UK Police Launch Campaign To Shut Down Torrent Sites

An anonymous reader writes "City of London Police inform TorrentFreak that they have begun targeting sites that provide access to unauthorized content for 'criminal gain.' The initiative is part of a collaboration with Hollywood studios represented by FACT and the major recording labels of the BPI. In letters being sent out now, police accuse site operators of committing offenses under the Serious Crime Act. The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau further warns that the crimes carry a jail sentence of 10 years."

Comments

What are they trying to achieve?

[fekmist]

Seriously, this will in no way keep people who pirate from pirating some more. If anything it just wastes tax money and time. What could they possibly try to be achieving by doing this?

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[cheater512]

When police put overt effort in to enforcing a specific law then you have to ask the question why?
They should be enforcing all laws equally, not picking on some and neglecting others.

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[TubeSteak]

The [British Recorded Music Industry] say that an [National Fraud Intelligence Bureau] officer was previously embedded with their anti-piracy unit.

âoeThis appointment is the first secondment by NFIB into private industry, enabling City of London Police to develop a greater understanding of the illegal distribution and sale of music online by organised crime gangs,â the music group reveals.

They seem to be equating torrent sites with organized crime.

For some reason I'm skeptical of that categorization.

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[hairyfeet]

And the bitch is its really not that hard, but they are so God damned greedy they will turn down money because it isn't "iMoney" and end up fucking themselves.

A good example of what I mean is Steam. back in the days before Steam everybody I knew had a shitload of pirated games, now nobody i know pirates games, why? Steam made it so damned cheap and easy to get any game they want that they just don't bother, simple as that. between the sales, the extras like chat and matchmaking, it just got to the point it really wasn't worth dealing with the bullshit when the alternative is "push button" simple.

There is NO damned reason why I shouldn't be able to go to a one stop website and get any movie or show I want, no reason at all except they are so damned greedy they will happily fuck themselves out of the money. I mean why in the fuck can i go to fricking Walmart and find huge piles of movies in giant bins for under $5, but if I want the same damned movie on my netbook they want the same price as a new release AND I have to have an always on Internet connection which fucks the whole damned reason for putting a movie on my damned netbook in the first place!

This is why I have ZERO sympathy for these movie douchebags, none at all, because its their own damned fault. time and time again we have seen that black markets occur because a population is not being served by a regular market,either they can't get what they want at all or the price is too damned high or in this case? BOTH. The pirated version of a movie is in every metric better than the legal product by leaps and bounds! NO unskippable ad horseshit for crap i don't give a rat's ass about, NO always online bullshit like with the digital versions, NO stupid worthless DRM that keeps more than half of the devices i own from even playing their shit NONE of that exists with the pirate version...yet I'm supposed to feel bad because people are bypassing your horseshit?

People pirate because your prices are too damned high and you tie too much bullshit into your product PERIOD. I mean here it is 20 fucking 13 and I can't even just buy a fricking .avi or .mp4 of a 25 fricking year old movie to play on my devices? Why the hell can't I pay 25c a pop for old shows in a format that will play on everything, when i can fricking buy MP3s that play anywhere huh? We aren't even talking new releases, shit that is so damned old it can be had in the Fred's 4 movies for $5 sets, like the old Chuck Norris stuff, but IF you can even find it online they are gonna charge full price AND have it locked with DRM like its a screener for Iron man 3...give me a break!

So you Brits need to go have a royal shitfit as its YOUR tax dollars they are wasting, both in the cost of the investigations AND in the cost of housing these "dangerous criminals" and for what? So you can prop up a failed business model of a bunch of rich old douchebags? Fuck them and the horse they rode in on, get with the times or die you old bastards.

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[MacTO]

No need for conspiracy theories. This is a tool commonly used by police, particularly for traffic offences. It is meant to serve as a reminder that some offences are illegal and that the police can pursue them. (And they do pursue them on a regular basis, though not necessarily to the same degree because they have limited resources.)

I don't really agree with this method of law enforcement, but I can certainly understand why they use it.

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[XcepticZP]

The simple fact that they are using taxpayer money on silly victim-less crimes like this instead of more serious ones such as rape/murder. That fact says that they are "putting overt effort into enforcing one law and neglecting others".

But let's face it... They aren't really putting overt effort. They're just focusing on what they think is low-hanging fruit, like traffic offenses.

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[coofercat]

There is a possible conspiracy though.

The government (Cons) want to pass through the so-called "snoopers charter" to make note of all of our emails and web traffic. The LibDems and a few others have blocked this so far, but we've recently had a murder case (April Jones: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-22781411) during which it was found that the killer had had child porn on his computer. There are now the requisite "block child porn from the internet" calls, as you'd expect (including the NSPCC saying there's a link between looking at kiddie porn and going out and harming children). Further, John Carr, the government's Internet advisor has said Google et. al should be logging actual humans to searches (not just IPs or pseudonyms) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22726004) - side comment: I should imagine Google is probably the worst place to find 'hard' porn of any kind, let alone kiddie porn, so this seems deeply flawed, regardless of your stance on such things).

