Digital Economy Act: Illegal Kodi Streams Could Now Land Users In Prison For 10 Years (independent.co.uk) 213
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: The Digital Economy Act has passed into law, meaning people could now face ten-year prison sentences for illegally streaming copyrighted content. It covers a wide number of areas, including broadband speeds, access to online pornography and government data-sharing. However, amid the rising popularity of Kodi, an increase to the maximum prison term -- from two years to ten -- for people guilty of copyright infringement is particularly interesting. Anyone caught streaming TV shows, films and sports events illegally using websites, torrents and Kodi add-ons could technically face a decade behind bars. However, the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content, FACT CEO Kieron Sharp told the Mirror. The Independent also notes in a separate report that The Digital Economy Act could allow UK police to "remotely disable mobile phones, even before the user actually commits a crime." The Digital Economy Act "contains a section stating that officers will be able to place restrictions on handsets that they believe are being used by drug dealers," reports The Independent.
Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Informative)
Ascent of Fascism in 21st Century Britian (Score:3)
This article outlines what fascism is, how it is growing in the 21st Century United Kingdom, how it has nothing to offer working people and how we can combat it.
https://libcom.org/thought/fas... [libcom.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When your currency devalues, stuff you import isn't any cheaper. Instead, prices go up. Services provided by foreign companies are likely to be priced based on the exchange rate.
When your currency devalues, imports become more expensive and exports earn more.
If people there are going to subscribe because they're a more-captive audience than before, they might even end up paying extra even beyond the exchange rate difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of auditing compliance can outweigh any benefit so it is safer and cheaper to run a legitimate business in a more relaxed legal environment.
Sorry, that's illegal! :P
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
They justify everything that way though. Politicians will forgive damned near anything if they think it might make them a few extra dollars per month. So they go to great lengths and jump through all kinds of weird hurdles for any new law or act to find some improbable-but-not-impossible way that it might add a few hundredths of a percent to the GDP (and happily ignore any ways it could damage the economy, even if those effects are likely to be far greater. Cherry picking data is a staple in this game.)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one who finds "populism" a silly choice for a derogatory political term? I mean I know that they're not using the word by its true definition when they call someone a "populist" but still.. you'd think they could have chosen something better than "you're working for the people! You bastard!"
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare there be a punishment for doing something illegal
Yep, thanks for summarising the situation for everybody. There are two and only two positions.
ONE: Nobody gets any punishment for doing something illegal.
TWO: Watching a copyrighted work on a stream without paying gets you ten years in prison.
You just announced you're an idiot, incapable of nuanced thought. Good going.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nuance, the maximum prison term has increased but it doesn't mean you will get 10 years for watching your favorite TV series on a illegal streaming website.
Judges are not complete morons, and when minor copyright cases go to judgment, the sentence typically ends up being a reasonable fine. In fact, most of them simply don't want to bother with such cases, they have better things to do. It doesn't stop lawyers from sending you scary letters though.
In fact, for small offenders, the film industry woul
Sorry, but that's a bit naive (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nuance, the maximum prison term has increased but it doesn't mean you will get 10 years for watching your favorite TV series on a illegal streaming website. Judges are not complete morons, and when minor copyright cases go to judgment, the sentence typically ends up being a reasonable fine.
I believe the point isn't what should happen with these laws, it's what can.
Here in the US we have the DMCA, which was intended to keep people from copying movies. And is now currently being used by John Deere to keep anyone other than John Deere from fixing tractors. [securityledger.com]
You have to consider when you make a legal ruling that is broad exactly how it might be abused. If it is possible to get 10 years for watching TV illegally, you know that someone will get 10 years for it eventually. Judges are like any other group of people. Gather a few dozen together and it's a safe bet at least one will be an asshole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may or may not be a thing in the UK (I really don't know), but in the US having lots of laws with ridiculous maximum punishments for minor offenses has become an established way to ensure that anyone a prosecutor decides he or she doesn't like can be forced to plea-bargain into a criminal conviction. Often the people prosecutors don't like are people who have committed real crimes that can't be pinned on them, but it could also be someone the prosecutor truly believes committed a crime, but didn't. And w
Re: (Score:3)
The situation with John Deere is exactly what the DMCA was supposed to do.
