UK Bill Introduces 10 Year Prison Sentence for Online Pirates (torrentfreak.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Bill Introduces 10 Year Prison Sentence for Online Pirates (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday July 6, 2016 @10:00AM from the setting-an-example dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The UK Government's Digital Economy Bill, which is set to revamp current copyright legislation, has been introduced in Parliament. One of the most controversial changes is the increased maximum sentences for online copyright infringement. Despite public protest, the bill increased the maximum prison term five-fold, from two to ten years. Before implementing the changes the Government launched a public consultation, asking for comments and advice from the public. But, even though the vast majority of the responses urged the authorities not to up the prison term, lawmakers decided otherwise. As a result, a new draft of the Digital Economy bill published this week extends the current prison term from two to ten years (PDF). The relevant part amends the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and simply replaces the word two with ten. Copyright holders have lobbied for this update for a long time. According to them, harsher penalties are needed to deter people from committing large-scale copyright infringement, something the Government agrees with.

167 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's inevitable by taustin · 2016-07-06 10:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now if they're impose the same criminal penalties for interfering with fair use, we'd be all set.
1. Re:It's inevitable by Cornwallis · 2016-07-06 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  Looks like Cory Doctorow's "Pirate Cinema" alive and well...
2. Re:It's inevitable by Archangel+Michael · 2016-07-06 10:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Real Piracy is the wholesale stealing of our government by the rich, powerful elites, who conspire to get away with crimes others are rotting in jail for.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
3. Re: It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Saw a sticker today that said "gun control" but had gun crossed out and "politician" written in above. We need to treat politicians like the very real threat to our liberties that they continue to be.
4. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Until someone else comes along and claims your original work as their copyrighted content, yeah that never happens.
5. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  The last attempt at reforming copyright law here a little while back actually did try to extend our equivalent of fair use. Rather ironically, given the response to the Leave vote and fear of losing protections offered by the EU, that part was promptly struck down again because of European rules.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
6. Re:It's inevitable by fustakrakich · 2016-07-06 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  The best way to avoid the fair use problem is to create your own original content
  Unless you lived in total isolation your entire life, the probability of that happening is nil
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
7. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  You want to believe that, but you don't.
8. Re:It's inevitable by hawguy · 2016-07-06 10:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The best way to avoid the fair use problem is to create your own original content rather than building off of someone else's copyrighted content and claiming it as your original.
  Too bad that would eliminate many of the best creative works ever created, nearly all great artists built on previous works.
  The entire Disney empire was built on someone else's stories. And they are doing everything they can to keep someone else from doing the same.
9. Re:It's inevitable by taustin · 2016-07-06 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bet he's been allowed to touch an actual bobbie without being arrested. Unlike some.
10. Re: It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  If that passes they will just see an increase in stolen physical media. Whats the punishment for walking out of walmart with a dvd? A fine, no jail time probably.
11. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  How would disney exist if it didnt go pillage old folklore and claim it as an "original"?
12. Re:It's inevitable by sims+2 · 2016-07-06 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like this: "U.S. prisons play pirated movies to inmates" https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-p... ?
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
13. Re:It's inevitable by digitig · 2016-07-06 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  And would we ever have heard of Shakespeare had he not done the same?
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
14. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  Touch one? He's been fucking them on a regular basis for years now. We all know Cory is big on the bestiality.
15. Re:It's inevitable by ewhac · 2016-07-06 11:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The Real Piracy is the wholesale stealing of our government by the rich, powerful elites [ ... ]
  Stealing? How dare you impugn our character with such malign slander. We bought and paid for them!
  
  --
  Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
16. Re:It's inevitable by tchdab1 · 2016-07-06 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Arrrh, matey! In honor of Walt Disney, it's copy like a pirate day!
17. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  The UK doesn't have fair use...
18. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  No problemo.
  Hey, you know there's no such thing as "fair use" in UK copyright law, right?
19. Re:It's inevitable by westlake · 2016-07-06 13:29 · Score: 2
  
  The entire Disney empire was built on someone else's stories. And they are doing everything they can to keep someone else from doing the same.
  Say a thing five times and a must be true --- or maybe not.
  In 2013 Philip Pullman published a new English translation of 50 classic tales from the Brothers Grimm. In 450 pages. You won't find Disney's "Snow White" in there or Humperdinck's "Hansel and Gretel." Not in any recognizable form. Not if you are being honest about the thing.
  ImDB lists about 200 film. musical comedy and television productions based on "Cinderella." Disney owns the rights to maybe four of them.
20. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that Disney built an empire by basing their cartoons on stories that other people wrote that no longer had (or never had) copyright protection. They then buy laws that prevent their material from ever entering the public domain, which prevents anyone else from ever basing a derivative work on any of their releases.
  Like scientific progress, the arts stand on the shoulders of giants to achieve new levels of greatness. But not if Disney has a say in it.
21. Re:It's inevitable by hackwrench · 2016-07-06 17:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course not. What part of "And they are doing everything they can to keep someone else from doing the same." don't you understand. If they weren't, maybe you'd see something resembling Disney's Snow White. The point is, between Disney and a lot of other people extending copyright, the works in recent history can't be used like Disney and Philip Pullman used prior works. And when you have to go that far back to produce new content that just shows you how impoverished they've made the public domain.
22. Re: It's inevitable by backslashdot · 2016-07-06 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  Are you an idiot? Or being sarcastic? -- I hope so. The Snow White story has been around for hundreds of years. Google it.
23. Re: It's inevitable by hackwrench · 2016-07-06 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  He seems to be interpreting the original post as saying that Disney is trying to prevent people from building on the same stories as Disney built on, but someone did it and in a way that makes it substantially different from Disney's works. However, what is really meant is that Disney is trying to prevent people from building off Disney's works after the same amount of time and substantially more time has elapsed between the time of Disney's works and the new works and the time between works that Disney could have used and Disney's works.
  Time...
  And Over was under Under and Under was under Dunn.
24. Re:It's inevitable by bungo · 2016-07-06 18:53 · Score: 2
  
  Hey, at least we plebs know where we stand. So crimes, in descending order or importance are:
  - Making a politician look stupid
  - Preventing a corporation from maximising their profits
  - Ridicule of any government organisation
  - crimes against rich people
  - ...
  - ...
  - property crimes ( rich people only)
  - murder (poor people only)
  - rape (poor people only)
  (sorry, property crimes again poor people don't count at all)
  It's good to know ones place in society.
  
