UK Police Launch Campaign To Shut Down Torrent Sites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police Launch Campaign To Shut Down Torrent Sites

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 4, 2013 @04:10PM from the i'm-sure-they-know-it-when-they-see-it dept.

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."

170 of 244 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What are they trying to achieve? by fekmist · 2013-06-04 16:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
1. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by cheater512 · 2013-06-04 16:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by fekmist · 2013-06-04 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what I meant to say. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was speaking about the law enforcement officials on duty. It's more along the lines of: "Hollywood, figure your shit out without having to sue everyone because unless you can shut down the internet you won't ever have your nice pre internet revenues, so adapt like the rest of us"
3. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Zeio · 2013-06-04 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  I have 2 billion people in mind who done give a hoot about copyright: All of india, and all of china. So thats 2 billion holes to plug. Its hilarious too, with the great red firewall, that piles of copyrighted software and content pours out of there.
  Get real, RIAA, MPAA and whatever other rackets exist to try and create and use police state to shake down small timers.
  
  --
  Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
4. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Jockle · 2013-06-04 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, my scorn should be directed at everyone involved in this process. It's rather disgusting that they're seriously wasting tax dollars trying to stop people from copying certain data.
5. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by TubeSteak · 2013-06-04 17:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
6. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by hairyfeet · 2013-06-04 17:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
7. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Its ironic isn't it, that China ends up being one country that effectively uphold liberty in this particular area...
8. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by MacTO · 2013-06-04 18:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-06-04 20:52 · Score: 2
  
  Just as long as they don't install download cameras on the internet :)
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
10. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by gsslay · 2013-06-04 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a red herring of an argument. Who says they are putting overt effort into enforcing one law and neglecting others?
  The police's resources, like anything else, are finite. They cannot concentrate on all crime, all the time. So initiatives like this, across all laws, are not uncommon. The hope is that the publicity and focussed effort staves off similar crime for a while.
11. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 21:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Official bodies in UK often act as if they think industry associations are lily-white, now it seems to be a police force doing that too.
  The concept of abusive and overreaching claims may be too complicated for Mr Plod to grasp. Maybe he should be invited to see it in its true colours as a kind of conspiracy to commit offences of unlawful harassment and intimidation on the public.
  (And someone should caution him against becoming an accessory to those offences himself). It's a tragedy if a potentially respectable police force allows itself to become the stooge of sleazy lawyers.
12. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by XcepticZP · 2013-06-04 22:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by coofercat · 2013-06-04 23:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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".
14. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Ash+Vince · 2013-06-05 00:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
15. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  I mean here it is 20 fucking 13 and I can't even just buy a fricking .avi or .mp4 [...]
  yeah, that's illegal
16. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Ash+Vince · 2013-06-05 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck them and the horse they rode in on, get with the times or die you old bastards.
  Unfortunately the old generation are not dieing quick enough to make changing the law to cope with new technologies possible yet. They will most likely carry on voting for parties to get in and strengthen copyright law for many decades to come, however futile you may think it is.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
17. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Ash+Vince · 2013-06-05 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, my scorn should be directed at everyone involved in this process. It's rather disgusting that they're seriously wasting tax dollars trying to stop people from copying certain data.
  Would you agree if I hacked your home PC and copied all the data I found on there?
  Just because something can be copied without incurring a cost does not make it any less valuable.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
18. Re: What are they trying to achieve? by jones_supa · 2013-06-05 00:27 · Score: 2
  
  Let's see how your message is modded down into oblivion by the /. pro-piracy drones.
19. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by jones_supa · 2013-06-05 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent comment!
21. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by cellurl · 2013-06-05 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  I love you man, but look at the big picture. It's illegal, so it will have enforcement. The best you can hope for is enforcement-theater. So if you have some new cool technology to get around this, doll it out as slowly as possible. IMHO, Amazon will do the best job at enforcement. They now only charge $3 for any movie. Not worth pirating any more, but still there, keeping the giants in check.
  
  Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets.
22. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Sloppy · 2013-06-05 02:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Please name any other industry where you feel you have a right to essentially make an ultimatum: "change things to suit my whims or I won't buy your product?"
  All of them. There are some exceptions with utilities (e.g. local water company) but even those are less exceptional than the video industry thinks they are.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
23. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by hairyfeet · 2013-06-05 02:33 · Score: 3
  
