Slashdot Mirror


UK Police Launch Campaign To Shut Down Torrent Sites

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

35 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. What are they trying to achieve? by fekmist · · 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 · · 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 TubeSteak · · 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!
    3. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by hairyfeet · · 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.
    4. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by MacTO · · 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.

    5. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by XcepticZP · · 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.

    6. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by coofercat · · 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".

    7. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Ash+Vince · · 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.
    8. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Sloppy · · 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.
    10. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by hairyfeet · · 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.
    11. Re:What are they trying to achieve? by Shagg · · 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.
    12. Re: What are they trying to achieve? by s.petry · · 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.

  2. wow by Redmancometh · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Re:define "serious" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Things which need media attention.

  4. So what now? by TubeSteak · · 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 AmiMoJo · · 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
  5. Improper use of police powers and public funds by Camael · · 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 Jockle · · 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.

    2. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by Jockle · · 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!

    3. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by AxeTheMax · · 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.

    4. Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds by MouseAT · · 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

  6. Re:define "serious" by Gideon+Fubar · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's about volume, right? That music is criminally loud.

    Also terrible fucking puns.

    --
    http://www.xkcd.com/354/
  7. Re:define "serious" by lister+king+of+smeg · · 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.
  8. Here's the proof that copyright law is insane by OhANameWhatName · · 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.

  9. If the tables were turned by Mistakill · · 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

  10. City of London - Corporate Haven by hedgemage · · 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

  11. Re:define "serious" by Deluvianvortex · · 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. 10 Years? by VortexCortex · · 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?

  13. Re:define "serious" by c0lo · · Score: 3

    what exactly is a serious crime?

    A never-kidding never-laughing one?

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  14. Re:define "serious" by CodeBuster · · 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.

  15. Re:define "serious" by Isaac-1 · · 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.

  16. Re:City of London is a private police force by mrbester · · 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!"
  17. Re:Police privatization by serviscope_minor · · 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.
  18. Re:define "serious" by IamTheRealMike · · 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.