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."

Comments

This is outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:This is outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:This is outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is outrageous

[spire3661]

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.

Insanity

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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

Copyright itself is obsolete

[xenog]

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.

By comparision

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

About the latter news story...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why stop there?

[fredrated]

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