Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MP Says 'Failed' Piracy Warnings Should Escalate To Fines & Jail

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the everyone-is-a-criminal dept.

Piracy 135

An anonymous reader writes with news that, not long after UK ISPs agreed to send piracy notices (Voluntary Copyright Alerts Program), thoughts have already turned toward adding criminal penalties. From the article: Prime Minister David Cameron's IP advisor believes that the carrot needs to be backed up by a stick. In a report published yesterday largely detailing the "Follow the Money" approach to dealing with pirate sites, Mike Weatherley MP says now is the time to think about VCAP’s potential failure. "The Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP) is welcomed and will be a good step forward once it is hopefully in operation in 2015, although it is primarily an education tool," Weatherley says. ... "Warnings and fines are obvious first steps, with Internet access blocking and custodial sentencing for persistent and damaging infringers not to be ruled out in my opinion." These suggestions aren't new, but this is the second time in a matter of months that the Prime Minister's closest advisor on IP matters has spoken publicly about the possibility of putting persistent file-sharers in jail.

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Carrots are better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324753)

Carrots are way better than sticks when it comes to dining, learning and pirating.

Even better idea: (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47325087)

Let's have Parliament put a law into place that warns him whenever he incorporates someone else's ideas and philosophies in his speeches, and after the third time, put him in jail.

After all, can't have him "pirating" other peoples' intellectual property, now can we?

Re:Even better idea: (4, Insightful)

kbrannen (581293) | about 3 months ago | (#47325435)

How about we follow the money for him to see if he's getting "contributions" to say this. Perhaps that's why he's using other's ideas.

Re:Even better idea: (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 3 months ago | (#47325597)

How about we follow the money for him to see if he's getting "contributions" to say this. Perhaps that's why he's using other's ideas.

Remember, it's not bribery, it's a licensing fee.

How about Failed Policy warnings... (3, Insightful)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 3 months ago | (#47324773)

From the constituency who agree prisons trump paper from Politicians

One rule for the plebes another for the politician (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 3 months ago | (#47324777)

When politicians running for election start getting in real trouble for stealing songs and images to use in their promotional material then they can start to think about applying this to the little people.

Re:One rule for the plebes another for the politic (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325333)

Little people laws don't apply to "the elite", whether they be government or just rich.

That won't work (2)

phorm (591458) | about 3 months ago | (#47326031)

"Hey [music company], I'd like to use [song] in my campaign. I'm sure a nice company like you would be happy to support me in this manner"

The only time the music company might go after a politician for it is if he/she is using said material and is pro copyright-reform (a.k.a not in their pockets)

Re:One rule for the plebes another for the politic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47327119)

> When politicians running for election start getting in real trouble for stealing songs

It is very rare for a poilitician to use unlicensed songs because the venues they play them at all have BMI and ASCAP licenses. [npr.org]

That often leads to them making egregious mistakes in their music choice - the most common one is for republicans to play Springsteen's "Born in the USA" which is a straight-up critique of policies that are traditionally associated with republicans. But it is set to a catchy hook and that's all the politicians know (kind of symbolic in fact).

False Warnings? (5, Insightful)

DERoss (1919496) | about 3 months ago | (#47324787)

How about a fine and prison for making a false complaint or warning about a copyright violation?

Re:False Warnings? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 3 months ago | (#47324983)

If they could find a way to imprison a corpoation, I'd immigrate to the UK tomorrow!

Re:False Warnings? (3, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | about 3 months ago | (#47324991)

Stop allowing the perpetrators to hide behind the corporate veil.

Re:False Warnings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325667)

This. "Limited liability" should be replaced by optional liability insurance for corporations.

Re:False Warnings? (3, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47326055)

"Limited liability" should be replaced by optional liability insurance for corporations.

Or just go back to "basics" where "limited liability" means that the shareholders (owners) have no liability to cover the debts of a failed corporate entity. The original idea was to encourage people in invest in business, with the knowlage that at worst they'd just lose the money they had put in. Protecting either the company or it's officers/executives is a much more modern interpretation.

Re:False Warnings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47327251)

"Limited liability" should be replaced by optional liability insurance for corporations.

Or just go back to "basics" where "limited liability" means that the shareholders (owners) have no liability to cover the debts of a failed corporate entity. The original idea was to encourage people in invest in business, with the knowlage that at worst they'd just lose the money they had put in. Protecting either the company or it's officers/executives is a much more modern interpretation.

No, we don't even need that.
1) If you own stock in a corporation that does something bad, you deserve to pay everyone back just as much as you would have deserved any dividends.
2) Insurance companies would offer liability insurance for shareholders too.

The bottom line is that it's simply not OK to do bad things and get away with it, even if you're just paying a middleman to do it for you, or if allowing it would encourage you to invest. Due diligence while investing should include "is this corporation an enormous vampire?"

Re:False Warnings? (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47325107)

If they could find a way to imprison a corpoation, I'd immigrate to the UK tomorrow!

That's easy if you think about it: imprison the board of directors whenever there is sufficient malfeasance to warrant such a punishment. They hold shared responsibility for the company's actions (and benefits thereof), so let them share the consequences.

Re:False Warnings? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325365)

Its not going to happen. The corporations own the government... bought and paid for.

Re:False Warnings? (3, Informative)

Bengie (1121981) | about 3 months ago | (#47325229)

Seems simple to me. Find the people in the corp that are responsible for the dept that does such heinous acts, then imprison all of them, all the way up to the top. Take 100% responsibility for your actions and those beneath you. If you don't want to take responsibility, then have a paper-trail backing you up showing that you tried to stop them.

Re:False Warnings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325429)

I couldn't find a proper translation of the word but in Sweden there is something called "Näringsförbud". It is essentially a disqualification from running a company that can be used on people who have a tendency to use a company to commit crimes. It mostly used on people who commits tax fraud.

The alternative I would like to see would be to forbid the company from doing business for a time equivalent of what the prison sentence would be.
I suspect the quarterly reports might take a hit if you can't do any transactions for a couple of moths.

Re:False Warnings? (2)

Safety Cap (253500) | about 3 months ago | (#47325899)

The alternative I would like to see would be to forbid the company from doing business for a time equivalent of what the prison sentence would be.

Imagine if the US wasn't bought and paid for? If an oil company poisoned the gulf like what happened with the Deepwater Horizon (11 dead and massive damage to the fishing industry and the environment), the US government would simply pull its charter and be done with it [gwu.edu] : that company would cease to exist.

All the other corporations would thereafter straighten up and fly right, lest the same thing happen to them. (Or they would try to buy the government and defang it like it is now).

Re:False Warnings? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 3 months ago | (#47325483)

How about a fine and prison for making a false complaint or warning about a copyright violation?

Honestly, I don't know why companies don't do this. If I was Google, I'd charge like $1000 for every false/incorrect DMCA notice delivered. If the person/company refused to pay,then I would stop processing DMCA notices from that person/company.

Re:False Warnings? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47325841)

Except, compliance with DMCA and the like is a requirement to have safe harbor provisions.

So it is more in the interests of companies to say "we don't give a damn", than it is for them to determine if something is true or false.

That was how the law was written by the corporations who wanted it -- "comply with us, and you're OK. Don't and we'll have the government hurt you".

There's simply no incentive for Google et al to give a damn if the claims are true or not -- that is for your lawyer to determine at your expense.

Re:False Warnings? (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 3 months ago | (#47326781)

Better idea: Just get rid of the damn DMCA takedowns and force companies to go to court if they want something taken down.

Re:False Warnings? (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47325983)

How about a fine and prison for making a false complaint or warning about a copyright violation?

If they are (or acting on the specific authority of) the copyright holder then that should have the effect of placing the work in question in the public domain.
If they are not then treat them as "pirates". Regardless of their complain/warning had any validity at all.

Totally clueless (5, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47324789)

Hey, that guy illegally downloaded a movie that's worth 20$ on DVD.

Let's put him in jail, costing the government thousands of dollars per year.

Re:Totally clueless (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324817)

Hell, why not. It's only your money after all, and their donors have mouths to feed and coke to snort.

Re:Totally clueless (1)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 3 months ago | (#47324835)

If it costs the government thousands of dollars a year, maybe the UK should just look into jailing anyone accused of filesharing, even without proof. Bankrupting the government would be a very effective way to plan for a possible re-election of Mike Weatherley as an MP, and would be 100% effective against piracy to boot, in that if the government goes bankrupt the people will be too busy rioting in the streets to pirate anything.

