×

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!

British Police Censor the Global Internet

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the sun-never-sets-on-the-british-censor dept.

United Kingdom 228

judgecorp writes "A branch of the City of London police seems to be censoring suspected pirates worldwide, using threats. The Police Intellectual Proerty Crime Unit (PIPCU), acts on tip-offs from copyright owners to attempt to close down websites accused of piracy. the process involves cease-and-desist letters, followed by pressure on advertisers not to fund the site, and finally PIPCU uses threats to the domain registrar (not the ISP), all without any sort of court order."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

I wonder... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45650925)

...if the British realize that they don't own the world anymore.

Nor do they have an empire.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45650985)

No, but one has to wonder if merely threatening foreign pirates actually works...

Yeap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45650989)

We do, do the USA realize they will never and do not currently (despite attempts) own the world?

Re:Yeap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651091)

The population might, but our government thinks they still do.

Re:Yeap (0, Offtopic)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#45651631)

We do, do the USA realize they will never and do not currently (despite attempts) own the world?

You do realize that TFA is about the british police?

You get how English works right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651683)

That was a response to the first comment attacking Britain for no reason when the topic does not relate to ALL Britains, so the USA response was a retort at his tarnishing everyone with the same brush by doing the very same back to him.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651003)

Of course, they don't.
The Us own the world...

I will point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651009)

the Queen still owns more land than any other country or nation on the planet...so "technically" we do own a majority share of "The World".

Re:I will point out... (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#45651077)

More than anyone else is not a majority--it's a plurality. Unless the queen owns 50% of the world plus one iota, then it's not a majority.

Re:I will point out... (1)

liamevo (1358257) | about 4 months ago | (#45651279)

he said majority share, not majority.

so land ownership = ruler? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651933)

um fuckign dmeocracy you fuckin wankers ( purposely spelt wrong for nsa spies )

Re:I will point out... (3, Insightful)

fredrated (639554) | about 4 months ago | (#45651105)

Can you explain why this paleolithic institution is allowed to survive? Are the British people daft?

Re:I will point out... (5, Informative)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#45651239)

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation [theatlantic.com]

Re:I will point out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651285)

I don't care if brought in the entire GDP, it's an outdated, immoral construct that has no place in modern society. We should be ashamed to have a monarchy.

Sorry what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651431)

Ashamed of our heritage?? instead of what a President who is the exact same thing but without the rich back history and throw away everything that makes us different? Britain is known around the world for our Royal event's, hence the tourism income produced every year by it. If you think we should be ashamed of our past maybe you should stop calling yourself British.

Re:Sorry what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651459)

A president is voted on, not born into, his/her position. They have term limits and can be removed.

I am ashamed.

So do a Prime Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651563)

...the Monarchy has very little control or power over decisions of our government ...

Re:So do a Prime Minister (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651659)

Are you an idiot?

The PM has to meet with the Queen every week.

Then you have the Queen's speech to Lords telling us what shit's been made law, plus she can remove the government at any time.

But in reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651739)

she couldn't because she also has control over the "Launch Nukes" button but if she wanted to use it she wouldn't be allowed without the house of commons deciding she could press it, so no you are a joke if you believe the Queen has any effect on any decision of this country. The meeting is purely a formality she is just a tourist attraction now.

Re:So do a Prime Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651667)

so why the fuck do we pay them and charlie made a nice little back room deal for the royals with cameroon so that's a fucking lie

For a profit of 100mil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651793)

You know, like any employee: they bring in more money than they cost, ergo hiring them is worth doing.

Maths. Try more than one sum at a time, dear.

Re:For a profit of 100mil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651921)

Bullfuck. Employees are hired and can be fired. Royals are born, nothing more. It was pure bloody fucking luck.

Fuck them.

Re:So do a Prime Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651681)

Yet they receive tax money. Fine, we can keep the, but they pay their own way, pay for their security and living quarters.

Re:I will point out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651387)

no it fucking does not, the historic building's generate that not the bloody royal welfare scroungers.

They should have "all" there wealth stripped and put back unto UK gov (our stupid fuckers have just given them a fucking £230 mil rise from fucking useless windmills (draining more money from us via power bills))

Actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651485)

...the majority comes from Royal events and the like...the buildings are what cost money. People come to see the Royal family, they care less about the house they live in (although they do come for that too) it is more of a complete package. Get rid of the family and no one cares about the empty house that once had royalty and their belongings inside.

