I'm responding to Cory Doctorow's column – Lib Dems get a chance to vote on copyright reform – as I feel it gives a one-sided view of the government's legislation.



The Digital Economy Act is first and foremost about protecting millions of workers in the creative industries who rely on the success of this sector for their jobs and livelihoods. A rightsholder can be anyone from a small independent production company, a script writer, individual musician or artist through to a major film studio, book publisher or music company.



Significant capital is required upfront to get ventures off the ground. If the rights owners and investors in the property are prevented from recouping their investment and generating profits, there will be less money to invest in the high-quality popular television programmes and films that the British public enjoy in their millions, and which generate much-needed income through exports while sustaining much-needed high-quality jobs across the UK.



Turning to Doctorow's article, the Digital Economy Act (DEA) was not rammed through parliament in the wash-up without any debate. The DEA is the result of years of extensive consultation, consideration and debate. It takes account of findings in the Gowers Review (PDF) of intellectual property published back in 2005. It was the follow-up to the Digital Britain White Paper which was consulted on extensively between autumn 2008 and June 2009. The Act was debated for 12 full days – more than 50 hours – on the floor of the House of Lords, during which time some 700 amendments were tabled.



Doctorow states that the DEA makes provision for disconnecting families from the internet if someone using their connection is accused of illegal downloading. This is scaremongering, and doesn't reflect the complexity of the process or the appeals function.

In fact, people will receive repeated warning notices with information and advice on where to find material legally online and on how best to secure their internet connection if they suspect someone of hacking it. Only serious repeat infringers may be subject to court action by rightsholders when every other option has failed.

Furthermore, this, or any other form of technical measure, is not possible without secondary legislation being passed by a separate vote of both Houses of Parliament, which has to follow scrutiny by committees of each House (the "super affirmative" regime). In addition there will be an appeals process through an independent body set up by Ofcom.

(Furthermore, technical measures cannot even be considered until the notice-sending regime as initially provided for in the Act proves to be insufficient in tackling online copyright infringement.)

The entertainment industry does not seek to dictate who has access to the internet – this is completely untrue. The creative industries sector which employs 1.3 million people simply seeks to protect its intellectual copyright online as it does in the physical world – a fact conveniently ignored by Doctorow.



On France, Doctorow is wrong again. The Hadopi regime is doing what it was designed to do – deterring people from using illegal sites: 50% of users in France who have received a notice (or know of people close to them who have) have stopped consuming illegally. Furthermore, a total of 72% have either stopped or reduced illegal consumption.



Applying criminal sanctions to copyright infringement would be unprecedented in the industrialised world says Doctorow. Really? Actually, criminal sanctions have been a feature of UK copyright law since at least 1988 (see s107.1 of the original act).



As much as we'd all love to have everything for free, this is frankly a juvenile view of the world. It refuses to engage in the complex issues that have to be properly understood to ensure that we can enjoy all of the benefits of the digital future and the products of our world beating creative industries. Mr Doctorow contributes little to the debate by seeking to misrepresent the facts.



• John McVay is the chief executive of Pact and a member of the Creative Coalition Campaign