Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Proposes 10-Year Copyright Infringement Jail Term

An anonymous reader writes: According to a BBC report, the UK government is proposing increasing the jail term for copyright infringement from the current two years to 10 years, which they say would "act as a significant deterrent." "The proposed measures are mainly targeted at the distributors of pirated content — the people creating copies of movies, sometimes before release, and uploading them to be downloaded by thousands upon thousands." Another reader notes a related court ruling in the UK which has once again made it illegal to rip lawfully-acquired CDs and DVDs for personal use. "A judge ruled that the government was wrong legally when it decided not to introduce a compensation scheme for songwriters, musicians, and other rights holders who face losses as a result of their copyright being infringed."

6 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. By comparision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    These are all UK crimes with 10 year penalties:

    Burglary with intent to inflict GBH on a person or do unlawful damage to a building or anything in it (non-dwelling)
    Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence
    Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon or ammunition (5 year minimum sentence)
    Riot
    Making threats to kill
    Administering poison etc. so as to endanger life
    Cruelty to persons under 16
    Indecent assault
    Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
    Causing a child to watch a sexual act
    Meeting child following sexual grooming
    Indecency with children under 14
    Taking, having etc. indecent photographs of children
    Committing offence with intent to commit sexual offence
    Trespass with intent to commit sexual offence
    Burglary with intent to commit rape (non-dwelling)
    Assault with intent to commit buggery
    Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
    Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice
    Causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act
    Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder
    Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder
    Care workers: inciting person with mental disorder to engage in sexual act

    I'm sure we can all agree that these are comparable to someone sharing a song.

  2. Re:This is outrageous by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, murder still attracts a life sentence. That sentence will be at least 10 years before parole is even considered. But your point is valid: this victimless crime attracts a potentially higher prison sentence than many violent crimes.

  3. About the latter news story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who lives in the UK, I think more people need to be aware of Jury nullification.

    For those of you who don't know what it is, if you're ever on a trial for a victimless crime (for example, this) and the evidence clearly indicates that the person is guilty of a "crime," but you find the law unjust or wrongly applied, you can disagree with it when making your vote.

    This is because you cannot be punished for the vote you make as a juror. This is why the entire concept of jury nullification exists to begin with.

    Juries have more power than Judges, Magistrates and the prosecution would like them to know about.

    1. Re:About the latter news story... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jury nullification is viewed with great distrust by the legal profession in the US because it has a sordid history - it was commonly used in the south during segregation as a way to literally get away with murder. If the victim were black and the perpetrator white, the jury would often nullify regardless of the evidence.

  4. Re:This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crown Prosecution Service sentencing guidelines give 10 years as the starting point for raping a child, 8 for raping a teenager. These are, of course, the starting points for rapists "who do not meet the dangerous offender criteria."

    So, copyright infringement is now basically the same as child rape. I wonder if copyright infringers fit the description of a "dangerous offender."

  5. It's a MAXIMUM of 10 years, just bear that in mind by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of people seem to be flipping out over this without understanding that 10 years is the maximum sentence. 10 years for ripping a DVD? No, that's not going to happen. 10 years for flogging a few knock-off DVDs at the local street market? No, that's not going to happen either.

    10 years for getting hold of studio-quality raw data and selling access to it for £5 each to thousands of people, which eventually floods the market and ruins a studio's sales? That might get you on your way.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.