UK Looks To Increase Penalties For Commercial Online Copyright Infringement 10X
from the wrong-direction dept
When the "Gowers Report" on copyright first came out in the UK, we pointed out that it had a lot of bad ideas included. The one good point was that copyright length shouldn't be extended any more. So, now that the UK is planning to ignore that one good suggestion, it's moving forward with plans to implement the bad suggestions in the report -- such as increasing the fines for online copyright infringement by 10x. To be fair, this is focused just on "commercial-scale" copying where someone is profiting from the infringement. But, given how the recording industry works, how long until they look for ways to expand that definition or increase the fines for "personal copying" to keep them "more aligned" with the fines for commercial copying?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright infringement, penalties, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Willing to bet someone will try that argument, sooner or later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: profiting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOUNDS LIKE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well at least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well at least
I mean the RIAA must employ 50 or 100 people in the UK alone and at least half of those arent even lawyers.
Yah, they are lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical British Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet if someone downloads a song from the internet, suddenly the music industry can recoup damages beyond what they suffered?
Exactly which situation is worse? Exactly what situation do we want to stop?
Of course someone will chime in saying that downloading is widespread and the music industry is losing millions of dollars. So what. Why should the person who was caught have to pay damages for all the people who are not caught.
Let's assume that 10 different people, independently and completely unaware of each other, rob 10 different branches of the same bank. Should the one guy who got caught be forced to pay for all 10 robberies?! I don't see how that's fair or should be allowed under the law. But yet, that's exactly what the current music industry wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I understand your points, but this is a hell of a lot better than trying to copy the American situation. They'll still lose millions, but hopefully not doing so while dragging down ordinary, often innocent, families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the answer is yes, then the company/person in question is entitled to the full "profit" they would have made, from the equivalent number of sales, plus all expenses incurred.
On the other hand, if the distributor made no profit, then a different law/section should apply.
Receiving a copy of a copyrighted work illegally benefits you the cost of "one copy". Regardless of the number of copies reproduced later during free redistribution. That does not make it morally or legally right, but it is real. No emotional plea changes that. A fixed charge of a couple of hundred dollars per redistribution offense is not unreasonable (the burned hand teaches best) but no more.
If that distinction is made "Within the Law", then I have no problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't be long
I'm sure it will take no more than a few hours, if that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa
Completely different organisation over here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]