Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Police Launch Campaign To Shut Down Torrent Sites

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the i'm-sure-they-know-it-when-they-see-it dept.

United Kingdom 244

An anonymous reader writes "City of London Police inform TorrentFreak that they have begun targeting sites that provide access to unauthorized content for 'criminal gain.' The initiative is part of a collaboration with Hollywood studios represented by FACT and the major recording labels of the BPI. In letters being sent out now, police accuse site operators of committing offenses under the Serious Crime Act. The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau further warns that the crimes carry a jail sentence of 10 years."

cancel ×

244 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What are they trying to achieve? (5, Insightful)

fekmist (2857907) | about a year ago | (#43911307)

Seriously, this will in no way keep people who pirate from pirating some more. If anything it just wastes tax money and time. What could they possibly try to be achieving by doing this?

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911339)

Doing their job is a waste of time? If this is a waste of tax money and time, then why was the law passed? That is where your scorn should be directed.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (5, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43911365)

When police put overt effort in to enforcing a specific law then you have to ask the question why?
They should be enforcing all laws equally, not picking on some and neglecting others.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43911621)

The [British Recorded Music Industry] say that an [National Fraud Intelligence Bureau] officer was previously embedded with their anti-piracy unit.

âoeThis appointment is the first secondment by NFIB into private industry, enabling City of London Police to develop a greater understanding of the illegal distribution and sale of music online by organised crime gangs,â the music group reveals.

They seem to be equating torrent sites with organized crime.

For some reason I'm skeptical of that categorization.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (4, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about a year ago | (#43911875)

No need for conspiracy theories. This is a tool commonly used by police, particularly for traffic offences. It is meant to serve as a reminder that some offences are illegal and that the police can pursue them. (And they do pursue them on a regular basis, though not necessarily to the same degree because they have limited resources.)

I don't really agree with this method of law enforcement, but I can certainly understand why they use it.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (2)

fekmist (2857907) | about a year ago | (#43911403)

Exactly what I meant to say. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was speaking about the law enforcement officials on duty. It's more along the lines of: "Hollywood, figure your shit out without having to sue everyone because unless you can shut down the internet you won't ever have your nice pre internet revenues, so adapt like the rest of us"

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43911759)

And the bitch is its really not that hard, but they are so God damned greedy they will turn down money because it isn't "iMoney" and end up fucking themselves.

A good example of what I mean is Steam. back in the days before Steam everybody I knew had a shitload of pirated games, now nobody i know pirates games, why? Steam made it so damned cheap and easy to get any game they want that they just don't bother, simple as that. between the sales, the extras like chat and matchmaking, it just got to the point it really wasn't worth dealing with the bullshit when the alternative is "push button" simple.

There is NO damned reason why I shouldn't be able to go to a one stop website and get any movie or show I want, no reason at all except they are so damned greedy they will happily fuck themselves out of the money. I mean why in the fuck can i go to fricking Walmart and find huge piles of movies in giant bins for under $5, but if I want the same damned movie on my netbook they want the same price as a new release AND I have to have an always on Internet connection which fucks the whole damned reason for putting a movie on my damned netbook in the first place!

This is why I have ZERO sympathy for these movie douchebags, none at all, because its their own damned fault. time and time again we have seen that black markets occur because a population is not being served by a regular market,either they can't get what they want at all or the price is too damned high or in this case? BOTH. The pirated version of a movie is in every metric better than the legal product by leaps and bounds! NO unskippable ad horseshit for crap i don't give a rat's ass about, NO always online bullshit like with the digital versions, NO stupid worthless DRM that keeps more than half of the devices i own from even playing their shit NONE of that exists with the pirate version...yet I'm supposed to feel bad because people are bypassing your horseshit?

People pirate because your prices are too damned high and you tie too much bullshit into your product PERIOD. I mean here it is 20 fucking 13 and I can't even just buy a fricking .avi or .mp4 of a 25 fricking year old movie to play on my devices? Why the hell can't I pay 25c a pop for old shows in a format that will play on everything, when i can fricking buy MP3s that play anywhere huh? We aren't even talking new releases, shit that is so damned old it can be had in the Fred's 4 movies for $5 sets, like the old Chuck Norris stuff, but IF you can even find it online they are gonna charge full price AND have it locked with DRM like its a screener for Iron man 3...give me a break!

