February 09, 2017 | Jim Killock

Ten years jail for file sharers—the governments’ gift to copyright trolls

Why does the government want to encourage legal threats to grannies and put file sharing teens in prison for a decade?

Gran being asked to cease and desist for copyright infringementTen years jail for filesharing: or in fact any minor copyright infringement where there is a “loss by not getting what one might get” or cause a “risk” of further infringement.

Clause 27 of the Digital Economy Bill will mean that more or less any wrongful use where somebody hasn’t paid a licence fee (think of memes) is a crime. Causing “risk” to the copyright holder means almost by definition ordinary file sharing is a criminal rather than civil infringement.

Is the government really intending to threaten teenagers with prison?

Why has the Digital Economy Bill been left with such a stupid legal change? Both the government and the Intellectual Property Office said they just wanted to bring online infringement into line with “real world” fake DVD offences. They were worried about the difficulties with charging people who run websites that help people download copyright works.

However, that isn’t how they offence is drawn up: and the government has now been told in Parliament twice that they are both criminalising minor infringements and helping copyright trolls. Copryight trolls, we should remember, specialise in threats concerning file sharing of niche pornographic works in order to frighten and embarass people into payment, often incorrectly, and to our knowledge, have never taken anyone to court in the UK.

The answers have been startlingly bad. Kevin Brennan stated, for Labour:

The Open Rights Group has expressed concern about the Government’s insistence that there needs to be “reason to believe” that infringement will cause loss or “the risk of loss”. Its fear is that that phrase, “the risk of loss”, could capture quite a wide range of behaviour, perhaps beyond the scope of what the Government say they intend. In particular, its concern is the extent to which that phrase will capture file sharing.

Copyright trolls get their profits when a certain number of people are scared enough to respond to those notifications and pay up. Frequently these accusations are incorrect, misleading and sent to account holders who did not sanction any such further file sharing. However, as I understand it, sending that kind of speculative threat to consumers is, unfortunately, perfectly legal. Some are concerned that if the Bill retains the concept of risk of loss, it could aid the trolls by enabling them to argue with more credibility that account holders may face criminal charges and a 10-year prison sentence.

Matt Hancock gave a non-answer:

We recognise that the maximum sentence of 10 years, even if only for the most serious cases, must be carefully targeted. Consequently, clause 26 also makes changes to the existing offence of online copyright infringement to make it clearer when that offence is committed and who should be considered liable. The amendments speak to some of those points.

The concept of prejudicial effect in the existing legislation will be replaced with a requirement that the infringer intends to make a monetary gain for themselves or knows or has reason to believe their actions will expose the rights holder to a loss or risk of loss in money. I will come to the debate around definition of that in more detail.

The point of this clarification is to act as a safeguard to ensure that the increased maximum penalty is applied only to serious criminals who deserve it and will not apply to those who share material accidently or without knowledge of the consequences.

In the Lords, Labour suggested returning to the current definition of “prejudicial effect”: which (as Matt Hancock says) suffers the same problem of being very wide and catching people it should not.

The government have failed to give any serious answers. The Opposition, Labour and Liberal Democrat should be able to see that an egregious mistake is being made, and they have the ability to force a change.

The problem is really easily fixed. The government simply need to put in thresholds to ensure that only significant damage or serious risk is caused. We have an amendment prepared and published.

Why does the government want to help copyright trolls bully grannies and criminalise file sharers whose actions may be idiotic, but hardly criminal?

The government needs to fix this before it becomes law and abuse of copyright ensues.


Comments (4)

  1. Ld Elon:
    Feb 09, 2017 at 04:29 PM

    Dont worry, sure people will lose their heads, because of this.

  2. clait:
    Feb 10, 2017 at 02:21 PM

    hmm..guess now if you repost someone's article (of course with the link to the original source) on your blog you may go to jail..yeah that's ridiculous..as a writer at http://jetwriters.com I've wrote my papers and articles and researches using other's works but I was always giving them credit for it (i mean proper citations and reference page)..but now if one of those authors comes across my work and says i have to pay for using his ideas what should i do??i am definitely not paying because I didn't steal anything..but still this law may say I did..

  3. Denise Smith:
    Feb 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM

    When the Tories came for the sick and disabledeven after thousands had died because of the DWP you did not speak up for them, When they sanctioned the jobless which left people in crisis that many hundreds took their own lives you did not speak up for them, now they come for you who will speak up for you the people you helped oppress by not reporting on scandel after scandel. This government has so much blood on their hands and you the main stream media press have said nothing about a government killing its own citizans. welcome to Theresa Mao regime

  4. Carol Steele:
    Feb 18, 2017 at 12:07 PM

    I am really torn by this petition, part of me wants to sign this as we need a free press to report abuse of power by our elected representatives and other people - yet on the other hand the press has abused its own power to meet its own agenda for many years with its vilification of certain people it regards as a sub-set of humanity - starting with racism, religion, gay rights and then transgender people. They fought like hell against the Leveson enquiry report and against the safeguards that were contemplated for bringing its own house in order.
    I am finding it greatly ironic that journalists are now asking the public to support them when they have abused the lives of many innocent people who just wanted to live their lives in peace.