So... the conspiracy here is that the government has pressured the police to have a bit of a crack down. When the police find it difficult, they too can join in the cries for "we need more monitoring on the internet, because otherwise crime fighting is hard". That'll bring the police in line with MI5, the Culture Secretary and the child-porn fighting public who are asking for action. Then, the government can re-propose it's draconian measures, and we'll all accept them because we don't want to be paedophiles.

I'll give it a month before the chief of police says something like "I wish we had more powers to monitor people's internet usage".

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[Ash Vince]

The simple fact that they are using taxpayer money on silly victim-less crimes like this instead of more serious ones such as rape/murder. That fact says that they are "putting overt effort into enforcing one law and neglecting others".

But let's face it... They aren't really putting overt effort. They're just focusing on what they think is low-hanging fruit, like traffic offenses.

These are not victimless crimes. The victims are just huge multinational conglomerates that you do not give a crap about (I am not sure I do either to be honest). In this case though the the victims have lots of money and are constantly whining to the police and politicians about the crimes perpetrated against them. The police need to be seen to be doing something.

Also, it is worth remembering that the UK record industry does have a lot of employees and is one of the few things we actually export nowadays so it is no surprise that politicians wish to protect it from any perceived harm.

Finally, you need to remember that the vast majority of the UK voting population do not necessarily give a crap about repealing copyright law or whatever. The care more about our economy. I actually think if we had a referendum tomorrow about copyright law it would come out as a majority in favour of strengthening it thanks to all the old people voting, even though you and all your friends would disagree.

Re:What are they trying to achieve?

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to be equating torrent sites with organized crime.

For some reason I'm skeptical of that categorization.

Some torrent sites make large amounts of money. They encourage paid hit-and-runners (VIP accounts) by the thousands, as well as regularly solicit for donations rewardedwith a star icon. They also sell slots on seedboxes. This isn't casual sharing, it's profit based on copyright infringement.

wow

[Redmancometh]

Yeah giving them the same sentence as a rapist. That seems reasonable. This shit should be a civil matter not criminal.

Re:define "serious"

[Anonymous Coward]

Things which need media attention.

Improper use of police powers and public funds

[Camael]

I am still uncomfortable with the fact that this action is yet another example where the police, who are publicly funded and granted extensive powers in pursuit of their public duty, are essentially (mis)using their powers to protect the private property rights of a select few, i.e. copyright owners.

Copyright owners who, incidentally, are rich enough to pursue their own civil action against alleged pirates. Then again, making the public pay is better for their bottom line.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds

[Jockle]

Those are laws and law enforcement being used to protect the private property rights of a select few.

It might be the case that theft is uncommon, but almost everyone owns private property. Am I seriously supposed to care that someone's government-enforced monopoly is tumbling down?

After all, victims of theft should simply pursue their own civil action against the alleged thieves.

Unfortunately for you, government-enforced monopolies created in an effort to ensure artificial scarcity don't resemble real property at all, so this whole example is rather ridiculous to begin with.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds

[Jockle]

It looks like they are trying to stop and prevent crime.

Right, the copying of certain data. Can't have the rich's government-enforced monopolies put in jeopardy, now can we? This is almost as serious as a child opening a lemonade stand without a permit!

Here's the proof that copyright law is insane

[OhANameWhatName]

police accuse site operators of committing offenses under the Serious Crime Act

When sharing information about shifting bits of data across a computer network is considered a serious crime, the corruption in the system is not only obvious but blatantly so.

10 Years?

[VortexCortex]

A sentence of 10 Years? What are they trying to do? Get folks to take up the less illegal crime of muggings?

Re:define "serious"

[CodeBuster]

Specially it's the parliament, which is elected by the people.

I wonder what percentage of the British population believes that Parliament is representing their interests well and voting with those concerns in mind? Here in the United States, only 11% of the population approves of the job that Congress is doing. That's a lot of unhappy people. What is the approval rating of Parliament? I'd be surprised if it's much higher.

Re:define "serious"

[Isaac-1]

Because Hollywood has finally sunk to the point where there is nothing new worth downloading. I just looked over the DVD release date schedule for the rest of the summer and could not find I single movie coming out I would be willing to watch, much less go to the trouble of downloading.

Re:City of London is a private police force

[mrbester]

Linking is not (yet) illegal in UK, no matter what these tosspots say. Also, they are misrepresenting themselves as those in a position of authority. So, in response, I suggest the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram.