RSS
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:
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."
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
I have an app...
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Hooray for smart people!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
OK, how many other people initially assumed this referred to George Lucas?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Me...right up until I got past the word "Include" in the headline....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
things that make you go hmmmm .....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
boycott all copy-threateners and outrageous media
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I Think I See a Hole...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
umm.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: things that make you go hmmmm .....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: umm.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Good stuff
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: umm.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment