4 ms·
The law is clear: complicity in copyright violation, for profit. It became a criminal offence across Europe in the last decade. This puts costs for prosecution
by PieterH 10y ago
The law is clear: complicity in copyright violation, for profit. It became a criminal offence across Europe in the last decade. This puts costs for prosecution on the state, not rights holders, and it allows for jail time. Whether the law is fair or right, that's a different question. Many people lobbied hard against criminalisation of copyright and patent violations, and lost. The movie industry is just too powerful and had too many friends.
But it's not nebulous. Help others commit a crime, you are an accessory and you are liable for fines and prison.
- abiox 10y agowhat "help others" means can be stretched pretty far.
- DanBC 10y agoI can understand (but don't agree with) jail time for the site owner. I don't know if I understand that for the mods, unless they got some money from the site. I really don't understand it for the users, unless again they got money from the site. As I understand it copyright infringement is only criminal if it's part of trade. The article describes those users as downloaders, which to me means the rights holders can sue for damages as a civil action, but not that the state can prosecute as a criminal case.
- SuperGent 10y agoThey charged them with receiving stolen goods. How this relates to French Law I'm not aware tho.
- kodt 10y agoCan we not charge all of the ISPs involved with transporting stolen goods?
- thesimpsons1022 10y agothe mods knew what they were doing. difference between someone who builds a road and someone who drives a truck full of drugs on that road.
- bbctol 10y agoI guess the mods here aren't driving, but they did give the directions?
- biot 10y agoThe moderators were making judgment calls on which drugs were not high quality enough, keeping only the drugs that met some minimum standard.
- 0xfeba 10y agoBut is copying a copyrighted movie "stealing" in that it deprives the owner (who still has the movie) of profits of that movie? Yes, potentially some people will go out to see the movie if they cannot pirate it. But not all. And it's hard to prove either way. That's not the same as "stealing a car".
- thesimpsons1022 10y agodidnt say anything about stealing a car?
- kodt 10y agoI think he is referencing this old anti-piracy ad that used to air in movie theaters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_vHwfDNGdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_vHwfDNGdg
- ecnal 10y agoI am seriously struggling to understand the rationale for that.
- effie 10y agoWow, that seems like in France, in year 2016, the purpose-built false idea that copying == stealing can still be used by the disingenunous lawyers to manipulate courts and destroy lives of people.
- tdb7893 10y agoI don't know why someone would create a conspiracy to make stealing == copying when they were both clearly very illegal already. I do agree that naming the charge "receiving illegal goods" would actually fit what they are doing, though.
- DanBC 10y agoBecause some laws are criminal (police and fines and jail) and some laws are civil (rights holders sue for loss of earnings). Me downloading a movie is normally civil. This new case turns it criminal.
- PieterH 10y agoThere is no case law in France. Copyright and patent violations fell under criminal law some years ago. There was a long battle in the EU to stop this happening. The movie industry won. In France the law was passed under Sarkozy iirc. When you download a movie, this is now a criminal offense. However the sanctions are mild (warnings) for first time offenders, and only turn to jail time for those making a lot of money from it (I think, IANAL.) In all cases however the rights holders don't sue, it's the state that sues. Big win for the content cartels as they get these cases prosecuted for free now.