  Ask me how much I give a fuck about your failed business model, seriously go on ask.,..I have ZERO fucks to give for your failed business model because we have undeniable proof that IT DOES NOT WORK,it doesn't do a God damned thing about pirates, it ONLY punishes the customers (which naturally get fed up with your self entitled corporate douchebaggery) and who go elsewhere, shock fucking shock.
  You want a perfect example? Look at what the digital music industry was like before and after the switch to MP3. the ONLY ones that "kinda sorta" worked was playsforsure which was okay for rentals, but when it came to songs? BROKEN. just like with video now they made the pirated version in EVERY metric better than the pay version and guess what? people are not gonna jump through hoops just to give you what you think you deserve, you spoiled corporate douchebag.
  And you have some fucking nerve to talk about entitled when YOU ARE BRIBING OUR LEADERS to prop up your failed fucking business model! Why in the fuck should MY tax dollars be used to support corporate welfare to you douchebags? Do you honestly think if it were put to a vote the people would have given you 150+ year copyrights? Or spending billions on law enforcement to be your fucking pitbulls? NO, but because you greedy douchebags can get away with bribing...excuse me, "lobbying", we get to spend piles of OUR money on propping up your failed bullshit!
  Its as old as retail, give the people what they want or go out of business. Not like there won't be good movies made after you are gone, Babylon 5 was cooked up on a video toaster weaker than your average gaming PC today, so please feel free to go die and fuck off, the world will be a better place without you in it. And as for my "one stop shop" idea? There is NO reason why we can't have the same one stop shopping at Amazon, Walmart, B&N, and pretty much ANY place that sells MP3s, NO REASON AT ALL except yet again corporate douchebaggery that thinks that even a 30 year old movie should be sold for the same price as a new release when it "magically" becomes digital, oh and it should also require an always on Internet just to prove you are not a pirate...fuck you! Even fucking Steam gives you 30 damned days of offline mode!
  So if people want to pirate because you won't sell them a functional product? I see ZERO problem with that, just like Napster you brought it on yourself and just like napster the answer is cockslapping you in the face but you are too busy rubbing your hands together like Mr Burns and dreaming of how bad you can fuck the customer..please go DIAF, the world will be a better place.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
24. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by arisvega · 2013-06-05 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  What could they possibly try to be achieving by doing this?
  Terrorizing them; because that is what threatening someone with a decade in prison for using torrent files is.
  Apparently when those bodies are doing the terrorizing, it is not considered as such-
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
25. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, are you aware that the City of London police are responsible for corporate and financial crime in one of the world's biggest financial centers?
  Various forms of fraud and corruption are rampant in the City. LIBOR fixing went on for at least 5 or 6 years before anyone anywhere got prosecuted for it, when they did it was driven by US law enforcement. During this time it was common knowledge, widely commented on and evident to anyone with a Bloomberg terminal and a little financial knowledge. The sums involved were incalculable, but clearly in the billions. The evidence that has come to light shows people not skirting the grey areas of too-complex regulations, but knowingly and intentionally doing criminal acts of fraud and bribery for substantial personal gain.
  The police largely ignore large-scale corporate crime because a) it is hard to detect and prosecute and b) the City of London authority they work for is elected not democratically but overwhelmingly by the heads of corporations based in the City.
  Every so often they find something to 'crack down on' which gets some attention and makes them seem less ineffectual. A few years ago it was boiler rooms (which are odious but economically insignificant). This time it's torrent sites, which sound a bit strange and threatening if you are old, and they can pretend are run by the (Chinese/Russian/$SCARY_NONWESTERN_COUNTRY) organised crime for huge profit.
26. Re: What are they trying to achieve? by flayzernax · 2013-06-05 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  No need to mod this guy down. But CURRENTLY in modern history individual artists and small companies suffer far greater than the institutions who are members of BPI.
  There are victims on both side of this war. And collateral damage. By pulling out the big nuclear weapons BPI and their pals are just harming everyone including themselves.
  I'm going to RE-link the best ever article from 1841 on this issue. Because it really is still relevant today.
  http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329
27. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by flayzernax · 2013-06-05 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't they go after the advertisers who are willing participating in criminal activity by supporting the sites specifically targeted for the infringement. (I'm just using their logic here). For a different perspective.
  Honestly those advertisers are part of this issue.
28. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Shagg · 2013-06-05 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The potential victims are just huge multinational conglomerates that many people do not give a crap about. Whether or not any actual harm occurred is an entirely different conversation.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
29. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by meta-monkey · 2013-06-05 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking boomers. The Worst Generation. Looted the empire, shipped the jobs overseas, voted themselves every entitlement, saved for none of them, enslaved their kids and grandkids to their debts and established a police state to keep them in line.
  Thanks for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, but I wish they'd listened to The Who. About your generation? We wish you'd died before you got old, too.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
30. Re: What are they trying to achieve? by s.petry · 2013-06-05 05:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Victimless?"
  Tell that to the families of, oh, i dunno, pick an niche industry.. Makers of add ons for microsoft flight simulator. Their industry was basically wiped out by piracy despite a clear huge demand for their high quality products. Why should the police protect say a jewelry shop that was robbed but not them?
  Not even a good try at re-writing history. Most small tool vendors for "Windows" have been put out of business by Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Cisco, etc... and not by piracy. The anti-trust suits can show how absolutely false your assertion is, though you probably won't let facts get in to the way of your bullshit.
  Average users used to pay very well for PK-Zip, Cybersitter, NetNanny, Disk compression tools, Encryption tools, etc... Each of those was put under by massive corporations (disclaimer: Cybersitter is still around, but no longer a dominant company in web content control). Once those were squashed by big corporations and their integrated yet limited versions of the same thing, people no longer spent the money.
  Look, nobody here should be a moron. Everyone would agree that real piracy happens, but what is real piracy? You getting a copy of a movie/TV Show from a friend on a recommendation would probably be the most common. At least half of those cases are a result of a movie/TV show not being available by the producers. The same could be said with songs. People don't want to purchase a full CD for 15 bucks when they only like 1 song on the record, and yet they can't just buy 1 song because the artist hates iTunes or want's more money than the one song's value.
  Computer software is often pirated because people don't trust games to be good. Office and productivity apps may be needed to open 1 file or perform 1 task, where a user sees no value in spending hundreds of dollars on a full application. It could be to learn what an app is, or if they really want to purchase it when there are no trials available.
  In the end, most of the people using things end up purchasing if they really like the product (which includes movies, songs, and software).
  It's a very tiny portion of pirating that actually damages people. Those things have been around as well, and are prosecuted. I guess you never heard of Rusty and Eddies BBS? I doubt anyone would complain about places like that being taken down and taken to court. Those places are not the financially strapped single mom's being taken to court by the RIAA/MPAA are they? It's the latter that people take offense too, which causes them to not care about the RIAA/MPAA.
  You can either believe your fantasy, or check just a few goddamn facts before spouting off. Of course you posted as AC (big surprise) so don't care about facts. "Just Shillin" right?
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
31. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by gsslay · 2013-06-05 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  So by extension we don't give a crap about the employees of the multinational conglomerates we don't give a crap about?
  I've never encountered a pirate site that draws any distinction between "huge multinational conglomerate" and "cottage industry that supports three staff". Pirates really don't give a crap. So your definition of the victim may be comforting, but factually groundless.
  But people like to console themselves by thinking they're not really doing any hurt to anyone. Not really. Just faceless conglomerates, they imagine, and that's ok. It's convenient that people get to decide for themselves where the moral line is drawn here. Can't imagine why all laws aren't left to personal interpretation. "Yes Judge, I did steal this TV. But the shop ran a profit of $501k last year, and that's over my $500k "fair game" threshold. So I'm ok with it and so should you. Don't you have more serious crimes to be worrying about?"
32. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by s.petry · 2013-06-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  You are making the false assertion that piracy causes damages. Numerous experiments have all shown that piracy does not damage sales, and more often increases sales. Numerous artists have shown that by asking people to volunteer to pay, they have received way more money for art than a studio would pay them. Other artists have been "found" by the public after being shut out by the studios and made money, where they would have made nothing by signing with a label or agent 'in the biz".
  That is not to say that studios are "all bad" or SAG members are "all bad", but rather that an established institution for art should not be raping both the public and artists. When an established institution does, it's society's job to correct that behavior.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
33. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by s.petry · 2013-06-05 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Please name any other industry where you feel you have a right to essentially make an ultimatum: "change things to suit my whims or i will steal your product?"
  When England taxed game in the 1700s, it caused a revolt and there were countless poachers black marketing meats. How many "Tea" revolts have there been in the world since the 1700s? Go read a damn history book and learn why the mercantile economy ended up failing.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
34. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Maritz · 2013-06-05 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  "change things to suit my whims or i will steal your product?"
  Piracy brings its issues with it, but equating it with stealing was, is, and will always be fucking stupid. If your mind isn't subtle enough to 'get' infringement then really, think about discussing something else that's a bit 'easier'...
  ;)
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
35. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by s.petry · 2013-06-05 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Is what you are holding on your phone made on tax dollars as entertainment for the masses and betterment society? Or is it pornography and self loathing comments about your boss/spouse/parents? It makes a big difference doesn't it? Comparing Tolkein's works to your tax return is not remotely the same thing is it?
  Not very good with rhetoric and logic I take it?
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
36. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Jockle · 2013-06-05 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  If the people who created the data want paid for their time, resources and effort, then why should they not be?
  Because they lost nothing, and what they have is a government-enforced monopoly. Tax dollars or no, the police are wasting their time with this; they will not prevent anyone from copying anything.
37. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Jockle · 2013-06-05 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  What? You're comparing hacking into someone's home PC to people who, without any input or involvement from the 'creator', make certain data freely available for download? Somehow your analogy seems odd.
38. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by cheater512 · 2013-06-05 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Traffic blitzes are a little bit different because of the life saving nature of them and they are still regular.
  They put emphasis on those laws once every few weeks not as a freak one off like this case.
39. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Hognoxious · 2013-06-05 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Looted the empire, shipped the jobs overseas, voted themselves every entitlement, saved for none of them, enslaved their kids and grandkids to their debts
  ... or didn't have any kids, leaving an even greater burden on the diminishing workforce that has to support an increasing number of pensioners.
  I don't think the US has it so bad, but in most of Europe it's the case.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
40. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by hairyfeet · 2013-06-05 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hear fucking hear, bunch of whiny self entitled douchebags, the whole damned lot of them. They were happy to screw their kids and grandkids, make as much dough as possible, vote every possible entitlement they could, and then were happy to support every jack booted thing that came along to keep the poor away...the poor they helped fucking create!
  What we need is a plague, we really do, something that strikes those over 65 and just fucking slaughters the whole damned bunch. After we have dumped the last boomer in the ground maybe, just maybe, we can clean up this giant shithole they've left behind and get the west working again, but it'll probably take a good 30 years if they died tomorrow just to clean up their messes!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
41. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Ash+Vince · 2013-06-05 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  What? You're comparing hacking into someone's home PC to people who, without any input or involvement from the 'creator', make certain data freely available for download? Somehow your analogy seems odd.
  He made a big thing about it was only copying data, I was trying to illustrate that sometimes just making a copy of something is not desired by the person who owns it. I should realise I am just wasting my breath though, slashdot is mostly full of students and young people who have not realised that people earning a living is far more important than being able to watch whatever you like the name of some data wants to be free crusade.
  When you grow up you will realise that some form of copyright law needs to exist. You will only see this though when you have a work of your own that is worth other people wanting to copy it and have a need to buy a house and feed your children. This sort of work will only come about though if you invest thousands of (or maybe even a million) hours in its creation.
  The capitalist world we live in at present is simply not ready to abandon copyright yet, there are many reasons why but if all you are crying out for is a way of justifying bit torrent use on some bullshit moral stretch of logic you will never see them.
  As you get old you might realise that enjoying a movie you can't be arsed to pay for is just like stealing from the supermarket if you ever get the chance to get away with it. I know that that copying is not not depriving the copyright owner of a physical product, but it is depriving them of the revenue you SHOULD have paid them in order to watch the film. If the film was so shit it wasn't worth anything, then just don't watch it. You can sugar coat it any way you like saying you buy loads of movies and what ever, but for every film you watch illegally for free is depriving someone of the pittance you would have paid to join Netflix or buy it on DVD. if you watch it legally for free you are probably paying in some way you just can't see.
  Final point, the lack of copyright law will render the GPL worthless and us evil capitalists (I am joking, see below) will be able to shit all over every bit of open source software by ignoring the GPL completely.
  BTW, I am actually a socialist at heart I just think that while capitalism exists then copyright law also has to so artists can earn a living from producing content. Just performing live simply doesn't pay the bills enough as most of the revenue goes to the people who own the venue.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
42. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Jockle · 2013-06-05 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  I should realise I am just wasting my breath though, slashdot is mostly full of students and young people who have not realised that people earning a living is far more important than being able to watch whatever you like the name of some data wants to be free crusade.
  You're ferociously beating down those straw men.
  