  --
  "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
25. Re:It's inevitable by Dr_Barnowl · 2016-07-06 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  ShakespeareCorp doesn't legislate for his plays to be kept in copyright every time they come close to entering the public domain.
26. Re:It's inevitable by bentcd · 2016-07-06 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  Today's new cultural content should be based on works from the 50s, or from the 80s, or from the 2000s - but it isn't because nobody wants to go to prison for 10 years.
  Instead we are doomed to just keep mindlessly gulping up new variations of what they had back in the 1800s. You can't build on top of Disney's stories because is verboten. You can't build on Rowling. You can't even build on Tolkien. Your only legal choice is eternal stagnation.
  
  --
  sigs are hazardous to your health
27. Re:It's inevitable by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  True; P. L. Travers was not very happy with what disney did to her story. She got nothing. disney also destroyed and made a complete travesty of what The Jungle Book is about, but one has to read the book and have a bit of a soul to realise it.
  But consider; when youtube was young it was fun to find simpsons' episodes and they seemed funny, but they are absolute crap compared to the explosion of original, fun, breaking and radical content that spurted after they removed anything copyrighted. Youtube is much better now for entertainment than the time-shifted TV crap it was. Epic rap battles? pro gamers who are actually smart and funny? star trek crossovers? online classes?. I have not owned a TV in two decades. We the people are much better without the rotten influence of the mainstream diarrhea.
  Also consider: what's the problem with encrypted sharing? No one is ever caught. Only those ridiculous websites that offer copyrighted content in the open; the owners are usually doing that idiocy on the side and they are usually ignoramuses who work at a bar by day or something and believe they'll never get caught 'because there's only the links'. They get busted. But let's go under, force encryption everywhere and go through TOR and screw the MAFIAA and its punishments.
28. Re:It's inevitable by stealth_finger · 2016-07-07 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we call it fair dealing instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
29. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you lived in total isolation your entire life, the probability of that happening is nil
  Let's consider two examples from YouTube. One person spends 30 minute talking about a movie with a still shot of the publicly released movie poster in the background. Another person spends 15 minutes talking the same move while showing 15 minutes of the movie taken from another video. Who has original content and who is getting slapped with a fair use violation?
30. Re:It's inevitable by fustakrakich · 2016-07-07 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care about copyright
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
31. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  ImDB lists about 200 film. musical comedy and television productions based on "Cinderella." Disney owns the rights to maybe four of them.
  You can still write a story or make a movie about Dracula, Frankenstein or Wolf Man based on the public domain stories. What you can't do is based your characters on the iconic Universal monster movies, as Universal has a copyright for what the characters looked in the movie. Movies featuring these monsters go out of their way to avoid looking exactly like the Universal monsters. Universal is making a new set of monster movies to extend the copyright for another century.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Monsters_(2014_film_series)
32. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  You can't even build on Tolkien.
  Sure you can. As long as your work is substantially different from Tolkien. For example: The Belgariad by David Eddings, The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks, and The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan.
33. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  And would we ever have heard of Shakespeare had he not done the same?
  The copyright for Shakespeare's plays were owned by the theater company. Book publishers routinely disregarded copyright by publishing stuff willy-nilly, including Shakespeare's love poems that were circulating privately among friends. We know about Shakespeare's plays today only because the remaining owners of the theater company published a folio in tribute after his death.
34. Re:It's inevitable by bentcd · 2016-07-07 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  "Substantially different" isn't building on, it's being inspired by. The beauty of Cinderella is that everyone could tell their own Cinderella and explore different variations of the story without having to independently invent an entire backstory and setting for it. That lowers the barrier of entry so much anyone can do it, and you get a huge forest of different expressions from which you can pick the few gems and discard the rest. But we can't do this anymore. Instead we are force fed Peter Jackson fanfic, and pretty bad fanfic at that, and no one else gets to have a go.
  
  --
  sigs are hazardous to your health
35. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  ShakespeareCorp doesn't legislate for his plays to be kept in copyright every time they come close to entering the public domain.
  The copyright on the plays during that era was owned by the theater company. Shakespeare made his money from being a writer, an actor and a theater owner, which he later invested in land. Neither he nor his estate received any royalty income from his plays after his retirement and death.
36. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care about copyright
  Spoken like a true millennial.
37. Re:It's inevitable by fustakrakich · 2016-07-07 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  In it's present state copyright is theft.
  And you presume much :-)
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
38. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  In it's present state copyright is theft.
  I'll remember that the next time I file a DMCA takedown request.
39. Re:It's inevitable by fustakrakich · 2016-07-07 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA is evil. Are you evil too?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
40. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-07 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA is evil. Are you evil too?
  Nope. Just protecting my copyrights.
41. Re:It's inevitable by oldmac31310 · 2016-07-07 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  No, he's just an asshole. You surely must have seen his previous idiotic posts.
  
  --
  http://www.acetonestudio.com
42. Re:It's inevitable by fustakrakich · 2016-07-07 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  So, which one is it then?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
43. Re:It's inevitable by Coren22 · 2016-07-08 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ??
  or
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ??
  I am sure you are legally allowed to touch boobies, but the question is will the booby allow you to touch it?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
44. Re:It's inevitable by Coren22 · 2016-07-08 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Both of your examples are examples of fair use in the US. However, both of your examples would cause a DMCA notice despite being clear cases of fair use.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
45. Re:It's inevitable by Coren22 · 2016-07-08 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, you can make a story that looks very much like a Disney story, but with your own video, dialog, characters and names. You could even make your own Cinderella if you wanted, as long as you didn't use the Disney characters.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
46. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-08 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Both of your examples are examples of fair use in the US.
  That's not correct. Fair use is using the least amount of someone else's content to make a point in your own content. Using a still shot of a movie poster is acceptable fair use. Using 15 minutes of someone else's video in a 30-minute video is not acceptable fair use. Using three minutes or less would be acceptable fair use.
  
  However, both of your examples would cause a DMCA notice despite being clear cases of fair use.
  Both videos are subject to a DMCA take down notice. The movie poster video will most likely win an appeal. The extended video clip video won't even get that far.
47. Re:It's inevitable by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-08 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  No, he's just an asshole.
  That's true. What does my work experience in IT support have to do with this thread?
Plausible Deniability by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:07 · Score: 0

From now on I propose all torrents and file links on the internet be named something other than what they are, instead of tron.avi, make it the_three_musketeers(1913).avi, if no one knows what they are downloading, it's no problem. I don't know good defense for uploaders though
1. Re: Plausible Deniability by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  The limewire approach.
2. Re: Plausible Deniability by oldmac31310 · 2016-07-07 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what I thought.
  