Re:Actually (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651733)

bollocks, next you'll be suggesting the USA gets tourism from the Kardashians

Jubilee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651811)

Royal Jubilee, google how much tourism it generated, nuff said.

Re:I will point out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651547)

Unless the royals generated enough tax revenue to cover their costs they are still a cost to us UK taxpayers.

The £400M (or whatever) comes out of all of our pockets - the £500M goes into those of the tourist industry (with a percentage coming back as tax).

If the situation were truly fair, the net beneficiaries should pay* for the royals and the rest of us just contribute a SMALL overhead like we do for generic 'heritage' etc.

*obvious pun "paying royalies"

Re:I will point out... (4, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | about 4 months ago | (#45651655)

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation [theatlantic.com]

The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would bring in much more money if the Queen would fuck off. They could be permanently opened as museums.

http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php [republic.org.uk]

Re:I will point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651863)

In the Netherlands our royal family are business people who make deals for our large corporations and open up trade negotiations with other countries. Our royal family works for their living and earn the Netherlands a lot of money.

Re:I will point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651293)

Can you explain why this paleolithic institution is allowed to survive? Are the British people daft?

Because the alternative to the monarchy would be paying just as much for a president, and we only need to look at America to see what a waste of time that would be.

Re:I will point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651437)

at least their would be less hangers on and waste on fucking royal birthday pagents

Re:I will point out... (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | about 4 months ago | (#45651347)

Most of us would rather have the Queen as head of state than any recent prime minister.

Re:I will point out... (1)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | about 4 months ago | (#45651491)

Exactly this. Mrs Queen is not a member of any political party. We don't know what the rules for a president would be, but it's pretty certain they'd build the same old party political self-interest into them.

Re:I will point out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651685)

The Queen IS our Head of State.

And actually, most of us would prefer to have a true democracy based upon informed choices of an educated electorate rather than an increasingly Americanised two-party sideshow providing a veneer of credibility to an outdated and self serving establishment... if we're to be marked as insighful for completely baseless, self opined, assertions.

Re:I wonder... (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#45651025)

We still have a commonwealth, so technically, I think we do still have an empire.

an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.

I suppose it depends on your definition of extensive.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651463)

Not that I'm the expert but I don't that qualifies.

The commonwealth is a group of independent countries who share a single Head of State.

It's not like Britain can compel any nation within the commonwealth to act in any particular manner.

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651599)

we compel them to compete in the commonwealth games every few years, that enough?

Re:I wonder... (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#45651635)

Doesn't Elizabeth II count? She's independently queen of 15 different countries. Quite what power she had in them, I don't know.

Re:I wonder... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 4 months ago | (#45651857)

Doesn't Elizabeth II count? She's independently queen of 15 different countries. Quite what power she had in them, I don't know.

"independently" being the key word. The UK government does not have control over those other countries. The Queen as an individual is head of state of those other countries. As for power, didn't the Queen's representative dissolve the Australian parliament some years ago? [wikipedia.org]

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651993)

She has no power.

To qualify that, she has all the power and can do what ever she wants with it. However, Parliment (in the UK at least so I assume the rest of the commonwealth as they're fashioned after us) has the power to remove all her powers at any point the choose.

This creats an effective stalemate where the Monach doesn't actually have any power, other than being the symbol of ultimate power...

I guess a fair example for an American is that whilst you have the right to own a gun, with all the power that implies, you're going to have a hard time using it in anything but a sanctioned manner.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651819)

There is no requirement to have the Queen as head of state to become a member of the Commonwealth.
Many of the members have their own Presidents, Kings, Queens and even a Sultan or two.

The real problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45650979)

People are doing things for the police without a court order. If there's one thing I've learned in my years of dealing with law enforcement: get everything on paper before you do anything.

Corrupt City of London (5, Informative)

benjfowler (239527) | about 4 months ago | (#45651005)

Fun fact: the City of London (as opposed to Greater London and its boroughs outside the square mile) is a dictatorship with a mayor annually appointed by the businesses that operate in the City of London.

