Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you support the proposed 10-year maximum sentence for piracy? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support a 10-year maximum sentence for piracy?
    Yes
    2
    15.38%
    No
    11
    84.62%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I was on another forum, and someone posted this link:

    https://torrentfreak.com/uk-govt-pus...irates-160421/

    We've been debating with each other about how they can justify the maximum sentence for piracy being 10 years if the maximum sentence for armed robbery is 12 years according to this:

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...anual/robbery/

    There's this one guy over there trying to shut down the debate by complaining that it's none of our business what the UK does about piracy, and that people living there should be the ones to judge the policy's fairness or reasonability.

    So, I'm here to ask what the general attitude about this policy is in the UK. The attitude among people in the US is that while the morality of piracy is debatable, even people who are strongly against it generally agree that it's no worse on an ethical level than stealing a DVD or Blu-Ray from a business.

    I've been arguing that this policy would likely be opposed by average people in most countries and that generally only large media companies along with the RIAA and MPAA would ever be in favour of this. He's basically attempting to argue that US culture has a unique lack of respect for artists and content creators because what they produce has no tangible/material value or something.

    So, I decided to come here in order to gather opinions from people living the UK about this policy, because arguing with one another about what people in the UK likely think about this policy isn't getting us anywhere.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    When I read the thread title I thought you must mean the 'I'm the captain now' type!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    When I read the thread title I thought you must mean the 'I'm the captain now' type!
    This.

    Was thinking we don't get man pirates in UK waters, imagine my surprise to realize I am one of said pirates.

    Arrr! there b too many of us and not enough cells me matey.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    Its mean to be for criminals who share masses of torrents rather than your average donwloader.
    They will be warned several times before any action is taken.
    Its a maximum sentence only so it would rarely be used.
    Its just a proposal. Its not statute yet.
    The government has its hands full at the moment and this wont be a priority. They dont understand the internet very well and seem to want to sanitise it.
    I dont think people here are much bothered, but they wouldnt wake up until people were going to jail. When you see the actual bill then you will see its wwatered down, but its hard to comment until they have a draft. People in the UK unlikely to accept something thats inrusive or puts them at risk. they have already tried to deal with torrents before and the furthest they have got is a potential three warnings from your ISP before they cut your connection and getting the ISP to block the main torrent websites, but people just use proxies and VPN's.

    There is no outcry from the general punlic for this. Its the copyright holders. the government will listen to whats popular with the voters. It may not even survive if the referendum doesnt go its way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Its mean to be for criminals who share masses of torrents rather than your average donwloader.
    They will be warned several times before any action is taken.
    Its a maximum sentence only so it would rarely be used.
    Its just a proposal. Its not statute yet.
    The government has its hands full at the moment and this wont be a priority. They dont understand the internet very well and seem to want to sanitise it.
    I dont think people here are much bothered, but they wouldnt wake up until people were going to jail. When you see the actual bill then you will see its wwatered down, but its hard to comment until they have a draft. People in the UK unlikely to accept something thats inrusive or puts them at risk. they have already tried to deal with torrents before and the furthest they have got is a potential three warnings from your ISP before they cut your connection and getting the ISP to block the main torrent websites, but people just use proxies and VPN's.

    There is no outcry from the general punlic for this. Its the copyright holders. the government will listen to whats popular with the voters. It may not even survive if the referendum doesnt go its way.
    By matter of technicality every user shares masses of torrents, even the average downloader. They literally don't have enough jails too imprison us all.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    By matter of technicality every user shares masses of torrents, even the average downloader. They literally don't have enough jails too imprison us all.
    Thanks for telling me how torrents work, hat was really helpful...really.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Thanks for telling me how torrents work, hat was really helpful...really.
    Name:  tumblr_lsx3v0sb4x1qzbl7f.jpg
Views: 76
Size:  87.7 KB
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    OP you cna look at these two stories

    1. How the UK system is menat to work at the moment, but its pretty rushed through and its more some letters to stop doing things, which i dont think anyone pays much attention to. the ISPs fight the extra burden.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22796723

    2. the French ditched a similar system in 2013.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23252515
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    The attitude among people in the US is that while the morality of piracy is debatable, even people who are strongly against it generally agree that it's no worse on an ethical level than stealing a DVD or Blu-Ray from a business.
    So, first, I don't think this is the same thing. When you steal a DVD or Blu Ray, you take something away from the business. You deprive them of their property. When you illegally download digital content, what you are doing is copying code. You are not depriving the IP owner of anything.

    I don't know if that's an entirely logical distinction, given that I suppose IP rights are ultimately founded in law in the same way as ordinary property rights, but I would certainly condemn someone for stealing a Blu Ray from a shop whilst being completely fine with people torrenting media content.

    For that reason I agree that 10 years is pretty nuts in almost all circumstances, and any jail time at all for the typical consumer would make me uncomfortable. Basically I feel like it's up to the people producing this content to find ways to protect their interests. I'm not sure society should go around locking people up purely to protect the revenue streams of media companies when, in an ordinary sense, no-one is depriving them of any of their property.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    So, first, I don't think this is the same thing. When you steal a DVD or Blu Ray, you take something away from the business. You deprive them of their property. When you illegally download digital content, what you are doing is copying code. You are not depriving the IP owner of anything.

    I don't know if that's an entirely logical distinction, given that I suppose IP rights are ultimately founded in law in the same way as ordinary property rights, but I would certainly condemn someone for stealing a Blu Ray from a shop whilst being completely fine with people torrenting media content.

    For that reason I agree that 10 years is pretty nuts in almost all circumstances, and any jail time at all for the typical consumer would make me uncomfortable. Basically I feel like it's up to the people producing this content to find ways to protect their interests. I'm not sure society should go around locking people up purely to protect the revenue streams of media companies when, in an ordinary sense, no-one is depriving them of any of their property.
    No it isnt. the value is in the copyright and not what medium it is in. Thats a cray attempt at a distinction. You are using their property, when you dont have permission from the people who created it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    No it isnt. the value is in the copyright and not what medium it is in. Thats a cray attempt at a distinction. You are using their property, when you dont have permission from the people who created it.
    It's a perfectly valid distinction, whether or not you argue that it ought to be treated differently. You're not directly taking anything from the copyright owner. What you are doing, stated at its highest, is depriving the copyright owner of a merely theoretical prospect of economic gain. Whilst I support civil remedies against people who are making a profit through unauthorised use of that copyright, I question whether the mere duplication of code ought to be a matter for the criminal law.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I support it and I think it should be higher
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheThiefOfBagdad)
    When I read the thread title I thought you must mean the 'I'm the captain now' type!
    indeed.... In 1998 the mandatory death penalty was abolished, and the sentence is now up to life imprisonment.

    :captain:
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    It's a perfectly valid distinction, whether or not you argue that it ought to be treated differently. You're not directly taking anything from the copyright owner. What you are doing, stated at its highest, is depriving the copyright owner of a merely theoretical prospect of economic gain. Whilst I support civil remedies against people who are making a profit through unauthorised use of that copyright, I question whether the mere duplication of code ought to be a matter for the criminal law.
    No its a stupid attempt at a distinction. You are infringing someones right to have their property used as they wish. You do not have that right. Just because it doesnt have physical for doesn't mean you cant steal it. Its the end product of their labor and investment. Theft of that(in terms of the proposed legislation people who make money out of it) is worthy of a criminal sanction.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    No its a stupid attempt at a distinction. You are infringing someones right to have their property used as they wish. You do not have that right. Just because it doesnt have physical for doesn't mean you cant steal it. Its the end product of their labor and investment. Theft of that(in terms of the proposed legislation people who make money out of it) is worthy of a criminal sanction.
    Okay. :dontknow:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    So, first, I don't think this is the same thing. When you steal a DVD or Blu Ray, you take something away from the business. You deprive them of their property. When you illegally download digital content, what you are doing is copying code. You are not depriving the IP owner of anything.

    I don't know if that's an entirely logical distinction, given that I suppose IP rights are ultimately founded in law in the same way as ordinary property rights, but I would certainly condemn someone for stealing a Blu Ray from a shop whilst being completely fine with people torrenting media content.

    For that reason I agree that 10 years is pretty nuts in almost all circumstances, and any jail time at all for the typical consumer would make me uncomfortable. Basically I feel like it's up to the people producing this content to find ways to protect their interests. I'm not sure society should go around locking people up purely to protect the revenue streams of media companies when, in an ordinary sense, no-one is depriving them of any of their property.
    I don't think it's the same thing either, I was just saying that the most extreme position I've ever heard entertained by anti-piracy individuals before involved equating piracy to theft of a DVD. This 10-year law seems to be suggesting that downloading a movie is worse than physically stealing a DVD by threatening the shop owner with a knife. That seems to go against common sense which suggests that it's somewhat less severe.

    If anyone's curious about my opinion, I think that if we accept the premise that it ought to be a crime (which is debatable), then the copyright holder should only be entitled to compensation for financial damages. No one stops a corporation from operating or puts employees in jail because they infringed a patent or copyright of another corporation. They usually make them pay damages to the aggrieved party and demand that they stop the infringing activity immediately. I don't see why it should be different for individuals.

    Well, it appears from the responses I've gotten so far that a significant number of people in the UK also believe that physical theft is more morally objectionable than copyright infringement. Which isn't particularly surprising, but at least now I can verify it to the people who doubt it.

    Incidentally, a lot of people in the past objected to the use of the term "piracy" to describe copyright infringement, because they considered it unfair to draw an analogy that suggests downloading a piece of copyrighted software as being morally equivalent to overpowering the crew of a ship by force and taking their cargo.

    A proposal like this makes you wonder if those people may have been right about the analogy going too far and leaving a lasting impression in the minds of legislators.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Okay. :dontknow:
    Whether or not I think its right is different from arguing whether or not youve infringed someones right, just becayse a dvd is a physical object and a torrent file happens to remain as code floating on the internet. Its their code and dont kid yourself it has value to you. You cna call them greedy or whatever , but you cnat deny its their property as they created it.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yes fully support it ! What you in for ? Bank robbery and him ? People smuggling what about the big boss ? Ah yea hes got a 10 yr sentance for piracy he distributed 10 copies of Frozen at the bay of pirates.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    I don't think it's the same thing either, I was just saying that the most extreme position I've ever heard entertained by anti-piracy individuals before involved equating piracy to theft of a DVD. This 10-year law seems to be suggesting that downloading a movie is worse than physically stealing a DVD by threatening the shop owner with a knife. That seems to go against common sense which suggests that it's somewhat less severe.

    If anyone's curious about my opinion, I think that if we accept the premise that it ought to be a crime (which is debatable), then the copyright holder should only be entitled to compensation for financial damages. No one stops a corporation from operating or puts employees in jail because they infringed a patent or copyright of another corporation. They usually make them pay damages to the aggrieved party and demand that they stop the infringing activity immediately. I don't see why it should be different for individuals.

    Well, it appears from the responses I've gotten so far that a significant number of people in the UK also believe that physical theft is more morally objectionable that copyright infringement. Which isn't particularly surprising, but at least now I can verify it to the people who doubt it.

    Incidentally, a lot of people in the past objected to the use of the term "piracy" to describe copyright infringement, because they considered it unfair to draw an analogy that suggests downloading a piece of copyrighted software as being morally equivalent to overpowering the crew of a ship by force and taking their cargo.

    A proposal like this makes you wonder if those people may have been right about the analogy going too far and leaving a lasting impression in the minds of legislators.
    Oh, sure, I know you weren't necessarily endorsing that.

    What you are discussing in your second paragraph looks like civil remedies. You're talking about damages and injunctions. You don't need to make anyone a criminal for that to be possible.

    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Whether or not I think its right is different from arguing whether or not youve infringed someones right, just becayse a dvd is a physical object and a torrent file happens to remain as code floating on the internet. Its their code and dont kid yourself it has value to you. You cna call them greedy or whatever , but you cnat deny its their property as they created it.
    Of course the code is valuable to the consumer, and of course you have infringed someone's positive legal right as things stand right now. I was trying to open up a discussion about whether it is morally equivalent to, or ought to incur the same penalties as, actual deprivation of property from the copyright owner's point of view.

    The gain for the 'pirate' may be just the same as in the case of theft of something tangible, but whether that is what ought to count in determining the legal response is clearly open for discussion.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.