Re:Totally clueless (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324847)

You miss the bigger picture, that costs the taxpayers money, the movie industry doesnt have to pay for incarceration.
Of course they still working on making remembering a movie a copyright violation

Re:Totally clueless (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47324873)

I'm in security. And once security costs more than the asset you're trying to protect, it's time to stop protecting the asset. If your insurance costs more than the asset it insures, wouldn't you cancel it immediately?

And the cost for protecting copyright has outdone the damage done by infringement a long, long time ago.

Re:Totally clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325031)

And once security costs more than the asset you're trying to protect

Of course since corporations can sucker governments into covering their insurance for free (aside from the occasional bribe__political_contribution it does not matter to them.

Re:Totally clueless (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47326089)

Of course since corporations can sucker governments into covering their insurance for free (aside from the occasional bribe__political_contribution it does not matter to them.

This is likely to continue to be the case so long as lobbying/bribing costs are less than what the actual "insurance premiums" would be.

Re:Totally clueless (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#47325091)

Luckily for the IP industry, the cost of lobbying a few key people is much smaller then the cost to the government for enforcement.

I also can not help but notice that when studios infringe other people's copyrights, those cases still have to be fought at the expense of the prosecuting party.

Re:Totally clueless (1)

rroman (2627559) | about 3 months ago | (#47324979)

Re:Totally clueless (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 3 months ago | (#47325015)

The article talks about the UK, but I guess the costs are very similar.

Re:Totally clueless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325105)

Are you suggesting they should get the death sentence instead? lol

Re:Totally clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325149)

In a way, they could make a profit from it IF they made better prisons.

That is, I speak of prisons that make money.
There are many industries where inmates could work and still get a pay, as well as fund the prison, without putting them, others, the staff or eventual customers in any sort of trouble or harm.

The problem there is they might try start forcing more people in such prisons in order to make money for the government, claim "we are fixing this country" and everyone will cheer.
Governments always lead to corruption above a regional level in most countries. (regions being things such as counties, prefectures or similar where it encompasses multiple towns near to each other. )
That will only be solved by way more transparency and smaller governments that are all accountable to EACH OTHER. (essentially what councils in regions are like now.)
So many other things, but this would be the foundations and is also going off in a bit of a tangent now.

But yeah, it is pretty damn stupid.
The government love wasting money and blaming minorities.
Damn the disabled, bunch of lying junkies they are! Meanwhile at Jobseekers Allowance, junkies, junkies everywhere.
I think disability (including incapacity) cost them around a billion a year, where as JSA cost them literally 120 times that. Priorities.
And now they are trying to destroy the NHS, one of the best damn health systems in the world, because they think it is inefficient and expensive. It is about middleground in terms of price, America, Norway and Canada were some of the most expensive and poorest performance.
Fuck this government. I can't wait till they are gone. Atrocious bastards they are.
Needs a witchhunt to also get people like the above kicked out as well, those absolute should-have-been-cumstains that get paid off by companies. Take your lobbying and shove it. (or we will go independent and make your country poor again)

Re: Totally clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325407)

It's emphatically not worth $20.

wmd on credit corepirate nazis very afraid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324791)

delete all of us contrary unchosens is the standing order? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather+wake+up

We keep getting closer to a dystopia (4, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 3 months ago | (#47324803)

Prosecutor,"Yah, you're going to jail for downloading some crappy movie."

You,"But I never downloaded that movie."

Prosecutor,"Lets hear your defense."

You,"I run a free wifi spot for people who want to check the net when they're out and about."

Prosecutor,"You should have never said that fellow. You're responsible for what other people do on your router. So lets see what other criminal activities they did before we sentence you to just a couple years of jail."

There's an alternative dialogue that involves a guy who clicks on links he finds on Twitter and Facebook and doesn't realize he watched copyrighted material.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1, Insightful)

Firethorn (177587) | about 3 months ago | (#47324897)

Prosecutor,"You should have never said that fellow. You're responsible for what other people do on your router. So lets see what other criminal activities they did before we sentence you to just a couple years of jail."