Just because you only paid attention to the part about filesharing doesn't mean anything.
Protecting proprietary commercial services from trespass was exactly the point of the parts of it that John Deere makes use of.
IMO it is a good thing because it prevents them from mixing their proprietary crap with the open stuff that I use. They stay on their side, I stay on my side. No embracing, no extending, no problems. If the customer does e
Re: (Score:2)
And they'll buy it, or not.
Except this isn't just a hobby. These peoples' livelihoods depend on not only having those tractors, but having them up and operational when they're needed. Not 3 weeks later when a JD rep gets out to their farm. Not 3 days later when an authorized mechanic can find the time. Sometimes not even 3 hours later when the guy from a couple miles away gets off his own field and has time to help.
They have to have these machines to have any hope of competing in the modern world. And it doesn't help to buy a di
Re: (Score:2)
No, nobody's livelihood depends on buying a BrandyBrandy(TM) tractor. A farmer who needs a tractor, just needs a freakin' tractor. The Rain God doesn't punish them for buying a Honda.
If they're willing to sign themselves into a service contract, they darn well better have thought about it or else they shouldn't be doing that. Just like, they shouldn't take out a loan without carefully considering the pros and cons.
If they understand it isn't a hobby, they should take that sort of decision seriously and not
Re: (Score:3)
You have to consider when you make a legal ruling that is broad exactly how it might be abused. If it is possible to get 10 years for watching TV illegally, you know that someone will get 10 years for it eventually. Judges are like any other group of people. Gather a few dozen together and it's a safe bet at least one will be an asshole.
I'll just leave this here.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without break
Re: (Score:2)
Predicated on pessimistic bullshit. Even if all crime magically disappeared, the government would still be needed to enforce national security on the outward side, maintain infrastructure, settle (non-criminal) disputes, deal with natural disasters, and so on.
While I don't deny that making everyone a criminal provides the government a certain amount of power over them, I certainly question the necessity of doing so. I tend to prefer Hanlon's razor in situations like this -- "Don't assume bad intentions ov
Re: (Score:2)
Predicated on pessimistic bullshit.
Wrong. It's 'predicated' on human nature based on 5,000 years of human history. Those who seek power almost without exception (George Washington and Jesus Christ are the only two notable exceptions from history that spring to my mind) never stop trying to gain even more and will often go to insane lengths to obtain it.
I tend to prefer Hanlon's razor in situations like this -- "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."
Sorry, but Hanlon's fine instrument fails when it comes to power and politics. In fact, Hanlon could just about be turned on it's head when it comes to politicians and governments; "*Always as
Re: (Score:2)
Those who seek power almost without exception (George Washington and Jesus Christ are the only two notable exceptions from history that spring to my mind) never stop trying to gain even more and will often go to insane lengths to obtain it.
Ah yes, good old George "Slave Teeth Dentures" Washington, AKA George "I Only Freed My Slaves In My Will Because I Was Done Using Them" Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, good old George "Slave Teeth Dentures" Washington, AKA George "I Only Freed My Slaves In My Will Because I Was Done Using Them" Washington.
Not sure if revisionist or just plain fantasy.
GW and the rest weren't even close to being born when slavery was legally established. that was done by King George's courts btw, as 1776 was almost a century in the future. It was illegal to free slaves and would have gotten them hanged. Thomas Jefferson inherited his slaves from his in-laws when they died, he never bought a single slave. TJ also never sold a slave, as that would have broken up long-established families among the slaves, as they'd been together
Re: (Score:2)
Though it can be used as leverage to extract plea deals. I know the UK doesn't operate in the quite the same way as the US, but if you have a situation where you might face a decade in jail (even if it's unlikely) then pleading guilty and taking community service is going to look really really attractive.
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Plea bargaining is illegal in the UK. If you were offered a lenient sentence for pleading guilty that means that you are not getting a fair trial. You are saying that people should be punished for claiming to be innocent. That sounds like a police state.
To be fair I think that we're only Police State Lite, though moving in the direction of Police State Deluxe. BTW if you think it matters if you vote D or R with regards to halting the slide towards Police State Deluxe you're delusional and not paying attention. No major candidate in the past 20+ years has done anything to halt the slide, though Bernie might have.
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you'll be threatened with 10 years watching your favorite TV series on a illegal streaming website when you're given the "opportunity" to settle/plea bargain, and if you don't think the threat of ridiculous penalties doesn't cause people (criminals or innocents) to agree to seemingly insane things then you need to get out of your cave a lot more often.
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan the threat is so great that people regularly confess to crimes they didn't commit [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm absolutely convinced the legislators who brought the legislation which lead to sayings like "one may as well hang for a sheep as a lamb", and "in for a penny, in for a pound" used exactly the same kind of reasoning.
The Brits have been there before, I just can't figure out why they would think it would work any better this time.
Indeed.
And this time around theres nowhere practical for them to transport criminals to as a penal colony.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of anything Andrew Orlowski (of The Register) has ever written on copyright. To him, there's nothing between copyright abolitionism and and full support for today's insane copyright laws and worse.
Sending, not receiving (Score:2)
...TWO: Watching a copyrighted work on a stream without paying gets you ten years in prison.
No. The people sending the streaming are liable. This particular law doesn't cover people receiving a stream.
The Independent article is little ambiguous. Check out the techradar article http://www.techradar.com/news/... [techradar.com] :
"Individual end-users of Kodi boxes are unlikely to be affected by the Digital Economy Act as streaming is not covered by the act. Instead individuals and businesses who sell the full-loaded boxes are the main targets. "
The law itself only talks about the people doing the streaming (in
Re: (Score:2)
Also: "officers will be able to place restrictions on handsets that they believe are being used by drug dealers,"
It's unsettling how guilt-until-proven-innocent keeps creeping up on us.
Re: (Score:2)
Creeping up?! Wasn't that the traditional system in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
When my ancestors were running the place they'd hang you from Tower for less.
Probably why their children fled to America.
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare there be a punishment for doing something illegal
There was a punishment. 2 year losing your liberty for depriving a multi-billion dollar mega corp of some extra profit on a good that has no cost of production seems more than fair. 10 years is just ridiculous.
Laws need to be proportional otherwise you have a police state, where everyone lives in fear of making one mistake and ending up in the gulag for the rest of their lives. People are not robots. They make mistakes and wrong choices. Punishment should be aimed at rehabilitation not ejecting them from society. That is what a confident, prosperous and mature society would do.
Re: (Score:2)
People are not robots. They make mistakes and wrong choices. Punishment should be aimed at rehabilitation not ejecting them from society.
Clearly, you don't live in the USA.
That is what a confident, prosperous and mature society would do.
Touché
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
For 10 years prison, I could beat someone into a pulp with lasting, permanently disfiguring and crippling injury.
Come to think of it... where does the idiot that initiated this law live?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He molested some kids and didn't download child porn from some free source, depriving some hard working movie maker of his income. If he did the latter, he'd probably be punished harder.
Re: (Score:2)
They're immune to broken bones and cracked skulls?
Empirical tests are required.
Re: (Score:2)
Punishment for doing something illegal (which is illegal for what reason again, by the way?) is one thing.
Handing out ridiculously hard punishments for minor transgressions is another. That whole shit has a lot of chopping off limbs for stealing an apple.
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Interesting)
Allow me to introduce you to one of the most fundamental principles of justice: the punishment should fit the crime.
Watching Game of Thrones from a dodgy website does not warrant a ten year jail sentence. It does not warrant any jail sentence at all. At most it warrants being forced to pay HBO damages equal to one months' subscription to their own streaming service (which is more than enough to bingewatch every episode of GoT they ever made - at a price THEY set).
Re: Leading the way to a police state (Score:2)
Indeed. Simpler stated this should have remained civil not criminal law, where it is just about any economic damage. UK has allowed private company interests direct a whole police force in the City of London Police. Already a fascist police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that was sort of my point - if it's a violation then it's a civil violation and should be treated as such, with the court's focus on restoring the harm. Hence my proposed setting for the fine too. If you're really, really bad -they can tripple it so there is punitive damages too.
Re: (Score:3)
Watching Game of Thrones from a dodgy website does not warrant a ten year jail sentence.
Considering the difference in both quality and efficiency between streaming and torrenting, I would support at least a 5 year sentence to an reeducation camp.
Re: (Score:2)
not to be pedantic, but it should be marginally higher, else there's really no reason to pay for it at all (best case, you get the show for free, worst you just pay the list amount)
but yep, 10 years in the clink or several thousand in fines is just a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How dare there be a punishment for doing something illegal
The problem is that this is a very harsh punishment for a crime that many people are guilty of. Making a figure up out of my arse, but 10 years for a crime that maybe 25% of the population are guilty of.
These kind of laws that snare a large portion of the population are good for police abuse.
"I suspect Mr Smith is guilty of killing his wife but I can't prove it Sarg."
"Well Constable, just check his internet history, see if he's been using a Kodi, we can send him to jail for that instead".
Or - Mr. Bloggs is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Leading the way to a police state (Score:2)
In the US they are being sold at Walmart and shopping malls, selling a "replace your cable" subscription for $15/mo which includes all your channels, HBO, Starz etc etc
Walmart even carries the recharge cards for them so you don't even need a credit card.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if it's still this way but IIRC in the US, the person downloading / receiving the copyrighted file/stream is not committing an illegal act, only the person providing it. That said, I believe this changes if money is exchanged (e.g. buying a bootleg DVD) so the Kodi subscription fee might come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you're thinking certain EU states prior to the EU ruling on the matter. In the US everyone involved is liable hence the SWAT teams at grandmas.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, it only took 17 minutes before someone could find a way to whine about Trump. In an article about streaming movies in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
noun
1. a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.
In modern society that should probably read "conflicts with governmental or corporate policy" but you get the gist of it.
Re: (Score:3)
The first step is to criminalize enough normal, common behavior that everyone becomes a criminal. The second step is to selectively arrest dissidents and people with inconvenient ideas not for opposing the people in power, but for breaking the "legitimate" and "reasonable" laws.
For example, the United States has been a police state since at least the Nixon administration. Here's a quote [harpers.org] from Nixon's former aide, John Ehrlichman, illustrating the point:
Re:Leading the way to a police state (Score:5, Insightful)
I was speaking generally about what it means to be a police state. But if you want to go back to the narrower topic at hand, that's fine too:
Oh it's that easy, eh? I'm not sure I agree.
First of all, consider the fact that pretty much everything on the Internet is copyrighted. That means -- technically -- this law applies even to web pages as much as it does audio or video.
Second, remember that this doesn't just criminalize knowingly uploading something without authorization, or even downloading it and knowingly keeping the local copy without authorization; it criminalizes mere "streaming." Consider the fact that in many cases, you have to "stream" something (i.e., download it to your temporary cache, without intending to save it permanently) -- such as a web page -- just to see what it is. You literally can't know if a particular act breaks the law until after you've done it!
Third, copyright infringement cannot be determined just by looking at the act of streaming itself the mere fact that a copyright on the content in question exists, but instead hinges entirely on whether you have permission from the copyright holder or not. In many cases, even seemingly-legitimate downloading could turn out to be copyright infringement. For example, even mainstream, legitimate sites like Youtube have infringing content uploaded to them all the time and there's pretty much no way for you as a third-party to know whether the uploader had permission from the copyright holder or not. Moreover, even if you're downloading/streaming from a site controlled by the copyright holder himself (which you would think should imply tacit permission), you might be violating something in the fine print of the ToS which revokes your permission and thus criminalizes you.
And sure, you might say -- like the copyright-maximalist quoted in the article does -- that "the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content." But the fact remains that this law could be used to nail pretty much anyone to the wall for a 10-year prison sentence, if the prosecutor was pissed off at them enough. And that's fundamentally unjust.
To illustrate my point: if you're in the UK, you are now a felon. Why? Because of the following:
Too bad you had to commit the crime to find out about it, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is a "Police State"?
Idaho.
Fortunately.... (Score:4, Funny)
Glad they won't be in the EU for much longer (Score:5, Funny)
Brexit seems more and more like a positive thing for each day that passes. By the time May is done Australia will be sending its delinquents over there instead.
Re:Glad they won't be in the EU for much longer (Score:4, Funny)
Tie me kangaroo down, sport! (Score:2)
For some reason my father had a Rolf Harris album and he played the hell out of it when I was a kid. I had a moment later in life when I saw some mention of "the wet" on some nature show, and flashed back to the song "In The Wet" and realize I had not known what it was about when I was a dumb kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Glad they won't be in the EU for much longer (Score:5, Interesting)
Brexit seems more and more like a positive thing for each day that passes. By the time May is done Australia will be sending its delinquents over there instead.
They probably will at this rate. As a NZer who's country has a free trade deal with Australia and China, I can attest to how little such agreements prevent you from being screwed over by the bigger country/better negotiator. Britain is going to get a nasty wake up call when it wonders off to the nations of the world to do deals and ends up tangled up in a mess of agreements that give them far less freedom than they get in the EU.
Some examples: NZ has, for the last thirty years, been trying to get its apples in to Australia. It has a trade deal that should allow this, and it has gone to the WTO (that will apparently give Britain great default access to everywhere once it leaves the single market) repeatedly to try to prevent Australia halting the imports. It has not worked, because Australia keeps coming up with new reasons why the apples cannot be imported on trumped up biosecurity grounds. Good luck. In addition to this, NZ has been trying to break into the Australian aviation market for about the same amount of time. They finally managed it many years ago by buying out Ansett Australia, which was promptly grounded by the Australian Civil Aviation regulator a month later on the grounds of 'safety'. The result was that Air New Zealand had to be renationalised by the NZ government and withdrew from Australia with its tail between its legs. More recently, just months after a new agreement had been reached by the two governments on creating a pathway to citizenship for NZers currently stuck in an immigration no-mans land (due to continual erosion of the free movement provisions that were previously agreed) the Australian government announced new changes that put a whole new bunch of kiwis into a new no mans land. Basically they gave with one hand while pulling the rug with the other.
With China things were not so bad, with the exception that the Chinese put a provision in the agreement that prevented NZ from discriminating against investors from there. This has hamstrung the NZ govts ability to prevent Chinese flooding their money into our tiny country, as it would have to renegotiate parts of the Australian agreement to do this.
This is the sort of great stuff Britain has to look forward too. Already the stage is being set for them to be screwed by both NZ and Australia, which are attempting to position themselves as the UK's allies in their brave new word (even offering to send trade negotiators to help the UK), while lobbying the EU to replace existing UK meat and dairy imports with their own.
If the UK expects to do trade with anyone, then it will quickly realise that doing trade deals always requires flogging off some sovereignty as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, same thing for Canada. Just ask the lumber industry in BC how good job security was even after NAFTA and the WTO ruled in their favour. About the only way to make Brexiters realise how riduculous their position is is to rephrase this in terms of a relationship that they understand: what would they say if Ireland or Norway tried to make similar demands of the UK that the UK is making of the EU? And by the way, every county in the UK gets to have a vote on the final arrangement (per Wallonia throwing
Re: (Score:2)
what would they say if Ireland or Norway tried to make similar demands of the UK that the UK is making of the EU
If Ireland or Norway wants to have tariff-free trade with the UK, share intelligence information to prevent and respond to crime and security threats and share a trans-national football competition then my guess is that the UK will agree that this is a brilliant plan and we should probably make it happen.
Re:Glad they won't be in the EU for much longer (Score:4, Interesting)
which was promptly grounded by the Australian Civil Aviation regulator a month later on the grounds of 'safety'
Safety, sans quotes, and there was nothing prompt about it. Ansett's fleet had been deteriorating majorly under the American control of News Corp (that should have been the first clue). They started dropping off the preferred flyer list of many companies long before being bought out by Air New Zealand. This was a spectacular case of lack of due diligence and lack of forethought, buying a company it couldn't afford with an ancient fleet that had high running costs, and the grounding? Well they were told to show cause as to why they missed their legal inspection requirements, they prepared an accepted plan to inspect the plans and then were grounded when the first 4 inspected showed signs of cracking in the wings.
