Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government Proposes 10-Year Copyright Infringement Jail Term

Posted by Soulskill on from the booked-for-voluntary-contentslaughter dept.

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."

15 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These jail terms are higher than an armed assault theft, or murder...
    All this indicates excessive lobbying or even corruption.

    1. 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.

    2. 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."

    3. Re:This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This victimless crime undermines the asset value of intellectual property. While it is true that "intellectual property" is entirely imaginary, the fact is that many wealthy people have a significant investment in it. Its free distribution reduces its value (based on how they appraise it), and so they see it as a threat to their wealth.

      Throw aside all concepts of justice, and the issue becomes perfectly clear. They see copyright law as a means of protecting their wealth. Further, this is a greater threat to them than muggings, assault, etc., because they already have effective means of protecting themselves against those threats. So, they are focusing their political power on the task of protecting their wealth against what they see as its greatest threat: you.

      It doesn't matter that physical violence causes more harm to an actual person...that is a problem largely for poor people so they don't care about it. But you taking their wealth away is something they absolutely will not tolerate....and unlike you, they have the political clout to do something about it.

      Your only option is to overwhelm them with numbers (politically speaking). You either accomplish this, or you live under their laws.

    4. Re:This is outrageous by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Imaginary property does not deserve this level of protection. I dont care what kind of infringement is going on, or how much money is lost. 10 years for 'stealing' essentially THOUGHTS is insane. The point of Copyright is to encourage works and it think its quite clear by now that works do not need this kind of protection, humans will produce them no matter what. Throwing people in jail over it is absolutely repugnant. I dont think we can truly call it an Information Age until we seriously hamstring copyright, not make it stronger.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:This is outrageous by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright and other intellectual-property laws have always been about protecting the income of the content owner. In the short-term I actually agree with them; I don't think that it's wrong for those who create content to make a living off of that content as they produce it. My biggest complaint is the trend of indefinite copyright where works that have influenced culture aren't eventually released into the public domain, as it gives too much a degree of control over our very culture to powerful entities that own the works that have helped define that culture, further empowering them. It'd be one thing is most copyright was held by the people that created content and if that copyright ended some set duration after their deaths, but when media companies can hold copyright for the better part of a hundred years that's just getting ridiculous.

      The other side of it is the challenge in calculating how much financial damage is done to a copyright holder when unlicensed copies of their work are distributed and 'consumed'. Case in point, older movies that are available on the Internet that weren't popular releases when they initially debuted. If someone watches Spaced Invaders for free simply because they have access to it, who wouldn't have paid any amount of money to watch it however small, is Disney/Touchstone actually out anything? If the viewer would never have watched it to begin with then it's hard to say that Disney is financially hurt by someone watching it without paying for it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Hurrah for judicial activism by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's awesome that a judge apparently created a new crime because he deicided that the legislature was wrong.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  3. Insanity by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10 years? You can rape and/or kill someone and not get that much time. Pure insanity.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  4. Copyright itself is obsolete by xenog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I certainly hope the UK does not go down this road. It is like making manufacturing refrigerators illegal because it leaves ice sellers out of a job. This is retrograde. The industry should just start to accept that the Internet means copying things, and that is good. Ten years in jail for putting a film online? The UK is copying the bad things from the USA.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. So, kids, learn and adept by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From now on, if you want songs or games and you can't afford it, get a club, crack some skulls and grab a few wallets, then buy the songs you want with the money you just stole.

    If you get caught, you'll be doing much less time.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Just a thought by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps the government -- ours, the UK, whomever -- ought not to consider over-punishing someone for a minor infraction in order to deter others.

    It seems to me that this is the real flaw in the entire mindset at work here.

    Does society want to deter people from breaking a law? Sure. And yes, I agree, individuals violating copyright on a "I copied this work to use for myself" level is antisocial (but less so than spitting on the sidewalk is -- IOW, "meh.")

    But do we want impose draconian and absurd punishments on peaceful and almost entirely harmless people?

    Fuck. No. Because that's obviously unfair and unreasonable -- and stupid.

    I'll go even further: A reasonable punishment is making the infringer pay twice what it would have cost them to pursue the legitimate path. For instance, you copy a CD that retails for $19.95, you get fined $39.40 which goes to the injured party, plus court and enforcement costs. Etc. And then you get after enforcing it, so that copyright violation becomes a no-win situation. So it would hurt, but it wouldn't generally wreck your life, your family's life, and screw up anything else that depends on your input, presence, or support.

    People do this not because they are evil, but because (a) they are cheap, (b) the abstraction that someone actually put some valuable time into the work is too abstract for them to grasp, and (c) it is actually easier than purchasing the work.

    We can't fix (c) because technology. It's only getting easier. I suspect it's likely to continue doing so, too.

    We can't fix (b) because people grasp their rationalizations like a life ring in a storm-tossed ocean regardless of how close the shore is. Even really smart people. I refer, of course, to the idiotic but seductive "information wants to be free" meme. Information is held in people's heads unless they want to take it out of their heads, and a tangible reward is an excellent motivator to encourage them to do so. Doesn't mean you can't make free stuff; it just means that we'd like to tangibly reward those who want to do these kinds of things as a life pursuit -- or even you, doing it as a hobby, if you'd like to exchange your work for some reward of a more factual nature than "makes me feel good" and/or the cliched and mostly worthless "5 minutes of fame", if that's how you'd like to roll.

    But we can sure as hell leverage (a) reasonably -- which is a damn sight better than trying to scare people by the equivalent of beating the shite out of someone for simply looking at you wrong.

    Fucking lawyers and bureaucrats. There are days when I think they all need to be made to go home. System needs a reset.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  9. Why stop there? by fredrated · · Score: 5, Funny

    Capital punishment is a significant deterrent, with a guarantee of no repeats!