[1] However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014,[2] and other sections were repealed.

[3] These provisions established a "code" to be created which would define a system of procedures covering notifications to Internet service providers to notify their customers when an allegation was made of downloading copyright-infringing content online, subscriber appeals, conditions under which subscribers could be identified to third parties, and conditions for disconnecting persistent infringers.

Section 13 of the act requires the provision of an independent appeals process, so that subscribers who wish to do so, may challenge a notification or (when implemented) a technical measure.

Lord Carter, Digital Britain minister, spent eight months considering the matter before releasing his final report in June 2009.

[14] The wash-up is an accelerated parliamentary process used after general elections have been called to rush unopposed legislation through parliament before dissolution.

[27] In October 2009 TalkTalk launched its Don't Disconnect Us campaign asking people to sign a petition against the proposal to cut off the internet connections of those accused of unauthorized file sharing.

Formed in 2009 and intending to enter candidates in the 2010 UK general election, the Pirate Party advocates reform to copyright and patent laws and a reduction in government surveillance.

[31] The provisions relating to copyright infringement and especially technical measures were highly controversial and were criticised by digital rights campaigners.

[33] Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the bill "an utter disgrace.

[15] 38 Degrees, who worked with the Open Rights Group to mobilise opposition to the act, state that over 22,000 people have emailed their MPs through their web site.

[34] More than 35,000 people signed a Number 10 petition,[35] started by Andrew Heaney at ISP TalkTalk, objecting to being disconnected without fair trial.

Over 100 people protested outside Parliament on 24 March 2010, including Labour MPs Tom Watson and John Grogan, Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate Bridget Fox, and writer and activist Cory Doctorow.

[43] The Secretary of State Lord Mandelson was widely believed to be responsible for the copyright infringement provisions that would see the disconnection of Internet subscribers.

The Independent reported that according their Whitehall sources Lord Mandelson was persuaded that tough law were needed to reduce online copyright infringement following an intensive lobbying campaign by influential people in the music and film industry.

[44] It was also reported that there had been a meeting with DreamWorks co-founder David Geffen at the Rothschild family villa on the Greek island of Corfu.

The Times reported after the Corfu meeting that an unnamed Whitehall source had confirmed that before this trip, Mandelson had shown little personal interest in the Digital Britain agenda, which has been ongoing for several years.

In August 2011 a Freedom of Information (FOI) request showed that Lord Mandelson had decided to approve the inclusion of technical measures, such as the disconnection of Internet access, some time before public consultation had finished.

[46][47] The Design and Artists Copyright Society and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies support the orphan works provision.

In interviews with ISPs by TechRadar, Virgin Media said that they shared the commitment to address copyright infringement, but that persuasion not coercion is the key; a heavy-handed, punitive regime would simply alienate Internet users.

Sky, which is both an ISP and a content provider, was supportive of the government's commitment to underpin the fight against illegal file sharing through legislation, but not directly of the "website banning" proposal.

[55] On 8 July 2010 TalkTalk were joined by BT, Britain's biggest ISP, in seeking a judicial review of the act on the grounds of it receiving "insufficient scrutiny" and having the potential to "harm citizens and impact both businesses".

[60][61] On 10 November 2010, the same day as the judicial review, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Parliament announced an inquiry into the act.

The inquiry was asked to consider "the implementation, practicality and likely effectiveness of the relevant measures contained in the act", and "the scope for additional and new approaches to ensure that original work is appropriately rewarded in online".