Common Carrier protection.

Red flag facts (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47324993)

As I understand relevant statutes, such as the corresponding US statute (17 USC 512), protections like "common carrier" and "safe harbor" stop applying once there exist "red flag" facts that reasonably should alert a provider to a subscriber's wrongdoing. Courts have lately been finding willful blindness [wikipedia.org] when the accused intentionally arranges not to be made aware of "red flag" facts.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47325231)

Can you just declare yourself to be a "common carrier" like that?

Anyway, in this case, this is happening in the UK, where responsibility defaults to the owner of the access point.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47326909)

>Common Carrier protection.

As an individual home user, you have about as much chance of claiming common carrier protection as you do of flapping your arms and flying to the moon.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 3 months ago | (#47325013)

Yeah, we've got this thing with the major ISP (BT) where you can get free wireless at hot spots around the world (FON) by ticking a checkbox that sets aside bandwidth on an open SSID on the router. The IP remains the same, but a claim of responsibility for what other people do with open WiFi gets a "fuck you" to the prosecutor and to hell with the contempt of court.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47325337)

More of a "Excuse me people of the court, but that IP does not belong to me; it belongs to BT. You should have their board of directors here in court, not me, as they are obviously the ones profiting from this breach of law."

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47326221)

Yeah, we've got this thing with the major ISP (BT) where you can get free wireless at hot spots around the world (FON) by ticking a checkbox that sets aside bandwidth on an open SSID on the router. The IP remains the same, but a claim of responsibility for what other people do with open WiFi gets a "fuck you" to the prosecutor and to hell with the contempt of court.

IIRC it isn't just BT doing this sort of thing.
From a technical POV it would be perfectly possible users of the "guest" captive portal to appear to be from a completly different IP address from regular LAN and WLAN users of the router. By putting all that traffic through a VPN connection, rather than the regular NAT.

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1)

sttlmark (737942) | about 3 months ago | (#47325645)

Prosecutor: "You laundered millions of dollars for violent drug cartels."

HSBC Bank: "Yup, sure did. Here's $2 billion. We're good now, right?"

Prosecutor: "You're free to go."

Re:We keep getting closer to a dystopia (1)

phorm (591458) | about 3 months ago | (#47326067)

These days it's more:

Defendant: My router runs a free wifi hot spot to provide internet access for people.
Prosecutor: Your router, you're liable for all the traffic
Defendant: But my ISP is the one that turned on the hot-spot. I don't even want it!
Prosecutor: Doesn't matter, it's in your house. You're responsible.

This is silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324823)

Why not bypass all of this nonsense and imprison those filthy no-good pirates, without any trial. Its obvious they're all guilty, no proof needed.

*he said sarcastically*

I'd like to know what this moron's bank account looks like.

Re:This is silly (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47325057)

Yes, but as Groucho said, I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

Re:This is silly (1, Offtopic)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47325069)

And this was, of course, meant to go to a completely different thread. I should probably close a few windows...

(actually, it's kind amazing that this doesn't happen more often... now mod this offtopic please. Thanks)

Re:This is silly (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 months ago | (#47325145)

I'd like to know what this moron's bank account looks like.

...would that be before or after the media lobbyists have stopped by his office?

Aww, I read that wrong (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47324843)

For a moment it sounded like asshats sending out frivolous takedown notices via carpet bombing would end up in jail.

Should've known that adding sanity to the mix would be asking too much.

I guess it's different in the UK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324855)

Don't they get a trial or something? Or just 3 strikes go to jail. OK, fine--make it 6. If you get 6 strikes you don't really need a trial by then--clearly you're not getting the message!

Piracy Warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324871)

In these days of ever decreasing government revenues taxpayers money should not be wasted trying to save money for the huge multinationals that HAVE all the money. If corporations want to track down pirates it should by on their own dime. Or else governments should do for corporations what corporations do for government IE say OK "well find your pirates, but it is going to cost you" and charge a markup of %1000 on whatever government expenses are incurred tracking down said pirates.

Re:Piracy Warnings (1)

mellon (7048) | about 3 months ago | (#47325319)

Decreasing government revenues is a choice, not an inevitable outcome of some fundamental change in society. Part of the nature of the decreasing revenue is that we keep moving more and more discretionary spending into corporate welfare, like private prisons. The best part about this is that the worse you treat people in need, the more likely they are to wind up in prison. $$$.

Re:Piracy Warnings (1)

mpe (36238) | about 3 months ago | (#47326255)

In these days of ever decreasing government revenues taxpayers money should not be wasted trying to save money for the huge multinationals that HAVE all the money. If corporations want to track down pirates it should by on their own dime.

Especially gieb that these multinationals often have complex schemes to avoid paying taxes to ANY government. So it's really individuals and small businesses who will be paying here.

Victimless crimes are not felonies (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324891)

Content industries are merely a speck on the surface of the global economy. Why are we devoting so much judicial and legislative time to them?

Re:Victimless crimes are not felonies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325893)

Because media companies are the ones that provide access to voters.

Culture shall be privatized (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324899)

Those sharing culture shall be prosecuted.
The rent-seeking shall continue until you comply.
Please insert your coins into this slot [ ] after reading.
Or you will be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law.

Re:Culture shall be privatized (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325039)

I'd love to do a little ascii art of a coin going into the slot but slashdot sucks balls and can't even accept þ or Ψ.

So sorry, you aren't going to get paid for your post.

The day I go to jail for a copyright violation ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324907)

Yeah, it's better not to finish that statement. Legal-wise.

Profits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324927)

Nothing boost profits quite like lining the pockets of public officials to criminalize a civil offense against your company.

Why not? A crime is a crime (-1, Flamebait)

cornicefire (610241) | about 3 months ago | (#47324933)

If you shoplift N times, you're going to go to jail eventually. If you break into someone's house, you're going to go to jail eventually. The evidence here is clearer than most crimes. We have IP addresses, times and other details that are much more incontrovertible than the evidence we use to put people away for life. So why not? I say that people who are too cheap to pay for content should have to face the consequences.

Re:Why not? A crime is a crime (2)

Lazere (2809091) | about 3 months ago | (#47325021)

First, Copyright infringement is a civil matter and should remain a civil matter. Second, IP address and times are a terrible way to identify a person. With VPNs, proxies, dynamic IP addresses and carrier grade NAT, IP address is about the least reliable way to figure out who is doing something. The evidence we use for theft and breaking and entering is much more solid than the evidence given for Copyright infringement.

Re:Why not? A crime is a crime (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47325379)

Third: these are accusations; there has been no trial. They're saying after you've been accused x times, you go to jail. I think they missed a few steps.

Re:Why not? A crime is a crime (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 3 months ago | (#47326387)

They're saying after you've been accused x times, you go to jail. I think they missed a few steps.

And for that reason alone, there is absolutely no chance this is going anywhere.

No British government is actually going to pass a law saying you can be sent to jail without having your day in court less than a year before a general election. They get enough flak for pushing in that direction with terrorism-related laws that are only used against a tiny number of people in practice, because of the principle and the risk of later abuse, and that's a subject where a significant fraction of the population will give them a free pass for one reason or another.

Even if some British governments might try anyway, the current administration is a coalition, with a junior partner desperate to prove they are still politically relevant in the face of potentially being wiped out for a generation at the next election. A juicy civil liberties debate would play right into their hands.

And even if they did somehow manage to pass such a law, the chances that it would stand up to the inevitable human rights lawsuit the first time anyone actually tried to use it are slim to none.

This is almost certainly just a relatively unknown MP trying to make a name for himself in the run up to the aforementioned general election. In this case, he's pandering to potential donors from Big Media, possibly because there are finally some changes coming into force that make copyright laws (marginally) less anachronistic in the UK and Big Media inevitably don't like them (despite having managed to water them down to being almost meaningless anyway).

Dog in the manger (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47325025)

You insinuate that everyone who infringes copyright is "too cheap to pay for content". So what's the price of a lawfully made copy of the film Song of the South? And what steps should a singer-songwriter take to avoid accidentally rewriting someone else's song (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music)?

Re:Dog in the manger (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47325499)

There's also the issue of "what constitutes infringement?"

