Slashdot Mirror
New UK Law Criminalizes Copyright Violation
pdh11 writes "The Register today details the introduction of a new UK law that makes 'communication to the public' of copyright material a criminal, not civil, offence; this means that, whether done deliberately or not, allowing a copyright infringer to copy something from your machine becomes illegal. Even if you morally equate copyright infringement with theft, this is like prosecuting me as an accessory to theft because I left my front door unlocked. How has this, or the EU directive it implements, become law without even debate, let alone outcry?"
I'm going to be calling my local MP to have him shut down and locked up, just as soon as I finish taking down my own movie posters.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
The article says the person needs "reason to believe that this would infringe copyright." This is probably not a case of an accidental SMB share or something.
How has this, or the EU directive it implements, become law without even debate, let alone outcry?
Two words: Greased Palms
...hosted in the UK then.
.binaries groups, shall we?)
(ok, let's say most
-- Mod me down. I am not a karma tart. ffs,gag
One word: Corruption.
I had something just like this happen to me in college; I was working on a programming assignment, which we had to turn in a hardcopy of the source code for, and I printed out and then threw away a first-draft copy. I was in a computer lab, and the paper recycling bin is right beside the printer. Apparently someone else in my class saw my discarded paper and copied it. When we got the assignments back, the teacher talked to both of us individually, and while the teacher agreed that I hadn't actually given the answers to the other student, I was still guilty of cheating somehow. If I didn't admit to cheating and go to some stupid cheater's rehab class, I would have to face the academic board, which had the power to expel me. The stupidity involved is unbelievable!
I don't think most people are conscious of the distinction between civil and criminal law. Among those that are, I suspect many thought that copyright infringement was criminal already.
The classic example of the confusion between civil and criminal law was always the many signs on buildings which said "Trespassers will be prosecuted" -- despite the fact there was no criminal offense of trespass.
(There is now a criminal offense of "Aggravated Trespass", but that doesn't apply often and it is a recent Michael-Howard era law anyway.)
'ello?
Howdy. This is America calling, we'd like Ashcroft back.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Perhaps they can just wall off Scotland
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
This might be a problem for emulator sites. The policy of the more reputable ones is to try to get permission to distribute old 8-bit games, but if they can't find the copyright owner, to put the game up until someone complains, then take it down. Under existing law, they are only vulnerable to being sued, and if they comply promptly with requests to remove software, that is not likely to be worthwhile for the copyright owner.
Now they can be prosecuted for distributing some 20 year old spectrum game whose owner they thought was lost in the mists of time...
I'm sure there was a /. story a month or two ago about the BSA or someone sending a cease-and-desist to World of Spectrum for distributing games for which they had been given explicit permission by the copyright owner, but I can't find it.
(I think WoS is actually based in the Netherlands, but it might be here.)
I guess its nice to know that along with us Americans the Brits also have the best legislature money can buy.
In Republican America phones tap you.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/28/074725 2&mode=thread&tid=133
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
That must have just slipped past whilst we all sit back and watch iraq being blitzed.
puts ("Python r0cks\n");
WHO had reason to believe? You? The "Man"? The police? The Judge? I ask again, "Who?".
Generally, the courts (yeah, yeah, IANALBIPOOSD (... but I play one on Slashdot)), interpret this as "what a resonable person would believe", but still, this leaves the uncertainty of what the courts consider "reasonable".
For example, I would think it reasonable that, if I left my computer wide open, for read access, and had interesting stuff on it, eventually someone would find it, and point others to the digital bounty. At best, this would be "copyright negligence" on my part. Though, I still think the courts might be more lenient if I were "Jane housewife using her new PC" instead of "Joe hacker, professional coder, with a data networking and security background."
Still, even leaving it to the courts, relying on an interpretation of "reason to believe" does not give me a warm feeling inside. I'd prefer the burden to proof that I knew of likely third party infringement, or my own carelessness to fall on the prosecution, not that I should think like some arbitrarily "reasonable" person.
After all, in a different context, "reasonable" Americans support the current war, if they know what's good for them. To speak out against it would, of course be "unreasonable". Regardless of one's position in this matter, protection for such "unreasonable" political opposition is paramount in a free society. Similary, protection for "unreasonable" thoughts should also exist, lest "reasonable" become a synonym for "politically acceptable".
You could've hired me.
'Communication to the public' of copyright material would seem to cover leaks of internal documents.
Whistle-blowers (see Enron) could well be criminalised.
Oh.. wait. That's good for big business.
Ho hum.