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.

Comments

How about Failed Policy warnings...

[Bob_Who]

From the constituency who agree prisons trump paper from Politicians

One rule for the plebes another for the politician

[RichMan]

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.

False Warnings?

[DERoss]

How about a fine and prison for making a false complaint or warning about a copyright violation?

Re:False Warnings?

[Scutter]

Stop allowing the perpetrators to hide behind the corporate veil.

Re:False Warnings?

[Penguinisto]

If they could find a way to imprison a corpoation, I'd immigrate to the UK tomorrow!

That's easy if you think about it: imprison the board of directors whenever there is sufficient malfeasance to warrant such a punishment. They hold shared responsibility for the company's actions (and benefits thereof), so let them share the consequences.

Re:False Warnings?

[mpe]

"Limited liability" should be replaced by optional liability insurance for corporations.

Or just go back to "basics" where "limited liability" means that the shareholders (owners) have no liability to cover the debts of a failed corporate entity. The original idea was to encourage people in invest in business, with the knowlage that at worst they'd just lose the money they had put in. Protecting either the company or it's officers/executives is a much more modern interpretation.

Totally clueless

[ArcadeMan]

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.

Re:Totally clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, why not. It's only your money after all, and their donors have mouths to feed and coke to snort.

Re:Totally clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the bigger picture, that costs the taxpayers money, the movie industry doesnt have to pay for incarceration.
Of course they still working on making remembering a movie a copyright violation

Re:Totally clueless

[Opportunist]

I'm in security. And once security costs more than the asset you're trying to protect, it's time to stop protecting the asset. If your insurance costs more than the asset it insures, wouldn't you cancel it immediately?

And the cost for protecting copyright has outdone the damage done by infringement a long, long time ago.

We keep getting closer to a dystopia

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

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.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia

[Firethorn]

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."

Common Carrier protection.

Aww, I read that wrong

[Opportunist]

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.

Even better idea:

[Penguinisto]

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?

Re:Even better idea:

[kbrannen]

How about we follow the money for him to see if he's getting "contributions" to say this. Perhaps that's why he's using other's ideas.

Already there

[PPH]

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.