Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]
Lord Saville of Newdigate Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Other BusinessRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
I have to say that mathematicians instantly spot this, so there are three of us who hold that opinion rather strongly. Others, who are of a different culture, cannot see what we are driving it.
The other amendment in the group is Amendment 16, which is replicated in Amendments 33, 51 and 85. We have already been over this ground, but I repeat that the amendment seeks to leave out “all”. This amendment relates to the requirement that the person T, who has made the threat, should take all reasonable steps to identify those who are ultimately responsible for the infringement, before they can claim that their threat is justifiable. It is argued that this places an onerous burden on a rights holder, who is subject to an infringement of e-commerce. Therefore, the word “all” should be deleted. We have been here before because it has been suggested that, instead of the phrase “all reasonable steps”, we should allow only steps that are practicable. I think the basic point is that the onus falls too heavily upon the claimant, in the case of e-commerce, of infringement.
Lord Saville of Newdigate (CB)
I entirely agree that the word “all” sets too high a test and should be removed.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I also agree that the word “all” should go. As regards new Section 70C and new Section 70C(3), a lot of technical people agree that it should be looked at again, so I ask the Minister to do so.
Lord Saville of Newdigate
My Lords, as the former Chairman of the Committee, I thank all Members of the Committee and the Law Commission, which put a lot of thought into this exercise.