Slashdot Mirror
Digital Economy Act: Illegal Kodi Streams Could Now Land Users In Prison For 10 Years (independent.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: The Digital Economy Act has passed into law, meaning people could now face ten-year prison sentences for illegally streaming copyrighted content. It covers a wide number of areas, including broadband speeds, access to online pornography and government data-sharing. However, amid the rising popularity of Kodi, an increase to the maximum prison term -- from two years to ten -- for people guilty of copyright infringement is particularly interesting. Anyone caught streaming TV shows, films and sports events illegally using websites, torrents and Kodi add-ons could technically face a decade behind bars. However, the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content, FACT CEO Kieron Sharp told the Mirror. The Independent also notes in a separate report that The Digital Economy Act could allow UK police to "remotely disable mobile phones, even before the user actually commits a crime." The Digital Economy Act "contains a section stating that officers will be able to place restrictions on handsets that they believe are being used by drug dealers," reports The Independent.
The UK is becoming a country of populism and a police state.
Comes ten years in the slammer for sharing a copy of are you being served. Wtf
Everyone on the Internet are law-abiding citizens. This shouldn't be a problem.
Not in freedom loving America.
Brexit seems more and more like a positive thing for each day that passes. By the time May is done Australia will be sending its delinquents over there instead.
Leave it to the UK to treat the movie "Minority Report" as a template to governance.
FTA "However, the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content,"
No, it will be used against average people if prosecutors find it in their interest. It simply becomes another tool in the toolbox. Just like terrorism laws. I am willing to bet that anti-terrorism laws are used far more often to elevate ordinary crimes (or even non-crimes) than they are used to prosecute genuine acts or threats of terrorism. I had a family member sit as a juror on a trial where a disgruntled employee making a drunken threatening phone call to a boss was charged with "Conveying a terrorist threat."
> However, the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content
False. It will be used against people that have angered the government or any individual in the bureaucracy.
So lets get this right, you watch something illegal and get 10 yrs. Kill someone and get 7 yrs and out in 3 yrs for good behaviour.
Here I have a bunch of digital films. These are films I have bought the digital rights to. I have a phone and a mini-projector. Apparently, I am no longer allowed to stream content from phone to external device. Excuse me?
WTF???
So at this point, I am nearly ready to capitulate and start just pirating movies as it's so much !@#$% easier than dealing with the legitimate channels.
This article isn't about bitcoin. At all.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Does this mean that streaming video (that is there illegally) from youtube could land you in jail?
Would this make Google an accessory to that crime for facilitating it?
Nice summary! (Not!) Doesn't even mention the UK until the third paragraph.
Rupert Murdoch has been propping up a lame Government with his Satellite channel Sky (thing Faux News) and the Sun (think national enquirer). This anti-competitive law is his reward.
Private, for profit prisons.
I myself have been known to use stream. I however am not a freetard, I pay for my content, BT sport, Sky Sports, Netflx, spotify you name it I have and pay for those services.
So why do I stream, some content. Because inspite paying for every legal and legitamate service going sometimes the content I want to watch simple is not available via any other method. My son is a big Manchester city fan, he wanted to watch a recent match but it was not telivised on any UK service. But if you lived abroad you could get it. Streams to the rescue and he was able to watch the match.This is true of a lot of people I know as there are many matches that you simply can not watch via any other method.
The premier leage only allows just under half of matches to be telivised live, got a 3pm saturday match (A very commonly used slot)? well that wont be shown anywhere in the UK.
Make them available on a legal method (prefferably using one of the ones im already paying for) and I wont need to use the streams, this stops more people becoming exposed to them and using them for other thngs (movies / tv that they coould get legally). You wont ever totally kill it off but stop pushing joe average into the world of streaming because he has no other choice.
For some reason my father had a Rolf Harris album and he played the hell out of it when I was a kid. I had a moment later in life when I saw some mention of "the wet" on some nature show, and flashed back to the song "In The Wet" and realize I had not known what it was about when I was a dumb kid.
This article outlines what fascism is, how it is growing in the 21st Century United Kingdom, how it has nothing to offer working people and how we can combat it.
https://libcom.org/thought/fas...
If they start making watching media content a dangerous and hostile environment where you're not sure if what you're watching is illegal or not, people are just going to move away from said media and find some other form of entertainment.
They're literally just shooting themselves in the foot with these laws.
Hey what do I know though, right?
I tend to rant.
In a district near you!
Wow, it only took 17 minutes before someone could find a way to whine about Trump. In an article about streaming movies in the UK.
Let's shit on nerds.
Ask yourself: 2 years of prison. Imagine this, just for a moment.
Now imagine 10 years of prison.
Now answer me one question: Do 10 years of prison really scare you more than 2 years? Does it? If so, you probably already know what prison is like and only worry about losing more time of your life. For everyone how hasn't, probably the threat of spending a DAY with hardened criminals is already scary enough to make them ponder.
Does anyone honestly think that the average copyright infringer's train of thought goes "For 2 years I'll watch that show, but for 10, hell no!"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gen years for downloading g a file? That's a lot more than burglars in the U.K. get, though not as much as a homeowner who injures a burglar by resisting.
So you're guaranteed more prison time for watching a movie without paying whichever member of nobility seeks rent for that privilege than you are if you rape and murder a small child. Why we aren't rounding up these politicians and the lobbyists who write these laws and placing them in prison (or worse), I have no idea. We live in a truly fucked society.
All you "pay your fair share" types who want to raise taxes?
You want to give this type of government even more money and power.
How about thinking instead?
"I swear that the consequences will be horrible!! Never even think about doing that!". I said it before and say it again: piracy is clearly winning. At least, this is what the big corporations think by expecting their greedy and detached from reality gains to be maintained no matter what. They are being so short-sighted that seriously believe that forcing consumers to do what they want is an option, that they are actually in charge!!
And how are they expecting all the viewers to know if they are actually doing what the authors want? Shall I do a deep research about a given film, the distributing companies, its author, review all the associated legal documentation, etc. before starting watching it? And what about if I make an error or get fouled by a dark-hearted projectionist and involuntarily watch an illegal movie? And what about if a given site is doing everything legally in appearance form, but they are actually pirating? And what about if various parties claim that they are doing the right thing? How can I, as a user, care about all this and be eventually responsible for it?
Or even better, how are they expecting to apply such a nonsense? According to some surveys, around half of the population is regularly enjoying pirated multimedia content, are they planning to put half of (UK's) population in jail for 10 years? Wouldn't that provoke a much higher expense (for big companies/capital and for everyone)? Just having one person in jail or even just going through the judicial process might imply serious expenses not just for that person, but also for the local/regional/national government. So, that person isn't paying £5 for a movie and, to compensate it, you provoke an additional £100 and this person (+ other persons not liking all this) doing all what is in their hands to never pay again. Yes, this seems a perfectly logical, realistic and sensible proceeding. I am now so afraid of what might happen that will stop consuming any kind of audiovisual material, just in case. LOL.
DISCLAIMER: I am not defending piracy, but common sense, honesty and fairness. I am also showing the only logical-to-me behaviour against mobster-wannabes trying to scare people as a way to allow their unreasonable expectations to prevail: making fun of their ridiculous nonsense.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
The US leads the first and second world in percent of its population in prison. The vast majority are for drug-related offenses, and the longer sentences don't impact recidivism, and might actually drive it. Seriously, the US beats North Korea in this.
Now the UK seems to want to grab that shitty prize, and "lead" the developed world. The law is not going to reduce rates. It is not going to return value to citizens, but every government is always in debt to its corporate masters, and this serves the agendas of the oligopolies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/IncarcRecid.pdf
Fucking wankers. Lets buy politicians by the bucket, shall ya?
Dog shave the Queen...
That will teach them to not become pirates or witches! When they have no eyes, they can not watch our Holy Movies without a ticket! On topic: for the last 20 to 15 years for the first time in history we are witnessing a deterioration of the human state and human states. Fought for freedoms have been lost and while media has become much faster and could be much more powerful, we see that a lot of media is actually knowingly or unknowingly part of a propaganda-machinery and most of them are no more than vehicles to deliver commercials to the viewer. These are harsh times. A modern black age.