  --
  http://www.acetonestudio.com
Yarr by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:07 · Score: 0

Ya need ta point tha bill right up GCHQ's arse
uk prison system by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:09 · Score: 1

this is the 1st step to usa style prisons for profit. pretty soon more things will happen and then bam, uk will be just like the usa. they already spy on their citizens, the more time that passes, the more the uk looks like the usa!
1. Re:uk prison system by NotInHere · 2016-07-06 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the first step: it was independence day! This is the second step.
2. Re: uk prison system by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Copyright is the new marijuana for our prison system.
Just out of curiosity by Opportunist · 2016-07-06 10:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's the maximum sentence for embezzling government money? What's the sentence for financial fraud that leaves thousands penniless? In other words, can you maybe name a few or a few dozen crimes that actually have victims that have lower sentences?
Mr. Fawkes? Could you rise from the grave and try again? I promise, nobody is going to stop you this time.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Just out of curiosity by MrKaos · 2016-07-06 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  What's the maximum sentence for embezzling government money? What's the sentence for financial fraud that leaves thousands penniless? In other words, can you maybe name a few or a few dozen crimes that actually have victims that have lower sentences?
  What is the maximum penalty for someone murdering the movie industry executives that push for these laws?
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
2. Re:Just out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  As we understand it, the sentence is four years of trips on Air Force One
3. Re:Just out of curiosity by ArylAkamov · 2016-07-06 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  There are people who have committed murder that have been sentenced to less.
4. Re:Just out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if you follow the money the people lobbying are typically US based so murdering them will mean being tortured indefinitely, put to death directly or put spend the rest of you life in jail waiting for trial.
5. Re:Just out of curiosity by Opportunist · 2016-07-06 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you do it right. So many people die every day, and, as a coroner I knew once put it, if you put a candle on every grave of a murder victim that was ruled "natural causes", no graveyard would need artificial lighting.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Just out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 21:01 · Score: 0
  
  You're probably better off beating up the cop that's going to arrest you than actually getting arrested...
7. Re:Just out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  What's the maximum sentence for embezzling government money? What's the sentence for financial fraud that leaves thousands penniless? In other words, can you maybe name a few or a few dozen crimes that actually have victims that have lower sentences?
  What is the maximum penalty for someone murdering the movie industry executives that push for these laws?
  About 11 years is the normal term. The sentence is "life"; but the establishment have gamed this to mean "25 years"; and then give parole, which makes it 11 years.
  Unless you are someone the establishment don't like, of course. Poor old Tony Martin was held in prison for the maximum time possible because he wouldn't accept that defending himself in a remote farmhouse was wrong. The criminals who repeatedly robbed him were in and out and into prison again several times.
8. Re: Just out of curiosity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  I once worked with a guy that got... 10 years. For murder. Huh.
9. Re:Just out of curiosity by Bristol_92 · 2016-07-07 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  I support government efforts to stop online piracy. But this amendment is injudicious. Such harsher penalty can be explained by government threatened of free speech. 10 years in prison is undesirable sentence for online copyrighting. And yes, will be better if government cares more about corruption and bribery.
10. Re:Just out of curiosity by Coren22 · 2016-07-08 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  10 years in prison is undesirable sentence for online copyrighting.
  I suppose if there was a penalty for copyrighting, we wouldn't have the music/film/book industries pushing for laws against copying copyrighted work as there would be no more copyrighted work.
  Hint, copyrighting is the act of registering a copyright, which is something the media industry does every day.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:09 · Score: 0

God forbid you interfere with a corporation's imaginary future profits.
1. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 10:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm as sceptical as anyone about the abuse of penalties for IP-related behaviour, but you're way off on this objection. The laws in question were created to fight large-scale, commercial copyright infringement, that is how they've actually been used in practice, and it is extremely likely that those profiting from infringement in that way are effectively stealing real profits from the legitimate rightsholders since people were actually paying for copies of the works that they may well have assumed were lawful. The penalties are akin to those for fraud.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
2. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  I would have rebutted your argument but your signature.
  so there goes my mod point
3. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by OrangeTide · 2016-07-06 10:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How many decades should companies like Disney hold copyright? These businesses hire artists to create intellectual property, but none of it would be possible without the centuries of human history and culture to build on.
  There is a reasonable number of years for protection, and the reasonable number is probably not the current 120 years.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
4. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by MrKaos · 2016-07-06 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  How many decades should companies like Disney hold copyright?
  
  Roughly the duration of the lifetime of the sun, plus 500million years. Can't be too careful.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
5. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that current copyright durations are often absurdly long, but that's a separate issue. No-one is performing the kind of large-scale, commercial copyright infringement that would attract a custodial sentence under these laws with Mickey Mouse cartoons from nearly a century ago.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
6. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by aevan · 2016-07-06 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  None. If 5 notes of music is enough to claim IP theft, Disney hasn't a creation to bring to market.
7. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  The laws in question were created to fight large-scale, commercial copyright infringement, that is how they've actually been used in practice
  Those are only the judgements that appear in official court records, not out of court settlements. We all know exactly how this law is actually being used: to threaten individuals who've downloaded films and TV shows with prison sentences unless they pay up. With 10 year sentences, just think how much those lawyers will be demanding now. It's extortion, plain and simple.
  And no, copyright infringement is no direct threat to any member of the public in any way and so custodial sentences are unwarranted. Let's not choke up the judicial and prison systems with people whose only offence has been not paying to watch films and TV, i.e. copyright infringement, otherwise we'll have no room for violent and dangerous criminals. Who would you rather have at large on the streets?
8. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Those are only the judgements that appear in official court records, not out of court settlements.
  This is the UK, and we're talking about criminal law. What out of court settlements are you talking about?
  
  We all know exactly how this law is actually being used: to threaten individuals who've downloaded films and TV shows with prison sentences unless they pay up.
  We don't "all know" any such thing. In fact, I have never heard of a single case anything like what you describe, in this country and under this law.
  Perhaps you're confusing this situation with the superficially similar but actually totally different situation in the US, where the everyone-pays legal system allows for a type of profitable barratry that wouldn't work here?
  