So you Brits need to go have a royal shitfit as its YOUR tax dollars they are wasting, both in the cost of the investigations AND in the cost of housing these "dangerous criminals" and for what? So you can prop up a failed business model of a bunch of rich old douchebags? Fuck them and the horse they rode in on, get with the times or die you old bastards.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911959)

eh, I should really sign up (been lurking 4 years now). Just wanted to say, I really like this post. Cheers.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911555)

No, my scorn should be directed at everyone involved in this process. It's rather disgusting that they're seriously wasting tax dollars trying to stop people from copying certain data.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911577)

That fool is nothing compared to one such as I. You could not even begin to comprehend my true power... my true ferocity! It's time for you to vanish from existence, you worthless fucker cheeks patty!

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (1)

Zeio (325157) | about a year ago | (#43911461)

I have 2 billion people in mind who done give a hoot about copyright: All of india, and all of china. So thats 2 billion holes to plug. Its hilarious too, with the great red firewall, that piles of copyrighted software and content pours out of there.

Get real, RIAA, MPAA and whatever other rackets exist to try and create and use police state to shake down small timers.

Re:What are they trying to achieve? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911775)

Its ironic isn't it, that China ends up being one country that effectively uphold liberty in this particular area...

Just like the brits... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911309)

their MafiAA sockpuppet is called the National FIB.

define "serious" (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#43911315)

what exactly is a serious crime?

Re:define "serious" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911331)

Things which need media attention.

Re:define "serious" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911337)

I think it's where they try to suggest that Torrent Sites operate for the purposes of "Criminal Gain". Apparently, giving stuff out for free is "Criminal Gain".

Re:define "serious" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911375)

The files might be free, but most of the sites operate on ad revenues which is considered 'profit'.

Re:define "serious" (2)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year ago | (#43911437)

but that wouldnt be criminal gain.... it would be like if you had a store consisting of stolen items and bead jewelry... you made the jewelry yourself, and you are giving away the stolen items for free... your profit is entirely from something that is legal... the other stuff is just to attract attention. because of this, while it is not legal for them to steal the items in the first place.. it is still not criminal gain, as their profit is all legal.

Re:define "serious" (2)

bongomanaic (755112) | about a year ago | (#43911605)

The phrase used in the legislation is "in the course of a business" it doesn't require a direct sale of the infringing work or even for a profit to be made -- distribution or public exhibition of the infringing work is enough. A better analogy would be exhibiting a film without the copyright holders permission in order to drive sales of popcorn.

Re:define "serious" (3, Interesting)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#43911491)

If the studios really wanted that profit then why don't they distribute it online for free in a ad supported fashion (just like they do/did with traditional television) themselves?

the networks could make lots of money with ad supported "official legal" torrent site and set it up like any other torrent site (just less porn ads and more normal ads) with every episode available in multiple resolutions drm free and in every imaginable format, hell they could even embed ads in the episode like the do with tv. they would say "oh but people block ads with adblockers but then again so do viewers with tivo or other time delay setups. it would cost them less bandwidth than trying to stream every every episode to everyone and their dog separately, they would not have to license any drm they, they could have links to where you could buy the the physical disks and merchandise, they could quickly and accurately judge popularity of shows based on number of people torrenting it. they would argue that others would simply copy their torrent remove ads and redistribute them but they have problem as is anyway.

but they would rather prosecute other people then sell goods the way masses want them in the vain hope that they will somehow get back to the glory days of pre-internet.

Re:define "serious" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911517)

If the studios really wanted that profit then why don't they distribute it online for free in a ad supported fashion (just like they do/did with traditional television) themselves?

It's called Spotify. And yes, I know Spotify isn't the same thing, and I know that it's restricted in all sorts of ways, but for most non-slashdotters it fulfills their use cases - listening to music on their computer and smartphone. And I'm not saying the record companies aren't resorting to any douchebaggery they can think of to maximize their profits, but at least somebody is doing what you're suggesting.

Re:define "serious" (3, Interesting)

Deluvianvortex (2908365) | about a year ago | (#43911619)

I don't know why they don't just release the shows themselves over a tracker and have the ads spliced into the shows. Just like normal TV. They can put some superseeders behind it on 100mbits and everyone gets what they want. Its the fact that they're still clinging to traditional media that's killing them. Its like they don't even realize there is a cheaper, better way.

Re:define "serious" (3, Insightful)

Isaac-1 (233099) | about a year ago | (#43911825)

Because Hollywood has finally sunk to the point where there is nothing new worth downloading. I just looked over the DVD release date schedule for the rest of the summer and could not find I single movie coming out I would be willing to watch, much less go to the trouble of downloading.

Re:define "serious" (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911581)

But they're profiting because of the ads. They're not actually selling the content.

Re:define "serious" (3, Funny)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | about a year ago | (#43911431)

It's about volume, right? That music is criminally loud.

Also terrible fucking puns.

Re:define "serious" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911463)

Here's the list, [wikipedia.org] which does include intellectual property offences. (Of course, this being Oceania, it also includes anything "the court considers to be sufficiently serious.")

Re:define "serious" (1)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#43911505)

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) is the British record industry's trade association and they would suggest it is a serious crime https://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/BPI_Digital_Music_Nation_2013.PDF [bpi.co.uk] but you have to do a bit of searching to find the word bit torrent.

Re: define "serious" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911525)

I once saw someone violate the Silly Crimes Act. He had flippers, an unusual walk, and held a duck. I did not inquire further.

Re:define "serious" (2)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year ago | (#43911543)

what exactly is a serious crime?

Whatever the governments says it is. They're the ones with the guns, remember?

Re:define "serious" (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911583)

Specially it's the parliament, which is elected by the people.

Re:define "serious" (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year ago | (#43911661)

Specially it's the parliament, which is elected by the people.

I wonder what percentage of the British population believes that Parliament is representing their interests well and voting with those concerns in mind? Here in the United States, only 11% of the population approves of the job that Congress is doing. That's a lot of unhappy people. What is the approval rating of Parliament? I'd be surprised if it's much higher.

Re:define "serious" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912013)

..I wonder what percentage of the British population believes that Parliament is representing their interests well and voting with those concerns in mind?

The problem here, you have to understand, is that the average voter in Britain is, for want of a better word, a sheeple.
They* voted the current lot in because, like good little sheeple, they did what the media told them to do.
If they're told that they all need branding on the forehead as it's all part of a new anti-terrorism and anti-paedophile initiative they'll all baa loudly and form an orderly queue..

I should point out, the City of London Police have always had a rather close relationship with big business, and are not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police.

(*In fairness, I should point out that it was the English who foisted the current Government upon us, but the sheeple comment is equally applicable across the whole of Britain.)

Re:define "serious" (3)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43911635)

what exactly is a serious crime?

A never-kidding never-laughing one?

Re:define "serious" (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43911747)

[W]hat exactly is a serious crime?

A crime* which takes place over the Internet; the "Serious Crime Act" is the UK equivalent of what we Yanks might call a "Cyber Crime Bill," but the Brits, in naming this law, have acknowledged that the Internet is serious fucking business.

* Sometimes even a non-crime can become a "serious crime" by virtue of it having occurred over the Internet; for example: Borrowing somebody's CD AFK? Not a crime. Borrowing bits from somebody's CD over the Internet? "Serious crime."

Torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911323)

Since when were torrent files unauthorised content? Oh, you mean the underlying file?

Re:Torrent (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911589)

The file itself is not illegal, but using it in an illegal manner is. Carrying a hammer is also not illegal, but using it in an illegal manner is.

Re:Torrent (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#43911711)

Carrying a hammer is also not illegal,

It can be illegal to just carry a hammer. If it is considered a tool for housebreaking, walking around with it is illegal.

Re:Torrent (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911887)

Are countries competing to see who can pass the most laws that are ridiculous or something?

Re:Torrent (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43911915)

Not true. The file is illegal now. Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, section 296ZG.

wow (5, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#43911325)

Yeah giving them the same sentence as a rapist. That seems reasonable. This shit should be a civil matter not criminal.

Re:wow (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year ago | (#43911447)

well... thats not much different than in the US, where copying a michael jackson album will land you in prison for longer than killing michael jackson

Re:wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911585)

well... thats not much different than in the US, where copying a michael jackson album will land you in prison for longer than killing michael jackson

Hmm, I'm not sure what the sentence is for killing someone who is already dead,...

Re:wow (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about a year ago | (#43911651)

I'm sure he meant the guy who killed him the first time around.

So what now? (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43911351)

Are magnet links a crime?
Are they only criminal if I have advertising alongside them?

Re:So what now? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911557)

The links are probably no, but the act of creating and using them could be if it's done maliciously.

And nothing of value was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911359)

...gained.

I would give my life if I could see everyone in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911381)

London throw their computers in the trash.
Smash them beyond repair and leave the city computerless.

City Police enforcing copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911389)

What'll they think of next?

quote (2)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about a year ago | (#43911395)

The more Hollywood tightens their grip the more torrents sites will slip through their fingers.

Improper use of police powers and public funds (5, Insightful)

Camael (1048726) | about a year ago | (#43911409)

I am still uncomfortable with the fact that this action is yet another example where the police, who are publicly funded and granted extensive powers in pursuit of their public duty, are essentially (mis)using their powers to protect the private property rights of a select few, i.e. copyright owners.

Copyright owners who, incidentally, are rich enough to pursue their own civil action against alleged pirates. Then again, making the public pay is better for their bottom line.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911425)

I am more worried that this means:

1. UK police have solved every outstanding criminal case they have that has actual merit.
2. UK police are ignoring real crime.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year ago | (#43911559)

Or 3. They're incompetent. I'm leaning towards 2 and 3.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911567)

Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time. This is probably handled by a special work group within the police, not something that every police officer is involved with.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911617)

Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time.

The fact that they're even taking this seriously is a gross misuse of public funds.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911665)

It looks like they are trying to stop and prevent crime. I would say that's good use of public funds.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (3, Insightful)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911703)

It looks like they are trying to stop and prevent crime.

Right, the copying of certain data. Can't have the rich's government-enforced monopolies put in jeopardy, now can we? This is almost as serious as a child opening a lemonade stand without a permit!

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43911815)

Wasting money on victimless crimes when violent crimes are left unsolved doesn't sound like a good use of public funds to me.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about a year ago | (#43911659)

So who funds this special work group? I don't want my taxes to fund any such nonsense. Shut it down!

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911683)

So vote on someone that represents you in the next election. That's how a democracy works.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911795)

Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time. This is probably handled by a special work group within the police, not something that every police officer is involved with.

So the police dedicated a special group of officers to chase down and prosecute people sharing files online, specifically musicm when the very action of sharing the files online is a civil matter. Then when they couldn't make it stick they redefined sharing links to people sharing music as "serious crime".

In the mean time there are how many thousands of actual crimes (rape, murder, assault, fraud, destruction of property, etc) that go unprosecuted each year because the police are apparently too under-resourced to chase down all but the most serious cases or the cases where the evidence practically guarantees a conviction with minimal police work.

Yup, that's a good use of tax payer's dollars.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911469)

Glad to see our brothers across the pond are following in the illustrious footsteps of good ol USA.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43911535)

A big chunk of law + law enforcement has always been about defining property rights and protecting the interests of the 'haves'.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911579)

I take it you're opposed to laws against theft, too? Those are laws and law enforcement being used to protect the private property rights of a select few.

After all, victims of theft should simply pursue their own civil action against the alleged thieves.

Or, perhaps the answer is that the people who perpetrate property crime are rarely capable of making good on their restitution and enforcement of property rights is one the fundamental underpinnings of modern law and our society. Why should copyright be any different?

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (3, Insightful)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911641)

Those are laws and law enforcement being used to protect the private property rights of a select few.

It might be the case that theft is uncommon, but almost everyone owns private property. Am I seriously supposed to care that someone's government-enforced monopoly is tumbling down?

After all, victims of theft should simply pursue their own civil action against the alleged thieves.

Unfortunately for you, government-enforced monopolies created in an effort to ensure artificial scarcity don't resemble real property at all, so this whole example is rather ridiculous to begin with.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911591)

private property rights

Imaginary property rights, more like. Copyright and its ilk don't even truly resemble normal property.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43911709)

Well, originally the task of the people that are now calling themselves "Police" was to beat the subjects of the ruling class into submission whenever they developed independent ideas. Sometimes also just for fun. Seems to me the UK police wants to get back to that good old time, at least on the Internet.

