Thanks Thanks:  1
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Respected alanjg007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,311
    Post Thanks
    Chats
    0
    Rep Power
    72

    New proposals to make online copyright infringement punishable by ten years in jail

    New proposals to make online copyright infringement punishable by ten years in jail risks punishing users who share links and files online more harshly than ordinary, physical theft.

    Prison for filesharers

    In the past file sharers have been threatened with criminal charges, depsite not seeking any financial gain or running a business. They may be misguided, but we have to ask whether they are really posing a risk to the public and therefore deserving a criminal conviction. Now in 2015 the Intellectual Property Office are suggesting people like them should face the posssiblity of a 10-year jail sentence.
    What to say


    • Until the offence requires intent, long sentences are an inappropriate threat. The IPO should recommend to change the law to require intent.
    • Businesses and individuals may refrain from legitimate activities because of the worry of extremely harsh setences
    • There are already criminal offences that deal with organized online infringers such as “conspiracy to defraud’
    • Copyright should be enforced, but it should not involve harsher sentences than other kinds of crimes.
    • There is no separation in the offence between different kinds of infringement, which opens the possibility of other kinds of copying, such as excessive quotation or incidental use, being included.
    • I ask for the sentence to be left as it stands.



    As the Government puts copyright sentencing under review, they want to hear your what you've got to say. And with only 1 question, Hidden Content .


    Background: what’s the situation?

    The IPO has a consultation on proposals to increase the maximum prison sentence for criminal online copyright infringement to 10 years, aiming to match sanctions for online copyright infringement with physical copyright infringement. The logic being that similar offences should attract similar penalties—regardless of the platform used.

    Whilst we agree with the IPO's logic, their proposals are problematic. The existing offence they are referring to, as outlined in section 107 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, can be brought against both:

    • Criminals who deliberately infringe copyright by operating filesharing services; and
    • People who share links and files so that they “affect prejudicially” the copyright owner.



    This second offence is not only vague and broad in definition, but also requires no consideration of the intent of the offender.

    It would be easy for a few misguided people to be caught up in this law. For those who share their karaoke songs with no criminal intent, to be threatened with the kind of lengthy sentence that hardened thieves and violent offenders often escape is just inappropriate. It also places excessive power in the hands of copryight enforcement organisations, who can claim to such individuals that their estimations of financial damage could result in a possible jail sentence.

    Similarly, businesses who operate legitimately may be worried or threatened because of this “strict liability” offence. They cannot argue that they have no intention to harm. The stakes are very high.

    ORG believes that if the IPO want to change the sentencing, they have to reform the underlying offence.

    The question we have to ask is, are these people a risk to the public?

    Hidden Content
    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken

    "The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog" - Carl Jung

    Nexus 7 wifi 32gb 1st Gen XenonHD-4.4.2 Build 1
    HTC one x cm-11-20140205-NIGHTLY-endeavoru

  2. #2
    Member nihilist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks
    Chats
    0
    Rep Power
    0
    It's always a good idea to use a VPN for all your online activities

  3. #3
    veteran Chimaera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Age
    60
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks
    Chats
    0
    Rep Power
    17
    It will just end up being another round of spank the end user.

    Its fine if they want to go after the big boys that crack the files of rip them etc they understand the risks in what they do. But they wont do this because its costly...

    A 14 yr old in her bedroom sharing a film because all her m8s did it has no conception of what she is doing. But they will do this because its easy money for them...

    Chasing sites because they hold links to downloads is stupid, surely shouldnt we be taking google down because it holds links to downloads ? and yahoo, bing etc.

    With the new laws being passed atmo it will become even more easy for them to know what you are doing.

    My advice be really carefully from now on

  4. Thanks VENTURE thanked for this post
  5. #4
    veteran Spinifex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    nowhere near berley
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks
    Chats
    12
    Rep Power
    135
    wheres the dislike button... but we knew this was going to happen one day. i think p2p should be completly closed down for many reasons and it isnt just for mp3s n movies now is it!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Jail break for iPhone 3? Old iOS?
    By swan2012 in forum Jailbreaking
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 10:35 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-12-2010, 05:28 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 10:16 PM
  4. Man escapes jail for sex attacks
    By y2krog2000 in forum Main Site News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-08-2007, 10:53 AM
  5. paris hilton out of jail
    By notanotherone in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 24-06-2007, 05:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •