Lord Lucas Wants UK Digital Economy Bill To Include Remedy For Bogus Copyright Threats

from the seems-like-a-good-idea dept

Tue, Dec 22nd 2009 11:11am — Mike Masnick

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 proceedings

(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."

While 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.

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

27 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:18am

Hooray for smart people!
Lord Lucas is my hero of the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rebel Freek (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:44am

Hell, He is the Hero of the decade for me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:10pm

He is your hero until someone takes him out for a nice fancy dinner :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:13pm

"Lord Lucas"

OK, how many other people initially assumed this referred to George Lucas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:16pm

Re:
"OK, how many other people initially assumed this referred to George Lucas?"

Me...right up until I got past the word "Include" in the headline....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:20pm

things that make you go hmmmm .....
Since we are moving toward criminal penalties for infringement. It might also be nice to have criminal penalties for copyfraud and non payment of artists, and writers. Lets also throw in open accounting standards for copyright holders ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:22pm

Re:
Lets hope that someone is the pirate party ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:24pm

Re:
That was my first impression too. ^_^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimr (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:27pm

I could not help but keep thinking of George Lucas the whole time. But since no Jar Jar me think it is a different Lucas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SteveD (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:42pm

And people say hereditary peers are worthless....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re: Re:
Only until I realized "Lord" read "l-o-r-d" and not "G-e-o-r-g-e". GL may be a lot of things, but he's no lord. Only men with peerage and the iq of a lemon can be members of the House of Lords. Although this particular lemon seems to have put on his shiny helmet, not his dull one, and thought this through. Yay for shiny-domed lords.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:47pm

awww, i was planing on making so many bogus claims of infringement against lots of MP's and certain entertainment industry address too. now my anarchist plans may be foiled if this goes ahead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:52pm

Re:
Actually George Lucas was born in California not the UK ... so I kind of figured it was the other one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward2, 22 Dec 2009 @ 1:08pm

boycott all copy-threateners and outrageous media
boycott all copy-threateners and outrageous media
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 1:15pm

Re:
Being English, I thought Lord Lucan till I realised they never did find him...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 2:30pm

Re: Re:
Made me think of Lucas Electric. Right up your alley DH:
"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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 3:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's ok, I originally read it as Lord Lucan...

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 thread ]
Anshar (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 3:30pm

I Think I See a Hole...
This provision is all about the threat of legal proceedings. If this goes through wouldn't it just encourage people to send the notification of infringement (which specifically does not constitute a threat), and then proceed to sue without any further warning?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 4:36pm

Re:
And people say hereditary peers are worthless....

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 5:33pm

Re: things that make you go hmmmm .....
"Since we are moving toward criminal penalties for infringement. It might also be nice to have criminal penalties for copyfraud and non payment of artists, and writers."

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 thread ]
tim, 22 Dec 2009 @ 5:55pm

umm.
wouldnt it be wiser to say 'when a person or entity threatens another person or entity'. Or does the law make no distinction between a person and company? Actual question, I dont know if there is a distinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tyneham, 23 Dec 2009 @ 12:27am

Re: things that make you go hmmmm .....
Agree, but that will never happen. Only individuals are criminalised, and not (global) corporates who pay almost nothing to the writers. So corporates will never accept accounting standards. They will lobby against individuals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 23 Dec 2009 @ 1:46am

Re: umm.
Don't know about the UK, but there are places where, in legal speak, 'person' includes corporations, and when they want to Specifically mean Only actual human beings, the law reads 'real person(s)' ... which just goes to show, once again, how ridiculous the modern corporation and it's associated laws actually are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 23 Dec 2009 @ 5:22am

Good stuff
Jolly good show, chaps. Wizard prang, stiff upper lip and all that sort of stuff us Brits are supposed to say. Need more like him, unlike our "friend" Mandy, who seems to be totally clueless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 23 Dec 2009 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: umm.
And if this comes to pass, I can pretty much guarantee that the courts will determine that in these types of cases the concept of corporate "person" does not apply...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2009 @ 12:07pm

Maybe I misread this:

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 thread ]