Slashdot Mirror


For Now, UK Online Pirates Will Get 4 Warnings -- And That's It

New submitter Tmackiller writes with an excerpt from VG247.com: The British government has decriminalised online video game, music and movie piracy, scrapping fuller punishment plans after branding them unworkable. Starting in 2015, persistent file-sharers will be sent four warning letters explaining their actions are illegal, but if the notes are ignored no further action will be taken. The scheme, named the Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP), is the result of years of talks between ISPs, British politicians and the movie and music industries. The UK's biggest providers – BT, TalkTalk, Virgin and Sky – have all signed up to VCAP, and smaller ISPs are expected to follow suit. VCAP replaces planned anti-piracy measures that included cutting users' internet connections and creating a database of file-sharers. Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice." Officials will still work to close and stem funding to file-sharing sites, but the news appears to mean that the British authorities have abandoned legal enforcement of online media piracy. Figures recently published by Ofcom said that nearly a quarter of all UK downloads were of pirated content." Tmackiller wants to know "Will this result in more private lawsuits against file sharers by the companies involved?"

29 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Illigal or not? by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article starts off saying that they have been decriminalised, but then the government is still calling them illegal and apparently more people might be sued over this "decriminalised" behaviour. So what exactly is the stare of the legality of pirating in Britain?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Illigal or not? by Grantbridge · · Score: 2

      It's never been criminal. But breaching copyright could get you sued by the copyright owner. The new system of warning letters is replacing a proposed "3 strikes" system where you would lose your internet access after 3 warnings, but with no accountability for being accusing of copyright infringement this was a stupid system.

      The new one is simply sending warning letters to let people know they have been reported as infringing copyright, and so might want to be careful to avoid being sued in the future.

    2. Re:Illigal or not? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It means it's still illegal, but the government has no interest in enforcing that law. It's going back to just a civil matter, between the copyright holders and the copyright infringers.

    3. Re:Illigal or not? by Albanach · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's never been criminal.

      Are you a lawyer in the UK? The Crown Prosecution Service say that deliberate infringement may be criminal.

      The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also lists criminal penalties such as those copied below. It might be worth getting competent legal advice given jail time is a pretty significant punishment.

      (2A)A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
          (a)in the course of a business, or
          (b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
      commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.

      (4A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
          (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;
          (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

    4. Re:Illigal or not? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

      It means it's still illegal, but the government has no interest in enforcing that law. It's going back to just a civil matter, between the copyright holders and the copyright infringers.

      Nitpic: It does not mean they have no interest in enforcing the law, it means that the government realises that the law is un enforceable however much they'd like to enforce it. In future you will get four warnings and then, by the sound of it, you can pirate download all you want as far as the govt. is concerned. They'll probably still be going after large scale distributors and facilitators. This also means that UK courts will in future be choked beyond capacity with civil suits against copyright infringers. So this is a (kind of) victory for the pirate 'community', it is a victory for the public at large because of the precedents cutting off internet connections etc. would have set but bad news for anybody who needs the legal system for other kinds of lawsuits.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    5. Re:Illigal or not? by biodata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this would be difficult to prove. All experience in the music industry seems to indicate the opposite, that people who listen to music shared by their peers are MORE likely to buy it later than those who don't.

      --
      Korma: Good
  2. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope so - somebody needs to stop freetards running amok with other people's hard work

    sue me.

  3. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed.
    No more blackmail settlements, no more blanket anonymous lawsuits, no more copyright trolls.
    Somebody needs to stop those freetard publishers running amok with other people's hard work.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  4. Translation by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Geoff Taylor, chief executive of music trade body the BPI, said VCAP was about "persuading the persuadable, such as parents who do not know what is going on with their net connection." He added: "VCAP is not about denying access to the internet. It's about changing attitudes and raising awareness so people can make the right choice."

    We could not get file sharers drawn and quartered, so we are going to spin the decision that we fought kicking and screaming to our advantage and make us look better than we really are.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  5. Re:4 warnings per? by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Funny

    They send you a letter with 4 warnings inside.

  6. Re:So the idea is that.... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

    RTFS? It says that in the summary. The goal here is to alert people who don't know their internet connection is being used for piracy and who aren't OK with freeloading, parents being the given example.

  7. Re:So the idea is that.... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they can turn around in a few years when this is normalised behaviour and say "Hey, isn't it ridiculous that we know who all these inveterate pirates are, but we aren't doing anything? Maybe we should pass a simple law that fines them a few hundred quid, that's not much of a problem, is it?"

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  8. Warnings are discoverable ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... in litigation.