I suppose if someone is intentionally seeding a bunch of stuff to some network and writing the .nfo files that go alongside, that could possibly be argued to be criminal infringement (since their copyright abuse would be against many many claimants).

But what of someone hosting an analysis of a song? Part of a song? Using the preview clips off iTunes as a backing track to a home video? Hosting a song they wrote and recorded themselves on their own website, where they sold distribution rights for a different recording to some studio? The problem here is that interpretation of copyright law doesn't just vary from country to country, but from court to court, and you can even have different rulings from the same judge in the same court, due to the fact that copyright is a social contract codified loosely in civil and federal law.

That said, I think the gist of what the MP said was a good idea; the ability to jail someone for widespread commercial infringement of copyright for profit with no remorse after being warned might merit jail time. But at this point, it's not really the copyright infringement that merits the jail time. Plus, we're entering slippery slope territory here: if they do it for the really bad cases, that leads to lobby groups pushing for it to be applied to "pretty bad" cases due to the effectiveness of doing it for the really bad cases, and so the trip to the splashdown begins.

If we could guarantee a lack of corruption and lazy thinking (letting lobbyists and others do the work for you) in government, this would make sense; otherwise, it needs a social solution for a social issue. Save the courts for issues that directly deprive citizens of their rights. And no, a corporation is not a citizen, and getting paid multiple times for creating something is not a right (that's a contractual issue).

Re:Dog in the manger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325509)

He's never going to answer that because he's a shill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
And he would be exposing himself further if he did.

Re:Why not? A crime is a crime (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 3 months ago | (#47325055)

An IP address does not correlate to an individual. I would have thought someone with a user id below 1 million would know that by now.

Follow the chain of (IP, time, MAC) tuples (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47325473)

An (IP address, time) pair correlates to an individual MAC address, so long as the DHCP server at the ISP and the DHCP servers on intermediate NATs log these (IP, time, MAC) tuples. And I seem to remember efforts to force ISPs to either log these tuples or go out of business.

Re:Follow the chain of (IP, time, MAC) tuples (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47326941)

Connecting your MAC directly to the Internet router is quite insane for other reasons. Also, you forget that people are now being forced to run open wifi in their neighborhoods without their knowledge.

Re:Follow the chain of (IP, time, MAC) tuples (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47327477)

Connecting your MAC directly to the Internet router is quite insane for other reasons

Please elaborate.

Also, you forget that people are now being forced to run open wifi in their neighborhoods without their knowledge.

The ISP would be required to keep the same logs for DHCP on open APs that it controls that it keeps for DHCP on its wired service.

Re:Why not? A crime is a crime (0)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47325289)

You're talking about Britain, where they recently let a man convicted with thirteen life sentences leave jail for a weekend and were surprised that he didn't come back.

When was the last time a shoplifter was jailed in Britain? When was the last time a persistent burglar was banned from the Internet?

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324943)

Translation: Clueless old fart talks a lot of shit in some irrelevant old house in London.

Welcome to the oligarchy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47324949)

Where your rights are defined relative to corporate interests.

If it doesn't work... (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 months ago | (#47324999)

Just do it harder. That'll work.

Piratebox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325003)

This will push more and more people OFF the internet entirely if they continue at this rate.

Meshed pirateboxes in the street may well become a thing, especially since it is easy to work with and install. (well, fairly easy, tidy it up guys!)
And as more support is added, it will become even more common.

They are dooming themselves.
Fix your fucking industry and stop screwing over your potential and ACTUAL customers.

Re:Piratebox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47326193)

Wireless routers with built in FTP servers are now becoming commonplace, enabling Open WiFi on these devices whilst having no WAN throughput, in theory you could create a mesh network of sorts down your street, use your imagination.

Yes, I agree with harsh punishment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325027)

For that matter, just shoot them on live TV. I think punishments need to be very harsh and very visible so that the average person will figure out that world governments are taking their rights away and giving them to the big-media copyright industries. Until that happens, nothing will change. I am in favor of harsh laws and draconian punishments, because that's the only thing that will get anyone's attention and make this an issue. Right now, people empty their pockets and give up their rights for a little entertainment, fueling this machine that is destroying Western culture as we know it. So let's make it as bad as possible as quickly as possible so real reform can begin.

