House Of Lords Has Serious Concerns About Digital Economy Bill

from the amendments-to-come dept

We've already pointed out how Lord Lucas seems to be quite concerned about the ridiculousness in the Digital Economy Bill, and has proposed a series of amendments to help get rid of these problematic elements. However, it looks like some others in the House of Lords are equally concerned as well. Michael Scott points us to the news that the Lords' Human Rights Joint Committee has put out a report that is highly critical of the more controversial points in the Digital Economy Bill, starting with the pressure on ISPs to disconnect users under a three strikes plan:

The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ISPs to take "technical measures" in respect of account holders who have been the subject of copyright infringement reports. The scope of the measures will be defined in secondary legislation and could be wide-ranging.

We do not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is appropriate. There is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users' rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression.

There are also grave concerns over section 17, which would effectively let the Business Secretary change copyright law at will:

The broad nature of this power has been the subject of much criticism. In correspondence with us, the Secretary of State explained that the Government intended to introduce amendments to limit the power in Clause 17 and to introduce a 'super-affirmative' procedure. The Government amendments would limit the circumstances in which the Government could use their powers to amend the Act by secondary legislation and would provide a system for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

Despite the proposed amendments we are concerned that Clause 17 remains overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate. We call for a series of clarifications to address these concerns.

On top of that, they're still a bit skeptical even of requiring ISPs to send notices when a user is accused of infringement, noting that while they don't think this would be a restriction on human rights or freedom of expression, they would like "a further explanation of why they [the backers of the bill] consider their proposals are proportionate."

Definitely nice to see that this bill isn't just getting rushed through, and there are some folks who are heavily questioning the more ridiculous parts of the bill.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, house of lords, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk

Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines

from the how-will-rupert-murdoch-survive dept

We've been discussing how Lord Lucas in the UK has spoken out against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, which would give Mandelson (and his successors or anyone he deputized) massive powers to change copyright law on a whim. Beyond that, the technology-savvy Lord Lucas has been proposing various amendments to the bill, including requiring copyright holders to detail actual damages and also a penalty for bogus copyright threats.

Another proposed amendment, as pointed out by Copycense would automatically exempt search engines from copyright law. While, for the most part, what search engines do seem to be covered by existing law (fair use, and the like), there are still some questions about whether or not the fundamental actions of search engines do or do not infringe. Clearly exempting them, however, could expand what search engines could do in some pretty impressive ways. This would also serve to negate the threats by the likes of Rupert Murdoch to remove News Corp. content from Google (since Google could then ignore any attempted block, as there would be no copyright violation).

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, exemption, lord lucas, search engines

Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill

from the smart-man dept

As the debate over Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill (which would represent a radical shift in copyright law in the UK) continues, it appears that Lord Lucas continues to propose all sorts of good ideas in response. You may recall that Lucas was quite explicit in questioning why such changes were needed when it was obviously the industry's inability to adapt that was the problem. Later, he suggested adding a remedy for bogus copyright claims. His latest is to try to add an amendment that would require copyright holders to detail actual damages done by file sharing in their reports to ISPs notifying them of infringement.

This is a very sensible idea for a variety of reasons. Last year, we wrote about a fascinating paper that points out that, realistically, the only way to reconcile free speech with copyright law is to have copyright holders prove what damages were caused by the infringement. Every other limitation on free speech in the US (defamation, for example) has such a requirement. It makes no sense that copyright makes no such requirement. Now, obviously, the UK is different from the US and not bound by the First Amendment, but it's hard to come up with any compelling reason at all that a copyright holder shouldn't have to prove actual damages before making a claim of copyright infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk

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 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.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, groundless copyright, lord lucas, uk

UK Politicians Pushing Back On Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill

from the it's-the-industry's-fault dept

Luca Leonardi alerts us to the news that at least some politicians in the UK are pushing back against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, with Lord Lucas specifically pointing out that the real problem seemed to be one of the entertainment industry's own making:

"We need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation," he said. "The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better.

"It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry's sluggishness. It is still slow."

Lucas, who considers himself a libertarian, also questioned the use of IP addresses as identifying who was doing something online:

"I am not at all clear that we have the technology to go beyond the IP address, which comes into my router, to identify which user of perhaps one or two dozen who have access, has done the illegal downloading," he told the peers.

"We need to be very clear that we do not tip people into losing their internet connection, or worse, on a technically fallible basis."

Nice to see at least someone pushing back on the reasoning behind the bill.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk