Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 33 to 48 of 57

Thread: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

  1. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    4,991
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked
    220 times in 190 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth X99
      • CPU:
      • Intel 5830k / Noctua NH-D15
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 850Pro NVMe, 1TB Samsung 850EVO SSD, 1TB Seagate SSHD, 2TB WD Green, 8TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix GTX970OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit, Ubuntu 16.04LTS
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 200Mb

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    In principle this seems fair, sentencing should be down to damage and intent not platform used for the crime. But...
    Pretty sensible - I get really hacked off with the idea that because you can't stub your toe on something that it's worthless. Try telling that to the author who lived on chip butties while working on their masterwork, or the struggling musician... Stealing anything is never a victimless crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    I can see how someone can eg sell the latest Minions movie at a market stall and make money, and how that can be big criminal money and will even take on faith that organised crime can be involved. But how does a criminal gang make money serving content on the internet? Serving adverts to downloaders?
    From what little I've read, the criminal "suppliers" provide the content - for a fee - to the eponymous market trader. Now whether this involves a subscription that gets you access to a "Ripped DVD's 'R' Us" website" or some other mechanism I don't know (nor care much)
    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    If this is going after individuals who were clearly never going to pay for anything anyway, I think the existing legislation seems adequate.
    Agree - 10 year sentences for consuming pirated stuff seems ridiculous - far better to keep that as a civil case that the content owners have to persue. On the issue of "supply" though - criminal action seems reasonable, and sentences of up to 10 years wouldn't get me joining Liberty.
    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Either way, this seems rather "meh" to me compared to making ripping illegal in the UK again.
    Yes, totally agree, this is much, much, much, much more serious. I've got a NAS full of (legally obtained - I've got the CD's and DVD's to prove it) ripped MP3 and MP4 files so this is not good news. The ripping legislation was a rare triumph of common-sense, so I'm saddened that it's screwed up.
    Quote Originally Posted by eugenius View Post
    Should we have 10 year's sentences for lying politicians?
    No we shouldn't have decade-long sentences for lying politicians ... I'd have double that. Actually it's not the weak and falliable "servants of the people" that I'd target, it's the slick-suited lobbyists. And personally I think the Romans had a point - corrupting a public official being regarded as a crime worthy of draconian punishment.

    Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...

  2. #34
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by rob4001 View Post
    This is what happens when you have powerful lobby groups that are only have their interests and a politicians ear/wallet. When the sentence is longer than most violent crimes you know the system is rotten.
    No. You know that both can cause serious harm, if different harm, and that both have wide scales of variation.

    Not all violent crimes cause serious harm, even when that harm is physidal. And some property crimes cause serious harm.

    We don't really want a situation where a pub scrap resulting in a black eye could potentially result in a life sentence, do we?

    Similarly, property crime, even IP property crime, can result in serious losses to the victim, up to and including the ability to make a living, or wrecking businesses, or unemployment, which in turn could result in loss of home, etc.

    Personally, I'd rather suffer the black eye than the loss of livelihood.

  3. #35
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    ....

    Agree - 10 year sentences for consuming pirated stuff seems ridiculous - far better to keep that as a civil case that the content owners have to persue. On the issue of "supply" though - criminal action seems reasonable, and sentences of up to 10 years wouldn't get me joining Liberty.

    ....
    It's not about consuming pirate stuff, though. The sections of the act being discussed are for piracy in the course of a business, or for large-scale seriously damaging piracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    ....

    Yes, totally agree, this is much, much, much, much more serious. I've got a NAS full of (legally obtained - I've got the CD's and DVD's to prove it) ripped MP3 and MP4 files so this is not good news. The ripping legislation was a rare triumph of common-sense, so I'm saddened that it's screwed up.

    ....
    The screw-up is, hopefully, temporary, and was a result of precedural defects in the evidence-gathering phase of the consultation. The judge didn't strike down the provision on principle or on law, but on breach of process. So, do the process again, get it right and relegislate. The question is ... does the governmental will exist to do so? I sure hope so.

  4. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    188
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    5 times in 5 posts
    • gordon861's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus ROG STRIX Z370-F
      • CPU:
      • i7-8700k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RTX2070
      • Operating System:
      • Win7-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 3x Benq 2760

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by spolsh View Post
    It's a shame they can't just log everyone's traffic and just send them a bill for any media they've downloaded.

    "Dear Mr Spolsh, someone at your IP address watched epsiode 1 of GoT, please send us one months sky subscription money or we'll send the heavies round."
    I think most people already have the subscription that would allow them to watch/record anyways.

  5. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife (Scotland)
    Posts
    4,991
    Thanks
    393
    Thanked
    220 times in 190 posts
    • crossy's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS Sabertooth X99
      • CPU:
      • Intel 5830k / Noctua NH-D15
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 850Pro NVMe, 1TB Samsung 850EVO SSD, 1TB Seagate SSHD, 2TB WD Green, 8TB Seagate
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix GTX970OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX750 (modular)
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster HAF932 (with wheels)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit, Ubuntu 16.04LTS
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG Flattron W2361V
      • Internet:
      • VirginMedia 200Mb

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    It's not about consuming pirate stuff, though. The sections of the act being discussed are for piracy in the course of a business, or for large-scale seriously damaging piracy.
    I take "large-scale seriously damaging piracy" to be enabling others to get content illegally for commercial gain, in which case the proposed maximum sentence doesn't seem out of proportion. Pirating as a business, or for a busness, yep I'm fine with a potentially heavy sentence.

    Unfortunately, I'm sure some half-wit will try and apply this to the archetypal "single mum on the dole watching a friends DVD" or torrentor.

    Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...

  6. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked
    468 times in 326 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    Yes, though there are occasions when both evidence-gathering and prosecution can be problematic. Putting that another way, just because we can't deal with all instances doesn't mean we should decline to deal with any, Besides, it's not the point. This is not about new laws, but about changing sentences for existing offences.
    But isn't that part of the problem the existing offences are not comparable, it's far easier to infringe copyright in a digital world than it is to counterfeit something like a cartier watch in the real world.
    So much easier in fact that not everyone who is copying someone else's work is doing it for profit, or to get a cut of the copyright holders profits by selling what they copied.

  7. #39
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossy View Post
    I take "large-scale seriously damaging piracy" to be enabling others to get content illegally for commercial gain, in which case the proposed maximum sentence doesn't seem out of proportion. Pirating as a business, or for a busness, yep I'm fine with a potentially heavy sentence.

    Unfortunately, I'm sure some half-wit will try and apply this to the archetypal "single mum on the dole watching a friends DVD" or torrentor.
    Yes, effectively.

    There's two sections of the Copyright Act up for amendement, one on copying, one on public performances, and both carry the provision that it only applies to "in the course of a business" OR "to the detriment of the rights owner". Those are both 'from memory' quotes, not verbatim.

    So, what constitutes detriment? Arguably, 50p loss does, so it's somewhat open to interpretation. And I suspect, deliberately so. It gives the CPS scope, and gives judges scope on sentencing.

    But ... it's long (and I mean decades) been the case that civil copyright infringment has depended on being able to prove, just on balance of probability, financial loss to rights holders to get damages, and how many cases have there been that have ended up in civil court of individual downloaders? Few, if any at all. And the burden of proof under crimibal law goes vrom balance of probability to beyond reasonable doubt. Also, the motivation goes from a company wanting damages to the state prosecuting criminals. I simply don't see crimibal prosecutions over a bit of downloading getting past the CPS criteria for prosecution, one of which is "in tbe public interest".

    However, if you're selling pirate DVDs, or uploading early prints of the next James Bond film, potentially seriously damaging the sales revenue from it, then yeah, I can see the CPS pursuing that, and quite right too.

    I think what most people are missing is that these changes are about aligning IP rights on intangible goods to those sentences that already exist for IP rights on physical goods. So, breaching a design right in physical goods? Already up to 10 years. So what's different about breaching copyright in a film, book or music album? It's breach of IP rights in both cases.