Here is an idea: Why don't they create an UK national Internet with no connection to the rest of the world. And while they are at it, maybe a wall and some minefields around the country?

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911741)

You mean the copyright owners who pay taxes on their earnings don't you? Piracy takes all the tax revenue out of an information economy. Good luck funding a health service on the taxes that the Pirate Bay pays.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year ago | (#43911999)

Copyright owners are hardly the "select few". Millions of people own copyrights and (attempt to) make money off them. Which is, whether you like it or not, an ability the law attempts to provide.

Re:Improper use of police powers and public funds (2)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43912023)

Copyright owners are hardly the "select few".

If we're talking about people who have 'important' copyrights, then they are indeed few in number. You don't think this is for the small copyright holders, do you?

Everyone quick, back to IRC! (0)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#43911419)

Oh right, the nerds who know actually never left IRC to begin with.

Re:Everyone quick, back to IRC! (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#43911515)

there still irc file sharing bots around? i know nntp was still widely used but though most irc filesharing had died

Re:Everyone quick, back to IRC! (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43911803)

It did. NNTP is where it's at, but the first rule of usenet is you do not talk about usenet.

Serious Crime Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911443)

Remember kids, the Internet is serious business.

So what happend to terrorism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911475)

Don't you have some real villains to catch? Why are you coming after your consumers?

What ever happened to the people bombing you. And the people raping you. Or the people making your children cry...

P.S. I agree with all the other people stating that this is public force being used to defend private monopoly of the rich and few.

The fucking farce this is is astounding.

Online IP "piracy" is a fucking disagreement against an entrenched and established elite now. You did it to your fucking selves. You just made all your laws completely MEANINGLESS.

Here's the proof that copyright law is insane (4, Insightful)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43911503)

police accuse site operators of committing offenses under the Serious Crime Act

When sharing information about shifting bits of data across a computer network is considered a serious crime, the corruption in the system is not only obvious but blatantly so.

Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911575)

The crime is not about shifting bits, it's about illegally copying works of others.

Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911715)

>illegally copying works of others
There's nothing illegal about making a backup but distribution is another matter, and this matter should be civi.
You're not going to stop 'copyright infringement', ever, until you force people to use black boxes to connect to the Internet. Actually, I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of it still happening after that. Never, ever. Only when it becomes more convenient to purchase/stream content or software legally (and most of all, cheaply) will you dent it.
Fuck, the MAFIAA organizations have been dragging their feet on shit like exceptions to allow exports of books read aloud for the blind to other countries (the current system requires every state to maintain its own and redo the reading, which leaves a lot of gaps.) They will be kicking and screaming when someone finally comes up with a proposal.

Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane (-1, Flamebait)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43911777)

Well you can't stop speeding either without installing black boxes in every car. I guess we should just stop enforcing it then.

Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43911821)

It's about pointing to other people who have shifted or are willing to shift bits. So yes, it's all about people shifting bits.

Re:Here's the proof that copyright law is insane (-1, Flamebait)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43912025)

Of course it is, and home robbery is not a crime; it's just about moving around physical objects. Is moving physical objects a crime?

If the tables were turned (4, Interesting)

Mistakill (965922) | about a year ago | (#43911521)

From the article:

Even though neither site is located in the UK, police believe that sites’ operators are committing crimes there.

Wonder how the UK police would feel if China, Iran, or North Korea accused them of commiting crimes against them... even though theyre in the UK

I am all for goverment support in this matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911553)

My ramblings in this matter; I spend a great deal of time doing take downs. I rarely come across someone whom understands that this is theft. Rarely do the take downs ever take place. Just can't afford to take everyone to court. I absolutely love the fact that there is government involvement. Something needs to be done. It is obvious that key people behind these torrent sites just don't respect peoples property. I for one have no faith (at all) for tech staff in regard to stolen works. It has to be an outside source at this point. Than, just maybe, those with whom shut down their sites because their works were torrented (stolen) will come back. It is these creative folks, in my mind, that stand above these idiots that steal.

Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911597)

+1

Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911677)

Do you often talk to yourself?

Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911793)

No, why would I do that?

Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43911603)

I am all for goverment support in this matter

Of course. You probably believe that you will directly benefit from the misuse of tax dollars.

I rarely come across someone whom understands that this is theft.

Even the law doesn't understand that it's theft (at least not that I'm aware of).

Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter (1)

fekmist (2857907) | about a year ago | (#43911609)

Nothing can be done about keeping people from copying copyrighted material on the internet. Although I'd agree with you that something does need to be done, you might be disappointed to hear that it's that they need to stop trying to stop copyright infringement. RIAA, MPAA, "Hollywood", were too slow to adapt to the internet (they couldn't as digital laws only came later), and now they are unable to catch up with the rest of the world. It's as though they're still stuck in the Napster days. Anyways, it would be in their best interest to refrain from spending money on going after consumers. Music artists nowadays have adapted to the internet and have their fans be much more involved in the music making process, and that seems to be working out for them even without record labels.

Re:I am all for goverment support in this matter (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43911829)

If it's theft, what have you lost? Since you claim you can't afford to take violators to court, you are obviously not successful. Maybe if you spent more time creating and less whining, you'd have something people want to use.

City of London - Corporate Haven (5, Interesting)

hedgemage (934558) | about a year ago | (#43911573)

Once you understand that this is being done by the City of London then it should be clear that this is not the actions of a municipal authority based on a desire to protect citizens, but rather a government of a tiny yet separate legal entity within what we usually call London. This tiny legal appendix (the City of London) is home to only about 10,000 people, but is actually a state within a state owned and operated by large multinational corporations and so its governance reflects what is good for business. Not good for the public, not good for England or Britain, but good for keeping money rolling in.
watch this and you'll understand why this is nothing more than monied interests trying to protect their own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc [youtube.com]

City of London is a private police force (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911613)

The 'City of London' police, is actually a special private police force responsible for the 'City' part of London which is the small financial district. It works for the City of London corporation, the private company that controls that part of London (for historical reasons a private company controls that part of London). It can be hired, quite literally you pay them money and they'll enforce the 'law':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Police
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/crime-and-community-safety/police/Pages/default.aspx

They don't have jurisdiction over Greater London, let alone the UK. They also don't have an elected police and crime commissioner. They don't have special competence in this area.

'National Fraud Intelligence Bureau' has a nice threatening sounding name, but is a private company created by the City of London police. There are a lot of these, they use them to avoid Freedom of Information act requests. Their official duty is to detect fraud in the city of London financial Financial district.

Their price list:
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/services/feesandcharges.htm

"Further, we have grounds to suspect that as owners and/or operators of the XXXXX website, you are committing offenses under the Serious Crime Act 2007 by doing acts capable of encouraging and assisting communication to the public (under s.107(2A) of the CDPA); "

These are almost certainly torrent *LINK* sites, which don't infringe copyright themselves. Anton Vickerman was not convicted of "facilitating copyright infringement", that was a fiction that FACT spread around. The police should not be presenting false information like this.

What he was charged with, was "conspiracy to defraud", not copyright infringement.
http://www.lojo.co.nz/downloads/0686010001361150697.pdf
http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2012/02/strange-case-of-soca-and-conspiracy-to.html

Which is presumably why the 'National Fraud Intelligence Bureau" is doing the PR work. They claimed he defrauded [who?] in order to make money. Sadly the judge was so keen to prosecute Vickerman, that he let them change the definition of 'fraud'. And now potentially any business which knows it can be used to infringe copyright is open to a fraud charge.

If you are in the UK, you might wish to avoid public comment, or at least comment anonymously. Discussions are logged now, and the UK police don't take kindly to contradictory viewpoints.

Re:City of London is a private police force (5, Insightful)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43911827)

Linking is not (yet) illegal in UK, no matter what these tosspots say. Also, they are misrepresenting themselves as those in a position of authority. So, in response, I suggest the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram.

Re:City of London is a private police force (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#43911929)

Very good information. Thank you. I'd no idea City of London was a biz not a gov't unit.

10 Years? (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43911631)

A sentence of 10 Years? What are they trying to do? Get folks to take up the less illegal crime of muggings?