I'm sorry you feel personally attacked by Australia that Ansett was grounded after the American portion was sold to New Zealand (like anyone here gave a crap). But really get a bit of a clue.
More recently, just months after a new agreement had been reached by the two governments on creating a pathway to citizenship for NZers currently stuck in an immigration no-mans land (due to continual erosion of the free movement provisions that were previously agreed) the Australian government announced new changes that put a whole new bunch of kiwis into a new no mans land. Basically they gave with one hand while pulling the rug with the other.
Except no new people are in no-mans-land. The people who were on SCVs now qualify for citizenship. The fact that the timeline for this has been extended slightly doesn't put you anymore in no mans land then you were before. But I suppose you would like it if nothing was done at all and you can permanently be excluded from citizenship?
With China things were not so bad
That just shows your bias towards what you think is bad vs what free trade actually accomplishes. By freely trading with a country that has lower standards than yourself you effectively sell your future to them. Profits, manufacturing, investment, everything starts heading to the other country. It's worth remembering why there's restrictions to trade in the first place.
You say things aren't so bad with China and you compare it to a story of Apples, a botched acquisition of a struggling airline in one of the toughest times for the industry, and a general improvement in rights for NZers in Australia, holy shit do you have a surprise coming.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem the English have is that they think they are still a colonial power.
They, mostly, realise that places like NZ are no longer their vassals though and nowadays just see the Scots, Welsh and Irish as their colonies. Its really going to upset the English when the Scots and Irish decide to leave them to it and the English only have the Welsh to pick on. And that won't last.
In the end the English will have what they always dreamed of; an independent England LOL. None of their neighbors will be sad to
Re: (Score:3)
Brexit seems more and more like a positive thing for each day that passes. By the time May is done Australia will be sending its delinquents over there instead.
No one is happier that the English voted to leave the EU than the Europeans.
The old Commonwealth countries are going to be highly bemused at the UK coming to them, cap in hand, for some sweet trade deals since, after the UK marginalised the commonwealth those guys have gone and made other trade deals with their (closer) neighbors. The English are about to get a nice lesson in their place in the modern world (and it isn't Empire).
Re: (Score:2)
Best get packing now then - while you can still emigrate to anywhere in the EU with ease.
Leave it to the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Leave it to the UK to treat the movie "Minority Report" as a template to governance.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the last line as "If Azathoth..." and thought, well that would just be a template for madness.
Wait, nevermind.
Laws are as written not as intended (Score:3, Insightful)
FTA "However, the new law will most likely target individuals and groups making a business out of selling illegal content,"
No, it will be used against average people if prosecutors find it in their interest. It simply becomes another tool in the toolbox. Just like terrorism laws. I am willing to bet that anti-terrorism laws are used far more often to elevate ordinary crimes (or even non-crimes) than they are used to prosecute genuine acts or threats of terrorism. I had a family member sit as a juror on a trial where a disgruntled employee making a drunken threatening phone call to a boss was charged with "Conveying a terrorist threat."
just another bad law on the books (Score:2)
IE we are yet again going to pass an overly-broad law and place "correct interpretation of what we REALLY meant" in the hands of people whose jobs is NOT to guess as to the intent of the law.
Just peachy. I really wish they would stop doing that. (and we know how effective wishes are!)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not actually going to use sloppy, overly-broad, incorrect phrasing chosen by The Independent as a legal document. They'll use stuff written by lawyers and politicians, perhaps even the text of the statute.
Kill someone 3 yrs, watch Frozen 10 yrs (Score:2, Insightful)
So lets get this right, you watch something illegal and get 10 yrs. Kill someone and get 7 yrs and out in 3 yrs for good behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Such BS... (Score:3)
Here I have a bunch of digital films. These are films I have bought the digital rights to. I have a phone and a mini-projector. Apparently, I am no longer allowed to stream content from phone to external device. Excuse me?
WTF???
