

UK Police: download a file, go to jail for 10 years and pay an "unlimited" fine - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/police-download-a-file-go-to-jail-for-10-years-and-pay-an-unlimited-fine.ars

======
TamDenholm
I'm really getting sick of this, i really cant believe we live in a world
where someone downloading a file, perhaps unknowingly, can potentially get
more jail time than sex offenders and criminals who commit violent crime.

~~~
publicus
Should not be surprised, we don't have real democracy after all.

~~~
getsat
What is real democracy if not representative democracy? Direct democracy?

~~~
batista
Of course. Study how the Athenian Democracy worked for example, for, after
all, this is the origin of our notion of democracy (and take the exclusion of
slaves and women aside, as this was a historical accident --everybody did so
then-- and not the essence of the Athenian democratic process --which nobody
did like them then, or even now--).

But besides direct democracy (which has many forms), there are forms of
representative democracy far more democratic. Like every percentage matters,
so if a party gets 3% nationwide he gets 3% of the seats, instead of losing it
to a "winner takes all" scheme.

~~~
redslazer
You dont even have to go that far back in history. Switzerland has a thriving,
functioning democracy where anyone can get into politics, the will of the
people is what counts most and all actions by politicians can easily be
overturned by a referendum.

------
DanBC
As I understand it copyright violation is a purely civil matter unless it's
down as part of trade, when it becomes criminal. That is, it's illegal, but
you're not going to face arrest or criminal trial unless you're making money
from copyright violations.

I'd be interested to know what law they reckon someone who merely downloads
(or even someone file-sharing) a file could be prosecuted under.

~~~
Joakal
Some places in the world, there's no exemption for non-commercial copyright
infringement. A grandmother sending an old wedding picture (without a
copyright release) to her grandchild is liable for up to $73,500 and 5 years
of jail in Australia.

Also, the police have the potential to bring up non-commercial copyright
infringement and seize all electronics. And I mean everything that has a
CPU/RAM/etc.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
There's no non-commercial argument (or fair use rights) in the uk either.

A school for example could have licenses for a TV program do be played in a
lesson but if the soundtrack includes music then they can be in breach of
copyright in those songs ... if you're listening to a radio at work and
someone else overhears it then it's considered to be an unlawful performance
and you can be given a hefty fine (the PRS, as it was, did over several police
forces on this one). You can buy a license of course for only a few hundred
pounds (yes to listen to advertising-paid radio or even the BBC).

UK have been considering making format shifting legal though. We'll finally be
able to legally watch a movie we bought on a mobil device then; as long as you
watch it alone and no-one hears the soundtrack or looks over your shoulder at
the screen ...

~~~
DanBC
Am I right to say there's no no-commercial argument in the UK; but copyright
infringement without trading means the rights owners get to sue for loss of
earnings, whereas copyright infringement as part of trading means the police
(or some other body) gets involved.

UK "Fair Dealing" (Fair Use) is much stricter than the US equivalent.

------
ck2
It's ironic a "frame" is called a "frame" - you realize why?

Because you could send your enemies in the UK a webpage with a hidden frame to
download a file in the background they do not know about - and send them to
jail, ie. "frame" them - with no possible defense.

Politicians and law enforcement are starting to turn the internet into what
the TSA is doing to flying in the USA - making it terrifying and very risky.

------
axatrikx
I wont get this heavy a punishment if i go ransack a music store and steal all
the copies..

~~~
Roboprog
God forbid you sneak in the back door of a movie theater. How many years
should you get for that? (of course, it's harder to "scale" that sort of
crime, but it still seems ridiculous, so let the ridicule begin)

------
plink
The MPAA, RIAA, and their overseas counterparts are ratcheting up the contempt
with which they are viewed by society. DIY gravediggers they are.

------
smsm42
Note that US warning quotes specific laws and specific paragraphs, while UK
warning does not specify anything and pushes some recording industry alliance
site (I wonder is somebody got paid for this?)

------
sciencerobot
When I first saw SOCA, I thought it was a parody.

------
bobsoap
"The majority of music files that were available via this site were stolen
from the artists"

How can UK police (or SOCA, or whoever) claim that before trial? When that
notice was put on the site, the "individuals behind this website" (another
loaded term right there, geez) had only been arrested. Trial hadn't even begun
yet.

Without knowing UK laws - aren't these solid grounds for a libel and slander
claim?

~~~
anigbrowl
No. They can know on the basis that the files are hosted for download but that
the site operators have made no revenue payments or signed contracts with the
publisher/distributor of the media in question. The UK does not have the same
kind of common carrier provisions in Telco law that exist in the US.

Edit: downvote away, but I didn't write the law, I'm just telling you how it
operates:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#Sectio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010#Section_17_and_18_-_Blocking_Internet_locations)
The government is considering alternatives:
<http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/hargreaves.htm>

~~~
pyre
I don't think that the parent post was talking about common-carrier
provisions[1]. The point being that the police are stating something ("these
files were stolen") as fact prior to the trial. The assumption being that
these facts need to be proven at trial. The same reason that the accused is
called the 'suspect' and not the 'criminal' in police press reports. I'm not
sure that this quite equates to something like saying, "he's a drug dealer,"
prior to getting a drug dealing conviction, though.

[1] Actually, 'common carrier' only applies to phone companies in the US.
You're thinking of the 'Safe Harbour' provisions that are part of the DMCA.

~~~
batista
_The point being that the police are stating something ("these files were
stolen") as fact prior to the trial. The assumption being that these facts
need to be proven at trial. The same reason that the accused is called the
'suspect' and not the 'criminal' in police press reports._

However the police does call the victim "the murdered guy" and the place the
arsonist burned "the burned down building". Some things are a simple statement
of fact.

Similarly, the presence of "pirated files" is not something that is that
difficult to examine and state as a fact pre-trial. And the other side would
only win a libel trial if they could prove that this is not the case, which, I
guess, it is. Else, they would be punished and counter-sued for that attempt
too.

------
shareme
1 million Chinese download file ..no jail time ..MPAA/RIAA crickets..chirp
chirp

~~~
infinii
why so racist? I guarantee you that 1 million Caucasians download copyrighted
files.

~~~
Zirro
Racist? Isn't being able to download without risking serving time in prison a
good thing?

------
smokeyj
The Queen does not approve of such shenanigans. The peasants should know that
by now.

