Why I'm Happy If They Criminalise It

16th August 2009 06:54 | by John McKeown

So, Lord Mandelson comes back from his holiday and decides to pay for it by quickly adding a bit to the Queens Speech that will allow his mates to increase their vast fortunes. http://torrentfreak.com/britain-mulls-turning-7-million-into-download-criminals-090816/ 

Lets forget the fact that this should all be debated in the Digital Britain debate in parliament later this year and look at what positives might come from this.

Since nobody in power is willing to define exactly how evidence will be gathered I have to say that it would be of great help if the government would criminalise the offence and then the evidence would have to be gathered in a proper manner against each individual.  This is important because the media industry would like to be able to circumvent the judicial process completely and use the flimsiest evidence obtained by "sub contractors" (IP harvesters) as proof and force ISP's to act on it, hence saving themselves from the problem of having to individually prosecute their own best customers in a civil case or using the police to investigate a crime.

The burden of proof in a criminal case would have to be beyond reasonable doubt instead of the balance of probability required for a civil case, so while an IP address could be accepted by a technologically unaware judge as proof of guilt in a civil case, there would have to be a proper trail of evidence gathered by the police through obtaining a warrant to monitor an individuals internet use if there is a valid reason for suspecting a crime is being committed.

I am a bit cynical perhaps, but I'm sure the government will find a method of justifying not using the courts to decide guilt on this particular crime. Can you imagine the outcry if a terrorist suspect was convicted on evidence obtained by a commercial company using highly intrusive and undisclosed spying methods, the suspect would walk free because the evidence was inadmissible and would have a nice big wad of cash to compensate him or her for such a huge breach of his human rights. Maybe it's because there aren't large sums of money to be made from going after terrorists that our ignoble leaders haven't found a way to bypass the individual right to trial that seems to apply to all but filesharers.

Share

6 comments

16th August 2009 23:31 by JPrescott
absolutely appalled but yet again this proves that our government has turned its back on its people and sided with corporations. There is no difference between labour now and the tories in the 80's!
17th August 2009 12:53 by cyberdemon
Don't bet on it! Just because it's the government and not a commercial company, doesn't mean that they won't use "highly intrusive and undisclosed spying methods". Have you heard of the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP)? It basically sets out to require ISPs to regularly send data to the government on their users' web and internet usage, right down to the text of emails. These are not even terror suspects. Just ordinary innocent people. I honestly don't see how you can trust the government any more than some greedy industry lobby. The only difference is that there's now a criminal record and a potential jail sentence attached as opposed to just a ridiculous fine.
17th August 2009 16:59 by John McKeown
My point is that at least they will need a warrant and reasonable suspicion, not just 'cos they feel like it.
18th August 2009 17:21 by cyberdemon

I'm not so sure about that, either.. Do criminal cases _have_ to be brought by the CPS? My understanding was that a private party can prosecute under criminal law (at their own expense?) if they so wish. e.g. shops will often prosecute shoplifters rather than waiting for the police. They can probably still use the same dodgy "expert witnesses" too.

17th August 2009 17:34 by IAmAI
It's a interesting perspective but is there any real guarantee that the benefits you describe will come to fruition if copyright becomes a criminal offence? I think the real solution is that civil cases convictions should be held to the same level of proof as criminal cases; frankly I see no reason they should not be. As copyright law stand now, I couldn't accept copyright infringement as a criminal offence, however, if inline with the Pirate Party's aims, copyright was reformed to balance the interests of everyone, I would perhaps be willing to accept copyright infringement as a criminal offence. Perhaps we can expect in this case the scope of what is 'illegal' will be well defined with specific punishments.
18th August 2009 13:20 by Coactum
Fuel the fire, fat cats!
Posting new comments has been disabled for this post.