UK Labour Party Claims 'Innocent Error' Absolves It Of Infringement -- But Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?

from the curious dept

Tue, Apr 27th 2010 4:34am — Mike Masnick

We were just noting that the UK's Labour Party appeared to have egregiously infringed on the copyrights of a television program with its campaign poster for the second time, and Shane Richmond, over at the Telegraph, points us to an even more blatant infringement by the same party. In this case, the party put out a pamphlet that used a blogger's photo entirely without permission and against his wishes (he's voting for a different party).

Richmond contacted the Labour Party to get their comments on both situations. On copying the television poster, the comment was:

"We only bought the digital posters for a set period and that period has now passed."

On the situation with the blogger's photograph, the party responded:

"It appears in this instance that one of our design team has made an innocent error which we regret."

Now, both of these responses are quite interesting, because having dug through the Digital Economy Act (no longer the Digital Economy Bill, now that it's been rammed through Parliament), I'm having trouble finding the defenses it includes for "I only infringed for a little while, and that period has passed" or the "innocent error" defense.

As Richmond notes, does this mean that when someone is accused of infringement under the Digital Economy Act, they'll be able to respond:

"Yes, I downloaded your new film but that was an innocent error which I regret."

After all, if that response is good enough for the party that wrote the new law, stood behind it forcefully, and rushed it through the House of Commons with basically no debate, then shouldn't it be good enough for UK citizens as well?

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, labour party, united kingdom

55 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

trench0r (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:39am

wait does this mean?
3 strikes? or still just 2? woohoo can we kick the ghost of Dracos off the internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:43am

Re: wait does this mean?
That's 3... waiting for their internet connection to be cut any moment now.... still waiting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:45am

new sub section to "innocent error"
its the wasn't me man , clause. YA know that one in the area of the ACT prior to beut after that other one.
YA wasn't me man

P.S. thats 2 strikes for that party..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slight Change - no big deal /s, 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:50am

Golden Rule - amended
Those who have all the gold make the rules,
and are not held accountable to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:54am

Do as I say, not as I do!
The Digital Economy Bill must have a "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" subclause that the government are now taking advantage of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yogi, 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:55am

??
Does anyone live in England anymore? Are they aware what's going on in their country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:12am

Re: Do as I say, not as I do!
It's just like the expenses scandal. The politicians want to be given the benefit of the doubt whilst the rest of us are labeled as criminals...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crookedfinger, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: Do as I say, not as I do!
Blimey Jim - in essence, you've just written the Queen's speech and the motto for every government henceforth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:38am

"We only bought the digital posters for a set period and that period has now passed."
I´m going to dwl, watch movie´s and listen to music for a set period then delete all traces. This is legal right, cause if the government can do it then SO THE FCUK CAN I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:40am

OHHHHH canada we stand on guard .....for ...theeee
haha suckers in the usa and uk we dont have to put up with it over here...HAHA
suckers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duncan, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:40am

It's OK if you're in politics though, innit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sarkozy says 1$ for you, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:41am

Sarkozy - says 1$ for YOU
thats right i canna rup you wanker musicians off and you get what i give you
you hear me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inverted inventions INC, 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:44am

New labour party self combustable posters
thats right folks after a set period of time these posters magically implode with the force for a cern mini black hole

they may take the pole they are posted on so tree huggers will be upset as we need to cut down more forest. BUT its ok we are created jobs....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:05am

Who needs evidence?
I'm surprised people are actually waiting for evidence to materialise - of the Labour party's infringement.

As anyone should know by now, evidence isn't required. You need only SUSPECT or ACCUSE a party of infringement (a few times), and then measures can be taken against them.

They can then pay for an appeal - if they can afford to PROVE they didn't infringe.

In fact if you think it's likely that the Labour party's website might infringe copyright at some point in the future, you can ask all UK ISPs for it to be censored - and they have to bear any costs if they refuse and the court upholds the injunction.