Big talk from a politician (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 3 months ago | (#47325053)


Naturally for a person that is not on average income it's difficult to understand proportion.

Like a punishment (if found guilty) proportional to the crime (if proven as such).

Every so often someone calls for a tougher stance on copyright infringement. How about a more reasonable stance on copyright in general?
Maybe all this Gestapo copyright notions should be canned and a more enlightened, modern system be created?

I agree with some other posters, why not make false copyright complaints accountable? -You know for making lies available for download.

Re:Big talk from a politician (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47325183)

Naturally for a person that is not on average income it's difficult to understand proportion.

Naturally, for a person who doesn't need to pimp him/herself out to get reelected, it's difficult to understand the real damage here.

It takes millions of dollars per election cycle for any politician above the local-town-council level to get and keep their government meal-ticket. Joe Plumber doesn't have millions of dollars, and as a non-corporation, even if he did, he couldn't legally donate that much to a single candidate anyway. You know who does have millions of dollars, however, and contributes liberally to both sides of the political spectrum? Just about every industry-interest group on the planet.

When you complain about the ads on TV, you have to remember that you count as the product, not the customer.
When you complain about the law, remember the exact same thing - You didn't buy that law, the BPI/RIAA did.

Copywrong (2)

snemiro (1775092) | about 3 months ago | (#47325079)

The copyright concept has to be reviewed. The only problem is, people with the power to do it receive some bonus to keep ignoring it.

Blocking not enough? (1)

pefisher (774697) | about 3 months ago | (#47325099)

I don't get how you can talk about incarceration at all in this context. Once you block someone's internet, their ability to "infringe" is over.

Already there (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47325113)

IANAL, but the process would be something like this: Copyright owner sends take down notice. Service owner fails to comply. Copyright owner files civil suit and court orders civil penalties, including an order to take content down. Service owner still doesn't comply and can now be held in contempt of court (criminal offense).

No new law needed.

Re:Already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325481)

This is the case for most "with a computer" crimes. But what would the legislators do for income if we decided the laws currently on the books are "good enough"?

Re:Already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47326789)

what would the legislators do for income if we decided the laws currently on the books are "good enough"?

Nothing. Much like what they do now!

Re:Already there (0)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47325537)

Exactly. Mod parent up.

Re:Already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47326741)

Yes, sir!

Movie industry going the way of the music industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325153)

As in: i haven't pirated OR bought any music since the days of Metallica whining.
It's easy to do the same to movies, I prefer books anyway.

Where is the MP saying ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325369)

Vendors should work to find a business model which makes piracy obsolete or simply not worth the effort?

Goodbye big media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325593)

Is it hurting yet ? where indie labels are kicking your asses, where now artists are selling direct to the public, must be embarrassing that your shit is ending up in the bargain bin at Tesco and still people don't want it, tough now egh ? . stronger IP laws wont help with getting your crap in peoples ipods, truth is nobody is pirating your shit and you cant take the rejection from a now media savvy generation who get their kicks direct from the artist without big label middleman parasites.

goodbye and good riddance, it was nice but now the public doesnt need you anymore, welcome to the 21st century cunts.

Oh yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47325715)

Because the rich needs more money.

You wouldn't... (2)

Alejux (2800513) | about 3 months ago | (#47325765)

...steal a handbag. You wouldn’t steal a car. You wouldn’t steal a baby. You wouldn’t shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn’t go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman’s grieving widow. And then steal it again!

Re:You wouldn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47327271)

Thats my monday

Yes, jail and criminal charges should be used... (1)

John Nemesh (3244653) | about 3 months ago | (#47326147)

Just not against "infringers"...instead, they should jail the copyright maximalists, the MPAA, and the government stooges who pervert criminal justice systems to pad the recording industries bottom line! Enough of this! It's time that everyone, as members of so-called "free" societies REJECT the corporate takeover of our governments!

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47326363)

Can we officially declare the UK a lost cause now?

Both ways (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#47326523)

Fraudulent Copyright takedowns should result in fines and jail.

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47327473)

It's amazing how arrogant and bold the UK government is, when the people don't have the ABILITY to revolt, because they don't have any guns. Governemnt officials act without any fear of retaliations, so they get away with... Well, with everything.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>