Slashdot Mirror
MP Says 'Failed' Piracy Warnings Should Escalate To Fines & Jail
An anonymous reader writes with news that, not long after UK ISPs agreed to send piracy notices (Voluntary Copyright Alerts Program), thoughts have already turned toward adding criminal penalties. From the article: Prime Minister David Cameron's IP advisor believes that the carrot needs to be backed up by a stick. In a report published yesterday largely detailing the "Follow the Money" approach to dealing with pirate sites, Mike Weatherley MP says now is the time to think about VCAP’s potential failure.
"The Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP) is welcomed and will be a good step forward once it is hopefully in operation in 2015, although it is primarily an education tool," Weatherley says. ...
"Warnings and fines are obvious first steps, with Internet access blocking and custodial sentencing for persistent and damaging infringers not to be ruled out in my
opinion."
These suggestions aren't new, but this is the second time in a matter of months that the Prime Minister's closest advisor on IP matters has spoken publicly about the possibility of putting persistent file-sharers in jail.
Carrots are way better than sticks when it comes to dining, learning and pirating.
From the constituency who agree prisons trump paper from Politicians
When politicians running for election start getting in real trouble for stealing songs and images to use in their promotional material then they can start to think about applying this to the little people.
How about a fine and prison for making a false complaint or warning about a copyright violation?
Hey, that guy illegally downloaded a movie that's worth 20$ on DVD.
Let's put him in jail, costing the government thousands of dollars per year.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Prosecutor,"Yah, you're going to jail for downloading some crappy movie."
You,"But I never downloaded that movie."
Prosecutor,"Lets hear your defense."
You,"I run a free wifi spot for people who want to check the net when they're out and about."
Prosecutor,"You should have never said that fellow. You're responsible for what other people do on your router. So lets see what other criminal activities they did before we sentence you to just a couple years of jail."
There's an alternative dialogue that involves a guy who clicks on links he finds on Twitter and Facebook and doesn't realize he watched copyrighted material.
God spoke to me
Why not bypass all of this nonsense and imprison those filthy no-good pirates, without any trial. Its obvious they're all guilty, no proof needed.
*he said sarcastically*
I'd like to know what this moron's bank account looks like.
For a moment it sounded like asshats sending out frivolous takedown notices via carpet bombing would end up in jail.
Should've known that adding sanity to the mix would be asking too much.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't they get a trial or something? Or just 3 strikes go to jail. OK, fine--make it 6. If you get 6 strikes you don't really need a trial by then--clearly you're not getting the message!
In these days of ever decreasing government revenues taxpayers money should not be wasted trying to save money for the huge multinationals that HAVE all the money. If corporations want to track down pirates it should by on their own dime. Or else governments should do for corporations what corporations do for government IE say OK "well find your pirates, but it is going to cost you" and charge a markup of %1000 on whatever government expenses are incurred tracking down said pirates.
Content industries are merely a speck on the surface of the global economy. Why are we devoting so much judicial and legislative time to them?
Those sharing culture shall be prosecuted.
The rent-seeking shall continue until you comply.
Please insert your coins into this slot [ ] after reading.
Or you will be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law.
Yeah, it's better not to finish that statement. Legal-wise.
Nothing boost profits quite like lining the pockets of public officials to criminalize a civil offense against your company.
Translation: Clueless old fart talks a lot of shit in some irrelevant old house in London.
Where your rights are defined relative to corporate interests.
As I understand relevant statutes, such as the corresponding US statute (17 USC 512), protections like "common carrier" and "safe harbor" stop applying once there exist "red flag" facts that reasonably should alert a provider to a subscriber's wrongdoing. Courts have lately been finding willful blindness when the accused intentionally arranges not to be made aware of "red flag" facts.
Just do it harder. That'll work.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This will push more and more people OFF the internet entirely if they continue at this rate.
Meshed pirateboxes in the street may well become a thing, especially since it is easy to work with and install. (well, fairly easy, tidy it up guys!)
And as more support is added, it will become even more common.
They are dooming themselves.
Fix your fucking industry and stop screwing over your potential and ACTUAL customers.
First, Copyright infringement is a civil matter and should remain a civil matter. Second, IP address and times are a terrible way to identify a person. With VPNs, proxies, dynamic IP addresses and carrier grade NAT, IP address is about the least reliable way to figure out who is doing something. The evidence we use for theft and breaking and entering is much more solid than the evidence given for Copyright infringement.
You insinuate that everyone who infringes copyright is "too cheap to pay for content". So what's the price of a lawfully made copy of the film Song of the South? And what steps should a singer-songwriter take to avoid accidentally rewriting someone else's song (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music)?
For that matter, just shoot them on live TV. I think punishments need to be very harsh and very visible so that the average person will figure out that world governments are taking their rights away and giving them to the big-media copyright industries. Until that happens, nothing will change. I am in favor of harsh laws and draconian punishments, because that's the only thing that will get anyone's attention and make this an issue. Right now, people empty their pockets and give up their rights for a little entertainment, fueling this machine that is destroying Western culture as we know it. So let's make it as bad as possible as quickly as possible so real reform can begin.
Naturally for a person that is not on average income it's difficult to understand proportion.
Like a punishment (if found guilty) proportional to the crime (if proven as such).
Every so often someone calls for a tougher stance on copyright infringement. How about a more reasonable stance on copyright in general?
Maybe all this Gestapo copyright notions should be canned and a more enlightened, modern system be created?