It's a bad day when people believe 18th century privileges are rights, justice is being able to pay for the opportunity to prove your innocence, suspicion constitutes grounds to presume guilt, and interrogation of such 'suspects' warrants any trauma not evidently attributable to subsequent death.

Idiocracy is upon us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:15am

Get the blogger to file a DEATh notice to Labour HQ twice. Doesn't matter if it's an innocent error. The law clearly states that three strikes is in place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Angelica, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:23am

Re: Who needs evidence?
Amen, brother.
Idiocracy...who knew that movie would be a window into the near future?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimr (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:25am

You are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.. at your expense of course.

What an evolution of the judicial system!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:32am

Re: OHHHHH canada we stand on guard .....for ...theeee
Yeah, your govt charges you guys a pirate tax when you buy blank discs, way to make a stand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:36am

Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
It's called "selective enforcement", Mike. I thought you were all for that kind of thing. Surely you don't think they intended the law to apply in situations like this, do you? That just wouldn't be "reasonable"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:36am

the innocent error concept comes in two ways in the new law. first, after you receive notice, you can fight it. second, you have three strikes, not one. so unless you keep making mistakes, there is no issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:47am

Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Linked article does not match with argument. Could you explain how a grandmother being arrested for buying cough medicine is selective enforcement? (BTW, that particular law was meant for pharmacies to NOT SELL MORE than a specified amount to a single person in a week.) Please, be more detailed in your trolling, hmm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:47am

@18( OHHHHHHH CANADA .....)
what tax i dont pay it
haha
again you need oto wake up and learn
its for cdrs , not dvdrs
and not hard drives

enjoy your stupidity and oh ill keep 3-4 of those levied cdrs around for the PENDING LIST like the cria's 40 year pending list
haha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Krusty, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:54am

No problem
Just do as the U.S house and senate do and exempt yourself from the law.
Hey, it worked for ADA and health care!

PROBLEM SOLVED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 7:24am

So I make it 3-1
3 strikes for the Labour party
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100406/1251578900.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/ 20100425/2135299164.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1133049170.shtml

and 1 strike for the Tories:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100418/2325419057.shtml

So far... Let's see how far the counter will go until someone actually closes any of their internet access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 7:42am

Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Obvious troll is obvious.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the point of the blog post is to highlight the hypocrisy of a party that pushed through an ill thought out law. Where you fail is your weak attempt to derail that point.

The simple fact is the Act allows three accusations be levied against an individual and they face serious consequences. Yet, the campaigners for the party who rush through the law engage in wholesale copyright infringement on multiple occasions and their only response is "meh, we're cool".

Indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 7:59am

"After all, if that response is good enough for the party that wrote the new law, stood behind it forcefully, and rushed it through the House of Commons with basically no debate, then shouldn't it be good enough for UK citizens as well? "

Clearly you're delusional. The answer, of course, is NO!!!! The laws don't apply to the elite like they apply to everyone else. You should know that by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:02am

Re: Re: OHHHHH canada we stand on guard .....for ...theeee
and then that money goes directly to the record labels who themselves infringe on others and don't get punished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:17am

Re: Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
"Could you explain how a grandmother being arrested for buying cough medicine is selective enforcement?"

Why, little fanboy, would I care to explain something I didn't claim?

"BTW, that particular law was meant for pharmacies to NOT SELL MORE than a specified amount to a single person in a week."

Yes, but Mike thought it should be selectively enforced. It seems that Mike is only in favor of selective selective enforcement. In other words, only when *he* says so.

"Please, be more detailed in your trolling, hmm?"

Please, pull your head out of Mike's ass before commenting, hmm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joel (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:20am

Petoria
This is a classic case of "Petoria" their offices and such are not part of the UK and as such laws and treaties don't apply to them. I don't even know how they are a party in the UK but good for them trying to take them over...lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: Re: Do as I say, not as I do!
damn straight. hell, sounds like the motto for every previous government too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:39am

Re: So I make it 3-1
Make that 2 strikes for the Tories.. don't forget that their response to the Labour poster used the same picture!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:16am

Re: Who needs evidence?
"You need only SUSPECT or ACCUSE a party of infringement (a few times), and then measures can be taken against them."

"if they can afford to PROVE they didn't infringe."

I really appreciate and enjoy those lines. It reminds me of the inquisition, the peoples republic of chinas re-education through labor, the Salem witch trials, and the thought police of 1984. The though police whose charter was to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority. To the politicians of the UK I say well done. Welcome to an era of unintended orwellian consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:24am

Well do something
Someone should bring this to the attention of The Independent (newspaper).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:26am

Re: Re: Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
actually, as much as i hate this, you do have a point. BUT you are still an ass, so it all evens out.
a correct ass is still an ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:35am

Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
What we fail to learn from history is that we are doomed to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:37am

Re: Re: Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Personally, I don't have a problem with selective enforcement, as long as there is proper oversight. When a group can choose not to enforce a law against themselves, there is a problem. Or if two groups (maybe the equivalent of Congress and the Justice Dept in the UK?) are scratching each others' backs in a similar manner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:38am

Re:
so unless someone keeps accusing you, there is no issue.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:55am

Re:
This!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:05am

Re: OHHHHH canada we stand on guard .....for ...theeee
Not once ACTA get's written in to law...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BigKeithO, 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:32am

Re: new sub section to "innocent error"
Wha?! Man your comments are hard to follow. What does it even mean?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:34am

Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
It's called "selective enforcement", Mike. I thought you were all for that kind of thing.

Wow. Reading comprehension fail of impressive proportions.

1. In that other story, I pointed out that the law was, in fact, a problem. I did not say I was "all for" selective enforcement.
2. That involved a CRIMINAL STATUTE where the police/gov't have leeway in determining who they prosecute, not a civil issue.
3. That said, GIVEN the situation, I pointed out that DECIDING to move forward with putting her in jail was clearly a mistake.

That's not being "all for" selective enforcement.

Surely you don't think they intended the law to apply in situations like this, do you?

Actually, if you heard the Labour party defend the DEB, it was designed EXACTLY for this kind of situation. Using the work of someone else without a license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
Agreed. What I find funny is how often laws are placed on the books that will do nothing to protect those they are intended to protect and often do the exact opposite. In the case of the digital economy bill-act they are setting the entertainment industry up for alternatives to emerge. Alternatives that the entertainment industry has no control over.

In history, attempts to control the entertainment people seek through legislation have never worked and always backfire. Drugs, alcohol, sex, communication, music, video games, books, art, specific topics of discussion, all come to mind. In each and every case they have led to criminal organizations taking profit. In the case of three strikes it will be hiding who you are online, online id theft, and software to break peoples crypto on WiFi.

It is going to be fun to watch unfold ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
The proverbial 'interesting time'.

The slight difference we can observe with corporations is that they aren't quite as sophisticated as the church or dictatorial regimes and will press for far more cultural repression than will profit them, so much more that it'll quickly exceed the breaking point.

No-one is doing more to hasten the abolition of monopolies than the monopolists themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm, 27 Apr 2010 @ 11:42am

so what happens if someone with a fair amount of ready cash and a grudge against the labour party (you know who you are!) PURCHASES the copyright items in question and then legally goes after the labor party to shut off their internet access etc before the election?

entirely possible (and quite do-able before may 6 if anyone with some ready money and a sense of humor is reading this!)

even if the labor party's internet access isn't shut off by may 6th, it would sure as HELL make all the papers on may 5th that someone had launched 3 seperate complaints....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:26pm

Re: Re: new sub section to "innocent error"
if i understand it right, it means simply that those in charge of the party are playing 'pin the blame on the underling', whether to keep the party or themselves out of trouble, or both, who knows?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
"No-one is doing more to hasten the abolition of monopolies than the monopolists themselves."

