Slashdot Mirror
UK Bill Introduces 10 Year Prison Sentence for Online Pirates (torrentfreak.com)
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.
Now if they're impose the same criminal penalties for interfering with fair use, we'd be all set.
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!
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.
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...
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
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?
Haven't the British been going after pirates for hundreds of years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
For what purpose?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
source
Is this really worse than rape?
. . . 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. . .
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
You wouldn't steal a handbag...
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Get less time for shoplifting and there they have hard evidence.
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.
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.
None. If 5 notes of music is enough to claim IP theft, Disney hasn't a creation to bring to market.
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?
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.
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.
Downloading his music? 10 years!
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10...
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.
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
5 notes in all keys on all instruments does seem overly broad.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
If the goal is to deter why not up it to 200? What's the logic behind 10 or 25?
Cross off another country to move to if Trump wins.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
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!
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.
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.
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.
10 years from imaginary damages? Thats grazy...
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.
what about the same note 5 times in a row?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Sounds like the start to Maria from West Side Story.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Exactly what I thought.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, because there's more at stake in these cases than public amusement.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.