UK Police: download a file, go to jail for 10 years and pay an "unlimited" fine

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

by evo_9 • 14 years ago

99 39 14 years ago

arstechnica.com

shareme• 14 years ago

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

Intermediate• 14 years ago

Yep, that's one of advantages living in China. However, The Great Firewall delivers so many problems to me so I'm even considering moving back to russia.

infinii• 14 years ago

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

Zirro2• 14 years ago

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

gcb• 14 years ago

I think his contest were blatantly political, not even bordering race.

moylan• 14 years ago

i think you can get free downloads of music from sony, warner, universal and emi using google in china. never been there but i have seen it mentioned in articles from time to time. a quick search turns up http://www.ghacks.net/2009/03/30/free-legal-music-downloads-...

TamDenholm• 14 years ago

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.

publicus2• 14 years ago

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

Joakal4• 14 years ago

There is still democracy. Join the pirate party. You'll get materials, information, etc, to present to other people.

If there's enough mass of people realising that the government and copyright cartels are bullshitting and using pirates as a bogeyman for economic problems, then the people will vote them out.

getsat• 14 years ago

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

anigbrowl4• 14 years ago

The key word being 'potentially.' Sex offenders and violent criminals can potentially go to jail for life. While the maximum penalty for this offense seems quite excessive to me, I can't really blame the police for simply quoting the statutory provisions. For one thing, there's a basic idea in criminal justice that people should be made aware of the risks they are running, known as constructive notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_notice

r00fus• 14 years ago

Excessive punishment, even if it's a theoretical maximum is a travesty of justice.

Take a look at the USA where mandatory minimum sentencing [1] is in effect for drug offenses - once a ludicrous maximum is set, all it takes is another measure to put a more "reasonable" minimum and make it mandatory... the Overton window [2] principle applies very well here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing#Arguments_...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

smokeyj• 14 years ago

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

DanBC2• 14 years ago

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.

Joakal4• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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 ...

bobsoap2• 14 years ago

"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?

anigbrowl4• 14 years ago

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... The government is considering alternatives: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/hargreaves.htm

pyre• 14 years ago

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.

bobsoap2• 14 years ago

Didn't downvote you... not sure how to do that on here tbh.

Thanks for the explanation and the references.

SODaniel• 14 years ago

"We have noticed that a lot of people in this area have committed violent crimes. So we are assuming you are a violent offender as well."

WTF!

axatrikx• 14 years ago

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

Roboprog• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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

sciencerobot• 14 years ago

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

smsm42• 14 years ago

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?)

ck2• 14 years ago

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.

UK Police: download a file, go to jail for 10 years and pay an "unlimited" fine

Related Stories