  8. #40
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    I think what most people are missing is that these changes are about aligning IP rights on intangible goods to those sentences that already exist for IP rights on physical goods. So, breaching a design right in physical goods? Already up to 10 years. So what's different about breaching copyright in a film, book or music album? It's breach of IP rights in both cases.
    And to follow - the sentencing would take account of losses. So if you think online copyright would result in fewer losses that'll be reflected in the judgment - but there's the freedom to set it to the same levels as physical if the losses are the same.

  9. #41
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    But isn't that part of the problem the existing offences are not comparable, it's far easier to infringe copyright in a digital world than it is to counterfeit something like a cartier watch in the real world.
    So much easier in fact that not everyone who is copying someone else's work is doing it for profit, or to get a cut of the copyright holders profits by selling what they copied.
    The ease affects the scale of tbe problem, for sure.

    But it's not just about who profits. It's also about who loses.

    Consider me and my writing. If, say, you, 'steal' my work from a UK magazine and publish in Australia, I lose the ability to sell "first" rights in Australia as a result. And consequently, any income I can earn either vanishes or, at best, is dramatically reduced.

    I lose that whether you published for profit, or for free. It matters not, because "first" has gone. You don't have to gain, for me to lose.

    Similarly, if you get a copy of the latest bond film and put it on the net, lots of people that might have gone to the cinema or bought DVDs, or paid for pay-per-view, now won't. You may have done so for free, but the people making the film could well lose millions. Again, no gain to you but huge loss to them.

  10. #42
    Senior Member MrRockliffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    1,586
    Thanks
    228
    Thanked
    133 times in 112 posts
    • MrRockliffe's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Z270i Strix
      • CPU:
      • i7 6700K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4 Vengeance
      • Storage:
      • 500GB 850 Evo, 500GB 860 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 1070 Ti Gaming
      • PSU:
      • 550W Supernova G2
      • Case:
      • NZXT H200
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus PB278Q
      • Internet:
      • Hyperoptic 150Mb

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    I'm sorry, but until:

    1. Games aren't working when they're released is a thing of the past
    2. Films & Music isn't stupidly overpriced, even for downloads
    3. Subscription services aren't limited to areas you live in

    I won't be buying anything. They're welcome to stop me illegally downloading it all, but I still won't buy it.

    Now that I have spotify, I've not downloaded an album illegally for 3 years. Sure, one could say 'that's not something to be proud of' - but I cannot afford £10+ on a CD. I listen to a LOT of music. Just from the CD's I do own (parents included), I have north of 3000 songs. I listen to all of it.

    I tried netflix, but once they stopped UK users being able to access US site, I've just not watched any new films since. I'm lucky that in Cardiff it's now only £4 to go to the cinema - in 3D!

    I'm not spending £40 on a game for it to not work. I don't have money to waste. I just won't be buying games at that price, yet I usually would be happy to do so.

    At the end of the day, pirates get hold of stuff day one, and they tend to be the ones that recommend it to friends and family, some of whom will actually buy the stuff. So by stopping piracy, I believe it'll backfire. Pirates still won't buy it, and there'll be less word of mouth recommendations.
    XBOX Live - Sheep Sardine | Origin - MrRockliffe | Steam - MrRockliffe |

    Add me

  11. #43
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    1) And that's the way it should be. If you don't trust a game to be OK on release then don't play it on release. Wait for the reviews.

    2) Again, if you don't think it's good value then don't waste your time playing/listening - buy a competitor's cheaper product instead. That'll lower prices far more effectively than pirating.

    3) You may be spotting a theme here - if you don't agree with a service then you don't have to use it! Games are a luxury at the end of the day.

  12. #44
    ZaO
    Guest

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    Speaking as someone who had "imaginary property" stolen, I say that's rubbish.

    I write for a living. I'm not a multi-billion pound corporation, I'm a bloke trying to put food on the table and pay bills. One of my "imaginary property" rights is that I control when and where my work is used, and am entitled to get paid when it does.