I agree with some other posters, why not make false copyright complaints accountable? -You know for making lies available for download.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
An IP address does not correlate to an individual. I would have thought someone with a user id below 1 million would know that by now.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
The copyright concept has to be reviewed. The only problem is, people with the power to do it receive some bonus to keep ignoring it.
Let's have Parliament put a law into place that warns him whenever he incorporates someone else's ideas and philosophies in his speeches, and after the third time, put him in jail.
After all, can't have him "pirating" other peoples' intellectual property, now can we?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I don't get how you can talk about incarceration at all in this context. Once you block someone's internet, their ability to "infringe" is over.
IANAL, but the process would be something like this: Copyright owner sends take down notice. Service owner fails to comply. Copyright owner files civil suit and court orders civil penalties, including an order to take content down. Service owner still doesn't comply and can now be held in contempt of court (criminal offense).
No new law needed.
Have gnu, will travel.
As in: i haven't pirated OR bought any music since the days of Metallica whining.
It's easy to do the same to movies, I prefer books anyway.
You're talking about Britain, where they recently let a man convicted with thirteen life sentences leave jail for a weekend and were surprised that he didn't come back.
When was the last time a shoplifter was jailed in Britain? When was the last time a persistent burglar was banned from the Internet?
Little people laws don't apply to "the elite", whether they be government or just rich.
Vendors should work to find a business model which makes piracy obsolete or simply not worth the effort?
Third: these are accusations; there has been no trial. They're saying after you've been accused x times, you go to jail. I think they missed a few steps.
An (IP address, time) pair correlates to an individual MAC address, so long as the DHCP server at the ISP and the DHCP servers on intermediate NATs log these (IP, time, MAC) tuples. And I seem to remember efforts to force ISPs to either log these tuples or go out of business.
Is it hurting yet ? where indie labels are kicking your asses, where now artists are selling direct to the public, must be embarrassing that your shit is ending up in the bargain bin at Tesco and still people don't want it, tough now egh ? . stronger IP laws wont help with getting your crap in peoples ipods, truth is nobody is pirating your shit and you cant take the rejection from a now media savvy generation who get their kicks direct from the artist without big label middleman parasites.
goodbye and good riddance, it was nice but now the public doesnt need you anymore, welcome to the 21st century cunts.
Because the rich needs more money.
...steal a handbag. You wouldn’t steal a car. You wouldn’t steal a baby. You wouldn’t shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn’t go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman’s grieving widow. And then steal it again!
"Hey [music company], I'd like to use [song] in my campaign. I'm sure a nice company like you would be happy to support me in this manner"
The only time the music company might go after a politician for it is if he/she is using said material and is pro copyright-reform (a.k.a not in their pockets)
Just not against "infringers"...instead, they should jail the copyright maximalists, the MPAA, and the government stooges who pervert criminal justice systems to pad the recording industries bottom line! Enough of this! It's time that everyone, as members of so-called "free" societies REJECT the corporate takeover of our governments!
Can we officially declare the UK a lost cause now?
They're saying after you've been accused x times, you go to jail. I think they missed a few steps.
And for that reason alone, there is absolutely no chance this is going anywhere.
No British government is actually going to pass a law saying you can be sent to jail without having your day in court less than a year before a general election. They get enough flak for pushing in that direction with terrorism-related laws that are only used against a tiny number of people in practice, because of the principle and the risk of later abuse, and that's a subject where a significant fraction of the population will give them a free pass for one reason or another.
Even if some British governments might try anyway, the current administration is a coalition, with a junior partner desperate to prove they are still politically relevant in the face of potentially being wiped out for a generation at the next election. A juicy civil liberties debate would play right into their hands.
And even if they did somehow manage to pass such a law, the chances that it would stand up to the inevitable human rights lawsuit the first time anyone actually tried to use it are slim to none.
This is almost certainly just a relatively unknown MP trying to make a name for himself in the run up to the aforementioned general election. In this case, he's pandering to potential donors from Big Media, possibly because there are finally some changes coming into force that make copyright laws (marginally) less anachronistic in the UK and Big Media inevitably don't like them (despite having managed to water them down to being almost meaningless anyway).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fraudulent Copyright takedowns should result in fines and jail.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
> When politicians running for election start getting in real trouble for stealing songs
It is very rare for a poilitician to use unlicensed songs because the venues they play them at all have BMI and ASCAP licenses.
That often leads to them making egregious mistakes in their music choice - the most common one is for republicans to play Springsteen's "Born in the USA" which is a straight-up critique of policies that are traditionally associated with republicans. But it is set to a catchy hook and that's all the politicians know (kind of symbolic in fact).
It's amazing how arrogant and bold the UK government is, when the people don't have the ABILITY to revolt, because they don't have any guns. Governemnt officials act without any fear of retaliations, so they get away with... Well, with everything.
They're saying after you've been accused x times, you go to jail. I think they missed a few steps.
And for that reason alone, there is absolutely no chance this is going anywhere.
I don't know where the idea came from in this discussion that "infringers" would go to jail without a trial. Citation for that? I believe that what is meant is after three warnings you would be considered for prosecution. The prosecution if successful might lead to imprisonment.
Ahh, the MPAA. Doing more to encourage "fuck the man!" copyright infringement than everyone else combined.
What cocks.
If an IP address is not a person, then certainly you wouldn't have any problem with your national TLA looking at all the traffic to/from that address.