  When you grow up you will realise that some form of copyright law needs to exist.
  How old must I be? I'm nearing 40.
  By the way, I must commend you on your ability to see into the future! Who needs actual arguments when you have an ability like that? "When you grow up, you'll understand why you're wrong." Genius logic.
  
  You will only see this though when you have a work of your own that is worth other people wanting to copy it and have a need to buy a house and feed your children.
  Ah, so only people who directly benefit from copyright are correct.
  You know it's a subjective matter, right? I don't, and likely won't, believe that copyright should exist. You're wasting your time
  
  The capitalist world we live in at present is simply not ready to abandon copyright yet
  Sure it is. There's no reason why it wouldn't be, other than that a large enough number of people don't want to abandon it.
  
  but if all you are crying out for is a way of justifying bit torrent use on some bullshit moral stretch of logic you will never see them.
  Really? Proponents of copyright seem to feel entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas. They use all sorts of ridiculous arguments to rationalize (TM) this entitlement.
  Hey, see that? It's quite easy to make the Other Side (TM) seem like entitled brats, and nothing more.
  
  As you get old you might realise that enjoying a movie you can't be arsed to pay for is just like stealing from the supermarket if you ever get the chance to get away with it.
  So, how long do I have before I become an imbecile? Even the law itself doesn't treat theft and copyright infringement as the same thing, so why are you?
  
  but it is depriving them of the revenue you SHOULD have paid them in order to watch the film.
  "Should" is such a subjective word. I think we'll have to disagree that sending certain data around without any involvement from the ones who 'created' it entitles said 'creators' to money. But hey, that's what it means to be against government-enforced monopolies over ideas.
  Maybe one day you'll grow up and realize that other adults are capable of disagreeing with you (See what I did there?).
  
  You can sugar coat it any way you like
  You can sugar coat government-enforced monopolies that promote censorship all you like, but chances are, you're not saying anything I haven't already heard before. Actually, it's not just that you're using old arguments that is the main problem; it's the constant insinuation that I must be a child for disagreeing with your views about copyright. That makes you look rather silly, you know.
  
  Just performing live simply doesn't pay the bills enough as most of the revenue goes to the people who own the venue.
  Stop feeling so entitled to a working business model (Again, did you notice how I worded that? See the similarities?). You make everything so simple!
43. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Jockle · 2013-06-05 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  slashdot is mostly full of students and young people who have not realised that people earning a living is far more important than being able to watch whatever you like the name of some data wants to be free crusade.
  By the way, throwing away rights (real property rights) and advocating for a system that inevitably causes censorship so that some people can be/feel safe (from poverty, in this case) is something I might attribute to a child, but that would just be silly. There are plenty of imbeciles in all age groups, and thanks to them, we have the lovely abomination that is the TSA (among other things). I believe your attitude of "freedom is less important than safety" is poisonous.
44. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by countach · 2013-06-05 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd love to know the exact sequence of events that leads to these crackdowns. e.g. Film studio gives money to minister. Minister has a word in the ear of police commissioner, etc, or whatever pen pusher decided to put this sequence of events into action.
45. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by gsslay · 2013-06-06 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  And you are cherry picking your studies to suit your own bias.
  Some studies have found it does not damage sales of some art. Others have found the opposite.
  And whether some artists have made money outside "the biz" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether they would have made more money, been more successful, if their product was never pirated.
  Naturally, if they have been giving their art away for free then that's fine. That's their choice and if it works for them, great. But others should be free to make their living in other ways. It's not a one-solution-fits-all world. What makes a living for one type of artist may not work for another. But pirates remove that option, not because they know better what works for the artist than the artist themselves, but on the basis that they can and no-one can stop them. How is that fair?
46. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Optali · 2013-06-06 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Easy answer: It's an easy way of showing that they are useful and score an effortless success in order to justify their salaries.
  A second answer would be that some guy/girl in a high position in the department has a nefew/niece that is good with computers and needs a job.
  here in Holland they forced our ISPs to block the Pirate Bay with the expected results: Now we have 2 URL, the old one which is accesible again and the pirateproxy URL.
  The "War on cyber-stuff" is like the war on drugs, but just better as it does not cause too much social damage: If a kid is caught doing cyber-thingies he/she usually doesn't get much more than a minor penalty and it can even look awesome on a CV.
  Thus, expect more of this crap, much more.
  
  --
  -- 29A the number of the Beast
47. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by s.petry · 2013-06-07 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Did you bother to read my last paragraph, or did you just read the parts you felt would make a good debate point? I guess you have never heard of "Hollywood Accounting" either have you? Are you surprised that a studio would claim "piracy = debil" given that they can magically make negative income on block buster movies where ticket sales are records for years, like "The Lion King"?
  The problem is not with SAG or "all studios" (Go read my 2nd paragraph above). The problem is that the corrupt are corrupted so absolutely that it will probably require an ugly reset to fix it. When the corrupt have political backing, the reset gets bigger and uglier right?
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
define "serious" by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-06-04 16:16 · Score: 2

what exactly is a serious crime?

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
1. Re:define "serious" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Things which need media attention.
2. Re:define "serious" by Gideon+Fubar · 2013-06-04 16:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's about volume, right? That music is criminally loud.
  Also terrible fucking puns.
  
  --
  http://www.xkcd.com/354/
3. Re:define "serious" by Xicor · 2013-06-04 16:39 · Score: 2
  
  but that wouldnt be criminal gain.... it would be like if you had a store consisting of stolen items and bead jewelry... you made the jewelry yourself, and you are giving away the stolen items for free... your profit is entirely from something that is legal... the other stuff is just to attract attention. because of this, while it is not legal for them to steal the items in the first place.. it is still not criminal gain, as their profit is all legal.
4. Re:define "serious" by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-06-04 16:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If the studios really wanted that profit then why don't they distribute it online for free in a ad supported fashion (just like they do/did with traditional television) themselves?
  the networks could make lots of money with ad supported "official legal" torrent site and set it up like any other torrent site (just less porn ads and more normal ads) with every episode available in multiple resolutions drm free and in every imaginable format, hell they could even embed ads in the episode like the do with tv. they would say "oh but people block ads with adblockers but then again so do viewers with tivo or other time delay setups. it would cost them less bandwidth than trying to stream every every episode to everyone and their dog separately, they would not have to license any drm they, they could have links to where you could buy the the physical disks and merchandise, they could quickly and accurately judge popularity of shows based on number of people torrenting it. they would argue that others would simply copy their torrent remove ads and redistribute them but they have problem as is anyway.
  but they would rather prosecute other people then sell goods the way masses want them in the vain hope that they will somehow get back to the glory days of pre-internet.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
5. Re:define "serious" by auric_dude · 2013-06-04 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is the British record industry's trade association and they would suggest it is a serious crime https://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/BPI_Digital_Music_Nation_2013.PDF but you have to do a bit of searching to find the word bit torrent.
6. Re: define "serious" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  I once saw someone violate the Silly Crimes Act. He had flippers, an unusual walk, and held a duck. I did not inquire further.
7. Re:define "serious" by CodeBuster · 2013-06-04 17:00 · Score: 2
  
  what exactly is a serious crime?
  Whatever the governments says it is. They're the ones with the guns, remember?
8. Re:define "serious" by Jockle · 2013-06-04 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  But they're profiting because of the ads. They're not actually selling the content.
9. Re:define "serious" by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 17:08 · Score: 2
  
  Specially it's the parliament, which is elected by the people.
10. Re:define "serious" by bongomanaic · 2013-06-04 17:14 · Score: 2
  
  The phrase used in the legislation is "in the course of a business" it doesn't require a direct sale of the infringing work or even for a profit to be made -- distribution or public exhibition of the infringing work is enough. A better analogy would be exhibiting a film without the copyright holders permission in order to drive sales of popcorn.
11. Re:define "serious" by Deluvianvortex · 2013-06-04 17:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't know why they don't just release the shows themselves over a tracker and have the ads spliced into the shows. Just like normal TV. They can put some superseeders behind it on 100mbits and everyone gets what they want. Its the fact that they're still clinging to traditional media that's killing them. Its like they don't even realize there is a cheaper, better way.
12. Re:define "serious" by c0lo · 2013-06-04 17:19 · Score: 3
  
  what exactly is a serious crime?
  A never-kidding never-laughing one?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
13. Re:define "serious" by CodeBuster · 2013-06-04 17:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
14. Re:define "serious" by cffrost · 2013-06-04 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  [W]hat exactly is a serious crime?
  A crime* which takes place over the Internet; the "Serious Crime Act" is the UK equivalent of what we Yanks might call a "Cyber Crime Bill," but the Brits, in naming this law, have acknowledged that the Internet is serious fucking business.
  * Sometimes even a non-crime can become a "serious crime" by virtue of it having occurred over the Internet; for example: Borrowing somebody's CD AFK? Not a crime. Borrowing bits from somebody's CD over the Internet? "Serious crime."
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
15. Re:define "serious" by Patman64 · 2013-06-04 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't you heard? The Internet is Serious Business.
16. Re:define "serious" by Isaac-1 · 2013-06-04 18:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:define "serious" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  ..I wonder what percentage of the British population believes that Parliament is representing their interests well and voting with those concerns in mind?
  The problem here, you have to understand, is that the average voter in Britain is, for want of a better word, a sheeple.
  They* voted the current lot in because, like good little sheeple, they did what the media told them to do.
  If they're told that they all need branding on the forehead as it's all part of a new anti-terrorism and anti-paedophile initiative they'll all baa loudly and form an orderly queue..
  I should point out, the City of London Police have always had a rather close relationship with big business, and are not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police.
  (*In fairness, I should point out that it was the English who foisted the current Government upon us, but the sheeple comment is equally applicable across the whole of Britain.)
18. Re:define "serious" by IamTheRealMike · 2013-06-04 20:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Such data is gathered by the YouGov surveys, which happen very regularly. Here's the latest report. Unsurprisingly given the sort of policies associated with the coalition government, the approval rating of Parliament splits strongly down party lines. Overall the government is unpopular with a 25% approval rating, 61% disapproval and 14% don't know. However this average disguises the fact that amongst conservative voters approval is 75% and amongst Labour voters approval is only 5%.
  These sorts of figures are what you might expect from the UK. The situation is not comparable to the USA where the approval rating of Congress reflects a more deep rooted feeling that corruption is rampant and all the parties are fundamentally the same. This can be seen in the fact that disapproval of Congress is almost identical regardless of voting intention. The problems in the UK reflect a strong north/south division every bit as strong as the city/rural division in the USA, where the richer and more conservative south tends to approval of austerity due to a less systematic dependence on welfare and public sector jobs. The post-industrial north is dominated by Labour voters who never made the transition to the service/knowledge economy and where quality of life is highly dependent on government spending.
  I don't have time to find more precise stats, but I suspect if you examined UK voters beliefs more closely, people would not feel that democracy itself was particularly broken. Especially not over something as trivial as piracy - only in places like Slashdot and amongst the people who read it does piracy become some kind of moral imperative. Everyone else I know treats it as a naughty pleasure. They know they're breaking the law and won't get caught, but they don't have any desire to make a big moral campaign of it.
19. Re:define "serious" by Richard_at_work · 2013-06-04 21:51 · Score: 2
  