Smacks of fascism? Yes. They pride themselves as "business friendly", and never met a plutocrat they didn't like. The City of London police is basically a militia for the rich and powerful. They are also in cahoots with Scientology -- some senior officers are Scientologists, and the City of London Police have been known to do their dirty work for them, as previously reported on Slashdot.

No... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651045)

This is pretty much all nonsense. The major is elected by the people not businesses or the rich...try not using wikipedia to do fact finding, if you did any at all...

Re:No... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651079)

You're the only with no facts. The City of London is not the same as London. The Mayor of the City of London is not the Mayor of London.

Re:No... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651167)

Ha ha. The irony!

benjfolwer is correct and you Mr high and mightly asshole, with all your fact finding, are WRONG!

The Mayory of the City of London is elected by the 'Livery Companies' not the people. Wrong Mayor of London.

Actually no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651351)

the city of london major, which is what the op was referring to is not elected by the business's it is elected by the people, the lord major (totally different to the major of the city of london) IS elected by the business's but has NOTHING to do with the policing in london AT ALL. So that guy was not "high and mighty and wrong" you are.

Re:No... (4, Informative)

dominux (731134) | about 4 months ago | (#45651189)

the City of London is a square mile business district, the Lord Mayor is the head of the City of London Corporation, and is Fiona Woolf at the moment. Boris is the Mayor of London - that is Greater London, and what Americans think of as London, not the City of London Corporation. It is actually the Livery Companies (like the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists) that elect the Lord Mayor. It is weirder than you think.

Re:Corrupt City of London (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 months ago | (#45651101)

cops are, by modern definition, thugs for the rich and powerful.

see pete seeger's 'banks of marble' song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-o3CJytIPE [youtube.com]

the more things change, the more they stay the same. not much has changed and this seems to be a universal theme with cops world-wide.

think about who they really work for. when push comes to shove, its not you or I, that are their masters.

Re: Corrupt City of London (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#45651155)

Still sounds better than the dictatorship under Emperor Bloomberg in NYC. (good riddance, he won't be missed. )

Re:Corrupt City of London (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#45651207)

It's a ceremonial position and its entire purpose since its creation has been to promote businesses in the City of London. The Mayor has no political authority whatsoever.

Re:Corrupt City of London (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651335)

So she is called "Mayor", but she is really the head of the Chamber of Commerce for that district then.

Re:Corrupt City of London (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651377)

And Slashdot was banned that day.

Thanks Ben Fowler!

Court order (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#45651095)

all without any sort of court order."

Have you recently read of anything done by anyone WITH a court order? I wonder if the courts still remember how to write one.

The template must have been used for the last time with WordPerfect 4.2.

Re:Court order (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | about 4 months ago | (#45651443)

Knowing the government IT contracts work/end up here in the UK, they are probably still using WordPerfect 4.2.

UK (5, Informative)

gramty (1344605) | about 4 months ago | (#45651103)

Civil rights have been under attack in Britain for a long time. Since Thatcher, continued enthusiastically by Blair/Brown and now Cameron's government we have seen a massive assault on traditional freedoms and protections. Judicial oversight, Freedom of speech, free assembly/protest, presumption of innocence, freedom from mass surveillance have all come under massive attack by various bills over the last 20 years. This is has been met with hardly a reaction from the general public, most people don't seem to think it affects them and this has emboldened governments and institutions to act in a more and more authoritarian manner, working under the strong belief that they are doing what the public want for their own good. I fear by the time people start to react, we will be so far down the road; it will take something close to a revolution to change. We are not big on revolutions on Britain.

Re:UK (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#45651229)

Civil rights have been under attack in Britain for a long time.

And Britain is welcome to fuck with their own civil rights.

When they start feeling like they have the authority and jurisdiction to affect the broader global internet, that's the point at which people need to start referring them to Arvell v Pressdram [nasw.org] and reminding them of where exactly their legal authority ends.

And the City of London has legal authority for an exceedingly small area, and precisely ZERO international authority.

Anybody being bullied into doing this is an idiot.