Why people continue to give money and support these industries is beyond me.
What would you get for shoplifting the same movie? Of course, you'd still get that nasty DRM on the disc and would have to jump through hoops to play it on a Windows 10 or OSX machine, so maybe you should shoplift a DVD player while you're there.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Lol who gives a flying fuck about the UK, anybody who still lives there is retarded as fuck.
"However, the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content"
Most likely is not a hard legal limit, if that was the intention they should have defined it as such in the law's script
...TWO: Watching a copyrighted work on a stream without paying gets you ten years in prison.
No. The people sending the streaming are liable. This particular law doesn't cover people receiving a stream.
The Independent article is little ambiguous. Check out the techradar article http://www.techradar.com/news/... :
"Individual end-users of Kodi boxes are unlikely to be affected by the Digital Economy Act as streaming is not covered by the act. Instead individuals and businesses who sell the full-loaded boxes are the main targets. "
The law itself only talks about the people doing the streaming (in the phrasing of the law, "infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public, if the person knows or has reason to believe that infringing copyright in the work.") However-- and this may be the key point-- the European Court of Justice has ruled that this includes selling the multimedia players which have pre-installed links to pirate websites.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There is nuance, the maximum prison term has increased but it doesn't mean you will get 10 years for watching your favorite TV series on a illegal streaming website. Judges are not complete morons, and when minor copyright cases go to judgment, the sentence typically ends up being a reasonable fine.
I believe the point isn't what should happen with these laws, it's what can.
Here in the US we have the DMCA, which was intended to keep people from copying movies. And is now currently being used by John Deere to keep anyone other than John Deere from fixing tractors.
You have to consider when you make a legal ruling that is broad exactly how it might be abused. If it is possible to get 10 years for watching TV illegally, you know that someone will get 10 years for it eventually. Judges are like any other group of people. Gather a few dozen together and it's a safe bet at least one will be an asshole.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Anyone who broadcasts video game streams is affected (they don't have licenses to the game they're streaming).
So it's now that when the cops arrive at your door, killing the officers and running is a better option.
Lawmakers today are the enemy of the people and need to be treated as such.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out in comments above. This is not about actually punishing the copyright infringement. Me thinks that the actual purpose of the law is to be able to jail regime critics. Since practically everyone is guilty of this victimless non-crime, and evidence (logs, illegally "legally" intercepted data, etc) can be easily manufactured in bulk by scripts, heh.
It kinda looks like a convenient way to be able to disappear anyone who displeases the people with connections?
Hey, editors: Comments on news laws are meaningless with a description of where they apply.
IE we are yet again going to pass an overly-broad law and place "correct interpretation of what we REALLY meant" in the hands of people whose jobs is NOT to guess as to the intent of the law.
Just peachy. I really wish they would stop doing that. (and we know how effective wishes are!)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Could the lawmaker be charged with spreading terrorism?
It would be nice if one didn't have to read to the end of the summary to find out that this applies to the UK. Though I'm a bit surprised it is in there at all.
... films consume YOU!
Now I wonder, which countrymen would be so navel-gazing that they wouldn't specify their country because they believe everything of importance is about them?
Punching someone in the face is less antisocial than movie piracy. I can't believe we're not hanging these black-hearted pirates that corrupt our children and steal profits away from movie studios and distributors.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
France? Quebec? England (but not including the U.K.)? Texas (but not including most of the U.S.)?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I was obviously referring to Americans.
Only the PotUS and the Gov of your state are allowed to grant pardons and commutations, which in a lot of cases is what a plea deal is. The DA over-charges so that the person will plead down. Isn't that person being pardoned for the original charge?
The way it is supposed to work is a Grand Jury hears the evidence and then recommends whether to make a charge. At that point, the DA should have to try the person for that charge, not play Monte Hall.
And yes, it does sound like a police state.
Because after all, I am Carmen Ortiz and stealing is stealing.......except when I turn a blind eye to when cops and the gubment do it. Oh and my buddies.
Be more explicit next time, there are Americans here.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
politicians for that.
People will have to pool their income to give payola to politicians to stop laws lie this.