hihello Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 The Digital Economy Bill is currently at the report stage. It hasn't yet become law and could still be amended. However, as things stand those who upload any amount of infringing content to the Internet could face up to 10 years in jail. With the latest bill now published, we take a look at how file-sharers could be affected. This week, Members of Parliament debated the Report stage and Third Reading of the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Commons. The bill is broad in scope and has the ability to upset Internet users in a number of ways. As reported by The Guardian this week, if the bill passes web users in the UK will be banned from websites which portray certain sex acts, all of which are entirely legal between consenting adults in the country. Websites which fail to stop UK residents from viewing such content will be blocked. Here at TF we’ve been keeping an eye on the proposed changes to the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) which will affect people who share copyrighted content online. As previously reported, the government’s main aim is to harmonize penalties for offline infringements with those carried out online, chiefly by upping the maximum penalty from two to ten years in prison. The latest bill published this week puts some additional meat on the bones. As things stand under current law, section 107 (criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles) reads as follows: (2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public — (a) in the course of a business, or (b) otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, commits an offense if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work. The latest draft amendment makes no mention of carrying out infringement during the course of business. Instead, for a person to be held criminally liable for distribution (such as uploading), they only need to have reason to believe something infringes copyright while making a personal gain, a gain for someone else, or exposing a copyright owner to the mere risk of loss. (2A) A person (“P”) who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public commits an offense if P — (a) knows or has reason to believe that P is infringing copyright in the work, and (b) either — (i) intends to make a gain for P or another person, or (ii) knows or has reason to believe that communicating the work to the public will cause loss to the owner of the copyright, or will expose the owner of the copyright to a risk of loss. In this context, the words ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ are very important. For the avoidance of doubt, the draft sets the bar as low as it can practically go. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) — (a) “gain” and “loss” — (i) extend only to gain or loss in money, and (ii) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent, and (b) “loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get. Similar amendments are proposed for section 198 of the CDPA, which deals with ‘Criminal liability for making, dealing with or using illicit recordings’. “These are recordings made without the consent of the performer (i.e. piracy or bootlegging). Bootlegging is the recording, duplication and sale of a performance such as a live concert stage performance without the permission of the performer,” a description from the Crown Prosecution Service reads. Like the amendments to section 107, gone are the references in current legislation to offenses carried out in the course of a business. Instead, the wording closely follows the section detailed above. (1A) A person (“P”) who infringes a performer’s making available right in a recording commits an offense if P — (a) knows or has reason to believe that P is infringing the right, and (b)either— (i) intends to make a gain for P or another person, or (ii) knows or has reason to believe that infringing the right will cause loss to the owner of the right, or expose the owner of the right to a risk of loss. In common with the amendments to section 107, to be found criminally liable an infringer will only need to expose a rightsholder to the risk of loss, not an actual loss. While at several points MPs have insisted that these legislative amendments won’t target the man in the street or the casual file-sharer, there appears to be nothing in the above that excludes a person who shares a single movie, song, or indeed bootleg recording, from being branded a criminal by the state. The full draft bill can be downloaded here (pdf, 180 pages) Source:TorrentFreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabrwky Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 That's entertainment, people! Music & movie industries über alles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marik Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 WHAT!? Only 10 years, what blasphemy is this! DEATH penalty, so we know they mean business! And while they're at it, change the punishment type for murderers and rapists to 1 week community service, cause we all know piracy is waaaaay worse than killing or raping someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straycat19 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Marik said: WHAT!? Only 10 years, what blasphemy is this! DEATH penalty, so we know they mean business! I don't have a problem with that. Or we could just cut off their hands, poke out their eyes, and bust their eardrums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 5 hours ago, straycat19 said: I don't have a problem with that. Or we could just cut off their hands, poke out their eyes, and bust their eardrums. Well maybe it will be you next, someone downloads a movie at you're work and they accuse you of it like they did this man at his work. TF done a study of it before and all across the USA people is downloading at there work even in Government. Old saying is if you are wishing bad things on others can cause bad things to happen to you. Court: ‘Falsely’ Accused ‘Movie Pirate’ Deserves $17K Compensation https://torrentfreak.com/court-falsely-accused-movie-pirate-deserves-17k-compensation-161206/ UK gives 2 times as much time for it as do in the USA and the only time they gave time is if they catch some big site owner or Group leader makeing money off it they get like 4 years it's a money racket is all when its a normal downloader and its not easy to prove because a ip is not a person Obama wanted to make streaming a felony but looks he will be leaving office before he gets a chance we know how them Pro Hollywood Libtrads are and you sound like one of them saying they should change a petty crime to the death plenty. You can rent a movie for few