  Except in your examples, the second one isn't at all "borrowing". That's you trying to equate it to something it isn't so you can downplay it, in the same manner as those that call it stealing in order to up play it.
20. Re:define "serious" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  They* voted the current lot in because, like good little sheeple, they did what the media told them to do.
  Yes, that's right. They didn't vote out Labour because of their utterly awful economic policies, authoritarianism and because Gordon Brown was a complete fucking joke. No, it was all because they are uneducated simpletons, unlike you who are a smart, educated individual who knows everything about everything. You're so smart and amazing, how can I be more like you?
21. Re:define "serious" by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-04 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, only part of Parliament is elected by the people. The House of Commons is elected by the people, but the House of Lords is appointed.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
22. Re:define "serious" by AmiMoJo · 2013-06-05 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  TV shows get funding up front from the network so they can pay the staff, the actors, the companies doing their special effects etc. To get the funding they have to agree to be exclusive to that network for a while, before going out on DVD, to other countries and into syndication.
  With BitTorrent there is no up front funding. Maybe they could convince a bank or some investors to give them the cash, but TV is so hit-and-miss it could be a hard sell. I wish they would though because networks seem to cancel about 90% of shows within 1 or 2 seasons anyway, and banks do tend to look at business investments on a scale of years instead of weeks.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:define "serious" by IamTheRealMike · 2013-06-05 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  It is, but are you denying its truth?
24. Re:define "serious" by Wowsers · 2013-06-05 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Serious crime is laundering drug cartel money through the City of London (as has been recently proved), but the City of London police don't want to police it's square mile. Money talks, and the bankers have bought all the "justice" they want.
  
  --
  Take Nobody's Word For It.
25. Re:define "serious" by alexo · 2013-06-05 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  what exactly is a serious crime?
  Anything that goes against the agenda of monied interests.
26. Re:define "serious" by ultranova · 2013-06-05 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  Not really, it's much higher than expected. America is diverse enough that every single decision the Congress makes is going to piss of someone, and a good compromise leaves everyone mad.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
27. Re:define "serious" by Ash+Vince · 2013-06-05 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  In my experience (I am a lowly brit) a very small minority, especially at the moment as those on the left moan about the tories being in power and those on the right moan about the liberals being in coalition with them.
  That doesn't mean everyone wants to repeal copyright law though, they just think the police should be out making sure no squaddies get attacked by Muslim nutters again.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
28. Re:define "serious" by Ash+Vince · 2013-06-05 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why they don't just release the shows themselves over a tracker and have the ads spliced into the shows. Just like normal TV. They can put some superseeders behind it on 100mbits and everyone gets what they want.
  Its the fact that they're still clinging to traditional media that's killing them. Its like they don't even realize there is a cheaper, better way.
  Some kind soul would download it then edit out the adverts and reupload it. Everyone would choose the ad free version and that would be the one with more seeders in no time.
  Also, they would attract loads of high paying satellite and cable customers to bit torrent which currently they probably haven't heard of.
  Then other companies would make nice, easy to use Tivo boxes that sourced from torrents instead of tv signals.
  Instant bankruptcy and they are not quite that stupid.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
29. Re:define "serious" by Deluvianvortex · 2013-06-05 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  how is that any different from whats happening right now? At least this way the studios get the benefit of first release WITH ads. Offer the show as a download for a dollar. Its the age of microtransactions, they need to get with the times.
wow by Redmancometh · 2013-06-04 16:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah giving them the same sentence as a rapist. That seems reasonable. This shit should be a civil matter not criminal.
1. Re:wow by Xicor · 2013-06-04 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  well... thats not much different than in the US, where copying a michael jackson album will land you in prison for longer than killing michael jackson
2. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  well... thats not much different than in the US, where copying a michael jackson album will land you in prison for longer than killing michael jackson
  Hmm, I'm not sure what the sentence is for killing someone who is already dead,...
3. Re:wow by ArsenneLupin · 2013-06-04 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure he meant the guy who killed him the first time around.
4. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 19:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  How many times did he die?
So what now? by TubeSteak · 2013-06-04 16:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are magnet links a crime?
Are they only criminal if I have advertising alongside them?

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
1. Re:So what now? by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  The links are probably no, but the act of creating and using them could be if it's done maliciously.
2. Re:So what now? by AmiMoJo · 2013-06-04 19:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Copyright infringement is only criminal if done on a commercial scale. In other words you have to be making a significant profit from it.
  That's how the BPI tricked the police into raiding the owner of Oink's Pink Palace. They claimed he was charging for access and raking in the cash, but it was shown in court that he only accepted donations to cover the cost of running the site. The case collapsed, wasting vast sums of public money and police time but at least the BPI got some free publicity.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:So what now? by cffrost · 2013-06-04 20:40 · Score: 2
  
  The links are probably no, but the act of creating and using them could be if it's done maliciously.
  Creating and distributing a shareware torrent with no crack or serial, for example.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
quote by QuantumLeaper · 2013-06-04 16:31 · Score: 2

The more Hollywood tightens their grip the more torrents sites will slip through their fingers.
Improper use of police powers and public funds by Camael · 2013-06-04 16:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Black+Parrot · 2013-06-04 16:57 · Score: 2
  
  A big chunk of law + law enforcement has always been about defining property rights and protecting the interests of the 'haves'.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by CodeBuster · 2013-06-04 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or 3. They're incompetent. I'm leaning towards 2 and 3.
3. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time. This is probably handled by a special work group within the police, not something that every police officer is involved with.
4. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Jockle · 2013-06-04 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time.
  The fact that they're even taking this seriously is a gross misuse of public funds.
5. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Jockle · 2013-06-04 17:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by ArsenneLupin · 2013-06-04 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  So who funds this special work group? I don't want my taxes to fund any such nonsense. Shut it down!
7. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 17:30 · Score: 2
  
  So vote on someone that represents you in the next election. That's how a democracy works.
8. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Jockle · 2013-06-04 17:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
9. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by gweihir · 2013-06-04 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, originally the task of the people that are now calling themselves "Police" was to beat the subjects of the ruling class into submission whenever they developed independent ideas. Sometimes also just for fun. Seems to me the UK police wants to get back to that good old time, at least on the Internet.
  Here is an idea: Why don't they create an UK national Internet with no connection to the rest of the world. And while they are at it, maybe a wall and some minefields around the country?
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
10. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by AK+Marc · 2013-06-04 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Wasting money on victimless crimes when violent crimes are left unsolved doesn't sound like a good use of public funds to me.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
11. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by IamTheRealMike · 2013-06-04 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright owners are hardly the "select few". Millions of people own copyrights and (attempt to) make money off them. Which is, whether you like it or not, an ability the law attempts to provide.
12. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Jockle · 2013-06-04 18:52 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright owners are hardly the "select few".
  If we're talking about people who have 'important' copyrights, then they are indeed few in number. You don't think this is for the small copyright holders, do you?
13. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by AxeTheMax · 2013-06-04 19:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's the City of London police which is something most Londoners never come across. It is a small police force with jurisdiction over the tiny historic core of the metropolis of London. This historic core is now the home of the British business, capital and the financial industry. It houses very few residents (i.e. people living there) but lots of employees. It is not surprising that this force particularly identifies with matters of interest to large companies.
14. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by crizh · 2013-06-04 19:10 · Score: 2
  
  Foreign multi-nationals that pay taxes on their earnings?
  Rarer than hens teeth over here.
  What we need to do is serve serious crime notices to the Copyright Cartel. Once we have a proper free market in copyrighted content we can take the money we save and spend it on something useful. Like hospitals or a police force that can afford to pursue real crime.
  
