Is That Two Strikes For Mandelson? Labour Caught With Another Potentially Infringing Poster

from the watch-out... dept

Mon, Apr 26th 2010 6:36am — Mike Masnick

You may recall a few weeks back that we wrote about how the Labour party in the UK had come under fire for a really bad campaign poster that portrayed an opposing candidate from the Conservative party as if he were a character in a BBC television program -- photoshopping the candidate's head onto the a promotional shot from the TV show. Labour ended up pulling the poster after the ad seemed to only help the competition -- but also after some questioned whether or not Labour (the party in power that had drafted the infamous Digital Economy Bill) was infringing on copyrights of the TV show in using the image from the show. Eventually, Peter Mandelson, the guy who basically wrote the Digital Economy Bill and was its main champion, took "responsibility" for the poster.

So it's a bit bizarre to hear that Labour and Mandelson have put out a second, quite similar, poster that appears to be just as questionable on the copyright front. Misterfricative writes in to alert us to a new controversy over yet another campaign poster involving the Conservative candidate photoshopped into an image from a BBC television program. Once again, the poster has been "withdrawn" over other aspects of the controversy, but it certainly looks like this should be Mandelson's second strike, right? After all, these posters are supposedly his responsibility. If he wants to set a good example, perhaps he should cut off his own internet access. But I guess he shouldn't worry. After all, as Mandelson himself pointed out, once kicked off, he can pay up in order to file an appeal.

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: infringement, peter mandelson, united kingdom

30 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:59am

only strikes if he downloaded it online, and only if he did it personally. nice attempt to sully a reputation and throw dirt. too bad that there are hundreds of people involved. the masnick fails again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:09am
  
  Re:
  So infringement only counts online?
  
  Nothing to worry about offline?
  
  Guess I can rip movies and mail them out to people then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    yeah, what is the punishment for three times offline? you cut off his air? please. three strikes is just a signficant softening of existing copyright laws. in the real world you only get one strike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ...but at least you get a chance to defend yourself.
      
      Cut off for accusations?
      
      Good thing that doesn't apply to the real world.
      
      Hate to get "cut off" because of a rape accusation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 8:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      in the real world you only get one strike.
      
      Let's hope all of those involved in these campaigns have been duly punished under the law, given they've already used up their one strike.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Softening.
      
      TAM is hilarious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In the "real world" you also get due process and the presumption of innocence, but TAM prefers a world where justice doesn't require effort.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        no i prefer the real world. when you are caught violating copyright you take it down and then get due process. you would be taking a huge risk to keep violating after notification. online should be no different. the due process is there but you need to stop violating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have never been caught violating copyright in the real world and I do it all the time and in front of the authorities, no less!
        
        Cops don't care about copyright infringement. They care more about the murderers, rapists and actual thieves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Captain Kibble (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  I'll skip right over you missing the point completely and get to the real problem I have with your post? Sully Lord Mandelson's name? What parallel world are you living in where Mandelson has a reputation that could be made any worse by an accusation of copyright infringement?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    he has enough of a reputation that the masnick feels the need to attack him personally at every turn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Modplan (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mandelson has no good reputation to sully, and this is an example of obvious hypocritical behaviour. But I guess that doesn't stop the tamster from debating the author, not the point, especially as hypocritical behaviour is the forte of the tamster.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The Masnick" is pointing out the naked hypocrisy of pushing for the three strikes laws (which will easily affect innocent people) at the behest of copyright owners, while committing blatant copyright infringement yourself.
      
      Please, Mr. Corporate Shill, tell us why this isn't something worth criticising?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 9:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Little ac isn't a corporate shill. Little ac just takes the opposite stance of every post that little ac comments on. You don't have to be a corporate shill to do that.
        
        Just a plain old shill, really.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it is worthy of comment but do you really think it is mandelson personally making all of those choices? it would be like holding the masnick personally responsible for the blatherings of the bench warmers that filled in for him last week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dorp, 26 Apr 2010 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it is worthy of comment but do you really think it is mandelson personally making all of those choices? it would be like holding the masnick personally responsible for the blatherings of the bench warmers that filled in for him last week.
        
        Or even better, like holding you accountable for your own actions! Any person can see that you can't even make a rational choice of using capitalization, let alone making a sound argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Almost like holding the owner of an internet connection accountable for things he didn't do, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are terrible at logical thinking. Well, thinking in general. You know what, let's just say that you are terrible and leave it at that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 2:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  Well good job trolling all of these people. I'll give you that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mjb5406 (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:37am
  
  Re:
  A reputation that stinks is difficult to "sully" (nice 10th grade word, BTW). Mendelson, if you bothered to read the history of the Digital Economy Bill, wasn't much of a backer until the entertainment industry started wining and dining him... then he had an epiphany. He figured that, since all those nice people were lining his pockets with their hard-earned Pounds, he needed to do something to thank them. So he let them stick their hands up his butt and work him kike a puppet.
  
  Is that sullied enough for you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lol, 26 Apr 2010 @ 3:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    sock puppet
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- awe, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:37am
  
  Re:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- awd, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:41am
  
  Re:
  Ok, an organisation is collectively breaking copyright FOR PROFIT and you say we ignore it, and then you want to attack the not-for-profit filesharers instead?
  
  Must we ignore the hypocrisy of the party that brought us the Digital Economy Thing?
  
  I say "no" on both counts. What say you, TAM?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dom S, 26 Apr 2010 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  it is quite incredible that you would actually make this statement.
  
  Scandelson has been thrown out of positions of power twice (from what i remember) and all because he's a corrupt NON-ELECTED a$$ who has repeatedly tried to take the pi$$ out of the British public.
  
  now he OBVIOUSLY infringes someone elses copy"right" and then sits on his f*cking privelege provided seat basically laughing at everyone he's stitched up with his bogus DEB (THATS EVERYONE WHO HAS INTERNET ACCESS AND CAN BE ACCUSED OF PIRACY BY HIS PUPPET-MASTERS! btw)
  
  HE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE POSITION HE IS IN!
  
  end of
  
  as a sidenote though i feel a little "sullied" myself having taken a second to realise that maybe you're just a wind-up merchant fishing for a reaction... well you got it. I hope your mum's proud...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 2:18am
  
  Re:
  What reputation? Non-existant like yours, TAM?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:12am

Nice Try
Yeah, nice try TAM, but Mandelson claimed responsibility himself, so he would (or can) be liable. Also, your "only if" is specious. That would never stop someone from getting sued, and laws are supposed to (I know you dont agree and think that those in power and your butt buddy bosses at the *IAA's should be exempt) apply to everyone equally. No one is above the law, right? Get that dirty pirate, right? Throw the book at that dirty thief, right? Well, it works both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
awd, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:36am

According to

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100004995/why-doesnt-the-labour-party-resp ect-copyright/

this is strike 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vyvyan, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:39pm
  
  Re:
  There for Mandelson, There for Sarkozy (or were there more?), Obama still zero.
  
  US needz a copyright reform. I am fumbling with the word here, what would it be called reform? unform, reunform, unreform whatever
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:15pm

Lib Dems
The Lib Dems are probably the best mainstream party for those who actually care about the freedom of the internet.

Less free internet means less good quality of life for those in the UK.

Make sure you get out and vote for them. I hate politics but even I am going to do my part on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]