Re:UK (2)

gramty (1344605) | about 4 months ago | (#45651363)

I agree with you. However around the world the actions the NSA and GCHQ (and many others) has resulted in a microscopic reaction from the general public.
This has led many in power in power to believe that that can do what they damn well please, and the threat that the powers that be are against you is sufficient to scare people into submission because they don't believe the law really protects individuals any more.

Re:UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651479)

because they don't believe the law really protects individuals any more.

That would be because it doesn't.

Re:UK (2)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 months ago | (#45651549)

The problem is that demanding censorship will make it harder for police globally to do work.

Right now, a lot of people are still going about their business directly from their IP to sites. Using an encrypted, offshore VPN is a matter of a few mouse clicks, or a couple taps on a smartphone or tablet. Once people start doing this as a matter of habit, then all goes dark.

The next step would be to block/censor/throttle VPNs, but because legitimate businesses use VPNs for secure remote communications, they will gripe, and a business that gripes is heard loud and clear compared to easily ignored individuals.

Re:UK (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 months ago | (#45651975)

Interesting to watch this exact same conversation occur, just with UK swapped in for US. We're "fighting" the same battle over here.

Re:UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651383)

Wrong: the government and institutions are NOT working under "strong belief" of anything. They're acting with a clear and well-defined agenda that serves both their interests and their corporate buddies. The public is completely leaderless, disorganized and unable to put up any sort of resistence out of apathy ("what can we do?"), fear ("they'll put us on a blacklist and we'll never get a job") or a half-hearted belief in propaganda ("well, if it's to make us safer"). Harassment during legal assemblies by police officers taking pictures of the demonstrators - essentially threatening them with future prosecution - is commonplace. It's working. It's succeeding. Democracy is dying, like the victim of a beating bleeding to death on the pavement, surrounded by a bunch of grinning thugs, daring anyone to step forward and help. They say nothing at all, but the message is clear.

British Police (1)

Philip Mather (2889417) | about 4 months ago | (#45651131)

This is just "how it works" in real life and is the equivalent of them "asking nicely", common approach is to ignore them politely whilst furiously covering ones arse via some means. However things tend to progress quite quickly after that, one of two things tends to happen:
1) You have a faster means of transport than they do and a better working knowledge of the local area facilitating a clean get away.
1) a) They pop round your "known associates" and ask them deep and meaningful questions about your whereabouts lately.
2) ...or they catch you and give your kidneys a little tickle with a truncheon.

So this seems roughly to be a fairly direct translation to the on-line world. I'd expect the equivalent here to be that either...
1) You make sure you have a diverse infrastructure outside their jurisdiction and a better working knowledge of how the internet works.
1) a) They pressure your advertisers.
2) ...or they pop around your house and confiscate all your kit which you might get back some day in the far flung future, probably without the drives.

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/11/07/feature_what_happens_when_you_arrested_by_computer_police/ [theregister.co.uk] for a detailed explanation of what to expect from number 2.

Which is ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651135)

Because it is at the behest of American record and film companies.

Re:Which is ironic (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45651629)

Actually, no. The CoLP are very heavily influenced by corporate pressures, but not those ones. They work for a number of British corporations, most of them financial.

So this action is at the behest of the British record and film companies. There is some overlap, with a lot of them being multinational.

Jurisdiction? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#45651147)

Do these people not realize they have zero jurisdiction outside of their own country?

If a police department in a foreign country is trying to exert pressure on you, the response is to tell them to go fuck themselves and come back when they have legal standing.

Re:Jurisdiction? (3, Insightful)

gramty (1344605) | about 4 months ago | (#45651513)

In today's world jurisdiction and legal authority are nice to haves.
You don't need to even accuse someone of something, just put them on a database, no-fly list, person of interest register, financial blacklists, etc. Threats from authorities do have weight even if there is no law backuping them up, it's disgusting.

Sure you can probably win in court, but not before massive financial expense and being fucked with for a few decades.

Re:Jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651591)

If they actually are police, they have zero jurisdiction outside of their town/city.

Re:Jurisdiction? (1)

gramty (1344605) | about 4 months ago | (#45651703)

The primary thing I think they City of London cops could do to someone is put them in an international anti-money laundering database.

International financial crime is a bit part of what the City of London (being the ÚK's finacial capital) police do, these lists are shared throughout the international banking system and being on one can make conducting business anywhere in the western world rather awkward.