Jail business booming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911643)

Time to get in the business of operating private jails. UK is planning on competing with USA for % of population in jail.

Try setting some cars on fire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43911733)

this seems to provide immunity from police actions somehow.

Police privatization (2)

Loki_666 (824073) | about a year ago | (#43911809)

Seems about right as the police forces in the UK are slowly being privatized. I understand some already are and have been for a while.

When they are privatized then they need to focus on their shareholders interests first.... wonder how much stake groups like the BPI and others will have in such forces?

I call bullsh*t! (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about a year ago | (#43911865)

“XXXXX is a BitTorrent website that – without the permission of the copyright holder – actively provides UK internet users with a bespoke directory and search engine for torrent files. This enables users to find and download copyright content which would otherwise be time consuming or impossible to locate,” the letter notes.

Google? - Search for the name of the show/movie and you'll find the name of the related torrent within the top 10 results. Then search for that specifically and you'll find the direct links to both bitlocker downloads and torrents. Not time consuming. Not impossible. Not at all. Extremely easy actually.

Re:I call bullsh*t! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912041)

I'd imagine the difference between Google and Torrent Site X is that when you ask Google to take it down, they do.

Child raping establishment painter avoids prison (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43912007)

Meanwhile, a British 'painter' with links to the most powerful people in the UK, including senior judges and politicians, has been raping young children for decades with the full knowledge senior members of Britain's police force. After protecting him from ANY act of prosecution, this depraved monster was finally brought to court in the aftermath of the scandal around the BBC's mass raping DJ and 'family entertainer', Jimmy Savile (the BBC actually provided Savile with rape-rooms where he could abuse young children in private).

The painter is Graham Ovenden, and his favourite trick was stripping and blindfolding his very young victims, before raping their mouths. Despite Ovendon's conviction in court, there was NEVER a chance of him being given a custodial sentence- his child porn paintings are collected by some of the most powerful people in the UK including one famous name currently involved in a libel action.

We had an identical situation a few years back when it transpired that the headmaster of one of Britain's most prestigious prep schools had been carrying out acts of sickening sexual perversion against dozens of his pupils. Again, powerful figures in the UK rallied to offer support to this depraved child molester, and he walked away from court a free man (another 'suspended' sentence).

British police have the longest history of ignoring evidence of child abuse when that abuse is being carried out by powerful people, or in private or public institutions. Child victims of abuse and rape have actually been forcibly returned to the location of their abuse by direct order of chief constables.

Since the uniformed scum need to be seen doing some form of 'law enforcement', their attention turns to people expressing anti-war sentiment on the Internet, and now 'torrent' sites. Tony Blair's goons in parliament are creating new laws at an incredible rate, and Britain's prison population is exploding. Private agencies are free to issue fines to increasing numbers of Britons for an ever increasing list of 'offences' (including 'littering' when accidental dropping money on the floor- go Google this fact when you are too stupid to believe me).

Britain's secret courts (set up by Tony Blair after he was outraged at newspaper campaigns allowing parents of hundreds of children wrongly grabbed by the state for 'satanic abuse' and other nonsense to publicly fight and win back their children) now send thousands of people to prison every year for things like sending birthday greeting over the Internet to their ADULT children (again, Google this FACT when you are too thick to believe me).

Britain claimed a 'right' to destroy Libya, because the leaders of Libya had once provided the IRA with some arms (forgetting, of course, the fact that Americans provided the vast majority of weapons, or the funds to buy the same, used by the Republican cause). Today, Britain is daily shipping massive quantities of weapons (including sarin gas) to the terrorists currently waging war in Syria, via Britain's tame puppets in Jordan, Turkey, and Qatar. The same terrorists are receiving direct training (in Jordan) from Britain's SAS and other military units.

Again, the need for distractions in the UK itself, so it's time for Muslim bashing, the bashing of the poor and disadvantaged, and actions against those providing 'illicit' services on the Internet.

PS did you know the acts of terror inflicted on democracy protesters by the dictators of Middle-East regimes friendly to the West like Dubai are overseen by senior British police personnel on secondment? Serving British police officers actually craft the programs of raids and torture used by these regimes, just as they did in British African colonies back in the dying days of the British Empire.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>