  Let's not choke up the judicial and prison systems with people whose only offence has been not paying to watch films and TV, i.e. copyright infringement
  That's not what this law does. This is the law aimed at people who are running commercial copyright infringement operations, the kind of people mass-producing illegally copied physical media or running profit-making pirate sites online. No-one is going to prison for 10 years (or at all) under this law because they downloaded the latest episode of Game of Thrones from a torrent somewhere.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
9. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by james_gnz · 2016-07-06 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  ... it is extremely likely that those profiting from infringement in that way are effectively stealing real profits ...
  Modern copyright was originally intended "for the Encouragement of Learning", not based on a supposed right to "intellectual property". Further, since much of the material being copied is entertainment, rather than encouraging learning, the law is essentially jailing people for the sake of public amusement.
10. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by OrangeTide · 2016-07-06 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Little Mermaid is 28 years old and would have expired under some of the older copyright schemes. (admittedly under laws that predate Disney and motion pictures)
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
11. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by OrangeTide · 2016-07-06 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  5 notes in all keys on all instruments does seem overly broad.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
12. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  The real problem is they keep lobbying and getting the duration extended. So what you need to do is to make sure they die so that the cycle breaks.
13. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  This is the law aimed at people who are running commercial copyright infringement operations, the kind of people mass-producing illegally copied physical media or running profit-making pirate sites online. No-one is going to prison for 10 years (or at all) under this law because they downloaded the latest episode of Game of Thrones from a torrent somewhere.
  That isn't how it have worked previously.
  The excuse for motivating such insane punishments is that it should be used at people running commercial copyright infringement operations.
  In practice that is never done, the law typically remains untested for a couple of years until people are used to it being there, then it is used to smash down on someone running a non-commercial torrent site.
  Anyway, now that it has passed to point where you are better off murdering anyone accusing you of copyright infringement things might change.
14. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  He said 5 notes, though.
15. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Right, and perhaps that should still be the case today. However, this still seems like a separate issue to me. I don't see anyone going to jail for selling bootleg The Little Mermaid DVDs on a massive scale.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
16. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  In practice that is never done, the law typically remains untested for a couple of years until people are used to it being there, then it is used to smash down on someone running a non-commercial torrent site.
  You're still just making things up. This kind of large-scale copyright infringement has been a criminal offence in the UK for a long time, just with a lower maximum penalty of two years instead of ten, and that law hasn't been widely abused based on anything I've ever seen. And what is "running a non-commercial torrent site" anyway?
  
  Anyway, now that it has passed to point where you are better off murdering anyone accusing you of copyright infringement things might change.
  So you think a mandatory life sentence is less than a sentence imposed by a judge based on the specifics of a case but in any case no longer than ten years?
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
17. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Modern copyright was originally intended "for the Encouragement of Learning", not based on a supposed right to "intellectual property".
  Modern copyright is an economic tool. It is an incentive for people to create and share new works, to make those works as attractive as possible, and to distribute them as widely as possible.
  I'm not sure how relevant any detailed wording remains if that wording comes from a time long ago, before any of the implications and capabilities of modern technology had even been conceived.
  
  Further, since much of the material being copied is entertainment, rather than encouraging learning, the law is essentially jailing people for the sake of public amusement.
  Clearly that public amusement has significant value, because people pay billions every year to enjoy it. Many people study and work hard for many years to be able to create that public amusement and generate that value.
  In the kind of cases where this law would apply, the act committed might really be tantamount to theft, causing a real loss of income for those who contributed to creating the work, or fraud, having deceived those who paid for the illegitimate copies, depending on your point of view.
  I wonder whether you also feel things like insurance fraud or tax evasion shouldn't carry jail sentences? After all, they're only moving bits in a computer and only big, rich organisations are losing money, right?
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
18. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by OrangeTide · 2016-07-07 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  what about the same note 5 times in a row?
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
19. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Calydor · 2016-07-07 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like the start to Maria from West Side Story.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
20. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by james_gnz · 2016-07-07 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  Modern copyright is an economic tool. It is an incentive for people to create and share new works, to make those works as attractive as possible, and to distribute them as widely as possible.
  More or less. Copyright doesn't necessarily encourage the widest possible distribution though. That would require pricing that everyone can afford. Copyright encourages the most profitable pricing, which is that which maximises [unit price - cost of copying] x [how many people will pay]. That could well be above a price that everyone can afford, especially in a market where people have very unequal means to pay.
  
  I'm not sure how relevant any detailed wording remains if that wording comes from a time long ago, before any of the implications and capabilities of modern technology had even been conceived.
  Broadening the aim of a government policy from the lofty goal of encouraging learning to also encompass the rather frivolous goal of encouraging public amusement hardly seems to me like merely "detailed wording", and I don't think "the implications and capabilities of modern technology" justify it.
  
  Clearly that public amusement has significant value, because people pay billions every year to enjoy it.
  Bollocks. People pay billions every year to enjoy smoking, and it has negative value, in my estimation. I'm not at all convinced the world would be a worse place for the lack of blockbuster Hollywood movies.
  
  Many people study and work hard for many years to be able to create that public amusement and generate that value.
  Yes, copyright causes a great deal of resources to be expended on public amusement, but again, I'm not convinced this is a good thing.
  
  I wonder whether you also feel things like insurance fraud or tax evasion shouldn't carry jail sentences? After all, they're only moving bits in a computer and only big, rich organisations are losing money, right?
  No, because there's more at stake in these cases than public amusement.
21. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-08 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright doesn't necessarily encourage the widest possible distribution though. That would require pricing that everyone can afford. Copyright encourages the most profitable pricing
  Fair point. Copyright can't necessarily promote both the greatest quality and the greatest quantity at once, and in practice it promotes the greatest overall value, as measured by the money people are willing to pay for the copies.
  My objection to most of your remaining argument is that it's subjective. You may think the world would be no worse without the big summer blockbusters, but millions of other people enjoy them. You may think smoking has negative value, but millions of other people enjoy it. You may think that public amusement isn't important, but millions of other people would disagree with you (and in this case, might use slightly less dismissive wording, say "quality of life", to describe it as well). These are personal judgements, and everyone will naturally have their own opinions on what is and isn't worthwhile.
  The thing is, we have a much more objective standard for what people find valuable and how much value they think it is: we can look at what else of value they are willing to exchange for it, and particularly what they are willing to spend their limited time and/or money on. It might not be a perfect system, but at least it's neutral and allows us to quantify things like whether a work has a lot of value for a few people or a modest value but to a lot of people, and whether it's worth going ahead and creating it depending on what sort of outcome you think is likely.
  Today, copyright is an economic tool we use to extend those same principles to creative works. Again, it might not be a perfect system, but it does seem to be reasonably effective compared to the alternatives that have been given a serious try so far. But of course, like any other economic system, it relies on people playing by the same rules as everyone else. Those who don't can take advantage of the system if they aren't stopped, and in that sense I think penalising large-scale commercial copyright infringement is very similar to penalising crimes like fraud and tax evasion both ethically and practically.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
22. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by james_gnz · 2016-07-09 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Fair point. Copyright can't necessarily promote both the greatest quality and the greatest quantity at once, and in practice it promotes the greatest overall value, as measured by the money people are willing to pay for the copies.
  That's right, copyright can't necessarily maximise quality and quantity, and the limitation on quantity is an entirely artificial one, imposed by copyright itself, not by the nature of what it produces. Your claim that copyright maximises value misses the caveat "insofar as copyright can". With this in mind, the claim amounts to little more than "copyright does what copyright does".
  
  My objection to most of your remaining argument is that it's subjective. You may think the world would be no worse without the big summer blockbusters, but millions of other people enjoy them. You may think smoking has negative value, but millions of other people enjoy it. ...
  For entertainment, as with smoking, and fashion (think bell-bottom pants and platform shoes, or mullets and shoulder pads), I think a big part of the value is cultural currency, i.e. not being left out of whatever the people around you happen to be doing at the time. I very much doubt that I would have taken up smoking if people around me hadn't been doing it, or that I would have felt I was missing out on anything for not doing so.
  
  The thing is, we have a much more objective standard for what people find valuable and how much value they think it is: we can look at what else of value they are willing to exchange for it, and particularly what they are willing to spend their limited time and/or money on. ...
  This system makes complete sense for "private goods", but far less sense for "public goods" (to use the terminology of economics). Few people would advocate this system for public defence. i.e. the armed forces charge a flat rate, and in the eventuality of a war, those who haven't paid get cast in front of the invaders. Further, if asked, how important do you think people would rate things like a defence force, policing, roads, etc., in comparison to summer blockbusters?
  
  Today, copyright is an economic tool we use to extend those same principles to creative works. Again, it might not be a perfect system, but it does seem to be reasonably effective compared to the alternatives that have been given a serious try so far. ...
  By what measure? Value of output, or efficiency (value of output divided by resources consumed)? I don't think any other system has ever consumed so much resources, so copyright certainly ought to produce more.
23. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-09 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  This system makes complete sense for "private goods", but far less sense for "public goods" (to use the terminology of economics). Few people would advocate this system for public defence...
  So would you favour scrapping copyright and instead funding all creative works formerly supported by copyright through taxation and public funds instead, like the armed forces and policing and roads you mentioned?
  How is the money then to be allocated? Who decides what works are worth and which ones to support, if it is not to be done through the people enjoying those works choosing where to spend their money?
  
  By what measure? Value of output, or efficiency (value of output divided by resources consumed)? I don't think any other system has ever consumed so much resources, so copyright certainly ought to produce more.
  By whichever measure you like.
  No system before copyright has resulted in anything close to the quality or quantity of works being produced and distributed that we see today. The copyright-based economics of creative work demonstrably produce billions' worth of new creative work every year and allow millions to work in creative industries with a viable level of compensation.
  This is not to say that no better system is possible, and if you have suggestions I'm happy to debate them. It is certainly not to say that copyright as implemented today is perfect or that draconian penalties or excessive protections are required for the desired incentives to be created. However, usually I find "So what would you actually do instead that is likely to be more effective?" is about where the opposition either tune out in these discussions or suggest the same two or three possibilities that have already been tried and weren't nearly as successful.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
24. Re:A civil matter with a criminal punishment by james_gnz · 2016-07-10 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  So would you favour scrapping copyright and instead funding all creative works formerly supported by copyright through taxation and public funds instead, like the armed forces and policing and roads you mentioned?
  I think the amount of resources directed to entertainment is excessive, so I wouldn't favour the same amount of resources being supplied via taxation. I'm not opposed to some resources going to a public broadcaster or grants for entertainment or something, but I'd prefer to see more resources expended on producing useful material, like decent educational material for school curricula, procedural manuals for small businesses (how to start and run a convenience store, takeaway shop, or whatever), manuals/tutorials for free software, free software itself (static checking source code, online collaboration), etc.
  Policy changes should be progressively phased in, to avoid disruption, and ensure they're working as intended. I think reducing the copyright term to 20 years, and rolling back other measures, would be a reasonable start. I'm concerned that cloud computing may lead to a similar monopoly situation that we've had with MS Windows, so I think it would make sense to allow AGPL-like copyleft provisions for longer than copyright generally.
  
  How is the money then to be allocated? Who decides what works are worth and which ones to support, if it is not to be done through the people enjoying those works choosing where to spend their money?
  Ratings or appointed executives maybe. I expect something would work, but if it really turns out to be impossible, then scrap it. I don't see it as having a legitimate place as a high government priority.
  
  By whichever measure you like.
  No system before copyright has resulted in anything close to the quality or quantity of works being produced and distributed that we see today. The copyright-based economics of creative work demonstrably produce billions' worth of new creative work every year and allow millions to work in creative industries with a viable level of compensation.
  No system before copyright has resulted in anything close to the amount of resources being consumed in the production of entertainment that we see today, so it's not at all clear to me that copyright is more efficient than other systems. Creating jobs is not a virtue. The government could create jobs by employing people to carry rocks from one end of a field to the other and back.
Yes by PRMan · 2016-07-06 10:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because this is obviously just as bad as threatening to kill someone or administering poison with intent to endanger life, which both have 10 year sentences in the UK...

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well I have the copyright on that story.
2. Re:Yes by mark-t · 2016-07-06 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  It is well known that at least to some extent, the severity of punishment for a crime does deter that crime from occurring in the first place, or in particular, giving people who might have otherwise considered trying to do it enough of a disincentive to reconsider their actions and not engage in the hypothetical criminal behavior in the first place. However, there is also a point at which increasing the penalty is unlikely to deter people who were still willing to do it despite the penalties that were being proposed and you get a diminishing return on prevention as you try to increase it further. Nobody can say for sure where that point is, but its my own suspicion that a 2 year jail term was probably already past it. I'd be willing to bet that the number of people that increasing the penalty it to 10 years is liable to prevent over the same amount of time could probably be counted on my fingers.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Yes by Burz · 2016-07-06 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because this is obviously just as bad as threatening to kill someone or administering poison with intent to endanger life, which both have 10 year sentences in the UK...
  It is if you want the UK to become the 51st state, which is what this bill is signaling in a sense. After losing the EU, the UK elite want access to large markets and this bill is an offering to the US. There is no other explanation for ignoring their population so thoroughly in the wake of brexit.
4. Re: Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  The Law is the Law. Now shut up and obey or your head will be burst open by submachine gun on the Tube for being electrician while Brazilian. Capisch?
I just downloaded a car by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:12 · Score: 0

Neener neener!!!
The word for today is 'Draconian" by rmdingler · 2016-07-06 10:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Two years in the pokey is not near enough incentive to keep the pirates honest... 10 years, though, that'll do it.
Look at capital punishment versus life imprisonment as a deterrent to murder, if you will... hardly any homicide in Louisiana, Missouri, and Mississippi.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:The word for today is 'Draconian" by MrKaos · 2016-07-06 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  So the death penalty for copyright infringement. I'm sure that's where they're headed. After that the death penalty for offenders and anyone associated with them. Plus ten years sentenced to their crappy droll movies for not watching them.
  They ridicule us.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
For comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

what are the sentences for rape, violent beatings, the sort of thing that can ruin a person and make them dysfunctional for the rest of their lives? Are crimes of violence still comparable to the potential loss of speculated future profits of large corporations?
1. Re:For comparison by NotInHere · 2016-07-06 10:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Five years maximum if you stab someone (without killing them): http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offen...
  Average prison sentence length for rape: 8 years: http://www.publications.parlia...
2. Re:For comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Five years maximum if you stab someone (without killing them)
  Average prison sentence length for rape: 8 years:
  
  ?? Couldn't you (as the rapist's lawyer) argue that the supposed accused was just stabbing the supposed victim with their supposed penis and go for the lighter sentence?
  Or does hardness matter?
3. Re:For comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  See what happens when you don't have a Bastille Day?
4. Re:For comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Not if you're a Stanford swimmer.
Better than hanging, I guess by mamono · 2016-07-06 10:16 · Score: 3, Funny

Haven't the British been going after pirates for hundreds of years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Re:Better than hanging, I guess by HornWumpus · 2016-07-06 10:23 · Score: 2
  
  We're not pirates. We're privateers. The NSA takes the government's share.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
asking for comments and advice from the public by fustakrakich · 2016-07-06 10:16 · Score: 2

For what purpose?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:asking for comments and advice from the public by MrKaos · 2016-07-06 11:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For what purpose?
  To figure out who to gaol first.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The average rape sentence is 8 years by NotInHere · 2016-07-06 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

source
Is this really worse than rape?
1. Re:The average rape sentence is 8 years by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Is anything?
  "Soul murder" is the term used to describe this crime. With good reason.
2. Re:The average rape sentence is 8 years by gatfirls · 2016-07-06 10:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Negatively affecting corporate profits is the highest of crimes. Countries do this with tax laws and money laundering laws.
  Don't hurt the rich and powerful, just each other.
3. Re:The average rape sentence is 8 years by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's an average sentence, this ten years is a maximum, so the two aren't usefully comparably. I don't agree with the 10 year maximum, but it's not helpful to compare it to averages.
  The CPS publishes "suggested start" sentences which it recommends prosecutors should begin with when figuring out what an appropriate sentence is to ask for. For example if you took somebody's car, that'd have a start point, and if you took it by threatening to kill their dog if they didn't give you the keys, that's going to up the tariff considerably compared to if you just found the keys in the ignition and drove off, whereas if you brought it back twenty minutes later having driven it carefully to the shops and back, that's going to lower it compared to leaving the car trashed in a ditch four hours later on the far side of town.
4. Re:The average rape sentence is 8 years by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Than the SJWs came along and redefined rape as 'a man annoying someone'.
  Words mean things, when you redefine slavery as 'crappy job' you make yourself look like an idiot and insult all slaves and former slaves.
The way to fight this . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:20 · Score: 1

. . . make sure that some establishment-types gets caught for this. A little detective work, and you'll find a MP with some music copied from a friend, or a "dubious" version of word.
Do this work, turn them in. See the law change after a few "good boys" get their sentences. . .
1. Re:The way to fight this . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  Pay attention, man. There are no sentences for those in positions of power. These laws are for the little people. If a case such as this against an elite ever sees the inside of a courtroom, the judge will find that there was no ill intent involved, that it was all a mistake, a misunderstanding, and throw out the case.
  For the peons, however, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and they get maximum sentence as a punitive example to anyone else who would dare deprive a mega-corp of their deserved profits.
2. Re:The way to fight this . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  This law, like all the rest is only for the little people.
  Just look at the Hilary Clinton debacle in the US. Laws are just for the little people.
Ignoring 98% consensus by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

When the government ignores consensus of 98% the population, this is not a democracy. If not corporatocracy, the government has at least been corrupted by large financial incentives or threat.
1. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by thegarbz · 2016-07-06 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  Shhh don't tell them. The Brits are culturally depressed enough as it is. They are currently riding the high from leaving the EU because the EU is not democratic, let them have a few weeks of joy before laying reality on them.
2. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by Gamasta · 2016-07-06 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  When the government ignores consensus of 98% the population, this is not a democracy. If not corporatocracy, the government has at least been corrupted by large financial incentives or threat.
  It's called oligarchy.
  
  --
  reason defies logic
3. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by clickclickdrone · 2016-07-06 21:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They are currently riding the high from leaving the EU
  A) We haven't left yet. We haven't begun to leave yet. All we did was have a vote on if we should.
  B) Pretty much everyone I know is bloody angry at the result, the economy is tanking and most of the stuff that was promised by the leave campaign has evaporated and many who voted leave are now regretting it.
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
4. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by houghi · 2016-07-06 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  They ignored the information about the dangers of soft drugs.
  They also ignored the information about Iraq.
  They ignored the advice not to invade Iraq.
  From what we see they have been following the USofA like a blind puppy.
  And that is why the majority of Europe does not really care and are even happy about Brexit. We would LOVE to exchange them for Canada.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
5. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Tough.
  As someone who voted remain, they should reap what they sowed.
6. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Don't confuse respondents with the population. Respondents are self-selecting, and people happy or not bothered aren't going to say anything.
7. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  So why did they vote to leave?
  Did people vote blindly, without doing any research into what they were voting for? Could they not see the hollow promises?
  But that makes me wonder, what were all of these promises that made leaving look so good, that are now evaporating?
8. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by TheDarkMaster · 2016-07-07 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy these days is a smokescreen to keep the population under control while wealth is divided among the 1%.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
9. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  That sure says something about the fragile state of your economy if it is tanking before anything real has actually happened.
10. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by thegarbz · 2016-07-07 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  A) Tell it to the population. A very vocal part (thankfully it looks like a minority) of the population are acting as if they already left.
  B) Agree. But then my view is biased as most of the people I know are either young or work at our offices in London (the mood is pretty sombre here).
  But this is neither here nor there. The funny point is still that people are now justifying the vote as a success of democracy kicking it against unelected bureaucrats instead of the mostly xenophobic panic vote that it was. Those same people should look in the mirror ... or rather read this Slashdot story about their democracy.
11. Re:Ignoring 98% consensus by clickclickdrone · 2016-07-08 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Some voted because they were told the GBP350m a day we give to the EU (We don't, it's much less) would go to the NHS instead. They back tracked on that within hours of winning
  Some thought we'd repatriate EU immigrants. We won't be, it has just been voted on by the government.
  Some voted exit as a protest and didn't expect to win and now regret it
  Within hours, certain areas of the country were demanding the government would make up the lost EU subsidies they'd just voted to lose
  There are still plenty of people who are happy for Brexit but probably not enough to swing it if there was another vote.
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Arrgghh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:27 · Score: 0

No more plunderin' for internet booty.
Seriously, how do you even get a pirate ship into the ethernet cable?
Can't blame them for ignoring their people. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 10:35 · Score: 0

Look at what happened [and is still happening as a result of] the last time they paid attention to their people.
That said, this is fucking stupid.
Does this mean...? by camperdave · 2016-07-06 10:48 · Score: 1

Does this mean that we won't be getting Doctor Who torrents come December?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Wait by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 11:23 · Score: 0

I have a letter of Marquess from a Mr. Vladimir Putin, so you can't arrest me!
Obligatory by MrKaos · 2016-07-06 11:28 · Score: 4, Funny

You wouldn't steal a handbag...

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's a parody of an actual anti-piracy ad which is only slightly less ridiculous: "Piracy, It's a Crime"
2. Re:Obligatory by MrKaos · 2016-07-06 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Especially the bit 'It's against the law' when it wasn't. Such bullshit.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  Also this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bxqt0siy34
Kill who wrote the bill pussies. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 12:13 · Score: 0

No boat no pirate.
Get less time for shop lifting and there the proft by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-06 12:17 · Score: 2

Get less time for shoplifting and there they have hard evidence.
History of copyright duration by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 12:23 · Score: 2, Informative

in the US:
14 years (1790), 28 years (1831), life + 50 years (1908), 75 years (1976), life + 70 years or 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (1998), 50 years for broadcasts (2008).
I am curious if the UK had similar increases in copyright duration. I am certain these increases reflect the nature of commercial lobbying and is not the will of the people.
1. Re:History of copyright duration by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2016-07-06 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure copyright durations in the UK are as long as the US under all circumstances, but they're still stupidly long in most cases. And yes, they have been significantly extended despite overwhelmingly opposed responses to official public consultations.
  This is an area where the government remarkably frequently seems to find itself required to implement some unpopular law because of some treaty or other agreement within one of the relevant international bodies. (Establishing the influence of that same government, or any unelected representatives it may have sent, on negotiating those treaties or other international agreements is left as an exercise for the reader.)
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
2. Re:History of copyright duration by dryeo · 2016-07-07 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Too lazy to look up the numbers but the USA followed GB/UK copyright terms until around the beginning of the 20th century. The first modern copyright law was the Statute of Anne in 1703 or so, long name something like An Act to Promote Learning... which was 14+14 with a grandfather clause, the need for registration and leaving a copy at Oxford or Cambridge IIRC.
  What was interesting is that right from the beginning the Stationers (publishers of the day) were pushing for unlimited, "For the Authours" even though their business model was much like today, buy all the rights for a pittance and sell it forever. It was actually the unelected House of Lords that forced the limited time, returning works to the public domain to promote education (The Arts and Sciences in the US). When the first copyrights expired there was a bunch of court cases where the publishers claimed a common law right to copyright that luckily they lost.
  There was also some interesting speeches made in the House of Lords against the copyright extension act in the 19th century but as the elected house got more power, there was more corruption leading to to-days outrageous lengths of copyright.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Great by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 12:32 · Score: 0

So 10 years in jail for petty theft, awesome.
What a great justice system that eats in the hands of so called copyright holders.
What is original content? by radarskiy · 2016-07-06 12:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

In 1998, Ray Repp sued Andrew Lloyd Webber for plagiarism, based on the similarities between Phantom of the Opera and an earlier work by Repp. Instead, the court found similarities between Repp's work and an even earlier piece by Lloyd Webber.
There are only 12 semi-tones in Western scales. How can anything be original?
1. Re:What is original content? by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-07-06 16:07 · Score: 2
  
  There are only 12 semi-tones in Western scales. How can anything be original?
  There are only 10 digits in decimal representations of numbers. How can any number be unique? That statement seems nonsensical.
  To put it another way, suppose the most recognizable element of music is the melody (as court rulings generally use to determine copyright infringement), and suppose just an average first phrase of 15 notes. That's enough (12^15) for every human who has ever lived to compose thousands and thousands of unique melodies. If the main constraint is 12 notes, there are a LOT of possibilities for "originality."
  Of course the size of the scale has little to do with it. Music is built on recognizable patterns and our brains have a real knack for matching similar motives even if the notes or intervals are not quite the same. Moreover, the vast majority of randomly chosen patterns from the 12-note chromatic scale sound like nonsense, just like randomly chosen strings of letters (only 26!) are mostly gibberish. Western tonal music is built mostly on a 7-note scale, but real melodies that " make sense" also tend to conform to a multitude of standard conventions about rhythm, form of melody, how repeated motives/notes are employed, etc.
  Fun fact: scientists in the 1600s made major advances in the field of combinatorics (which was a new branch of math) by trying to enumerate all possible songs. They quickly found how vast that number is... But most don't make sense... (See Mersenne for example.)
  The limited scale is one constraint, but by itself is doesn't limit unique melodies very much at all.
2. Re:What is original content? by sjames · 2016-07-06 17:12 · Score: 2
  
  George Harrison got sued over 3 notes. The case wound on so long that by the time there was a ruling, he owned copyright on both works anyway.
  So apparently the standard is based on the number of 3 note combinations available. Worse, simple transpositions are likely to sound very similar to most ears.
3. Re:What is original content? by hackwrench · 2016-07-06 18:31 · Score: 2
  
  You start out with a statement then proceed to argue against it.
  