    So when one of those large companies rips off my work by publishing it in Australia, then remove my ability to do so because buyers usually want first serial rights, and certainly, subsequent publications are less valuable, if they actually retain any value at all.

    These days, many publishers want "all rights". That is, all locations, all media types, first and subsequent use. Guess what? I'll agree to that [b]IF[/i] the rate paid reflects that. So I get paid a bit more, per word, so that a publisher does have the right to use my material, in a way I don't have the resources or intention to exploit, such as translation into German, or Italian, etc.

    That Australian company that "stole" my rights directly deprived me of income .... which is why they paid up and apologised when they got caught.

    Without those "imaginary" rights, I could not make a living from writing, because doing so requires investment, in equipment but especially in time. And that applies to a LOT of others, too. Those rights are absolutely essential for me to make a living from my sweat and toil.

    Should a carpenter be made unable to make a living from making furniture, because greedy people think they can just take his work without paying anything for it?

    The ONLY difference is between physical, tangible goods and 'intellectual' goods. Take either without consent or compensation to the owner and you take their ability to earn from their work. If people are prepared to buy a darpenter's furniture, and buy my writing, why shouldxI be prevenred from earning a living from it? Clearly, my writing has inherent value, or publishers wouldn't be prepared to pay for it. And I can tell you for a certainty that they DO NOT buy from just any old Tom, Dick or Harry that approaches them, because not everybody has the skills necessary to produce work of sufficient quality, jyst like the carpenter's ability to sell a chair, and the amount he gets for it, depends on the quality of the chair, the quality of his carpentry skills.

    So, chair or creative 'art', what's the difference? Both have value, both time time and effort to produce. If you could take that carpenter's chair, stick it in a Star Trek replicator and produce 5 more at the push of a button, do you not remove the carpenter's ability to earn from making 6 chairs?

    The difference is the same. Copying technology.

    What is also the same is the greed and moral bankruptcy of the pirates that want the benefit of someone else's skills and efforts, without wanting to pay for it.
    Definitely. Some people get caught up in the semantics of what "stolen" means. But at the end of the day, it's taking away someone's ability to make a living out of their work. It's not just big corporations this affects, it's individuals too. They always use the "free promotion" crap to justify it. I don't see how taking someone's work for free against their will instead of paying for it is doing them any favours. It just isn't. It should be up to the creator of the work whether they want this "free promotion" or not. That's not for others to decide. But, as always, it's usually the non creative, modern consumer mindset people that can never see it this way. They don't understand what it's like to spend years mastering a craft, spending countless hours on each creation, and of course, all the financial costs involved with doing the work, only to have that taken from you for free and then to get the slap in the face that is "I'm doing you a favour - free promotion remember? It's not technically theft etc..". It is no different than turning up to any other job every day and not getting paid for it while others use and abuse the work you put in. It's hard enough to even see back the money you invest in your work in the creative fields (most never do), let alone make an actual living out of it (again, most never do). I just wish more people could see this and would consider it more when they're taking people's work for free. It's sad that creativity isn't rewarded more in this world.

    That said, I don't think piracy is necessarily either right or wrong. I think it can be either, depending on the situation. It can definitely be understandable sometimes. I wouldn't like to see someone spend 10 years in jail for it either. That's crazy.

  13. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked
    468 times in 326 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    But it's not just about who profits. It's also about who loses.
    That's the nub of the problem IMHO, if it was as easy to copy a cartier watch in the real world as it was to download latest bond film would/does that mean everyone that made a copy of a cartier watch had the intention of buying the real thing?

    Does copying someone's work automatically mean a loss for the person who owns it, in the example you give most likely they would, but this proposal for a change to sentencing doesn't seem (not having read the PDF) to take into account or layout the differing extents of copyright infringement, and it's not (imho) about it being up to 10 years, it's about copyright infringement laws not being abused.

  14. #46
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    ...

