Lord Lucas Wants UK Digital Economy Bill To Include Remedy For Bogus Copyright Threats
from the seems-like-a-good-idea dept
We've heard so many stories of copyfraud that many of us have been wondering why there aren't greater penalties for making bogus copyright claims. It appears at least someone over in the UK is asking the same question. We already noted how Lord Lucas, a technology aware member of the House of Lords who can program and has run some digital businesses, was speaking out against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, noting that the entertainment industry is to blame for not adapting.Now, via Michael Scott, we learn that Lord Lucas has introduced an addition to the Digital Economy Bill adding remedies against those who bring "groundless" copyright claims:
"169A. Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedingsWhile it would be nice to see those who are falsely accused of copyright infringement have at least some stronger legal rights, it seems unlikely that this gets anywhere.
(1) Where a person threatens another person with proceedings for infringement of copyright, a person aggrieved by the threats may bring an action against him claiming--
(a) a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
(b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats;
(c) damages in respect of any loss which he has sustained by the threats.
(2) If the claimant proves that the threats were made and that he is a person aggrieved by them, he is entitled to the relief claimed unless the defendant shows that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened did constitute, or if done would have constituted, an infringement of the copyright concerned.
(3) Mere notification that work is protected by copyright does not constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section.
(4) A copyright infringement report within the meaning of section 124A(3) of the Communications Act 2003, if notified to a subscriber under section 124A(4) of the Communications Act 2003, does constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, groundless copyright, lord lucas, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hooray for smart people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, how many other people initially assumed this referred to George Lucas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Me...right up until I got past the word "Include" in the headline....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For those readers not from Britain, he was a famous Earl who vanished after the death of his children's nanny in 1975, and no-one has verified seeing him since then.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_lucan)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Joseph Lucas, the founder of Lucas Industries was humorously known as the Prince of Darkness in North America because of the electrical problems common in Lucas-equipped cars"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
things that make you go hmmmm .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: things that make you go hmmmm .....
Also prequel makers.
BTW, if this somehow gets made law of the land, what are the odds of the US "harmonizing" its laws with the UK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: things that make you go hmmmm .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boycott all copy-threateners and outrageous media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Think I See a Hole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: umm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) If the claimant proves that the threats were made and that he is a person aggrieved by them, he is entitled to the relief claimed unless the defendant shows that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened did constitute, or if done would have constituted, an infringement of the copyright concerned.
But what I get out of that is that if the original claimant (the one threatening based on infringement) states that if the infringing acts took place and would have been an infringement, whether they actually took place or not, the aggrieved is not entitled to relief.
That make sense to anyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]