  Statement: The size of the scale has little to do with it. (It presumably being whether something is original)
  To that, I add the following restriction: A composition is only considered a "real" composition if people will listen to it.
  Counter-statement: Non-Western scales have more notes in their scales.
  
  Arguments you made:
  Argument 1: Music is built on recognizable patterns and our brains have a real knack for matching similar motives even if the notes or intervals are not quite the same.
  Conclusion a reasonable person would draw: If the notes or intervals are not quite the same, if the motives are similar, the music is not original.
  Effect on your statement and the counterstatement: Scales with more notes in them have more room to be original, thus making it more likely that the size of the scale has something to do with it.
  Argument 2:Moreover, the vast majority of randomly chosen patterns from the 12-note chromatic scale sound like nonsense, just like randomly chosen strings of letters (only 26!) are mostly gibberish.
  Supports my additional restriction.
  Further reduces the amount of space in the scale that meets the conditions.
  
  ...but by itself is doesn't limit unique melodies very much at all.
  Changes the original conditions far more that my restriction and I assert that my restriction is closer to the spirit of the original comment.
4. Re: What is original content? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Using any of 12 semi tones assumes that much of the potential music will be like that of Schoenberg which would not work as popular music. For popular music the choices are much more limited, although still large.
  However, if you changed just one note in a fifteen note would that be different enough?
5. Re:What is original content? by tomxor · 2016-07-07 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  ...To put it another way, suppose the most recognizable element of music is the melody (as court rulings generally use to determine copyright infringement), and suppose just an average first phrase of 15 notes. That's enough (12^15) for every human who has ever lived to compose thousands and thousands of unique melodies. If the main constraint is 12 notes, there are a LOT of possibilities for "originality."
  cmon... don't be so naive. It's not measured by absolute uniqueness, otherwise you can change one note, one pixel, one frame, one character in a line of code... Because that would allow arbitrary and intentionally minimaly modified versions of other artists work to not be covered by copyright infringement laws. That's why in court these types of cases are always evaluated on some arbitrary "similarity" basis, it's pure opinion, creativity just isn't objective enough to fit neatly into the constraints of the simplified logic of law.
Lock up the entire world by BlytheBowman · 2016-07-06 13:14 · Score: 1

Lets just lock everybody up, and if someone can prove they have no criminal tendancies, then release him/her. Much easier that way. Good day and Sieg Heil.
Killing Michael Jackson: 2 years jail time... by mutherhacker · 2016-07-06 13:51 · Score: 2

Downloading his music? 10 years!
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10...
Pretty absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 14:10 · Score: 0

Remember when Happy Birthday was copyrighted? By law anyone who posted a birthday celebration on Facebook could have incriminated their friends and family for prison setences. Piracy is good for the economy allowing many to afford school books and a culture education they couldn't. This results in better art being made.
What more proof does anyone need by jenningsthecat · 2016-07-06 14:22 · Score: 2

that politicians and lawmakers consider themselves beholden only to lobby groups and corporations:
"But, even though the vast majority of the responses urged the authorities not to up the prison term, lawmakers decided otherwise."
The electorate? Fuck'em. That's what governments say, and they're starting to say it more and more openly. Citizens around the world need leashes on their 'leaders' - and for at least the worst offenders, I'm NOT speaking figuratively.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Why not up it to 100? by bronney · 2016-07-06 17:17 · Score: 1

If the goal is to deter why not up it to 200? What's the logic behind 10 or 25?
1. Re:Why not up it to 100? by SuricouRaven · 2016-07-06 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Because ten years is the sentence for counterfeiting of physical goods. The industry lobbyists argued that the sentence should be the same for uploading a film as for selling a fake DVD.
Damn! by Nethead · 2016-07-06 19:03 · Score: 1

Cross off another country to move to if Trump wins.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
1. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  I hear North Korea is quite democratic this time of year.
Another Insultation in the UK by hughbar · 2016-07-06 19:08 · Score: 2

I call these things 'insultations' now. The government (national or local) asks a question, we waste time formulating reasoned answers and then they do something else after saying something like 'we are concerned by your issues'. There's a huge disconnect between UK government/Westminster (in principle, our 'representatives') and the people now, part of the reason for the recent surprising Brexit vote, it was probably just anger, in many cases, not a real desire to leave.

--
On y va, qui mal y pense!
copyright, patent vs jail time= same time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 22:57 · Score: 0

Hmmm, if the copyright/patent is good for lets say 10 years, and you get 10 years in jail for violation of the copyright/patent, then you will get out of jail just as the copyright/patent expires! What good timing..... I would presume if you go to jail in the 9th year of the copyright/patent that you'd only stay in jail for a 1 to 2 years and then get paroled since the copyright/patent expired.
Not Pirates by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-06 23:40 · Score: 0

Morons and shills are unable to tell the difference between piracy and copyright infringement.
Harsh punishment by lapm · 2016-07-06 23:55 · Score: 1

10 years from imaginary damages? Thats grazy...
who knew that by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 00:49 · Score: 0

"Little Brother" was apparently a documentary?
public consultation theatre in the UK also eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 01:38 · Score: 1

Yeah. We have public consultation theatre here in Canada too.
The government spends millions of our dollars to get our opinions and then tells us to go sod off because they are going to do what their corporate masters tell them to do anyway.
But we feel better because they cared enough to ask.
Torrent = Content discovery by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-07 04:32 · Score: 0

Moronic. I pay for TV. But I torrent it because it's more convenient and portable. Sometimes I find shows that I would never have found, like Louis CK's Horace and Pete. Then I'm buying content on louisck.net. Stupid obstruction of commerce.