  --
  Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
15. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by AmiMoJo · 2013-06-04 19:37 · Score: 2
  
  Not our democracy. There are only two parties capable of getting into power. Both of them are pretty bad so people tend to vote for the one they think will do the least damage. Voting for anyone else is just pissing your vote away, it won't even be counted towards the national numbers.
  We had an opportunity to change the system to something fairer, but in a referendum people rejected it. The most cited reason was that it was seen as "too complex" and "people wouldn't understand it", so basically people felt that they were too dumb to live in a proper democracy. I propose we call what we have now an "idiocracy" to reflect this.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by MouseAT · 2013-06-04 20:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Not in the City of London borough it doesn't. Hit Wikipedia, check out the City of London area. Make sure you check out the section on Elections.
  
  In short, the area has very few (under 10,000) actual residents. It's right in the centre of London. It's almost all businesses. It's the only borough in the UK where businesses representatives can vote in local elections, and the business reps outnumber the residents by a massive margin. It's a borough that's run in the interests of businesses, not in the interests of residents. It's why this is happening there - the Police in other areas of the country have other things to worry about.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
17. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by MouseAT · 2013-06-04 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly when the area in question is a one-of-a-kind area in the UK, where local government is elected almost entirely by the "haves".
18. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Xest · 2013-06-04 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Well, originally the task of the people that are now calling themselves "Police" was to beat the subjects of the ruling class into submission whenever they developed independent ideas. Sometimes also just for fun."
  Not true in the slightest in the UK. The British police force was developed under the idea of policing by consent, that the police can police only with the consent of the citizenship because the citizens want a force to deal with murder and so forth, but not to beat them down.
  This isn't about going back to those old times, it's about moving away from the old times and the original ideology behind British policing, and that's the problem.
19. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by telchine · 2013-06-04 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  UK police are ignoring real crime.
  You do realise that the City of London police force is a tiny force that isn't even representative of London police (which is the Metropolitan Police) let alone the UK police.
  City of London police is a tiny force that occupies one square mile and about 10,000 residents in a much larger urban area of around 8 million.
20. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by cffrost · 2013-06-04 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Although the "temporary" government-granted distribution monopolies are owned by private entities, the imaginary property itself belongs to the public. I agree with you, though, as perpetual copyright itself is more than enough of a giveaway from the public to corporate coffers. I wanted to clarify the distinction though, as I get the feeling that some people may be losing sight of the fact that imaginary property is a part of the commons — likely, I believe, in part due to the multi-generational span over which copyrights now extends, and that the recipients of these giveaways are telling everyone how entitled they are to them (and more).
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
21. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-04 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  Except there's no justifiably criminal act involved.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
22. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by alexo · 2013-06-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  So vote on someone that represents you in the next election. That's how a democracy works.
  Democracy, like capitalism, only "works" in settings that satisfy certain conditions, and is easily "broken" if those conditions are not met.
  An important requirement for a functioning democracy is an educated, informed and involved electorate, which itself requires free and independent press (FOX needs not apply) and a right to free political expression (free speech zones need not apply). You also need an election system that allows newcomers to get traction (FPTP needs not apply), strict control of funding (super PACs need not apply) and effective deterrents against corruption and conflicts of interests (most, if not all, countries on this planet need not apply).
  The "vote on someone that represents you in the next election" statement is only valid if the system actually allows a "someone" to represent you.
23. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by gweihir · 2013-06-05 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes and no. I was thinking about the spiritual predecessors hundreds of years ago. I guess that experiences with them were so bad that when the modern UK Police was formed, these (very sensible) restrictions were put into place. Apparently the Police wants back to the far older model of being the enforcers for the mighty where law is basically a polite fiction.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
24. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Camael · 2013-06-05 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  I normally don't respond to Anon Cowards since they are predominantly trolls, but your basic premise is so wrong I can't just let it pass.
  In all of the examples you quoted- housebreaking, car theft, robbery - the police are involved because these are crimes against the state. The basic idea is that these acts are so injurious to the fabric of society that the state simply cannot allow these acts to go unpunished. The focus of the police therefore, will be to apprehend the criminals involved and to stop them from committing further crimes. If any of your lost goods are recovered and returned to you, this is just a happy by-product of the police work. I would also point out that these goods are often used as evidence, depriving you of their use - my point being that their "recovery" is not the foremost consideration.
  Since you mentioned police resources, I would also note that there must be an element of proportionality. Do you think it is appropriate to call in the police if your neighbour nicks your newspaper? Most people would say no, because the harm is so minor. Taking this point further, which do you think is more important- going after thieves and robbers, where every crime brings the possibility of physical harm to its victims vs. copyright infringers, who clearly causes zero physical harm?
  And to answer your question, yes I would personally prefer the police to prioritise catching murderers over thieves, even if I am the victim of the theft. I would also prefer the police to prioritise catching thieves over copyright infringers.
25. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by dave420 · 2013-06-05 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal act, and justifiably so.
26. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-05 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's not justified and it's rarely enforced. If it were actually enforced properly, all of the major studio execs would be in jail, as they engage on infringement on the grandest scale in the most definitively commercial manner. Even if you stupid enough to support the notion of copyright, any commercial infringement on a major level is a big enough target to warrant the costs of a civil case.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by OhANameWhatName · 2013-06-04 16:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  The crime is not about shifting bits, it's about illegally copying works of others.
2. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by AK+Marc · 2013-06-04 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's about pointing to other people who have shifted or are willing to shift bits. So yes, it's all about people shifting bits.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
3. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, typical of a fuckhead to compare copyright infringment and endangering the lives of people around you with a 4,000 pound weapon.
4. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  Which if done maliciously, for example with the purpose of unauthorized sharing of copyrighted works, is illegal. The technical details involving flipping bits is not important. It's the intent that matters.
5. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by Pieroxy · 2013-06-04 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Please, stop this nonsense car analogies. Piracy is about exchanging bits, in other words, information. If you want to control that (information exchange btw people), you instantly become the most totalitarian regime that ever saw the light of day on earth in all known history. And it won't work.
  The bottom line is: Nobody will ever stop piracy because it is allowed by the most basic of our privacy expectations, and every step going in the direction of stopping piracy will have exactly one effect: reduce liberty. It will have no impact on privacy. Ever. Never.
  This is why it is preposterous to even try. Especially when there are other means to combat privacy that have been proven to work - competing with a good service and decent prices.
  But true, the advent of piracy did remove one option from these guys: raping their customers.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
6. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by AK+Marc · 2013-06-04 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Is it home robbery when they break in and rearrange your furniture?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
7. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-04 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  You can't completely stop speeding, but it is mostly enforced by the self-interest of reasonable people. The legitimate involvement of police is to fill in the gap of the unreasonable people who don't care about putting themselves and others in danger because they want to get somewhere faster.
  