    Does copying someone's work automatically mean a loss for the person who owns it, in the example you give most likely they would, but this proposal for a change to sentencing doesn't seem (not having read the PDF) to take into account or layout the differing extents of copyright infringement, and it's not (imho) about it being up to 10 years, it's about copyright infringement laws not being abused.
    Umm, I'm not quite sure how to say this without it sounding nasty, but it isn't meant that way. I suggest reading the PDF.

    It's not long. About 12 or 13 pages, of which about 6 or 7 are either title pages, or blank. The rest gives a bit of history to the "consultation", and how to take part in the consultation. It ought to take about 10 minutes to read in full, and is written in plain English, not legalese gobbledegook.

    And this 'proposal' is actually a consultation, asking for feedback, and evidence, from interested parties, including the public.

    But consult on what? What's the proposal? Well, it's pretty simple, so I'll repeat it here ...
    Consultation Questions

    Should the maximum custodial sentence available for online and offline copyright infringement of equal seriousness be harmonised at 10 years?

    Please justify your answer and provide evidence where possible.
    That's it. It's not a hugely draconian clampdown on downloaders, or the imposition of some Orwellian thought police. It's not a wide-ranging expansion of copyright law, or some sort of Damoclean sword hanging over the head of anyone that ever downloaded a pirate film or format-shifted a CD without permission. I rather suspect you aren't the only one to have not read the PDF. My guess is that the list of those that have might be quite short.

    It is merely, and only a suggestion to treat online and offline copyright infringement, of the same seriousness, with the same maximum sentence. Given that 'same seriousness' bit, anyone heard of 10-year sentences being imposed for offline copyright infringement under the provisions that already exist? No, me neither.

  15. #47
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,039
    Thanks
    3,910
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by erudito87 View Post
    It's funny that theres no charges or sentencing for the massive banker frauds or the fact that thousands have died due to having their disabled benefits taken away or any other scandal involving this government. No, this is what they concentrate on.
    How about the £4 billion wasted on MRA4 or the billlions of pounds of overruns on the aircraft carriers we apparently need??

    Or the countless other government funded projects which sink billions of pounds of taxpayers money and never end up delivering what they said they would.

    Why are there no public inquiries with any power into these scandals?? People have gotten rich out of all of this and gotten away scot-free.

    No,its the old boys network so they cannot possibly incovenience their chums. But the plebs OTH.... lets see how far they can be squeezed.

    Edit!!

    Look at Iceland:

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/12/icela...s-can-act.html

    They convicted the dodgy bankers. They even used bounter hunters to go after them:

    http://www.wealthwire.com/news/finance/3501
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 21-07-2015 at 01:15 AM.

  16. #48
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: UK gov: should we have 10 year sentences for internet pirates?

    Quote Originally Posted by erudito87
    ...

    It's funny that theres no charges or sentencing for the massive banker frauds or the fact that thousands have died due to having their disabled benefits taken away or any other scandal involving this government. No, this is what they concentrate on.

    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    Yet another example of the government favouring the needs of private corporations over the protection of its people.

    Of course now that encryption is to be banned, ISPs will have to store logs/history of all of the customers traffic and we are not going to be a 'passively tolerant' society, there is no where for the criminals to hide.... but its ok because if you are doing nothing wrong then there is no problem right? These totalitarian shifts would never be abused..... right?

    I'm just waiting for the announcement of a new 'special police' to deal with these criminals who haven't been subject to a proper investigation.
    Uh, huh. Typical example of what those horrid Tories get up to.

    Small problem with the rants, though. It's an idea put forward by an independent commission. Moreover, one commissioned by Gordon Brown, that well-known Tory Chancellor.

    Ten years ago. Before Cameron was even leader of the opposition, never mind PM.

    But in the best traditions of political rants, never let actual facts get in the way.

    Oh, and by the way, that would be the exact same commission that proposed allowing personal copying and ripping of music you own legitimate copies of, another oppressive measure enacted by those horrible Tories to do us all down. Oh, wait ....





    NOTE: For anyone interested, it's the Gowers Commission report from 2005, commissioned by Brown while at the Treasury, and a copy can be found, if you want to work through the 146 pages of it, on the National Archive website not, any longer, the Treasury.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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