Agreed, the over reaching will cause a backlash and a breaking of the system they are attempting to create and control. What is going to cause the eventual downfall of these old school media distribution monopolies is differing business interests. Each sub group is seeking its share of the pie. In each case its either a different yet overlapping piece of pie or a totally different pie.

They have no mutually agreed upon path to follow. The lack of a path to follow is simple, there isnt one. The internet obsoletes them for media distribution.

The real kicker of this is, this is capitalism at work at its best. You have competing and overlapping business systems all trying to gain greater profits from an ever diminishing pie. The trends and statistics all say that people are finding other things (texting, social sites, games, netflix, unlimited phone service, web browsing, blogs, rss feeds, making music, making videos, live music) to do with their time. The slice available for old media is getting smaller and will continue to do so. Something like a FaceBook site for the creation and collaboration of music, Video, and remixing its over for the old media companies if done correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:39pm

Re:
"so unless you keep making mistakes, there is no issue."

For some people, the mistake is thinking they have a right to be alive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:06pm

Re: Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
"I did not say I was "all for" selective enforcement."

Wow. Talk about "reading comprehension fail of impressive proportions". I said *I* thought you were "all for" selective enforcement. I never said you used those exact two words. Or maybe you're trying to make up some kind of straw man you can knock down by pointing out that you never used those two words. Well guess what, nobody said you did. Learn to read and quit acting like a five-year-old.

"That involved a CRIMINAL STATUTE where the police/gov't have leeway in determining who they prosecute, not a civil issue."

Yah, and again, nobody said otherwise. But you know what else? They're BOTH LAWS. What are you trying to say, that criminal laws should be selectively enforced, but things like copyright laws should be enforced to the extreme letter of the law? Yeah, sure. That sounds more like a copyright industry lobbyist. Flip-flop, flip-flop, make up your mind Mike.

"That said, GIVEN the situation, I pointed out that DECIDING to move forward with putting her in jail was clearly a mistake."

Where YOU pick the situations, right? Of course, it's all so clear now.

"That's not being "all for" selective enforcement."

Sure it is, only where YOU'RE the one selecting when laws should be enforced. How convient.

"Actually, if you heard the Labour party defend the DEB, it was designed EXACTLY for this kind of situation."

Actually, I don't remember the Labour party EVER talking about how bad they were and how they thus needed to pass a law to punish themselves. Har! Good one Mike!

But seriously, do you really expect us to believe that they expected the DEB to be used against them like this? Not likely. Get real Mike, that's not very believable and certainly doesn't do much for your credibility. Arguing for something (selective enforcement) when it coincides with your position and against it when it doesn't only makes you look like a garden variety hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 12:40am

Wow. Writing Clarity fail of impressive proportions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:57am

Re:
If you can't attack the argument, then go for the writer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 2:11am

Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
That just wouldn't be "reasonable"!

Neither are your posts, yet you keep boring us with em, TAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 5:04am

Re: Re: Re: OHHHHH canada we stand on guard .....for ...theeee
Nor do they pay the 'poor starving artists' who the 'pirates' are supposedly starving...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MarxIzalias, 28 Apr 2010 @ 8:06am

String them up by thier own boot laces.
If a government by the people for the people wants a people to pay for a crime they didn't want, then they should be held accountable for any action which infringes that crime.

(Labour) Do unto others as you would have done unto you, your a disgrace of a party and I certainly will not be voting for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
But seriously, do you really expect us to believe that they expected the DEB to be used against them like this? Not likely.

Considering the rain season this year, it's not surprising that you found enough weed to make a straw man that large. Pretty funny too, TAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 31 Jul 2010 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
"Something like a FaceBook site for the creation and collaboration of music, Video, and remixing its over for the old media companies if done correctly."

GNU Social with a proper media creating and remixing plugin could do this!
First we have to make it work well, then we have to get enough (at least semi-)professionals to make cool videos and great music, and then we have to convince the public that it's easy to join in.
Voilá, done!
[ link to this | view in thread ]