  By contrast, you can't even be remotely effectively at reducing the sharing of copyrighted files. Everyone has a networked computer, which is a copying and distributing machine, and those machines by their very nature do not treat legal copying and sharing differently than illegal copying and sharing. Furthermore, the issue at hand is a bizarre holdover from a censorship regime that has no place in modern economics.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
8. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-04 22:54 · Score: 2
  
  You could pass a law saying that anything was illegal. That doesn't make enforcing that law just or a good use of resources. The claim that started this thread is that copyright law is insane, not that copyright law doesn't exist.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
9. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure, but it sure isn't OK for them to do so.
10. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by Pieroxy · 2013-06-05 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  You mean that all developers in the world would need to be authorized? That's a heck of a lot of people.
  Also, what do you make of regular AVIs/MKVs/MPGs? No "authorized" player would ever be able to play them again? Impossible.
  Hence, all it would take is one developer in the world to rip one movie and share it to the world on some sort of encrypted network. All this already exists, no need for anything else.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
11. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by jones_supa · 2013-06-05 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not if they set up everything in a nice Feng Shui arrangement.
12. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by AK+Marc · 2013-06-05 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's not robbery if they do. You are using words incorrectly. Just call it "data rape" so we know you are making up thing. It's easier to identify the nutters that way.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
13. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by dave420 · 2013-06-05 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you trivialise anything down to the point if inanity, as you did, of course you can make it sound pathetic. Take this example:
  > When moving atoms around is considered a serious crime...
  could easily cover manipulating single atoms, or stabbing someone in the face with a chainsaw.
14. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by OhANameWhatName · 2013-06-05 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  That is THE most awesome generalization I've ever seen. Would you consider allowing me to have your children?
15. Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by Pieroxy · 2013-06-06 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  It won't work and you bloody well know it. Just one person in the world will crack the movie - possibly with a professional camera taping the screen if that's what it takes but more likely by taping the digital output just before the DACs in some screen or projector - and share it on bit torrent for the rest of us. The whole thing is pointless - that's for digitized analog media.
  As for software, you mean to say we would need to be registered to get a "developer processor" but that won't happen because of the chicken and egg problem. They can't force the DRMized processor on anyone because zero software runs on it. They can't coerce the developers to register because it is just plain silly and pointless. A bit like IPv6 if you will but in a worse form because everyone will understand that the target situation will be far worse than the actual one while with IPv6 everyone agrees that we should get there. And look at what speed IPv6 has been going is going ! It's been there for over 17 years with everyone agreeing that we should do it for the same period.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Everyone quick, back to IRC! by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-06-04 16:54 · Score: 1

there still irc file sharing bots around? i know nntp was still widely used but though most irc filesharing had died

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
If the tables were turned by Mistakill · 2013-06-04 16:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the article:

Even though neither site is located in the UK, police believe that sites’ operators are committing crimes there.
Wonder how the UK police would feel if China, Iran, or North Korea accused them of commiting crimes against them... even though theyre in the UK
City of London - Corporate Haven by hedgemage · 2013-06-04 17:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Once you understand that this is being done by the City of London then it should be clear that this is not the actions of a municipal authority based on a desire to protect citizens, but rather a government of a tiny yet separate legal entity within what we usually call London. This tiny legal appendix (the City of London) is home to only about 10,000 people, but is actually a state within a state owned and operated by large multinational corporations and so its governance reflects what is good for business. Not good for the public, not good for England or Britain, but good for keeping money rolling in.
watch this and you'll understand why this is nothing more than monied interests trying to protect their own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
Re:Torrent by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 17:09 · Score: 1

The file itself is not illegal, but using it in an illegal manner is. Carrying a hammer is also not illegal, but using it in an illegal manner is.
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by Jockle · 2013-06-04 17:14 · Score: 1

I am all for goverment support in this matter
Of course. You probably believe that you will directly benefit from the misuse of tax dollars.

I rarely come across someone whom understands that this is theft.
Even the law doesn't understand that it's theft (at least not that I'm aware of).
City of London is a private police force by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 17:17 · Score: 2, Informative

The 'City of London' police, is actually a special private police force responsible for the 'City' part of London which is the small financial district. It works for the City of London corporation, the private company that controls that part of London (for historical reasons a private company controls that part of London). It can be hired, quite literally you pay them money and they'll enforce the 'law':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Police
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/crime-and-community-safety/police/Pages/default.aspx
They don't have jurisdiction over Greater London, let alone the UK. They also don't have an elected police and crime commissioner. They don't have special competence in this area.
'National Fraud Intelligence Bureau' has a nice threatening sounding name, but is a private company created by the City of London police. There are a lot of these, they use them to avoid Freedom of Information act requests. Their official duty is to detect fraud in the city of London financial Financial district.
Their price list:
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/services/feesandcharges.htm
"Further, we have grounds to suspect that as owners and/or operators of the XXXXX website, you are committing offenses under the Serious Crime Act 2007 by doing acts capable of encouraging and assisting communication to the public (under s.107(2A) of the CDPA); "
These are almost certainly torrent *LINK* sites, which don't infringe copyright themselves. Anton Vickerman was not convicted of "facilitating copyright infringement", that was a fiction that FACT spread around. The police should not be presenting false information like this.
What he was charged with, was "conspiracy to defraud", not copyright infringement.
http://www.lojo.co.nz/downloads/0686010001361150697.pdf
http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2012/02/strange-case-of-soca-and-conspiracy-to.html
Which is presumably why the 'National Fraud Intelligence Bureau" is doing the PR work. They claimed he defrauded [who?] in order to make money. Sadly the judge was so keen to prosecute Vickerman, that he let them change the definition of 'fraud'. And now potentially any business which knows it can be used to infringe copyright is open to a fraud charge.
If you are in the UK, you might wish to avoid public comment, or at least comment anonymously. Discussions are logged now, and the UK police don't take kindly to contradictory viewpoints.
1. Re:City of London is a private police force by mrbester · 2013-06-04 18:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
2. Re:City of London is a private police force by kermidge · 2013-06-04 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  Very good information. Thank you. I'd no idea City of London was a biz not a gov't unit.
10 Years? by VortexCortex · 2013-06-04 17:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

A sentence of 10 Years? What are they trying to do? Get folks to take up the less illegal crime of muggings?
Re:Torrent by whoever57 · 2013-06-04 17:36 · Score: 1

Carrying a hammer is also not illegal,
It can be illegal to just carry a hammer. If it is considered a tool for housebreaking, walking around with it is illegal.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Try setting some cars on fire by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 17:42 · Score: 1

this seems to provide immunity from police actions somehow.
Re:Everyone quick, back to IRC! by AK+Marc · 2013-06-04 17:59 · Score: 2

It did. NNTP is where it's at, but the first rule of usenet is you do not talk about usenet.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Police privatization by Loki_666 · 2013-06-04 18:01 · Score: 2

Seems about right as the police forces in the UK are slowly being privatized. I understand some already are and have been for a while.
When they are privatized then they need to focus on their shareholders interests first.... wonder how much stake groups like the BPI and others will have in such forces?
1. Re:Police privatization by serviscope_minor · 2013-06-04 19:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes---the police have been going under privatisation, and this is not a good thing.
  However, the City of London police, and the Corporation of London (aand its polive force) are not good places to look as indicitave of the whole. The Corporation is a very odd beast: for a start, it's older than a unified England and it's charter has been lost (but that's OK, since it was given another charter in 1067).
  It's always been semi-private and not really part of the government.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by AK+Marc · 2013-06-04 18:04 · Score: 1

If it's theft, what have you lost? Since you claim you can't afford to take violators to court, you are obviously not successful. Maybe if you spent more time creating and less whining, you'd have something people want to use.