Re:Jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651767)

Bullies have authority everywhere as long as nobody steps up to say no.

City of London Police != Scotland Yard (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 4 months ago | (#45651175)

City of London police is like a private security firm working for a postage-stamp size borough of London. They tiny ( and they leave horse shit all over the place ).

I WANT MY HOVERBOARD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651191)

EORIGJ

in few words: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651257)

1) some people steal the property of some other people
2) the victims notify the police unit responsible for protecting their property rights
3) the police ask the thiefs to stop stealing
4) if the thiefs refuse to stop stealing the police ask from people helping the criminals by providing funding and/or technical means to stop
5) the usual ./ crowd screams...

Re:in few words: (0)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#45651533)

the usual ./ crowd screams...

It's /. you illiterate and cowardly moronic cipher, not ./

Re:in few words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651673)

the usual ./ crowd screams...

It's /. you illiterate and cowardly moronic cipher, not ./

Thanks for correcting me dude - i see my original comment is rated -1 now... i think it was because i offended the usual ./ crowd by misspelling "slashdot"!

Yo limeys! (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 4 months ago | (#45651265)

Take your hooligan ways and shove them up your ass. We shit on your face while singing "My Little Armalite"!

The correct response by all companies (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 4 months ago | (#45651277)

The correct response by all companies to a request "without any sort of court order." should be to send t directly to /dev/null - I don't care if it is the NSA, FBI, or the London Police issuing the request, unless it is accompanied by a court order, why are companies bending over backwards to help the government - the government sure is not bending over backwards to help them.

(Yes I realize the problem is larger than this with FISA warrants and secret courts, but I don't think the London Police Department can serve a FISA warrant... yet anyway.)

Re:The correct response by all companies (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 4 months ago | (#45651595)

or to be blunt "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"

Re:The correct response by all companies (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 months ago | (#45652007)

government sure is not bending over backwards to help them.

Sure it is. It's us that is left out in the cold, not companies.

if we like our current tyranny we can keep it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651299)

taxation without representation (or with misrepresentation) is the term

So all crime in GB..... (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#45651305)

Is now gone? no killings no robberies, All real crime has been taken care of so they have to move to IP enforcement?

Re:So all crime in GB..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651507)

Are you somehow implying that murder is more abhorrant than sharing files online?

Re:So all crime in GB..... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#45651963)

Of course not, Murder is a minor crime and not even a crime if done to a poor person. but oh dead god, share a mp3 and deprive a rich person of their royalties? The police should be killing whole families as a message to other down loaders.

I learnt a few days back... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651325)

...the the Police can actually issue their own warrants.

Tax Funded Investment (1)

Elixon (832904) | about 4 months ago | (#45651403)

By owning the intellectual property one gains rights but also duties to protect the intellectual property. It is in fact the burden on shoulders of IP holders that is specified by law. :-) This is a very nice example of businesses delegating their duties to people (I mean tax-funded police). Definitely smart way to lower the costs of intellectual property ownership and thus increasing the profit margin.

I am sure that ordinary British will not like it. I am interested to see what will they do about it (to know when our Police will get the same idea ;).

Re:Tax Funded Investment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651535)

I am sure that ordinary British will not like it.

They won't even hear about. And if they do they won't care. Same as the US, the vast majority are totally apathetic about such issues.

Re:Tax Funded Investment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651849)

As is being said many times in this thread, The City of London Police are not police in the same way as as the Metropolitan Police are police.

The first looks after a very select group of people and geographic area, mainly corporations as opposed to actual citizens.

The latter is what you would commonly know as police.

can possibly see where this is going (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651473)

no one is forcing [you people] to use this internet... anyone that doesn't like the new rules, policies, prodecures etc. is free to take their business elsewhere -- or something to that effect -- same lines that Google® , Facebook® . etc. give to people who don't like what they are implementing or their agendii.

JEW police (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45651569)

The ONLY reason why any of this is taking place is because our Jewish 'masters' think they might lose a shekel or two in profit if people don't go to the cinema to watch their crappy Hollyweird films, etc.

Oy vey! We can't have the Jews doing manual labour! Whatever next! Another holocaust!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...