bucks . Lol copyright laws in the USA have not been updated since 1976 . Only isps in the States that use The Copyright Alert System is AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon and its only volunteer and should be illegal since no law was passed saying they could like other countries have laws. In the UK you can go in a store and steal a movie and get less time for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisPC666 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Quote “These are recordings made without the consent of the performer (i.e. piracy or bootlegging). Bootlegging is the recording, duplication and sale of a performance such as a live concert stage performance without the permission of the performer,” a description from the Crown Prosecution Service reads. does this mean all those who adds subs to music videos in youtube etc. are liable of piracy? thus deserved being imprisoned for 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, ThisPC666 said: does this mean all those who adds subs to music videos in youtube etc. are liable of piracy? thus deserved being imprisoned for 10 years? No because YouTube is in the USA if the UK bothers Google they will just block the videos were they can only view certain ones like they block videos for Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisPC666 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 1 minute ago, steven36 said: No because YouTube is in the USA if the UK bothers Google they will just block the videos were they can only view certain ones like they block videos for Germany. sure, but that is how that bill is interpreted right? specially if they are profiting from the views they get. by that bill's definition it is piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 1 hour ago, ThisPC666 said: sure, but that is how that bill is interpreted right? specially if they are profiting from the views they get. by that bill's definition it is piracy. Google works with the MPAA and the RIAA that's how they stay in business . MPPA and the RIAA have Google in there Pocket Also Hollywood has the Uk in it's Pocket too lol. If you upload something not legal and get caught Google is going throw you to the dogs like dog food. It's like p2p in the USA p2p Downloading/uploading. torrents is completely 100% legal , Downloading torrents with content you have no rights to own ( copyrighted ) is illegal. Watching YouTube is legal many good videos are uploaded by the artist . A lot movies and TV shows copyright have expired on and are legal . If you upload something to there services not legal you're labile not them only way they would be if they took them too court and won and since they work with the MPAA and the RIAA i doubt it will ever happen for copyright unless they have a falling out. You ever here of the browntracker by the Rock group Ween? it's a legal p2p site. http://www.browntracker.net/ That's what make p2p a big money trap.. A Hollywood scam in the USA If Hollywood wanted too they could charge everyone a downloaders tax and make it legal like it is in the NL. Its like drugs they make more money from raids than if they made it legal and charge tax on it . But no more than they catch in the USA for downloading it the 3rd hugest in the world with a warez problem they would benefit more by a downloaders tax but Hollywood is greedy they want be happy tell it's like the 80s again and they get all the money. Instead of making money on it now They rather waste money fighting a war they been fighting since the 90s . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterupc Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 It's not too ar away the day when humming a song will be accounted as a risk of loss and you will be charged as a pirate... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 1 hour ago, masterupc said: It's not too ar away the day when humming a song will be accounted as a risk of loss and you will be charged as a pirate... LOL When will that be? you can go make a spotify or deezer account and search and listen too music for free ? Also i got a apps were i can search and listen to YouTube without a browser even also i have a app were i can search and download YouTube without a browser . as far as free music it's better than it ever was before . Only thing that may happen is one day they may force them to charge everyone then piracy in music will prevail again . I dont be searching for nothing using my real ip no way in over 5 years so no anti piracy troll can account me for anything because a ip is not a person. How do you stop something were anyone with a CD can easy rip and even share over a encrypted IM back in the old days we use share to songs trough IM on dial up even. . The reason for legal free music was because they had been trying stop it since the 90s and failed . Napster , Kazzaa , Imesh , etc was the 1st Itunes , They invited pay and free streaming legal music from something the pirates done long before any of it existed . Going back too what i saying about Hollywood being greedy this year RIAA Reports the Music Industry's Biggest Growth Since the 1990s http://edm.com/articles/2016/9/22/music-industry-growth-riaa Google gave the Music industry a billion dollars and they just sneered and wants google to be more tougher on uploaders at YouTube . https://torrentfreak.com/ifpi-sneers-at-youtubes-1-billion-music-industry-revenue-payout-161207/ Quote Single and album downloads, which were the preferred types of digital music in the U.S. up until 2012, are slowly being replaced by subscription and streaming services. In 2015, subscription and streaming services generated about double the revenue of sales of single downloads. Forecasts show that streaming is expected to take over the market, as digital music revenue from streaming in the U.S. is projected to increase from about 2.4 billion U.S. dollars in 2016 to more than 5.1 billion U.S. dollars by 2021. During the same period, digital music revenue from downloads is estimated to decline from 1.8 billion U.S. dollars to 1.2 billion U.S. dollars. Along with streaming services, online radio is gaining popularity in the U.S., as Americans spent an average of 728 hours weekly listening to online radio in 2016. Pandora and iHeartRadio are two examples of online radios among the leading online music services in the U.S. https://www.statista.com/topics/1639/music/ I can just turn on the old FM radio over here a listen to the same stuff we be streaming trough online raido and i can even listen if the power fails . now days you go to a party they hooking up there phones trough the home stereos and streaming from online even in there cars they do it lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.