    In court, a person could not use the, "Gee ... I didn't know," defense.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes the 4 letters show a history of infringement and the isp's can show bandwidth use too. Its the legal cover for the hard part of traditional cases for free via a stored database of letters sent.
      Some nice political cover and colour of law. They only want to educate you with warnings.
      Its the lawyers that take the final step to seek an identity. The gov and providers can walk away from any long term logging questions. Months of stored logs are just for the 4 letter compliance.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Thats a lot of cash to just spend on letters and a database. The letters get tracking and logging started within a legal gov framework. Someone seems to see a long term plan with the letters and logging funding. The chilling effect of just knowing your in a database and all your net use is been reviewed? Interconnected local databases? A digital version of the classic anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) at a 'community-based level?
      That could see a vast network of watching, logging, reporting and costly face to face meetings with some 'injunction' that flows to a criminal offence if breached.
      A lot of free support from tax payers for a new more very local ACTA :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Warnings are discoverable ... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      You can't use that defense anyway, ignorance is not an excuse legally speaking.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  9. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The history of antipiracy lawsuits, especially in the US, would seem to suggest that they do bugger all to reduce piracy, at an enormous cost to the IP owner and the taxpayer. When the patient's dying on the table and your best witchdoctor isn't helping, maybe it's time to switch to a better kind of medicine.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  10. Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by Baki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope and think that the brainwashing of the younger "freeloading" generation will fail.
    It is truely disgusting to see the attempts to brainwash the people to protect vested economic interests.
    The collateral damage to prevent sharing of bitstreams is just too high.
    We cannot prevent this, neither with laws nor with brainwashing. Sharing is just too easy and natural.

    We'll have to adapt our economic model to the new reality instead, the "new normal".

    1. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by timrod · · Score: 3, Funny

      File sharing is so natural that I think my cat is trying to develop a new transfer protocol involving shed cat hair. At least, I assume that's why he rolls around on my pillow and covers it in cat hair.

    2. Re:Changing attitudes, i.e. brainwashing by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Sharing is more than easy and natural, it's good. Sharing is so important to civilzations that early ones developed writing systems to facilitate it, and later ones have been improving it ever since. Reading and writing used to be only for the nobility, for the practical reason that educating everyone was more expense than was thought worthwhile, though this was also correctly seen as an excuse not to educate the masses. Words were terribly subversive, best if the people can't read them. The pen is not mightier than the sword if no one can read. Democracies changed that, deciding that 100% literacy was a desirable and nearly obtainable goal.

      Now here we are today, and what are our supposedly democratic governments doing? Siding with those who think they have a right to lock away knowledge, those who think the worthy desire to compensate artists justifies all kinds of monstrosities and public expense, and that fair compensation can only be done through Holy Copyright.

      Sharing should be encouraged. By everyone.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  11. Re:"Will this result in more private lawsuits...?" by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The correct answer is, both.

  12. Kinda ok, kinda not by countach · · Score: 2

    On the one hand, its nice that this regime is measured and not over the top. On the other hand, if I hadn't pirated anything, because my flatmates/kids/friends/neighbours had done something I didn't know about, I'd still be pissed off receiving that letter. I don't think the good people of the UK should be completely satisfied with this situation. There should be a way to push back and say, no I didn't do it, take your stinking letter back.

  13. Look at *why* people are pirating by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's because there's no convenient way (other than pirating) to get the media you want to watch/listen to, when you want to watch/listen to it. If the media companies would make *everything* available under a subscription model (like Netflix), there would be no need to go to Pirate Bay to get it. I suspect much of what is pirated is watched once. Figure $60/yr for a VPN, or $20/mo for Netflix (which, sadly, doesn't have a tenth what's available by torrent), and the media companies could do pretty well...if they would only do it.

    1. Re:Look at *why* people are pirating by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I offer Netflix only as a legitimate source of "all you can watch for $20/mo". The fact that they carry only a very limited selection of movies (not even the old B&W ones from the 40s) leads me to consider using other, less legitimate means, to obtain the films I want to watch. I'd be happy to watch them on Netflix (considering that I'm paying for it), but, for whatever reason, they choose not to offer them. And we're not talking about current films, either. There's really only one alternative: $60/yr for a Hide-My-Ass VPN and torrents.

  14. Except... by Demena · · Score: 2

    When you use a torrent you are also sending data blocks. So even if you leach you are still "supplying" while you are downloading. This make the situation civilly more precarious and becomes criminal too.

  15. Re:So the idea is that.... by RoninRodent · · Score: 2

    Because the warnings will be stored in a database. A few years down the line they can then try stealthing something into law and at that point they have a nice big database full of confirmed pirates to monitor closely until they catch them and wallop them with huge fines. Remember we have the pr0n filters now and even folks who opt-out still go through the filter but it doesn't block the connection. It isn't a great leap to hook that up to a list of known pirates and flag up each time one of them goes to a torrent site, sports streaming site or something similar. Why block sites when you can have an automatically generated list of everything a pirate downloads? VCAP is just groundwork.

  16. Re:So the idea is that.... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Show me one parent who gives a shit about copyright. If a letter comes with contents to the ring of "you might be sued for billions and billions", at least it will turn the older generation against the overreaching copyright too...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:So the idea is that.... by Cardoor · · Score: 2

    excellent point. selective enforcement of laws is a dangerous policy.

  18. So... by Agares · · Score: 2

    What happens if I share completely legal software? How are they supposed to tell if what I am sharing is in fact legal to share freely? I am constantly playing around with VMs and what not and love playing with various systems. So what happens to nerds like me who just happen to use a lot of bandwidth just tinkering? I think this is ridiculous on so many levels. Besides just because torrents are being used doesn't mean you are doing something illegal. A lot of free software is shared via torrents. Well I am just preaching to the choir here you all know what I am getting at. Either way what you do with your connection to the internet is no one else's business.