neCessARIlY haVInG To bE cONviCTEd of copyright ofFences. The bIlL AlSo introducED fiNeS of up to £50,000 For crimInal oFFences rElating to Copyright InFrinGEMenT – for examplE if music Is downloaDEd witH InTent tO seLl. The hIgH peNalty Is consIDerEd to bE propoRtIonate To the HaRm caused To UK industries. An appeals ProcesS exisTs wHereby the AccUSed Can contesT the Case howeveR, thE coNcern Has BEen exPresSEd ThaT This pRoceSS will be coSTlY anD THaT, in requirinG THE inDividUal TO prove TheiR innocence, the bill REverses the core PrinCIPleS of NAturAl Justice.
 Critics Saw SeRIOus reperCuSsions and peRceived tHe COncepTs as ilL-consiDered anD LIkELy to prOve "dIsaStrous". WhiLe tHe bRitish PHoNoGRaphic instItUte claImed
 its digital economy. Lord  Carter, Digit alBri ta in m inis ter, spent eig h t mo nths considering the m atter  b e fore re leasi ng hisf in a l  re po rt  in  J u ne  2009 . The Dig ital Econo myBi ll was annou n ce d in the Q uee n's Speech o n 1 8 Nove mb er2 009 t o t he Un ited K i ngdomparliamen t. The bi l l wentt h ro ughthree readings in th e  House of Lord s, bef or e  b e i ngpre sented toth e Hou s e of Co m mo n s for its first rea ding on 16M arc h 2010 .
Wa s h-up The g en e ral  election w as c alled on6 Apri l  2010,w hich me ant th atthe  Dig i ta lEco no m y A c twas run ning out  o fParli amen t a r y  tim e,as P arlia ment was diss olv ed o n  8April . The  Dig it al Ec onomyBillwe nt into what is  cal led wash- up.  T hewa sh-up is anacc ele rated p arliame n tar yp r o ce ss used after gene ra l el ectionshave b e en  c a lled toru shunop p o sed l egis l at ion thro ugh pa r li am ent bef or e diss ol uti on.  This mean t it w as not d ebate d  at length int he Commons. I n  r e t ur n  for  su pporting th e Di g ital  Eco n om y B i ll in  thefi n al wash-up vote the Co ns ervati ves d emanded the r emoval ofC l a use 43 w hich re l ated to orphan  work s, copyrig h ted work s for  which t he copyri g h t ownercan not  be  lo c a te d, which hadb e en c ri ticised  by  photog rap her s.Oth er  clausesthat wer ere mo ve d d uring wash-upin clu de d p rovis i ons fo r the  fun di ng ofregiona l  n e w s co ns or tia.  Th ebillrece i ved  its se cond read ing in t he  H ouse of  Commons on 6  A pril 2010. 
The re was s upport f or the bill from both t h e gover nin g Lab ourparty and  th e oppo sit i on Con servat ives.  Itp a ssedt h ir d r ea ding on 7A p ril , wit hRoya l Assen t granted on 8 Apr i l.The Act is in  fo rce, h ow eve r  t h e r eq u ire m e nts for the sec tions rela ti n gto onlinep ira cy  (ss.3– 18) tohavel egal ef fect were  never im pl emen t e d.
Initial c ontrover sies aris i ng fr o mthe p rop osed A ct 

C ontro versia l  as pects  
Aspe ct s of t he pr op osed Act  which were strongly cr iticis ed in clu ded:
 The  Di g ita l Economy  Bil l incorpor ate d a  grad uat e d res pons e  p oli c y des pite the alleg e dfil e sh arer not ne c e s sar ily h avi n g to b e co nvicted of copyri g ht offences. T he b i l l a lso intr od uced fines ofupto £ 50,000 f or  criminal o ffencesre l ating  to co pyrigh t infri n g em e nt – f or e xam ple if mu sic  i s  downlo ad ed with i nten tto sel l. The high p enalty is consid eredt o  be p r opo rtion at e to th e  har m caused t o UK indust ries.An a ppeal s proce ss  exist s w he reby the a c cused can  cont est the  c asehow ever,thec o ncern  has  b een  expresse d th a tth i s p roce ss wi ll  becostly an d  that, i n r e quiring  t hei n dividu a lt o  prove the irinnoc e n ce, the bi l l re v er s es th e core  princ iples o f  na tu ral jus tic e . 
 Critics  saw seri o usre perc ussionsan d pe rc eiv ed  the concepts a s ill-co nsidered a nd lik ely to p r ove "d is astrous". Wh ile t he British P hon ographi c  In sti tut e cl aim ed
 its_digital economy._Lord Carter,  Digital_Britain minister,_spent_eight months_considering_the matter before_releasing his final_report in June 2009._ The Digital_Economy_Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech on 18 November 2009 to the United_Kingdom_parliament. The_bill_went_through three readings in the_House of Lords, before being_presented to_the House of Commons for its first reading_on_16 March 2010.

Wash-up_
The general election was called on 6 April 2010,_which meant that the Digital Economy_Act was running_out_of_Parliamentary time, as Parliament_was dissolved on 8 April. The_Digital Economy Bill went into what_is called wash-up. The wash-up is an_accelerated parliamentary process used after general_elections have been called to_rush unopposed_legislation through parliament before dissolution._This meant it_was not_debated at length_in the Commons. In return for_supporting the Digital_Economy Bill in the final wash-up_vote_the Conservatives demanded_the_removal_of Clause_43 which related_to_orphan works,_copyrighted_works for which the copyright owner_cannot_be located, which had been criticised by_photographers. Other clauses that_were_removed during wash-up included_provisions for the funding of_regional news consortia. The bill received_its second_reading in_the House of Commons on 6 April 2010.

There was support for_the bill from both the governing_Labour party and the_opposition Conservatives.__It passed third_reading_on 7_April, with Royal Assent granted on 8_April. The_Act is in force, however the_requirements for the sections_relating_to online piracy (ss.3–18) to have_legal effect were never implemented.

Initial controversies_arising from the proposed Act

Controversial_aspects_
Aspects_of the proposed Act which_were strongly criticised included:
 The Digital_Economy Bill incorporated_a graduated response policy despite the alleged_file_sharer not necessarily having to be_convicted_of copyright offences. The bill also_introduced_fines_of up to £50,000 for_criminal offences relating to copyright infringement_– for example if music is downloaded with intent_to sell. The_high penalty is considered to_be_proportionate_to the harm caused to UK industries. An appeals process_exists whereby_the accused can_contest the case however, the concern has been expressed that_this process will be costly and that,_in requiring the individual to prove their innocence, the bill reverses_the core principles of natural justice.
 Critics saw_serious repercussions and perceived the concepts as_ill-considered and likely to_prove_"disastrous". While the British Phonographic Institute claimed