So at this point, I am nearly ready to capitulate and start just pirating movies as it's so much !@#$% easier than dealing with the legitimate channels.
Quid Pro Quo for Rupert Murdoch (Score:4, Interesting)
Rupert Murdoch has been propping up a lame Government with his Satellite channel Sky (thing Faux News) and the Sun (think national enquirer). This anti-competitive law is his reward.
Re: (Score:2)
The National Enquirer is one of the few news magazines still doing traditional investigative reporting.
They've been legit ever since Bat Boy left for the Weekly World News in 1982!
Who ended Gary Hart's political career? The National Enquirer. They also took down John Edwards. Who attempted to out Bill Cosby as a serial abuser in 2005? The National Enquirer. Who paid for the tip that solved the murder of Bill Cosby's son, Ennis in 1997? The National Enquirer. They even spent 18 months investigating Charlie S
Why do you think this would change anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask yourself: 2 years of prison. Imagine this, just for a moment.
Now imagine 10 years of prison.
Now answer me one question: Do 10 years of prison really scare you more than 2 years? Does it? If so, you probably already know what prison is like and only worry about losing more time of your life. For everyone how hasn't, probably the threat of spending a DAY with hardened criminals is already scary enough to make them ponder.
Does anyone honestly think that the average copyright infringer's train of thought goes "For 2 years I'll watch that show, but for 10, hell no!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Why should you?
I usually expect people to have a reason to break the law. As far as I know, I have not given you a reason to break the law to my disadvantage. What I am scared of is being sent to prison myself. For various reasons. One of them being that there is a nonzero chance that I'll meet someone in there that is in there because of me.
The legal system of Airstrip One (Score:3)
Gen years for downloading g a file? That's a lot more than burglars in the U.K. get, though not as much as a homeowner who injures a burglar by resisting.
Re: (Score:3)
The American ability to shoot back also inhibits recidivism. The British online press is full of home invasion stories that often involve torture for the hell of it, and invariably by criminals with a long record of predation.
Re: (Score:3)
So much bullshit. Sooo much bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
So much bullshit. Sooo much bullshit.
Your post is out of place, it belongs on the GP's post. He's the one posting bullshit.
Contrary to what the Daily Mail says, no-one goes to prison for actual self defence here in the UK. Plenty go to court because the court decides if it was an actual case of self-defence. Self defence in the UK is an all or nothing thing. You either walk, or you get nicked. Almost all cases walk unless there was foul play involved, if that is so, it's not self defence. To convince a court of self defence, all you need to
Re: (Score:2)
Like the laws in Chicago protecting the mob and crooked cops. SSDD
Yes, when we're not poking fun at European legal weirdness, Illinois is our preferred alternate target.
Re: (Score:2)
Burn out their eyes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious... (Score:2)
Interesting.... (Score:2)
So it's now that when the cops arrive at your door, killing the officers and running is a better option.
Lawmakers today are the enemy of the people and need to be treated as such.
Please start all yro post with country of origin! (Score:2)
Hey, editors: Comments on news laws are meaningless with a description of where they apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I wonder, which countrymen would be so navel-gazing that they wouldn't specify their country because they believe everything of importance is about them?
Re: (Score:2)
France? Quebec? England (but not including the U.K.)? Texas (but not including most of the U.S.)?
Re: (Score:2)
I was obviously referring to Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Be more explicit next time, there are Americans here.
In Soviet America... (Score:2)
... films consume YOU!
Fits the crime (Score:2)
Punching someone in the face is less antisocial than movie piracy. I can't believe we're not hanging these black-hearted pirates that corrupt our children and steal profits away from movie studios and distributors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to buy food without doing so. Grocery stores in my area play proprietary music over the speaker system when an announcement isn't going out, and a fraction of the price of groceries goes toward the royalties for that privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
It kinda looks like another convenient way to be able to disappear anyone who displeases the people with connections?
FTFY
It's not like there aren't a plethora of similarly-broad laws ripe for abuse in both the UK and the US that are already used against people the state finds "inconvenient", who actively oppose their agendas, and/or who embarrass or anger those in power.
Strat