Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New UK Law Criminalizes Copyright Violation

Posted by timothy on from the hi-guys-enjoy-the-handbasket dept.

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?"

8 of 31 comments (clear)

  1. RTFA, please by Hanji · · Score: 3, Informative
    Read the bloody article. It states that someone
    commits and offence if he knew or had reason to believe that copyright in the work would be infringed
    That's very different from saying that "Letting someone take copyrighted material accidentally is not a crime," as the poster seems to believe.
    --
    A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    1. Re:RTFA, please by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Read the bloody article.

      I read the aticle, but perhaps my point was a bit too subtle.

      I've never (in EU or America) seen a really workable definition for drawing a line between 'usage' and 'copyright infringment'. The publishing interests seem to want to reserve the power to declare any particular usage as illegal just as soon as they identify a model which (they believe) is costing them money. So, if I take a photo of my SO standing next to some costumed Episode I character, that's okay. But as soon as the studio thinks they could have charged me a half quid for the photo, it becomes an illegal activity (even if, had they offered the photo for half a quid, there would have been no takers.)

      This law seems to do nothing more (or less) than raise the stakes, does nothing to change behavior or offer guidance or clarify acceptable behavior.

      Sure, it's aimed at stopping the warez sites today, just like DMCA is aimed at stopping people from pirating DVD's. But that didn't stop Lexmark from using the law to kill the low-cost replacement toner competition, and I suspect it won't be long before we see some industry defining their competition's behavior as infringment and criminalizing them out of business.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  2. How? by GypC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How has this, or the EU directive it implements, become law without even debate, let alone outcry?

    Two words: Greased Palms

    1. Re:How? by jantheman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      & probably another one of those "get it through the door whilst everyone's watching the pretty fireworks in the Gulf".

      --
      -- Mod me down. I am not a karma tart. ffs,gag
  3. Did you read the article? by pwagland · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The only quote that comes close to asserting what the punchline claims is this:
    The new law, precipitated by the EU's Information Society Directive, makes it an offence to "communicate to the public" copyright works, such as software, if the person knew or had reason to believe that this would infringe copyright.
    Nowhere do I see where it says that if your machine is hacked and someone steals office from your machine that you are liable. Everything in the article clearly states that this only applies to people who allow people to download copyright material.
  4. How it happened by amcguinn · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.)

  5. Ring Ring Ring... by zulux · · Score: 3, Funny


    '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.

  6. One effect by amcguinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.)