--
Learn to love Alaska
I call bullsh*t! by xenobyte · 2013-06-04 18:15 · Score: 1

“XXXXX is a BitTorrent website that – without the permission of the copyright holder – actively provides UK internet users with a bespoke directory and search engine for torrent files. This enables users to find and download copyright content which would otherwise be time consuming or impossible to locate,” the letter notes.
Google? - Search for the name of the show/movie and you'll find the name of the related torrent within the top 10 results. Then search for that specifically and you'll find the direct links to both bitlocker downloads and torrents. Not time consuming. Not impossible. Not at all. Extremely easy actually.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:Torrent by Jockle · 2013-06-04 18:20 · Score: 1

Are countries competing to see who can pass the most laws that are ridiculous or something?
Re:Torrent by SuricouRaven · 2013-06-04 18:27 · Score: 2

Not true. The file is illegal now. Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, section 296ZG.
This isn't how capitalism works. by jon.m.griggs · 2013-06-04 19:23 · Score: 2

Rather than take legal action against the competition aren't you supposed to provide a better service and let the market decide? While you can't compete with free on price you can certainly provide a better, more user friendly service. It often feels like film companies are scared to let people see their films. That it's preferable to have them sit on a shelf unwatched than risk someone seeing them without having paid enough for the privilege. Netflix and lovefilm (in the UK) only seem to have films which have been out for several years and are tied to silverlight, which is like using software from the previous century. The industry could do so much more to encourage legal consumption, but I suppose this way must be cheaper for them.
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-04 19:59 · Score: 1

http://stc.occupyuk.co.uk/
Well #1 Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice is one:
"BTSFIU investigator Alan Connolly produced a statement to Luton Crown court stating that I sold DVDs through STC, that I had profited by at least £240,000"
#2, lying on legal search documents is another:
"Alan Haskell who admits to completing an internal FACT RIPA form that uses "Anton Vickerman is selling and distributing DVDs through his website" as the justification for the surveillance"
Fake RIPA letters etc. evidence of criminal activity is here:
https://stc.occupyuk.co.uk/misc762.rar
Your tax pounds at work by ruir · 2013-06-04 20:40 · Score: 2

Someone could explain to me like I was a 5 year old, why our taxes are used to finance the media market, and police is working for them instead of catching criminals?
1. Re:Your tax pounds at work by MouseAT · 2013-06-04 21:25 · Score: 2
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London should answer many of your questions. The City of London borough is governed to serve the needs of the businesses based there, not the (very few) people who live there.
2. Re:Your tax pounds at work by alexo · 2013-06-05 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  In one word: feudalism
3. Re:Your tax pounds at work by ruir · 2013-06-05 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  I am quite inclined to agree with you. Instead of investing in new technologies and advancing their business model, they attach their own customer base. I wonder own many industries could get away with that and how dumb people are
Re:Nothing to see here. by MouseAT · 2013-06-04 21:23 · Score: 1

No, it's significant for precisely that reason. Other police forces have more important things to worry about. The City of London police serves an area run by businesses for businesses. Other police services have more important things to worry about. The City of London police are focussing on what matters to the people in their area - IP enforcement for the businesses that work there. Their jurisdiction extends to the entire country, not just the City of London borough. They're holders of the office of constable, just like every other police officer in the UK. This isn't the USA, where police authority ends at regional boundaries.
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by kthreadd · 2013-06-04 22:19 · Score: 1

People obviously want it since they pirate it, it's just that they are too cheap to pay for it.
Re:Torrent by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-04 22:37 · Score: 1

Of course they are. Have you not been paying attention lately.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Threatening behaviour much? by biodata · 2013-06-04 22:42 · Score: 1

I thought the police's job was to investigate crime, arrest suspects, and recover evidence leading to convictions. Why are we paying for them to threaten innocent people?

--
Korma: Good
City of London - Police NO GO area by spectrokid · 2013-06-04 22:52 · Score: 1

Corrected that for you. My brother is a DA working a lot with international financial crime. Ask the Letvian Police to block a bank-account and it is done within half an hour. Ask the brits and after 2 weeks you get an email back asking if your country support human rights. (And my brother works in Brussels!!!) The city is a no-go area for the police. These bankers can kill each other with machine guns and nobody will ask questions.

--
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
So then. by [000000] · 2013-06-04 23:49 · Score: 1

[...] “Such activity is an indictable offense under the Serious Crime Act 2007 and is punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment (two years for encouraging/assisting communication to the public; and ten years for encouraging/assisting distribution), [...] But I found this site via my ISP and Google Search. 'assisting communication to the public' You going to take action against them?
I want to shut down torrent sites too by DrXym · 2013-06-05 00:32 · Score: 1

There is no need for them. "Sites" could be hosted in the p2p cloud, accessible from a magnet link or some alias for a bundled up web 2.0 app which is downloaded and hosted behind a http web server built into the torrent software. e.g. to load TorrentFreak (for example), perhaps you would click a magnet for the TorrentFreak site in your torrent client, wait for it to download, and then point your browser at localhost:1234/torrentfreak where it would just appear to you.
Searching would be the trickiest part, but not insurmountable. I assume the backend could maintain a list of urls which changes as circumstances dictate to furnish results. Or the app might come with the database in a format such as SQL lite that the torrent app can query dynamically, or even a p2p search protocol could be devised. But to the user the "site" is now hosted locally even though it doesn't reside anywhere as such.
What would the police do then?
The goal - bankrupt britain of course by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 01:10 · Score: 1

if 100000 kids get arrrested it costs aobut 60,000 brit pounds ot house them per year.....
so a sentance of 10 years per person is 600K pounds times 100,000 or 60 billion pounds
60 billion pounds of damage to the eocnomy sound slike economic terrorism to me
ECONOMIC TERRORISM
this also doesnt take into account any of the arrested had a job and paid taxes and gave a service.
YUP
here you go
All of the RIAA, all of the MPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-05 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative

What? Didn't you know?
RIAA has kept billions in royalties for decades because they "couldn't find" the artist. Even though one of the names on the list of artists owed money were "Dolly Parton". Not exactly unreachable...
They also infringed on the copyrights of LAME programmers when Sony took no hit whatsoever from the industry for their acts.
MPAA moved to Hollywood to avoid patents and EVERYONE knows about how "Hollywood Accounting" ensures that profits are never reported, fraudulently. Look too at the similarities between "The Lion King" and "Simba, The Albino Lion".
They really do not give a shit over copyright. Only their rights.
Re:Torrent by jones_supa · 2013-06-05 01:24 · Score: 1

Since when were torrent files unauthorised content? Oh, you mean the underlying file?
I'm not sure if there is any meaningful difference. The torrent file (or magnet link) is usually the only way to practically access the underlying files. The torrent is basically just a virtualization of the underlying files.
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by jones_supa · 2013-06-05 05:13 · Score: 1

If it's theft, what have you lost?
The intention for the record company to invest for another album for the band.
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by AK+Marc · 2013-06-05 08:04 · Score: 1

As it's usually impossible to return bad software, try before you buy is the single greatest use by the downloaders. That use should be legal and protected, so long as you can't return software for failure to perform. The problem is your stuff is so bad, nobody who ever uses it wants to buy it.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by AK+Marc · 2013-06-05 08:10 · Score: 1

Your logic fails. The record companies illegally pay money to play the song publicly and freely on the radio, stating that more exposure leads to more sales and interest. But free exposure via sharing causes lower exposure and less interest?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter by jones_supa · 2013-06-05 10:36 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter if no one is buying the albums.
Home taping by t0mek · 2013-06-05 22:16 · Score: 1

Didn't the home taping kill that industry years ago?