Tougher UK laws on piracy

[Saracen]

....

I'm not sure I'd go that far. The UK's separation of powers is limited (if indeed there is any considerable separation) and the UK courts do not have the power to 'strike down' legislation (unless it contravenes an EU Treaty or Directive). Judicial discretion can be severely limited by statute (after all, Parliament is sovereign) and even where there is room for discretion, the Courts may facilitate political policy. E.g. in the case of counterfeiting, it was held (R v Johnstone) that placing the burden on the defendant to effectively prove his innocence (although on the balance of probabilities) was acceptable, despite the fact that his conviction would carry a 10 year sentence. I agree that the judiciary can be the champion of liberty. Sadly, it often isn't. Numerous government schemes have been introduced without proper consultation (just think of every time the govbernment of the day has announced a 'pilot' scheme, and then proceeded to bring in the full programme despite the pilot scheme failing miserably) and generally there is little room for judicial intervention. Very few challenges occur, let alone succeed.

You're right of course, and we certainly don't have (unfortunately, in my opinion) anything like the degree of separation of powers inherent in the US system, which was pretty much designed from the ground up with that as a central tenet of the whole edifice of State.

Parliament is supreme. Well, sort of. It lacks supremacy in a number of areas where it has ceded power to various EU or European bodies by trwaty. But in general, yes. And my terminology was a bit loose too. Parliament makes laws, yes, but of course, judges interpret them, and that gives quite lot of scope. And then, of course, if law A says this, but law B says that, and the two overlap or even directly conflict, it'll be judges that degermibe which overrides which, in that case. And perhaps I should have said "regulation" rather than legislation. That seems to be where 'government' periodically comes unstuck, where ministers (or Seceetaries of State, at least) implement changes to laws, or new aspects to laws, by means of authority granted to them to do so, via Statutory Instrument, by enabling primary legislation. Parliament is then still effectively supeeme, because IT passed the primary legislation authorising some future minister to act in a way not subsequently requiring full Parliamentary process.

On the one hand, it bypasses that full process, as wouldcbe required for the normal passage of an Act. On the other hand, it's an effective administrative shortcut to not tie the Commons up in never-ending fine administrative detail. It is, in my opinion, therefore both dangerous, and absolutely necessary.

The Minister (or Sec of State) can therefore act, purportedly within that authority, but in a way courts later deem to have been illegal (as in this case) effectively "striking down" the legis.... sorry, regulation, because of errors in process.

The Minister can then go back, redo it, follow process and have another go. Or of course, Parliament can exercise it's authority with primary legislation.

The check in the system, if you like, is in that Parliament makes laws but courts interpret them, and try to determine what legislation says, and what the intent of Parliament was (that not always been entirely obvious), and that where ministers exercise authority almost unilaterally, they still folliw due process in doing do.

[shaithis]

"Boom or bust" economies do not help either. In the good times people lap up goods, when the bad times hit they want to maintain their same level of entertainment but may not be able to afford it. Then they start pirating to "balance the books".

I can fully understand people streaming football (as I do) because there are no sensible alternatives. I either pay Sky an absurd amount of money for an absolute ton of content I do not want, or I go without. Neither is a real option for a large number of consumers and IMO Sky themselves have really created the Kodi streaming issue they now have to face. This has become worse with the likes of Netflix offering so much non-sport content for a considerably smaller price than Skys offering that it further makes Skys "package deals" seem a complete rip-off (which they are IMO)

Virgins prices look decent as a bundle but then you have to play "postcode roulette" with them to see if you can get a decent internet connection this week.....

Based on all that, I think they should not be increasing the punishments as the market is currently horrid and after the last round of football rights bidding, is only going to get worse as Sky and BT try and recoup the ridiculous sums of money they have paid out. Some of these companies NEED to get a reality check and going after end-users is not going to help.

Hollywood is just as bad as well, making billions in profit at the box office and then charging £20 a Bluray release which is just a top-up to the absurd amounts they have already made. Then they release the extended, the 3D, the 3D extended etc all at full-price....absolutely taking the mickey.

[Mister]

This is aimed at people hosting content, but 99% of it is done outside the UK and in places where no one cares about copyright. So they can't touch them anyway.

GOOD products and services are still successful despite piracy. So it's all just a big money grabbing exercise really. The problem is government officials care more about what corporations want than the people who voted them in, because they can make them millionaires.