10 ms·

Viewing Illegal Streams: No Cautions, Fines or Arrests Say GM Police

104 points by CTOSian 3y ago

throwup238 3y ago
The UK police is so massively underfunded since austerity started in 2010 that it's no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. They just don't have the manpower to enforce something so prevalent and hard to police. The bigger surprise is that they have enough manpower to fill the freedom of information request to begin with. That's probably the reason the other two departments refused to answer.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  I thought the second half of the article basically disposed of the notion that lack of resources was the reason for refusing to answer. > West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.
- cornholio 3y ago
  > no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. I can only fathom "viewing illegal streams" leading to arrest in the case of CSAM. Regardless of any staffing or resources, it's a complete travesty to arrest anyone for using their internet connection to view lawfully produced content. The power to restrain the physical liberty is a substantial corollary of the state's monopoly on violence, which should be employed when those arrested are a menace to other peaceful citizens. I could see law enforcement getting involved in copyright crimes committed by commercial pirates, issuing fines to consumers or identifying them to the rights holders who can then seek redress in a court of law.
  - duxup 3y ago
    Yeah if it is tied to a larger / other crime I could see it happening if only because they're really looking into another issue.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    There are companies selling boxes which stream massive amounts of material they don't have the rights to, for very large profits. Some teenager watching the latest game of thrones (or whatever's hip nowadays) because their parent doesn't subscribe to Sky, or because they were out when it was on, isn't really the same thing.
  - 127361 3y ago
    Nobody should ever be prosecuted for viewing or reading anything, anywhere. Doing so is a hallmark of a de-facto police state. It's a fundamental liberty we have forgotten about as the frog has slowly boiled over the last 40 years.
    - WheatMillington 3y ago
      Do you honestly believe that viewing CSAM shouldn't be a crime? Is this really the logical end-point of this style of techo-libertarianism?
      - mmh0000 3y ago
        Yes. Imagine how easy it is to get people you dislike arrested with a bit[1] of CSAM. On the other hand, I feel that creating and/or distributing CSAM should result in instant death for the creator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon EDIT: Creating and/or distributing.
        127361 3y ago
        This is just the tip of the iceberg: Bluetooth keystroke-injection in Android, Linux macOS and iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 These laws which criminalize viewing or reading things need to go now.
      - 127361 3y ago
        Yes, absolutely. It is today's equivalent of moral puritanism. It is absolutey inconceivable to me that a 21st Century society could be prosecuting people for viewing images. Distributing and making those images should remain a crime, of course. But absolutely not viewing. And we can continue to shut down the sites hosting such material, and encourage those who come across them to report them. It is not acceptable to prosecute someone for the act of viewing a web site, regardless of it's content. Doing so is absolute totalitarianism. In a free society, people should be able to browse any part of the Web without fear of punishment, it is fundamental. That includes exploring the darknet, one of the most interesting parts of the Web, without having to fear prosecution for unintentionally coming across child pornography.
- crote 3y ago
  > The UK police is so massively underfunded Is it, though? According to the government itself, funding has increased from 12B in 2015 to 17B in 2023[0]. In real terms, the UK police now has more funding than it had pre-austerity (16.5B in 2023 money). If they don't have the manpower, it isn't due to a lack of money. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...
  - wulfeet 3y ago
    2015 is not pre-austerity.
    - crote 3y ago
      No, but 2010 is - that's where the 16.5B is from.
  - doublerabbit 3y ago
    > Is it, though? It is. Police cuts here in Scotland are dire. If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit. Squatting is on the uprise including violent behaviour. The list is too long to even mention. https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-cuts-071123.pdf https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-...
    - LAC-Tech 3y ago
      Why do you equate this to police being underfunded? They just care about other things way more. Like people writing mean things on the internet.
      - gadders 3y ago
        Exactly https://archive.is/v1YwM https://archive.is/v1YwM "..the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned."
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  why would the police be involved in the first place? how is this not a civil issue for the courts to decide? certainly that would be the case in the US.
- gadders 3y ago
  They don't even turn up for burglaries, so I don't think someone is going to get their collar felt for watching a dodgy stream of Strickland/DuPlessis on their laptop.
  - graemep 3y ago
    Depends - the people lobbying for copyright law enforcement are rather more influential than the average person who gets burgled. Then there is PICPU and presumably other specialist units that do nothing else.
    - gadders 3y ago
      I think if you have a business selling iptv gear then you could get nicked, but I doubt if individual streamers would (unless it was in a pub).
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  The UK police is busy hunting people for their tweets.
wait_a_minute 3y ago
Illegal…streams? Why does the UK have police monitoring what streams people watch? That’s not good. UK wants thought police?
- dijksterhuis 3y ago
  That’s kind of the point of the article… they aren’t.
  - Dig1t 3y ago
    I think what OP is saying is that it’s a bit crazy they’re asking the question in the first place. What is an “illegal stream” and why are we even talking about it in the first place? This shouldn’t even be something the police have control over at all.
    - CrazyStat 3y ago
      Copyright violation. People restreaming a PPV boxing stream, for example.
      - cchance 3y ago
        Copyright violations are the distribution side, not the consumption side to my knowledge, those PPV Boxing streams don't get the viewers sued they get the distributors sued.
        dijksterhuis 3y ago
        pretty sure you’re right — but from the article > A key component of an ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the UK includes sensitizing the public to the risk of being convicted for fraud offenses carrying prison sentences of up to 10 years. Not for getting involved in the supply or sale of pirate streams, but for simply watching them. Pretty sure the premise of the article is to discredit “scare tactics” being used to claim otherwise by interested parties. I’m a big fan of copyright. Not a big fan of scaremongering.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Ekaros 3y ago
Not surprising. Actually even speculating any damages for just viewing would likely be waste of time. Even if you could claim legal costs, the non claimable costs of overseeing such case would be substantially more than any penalties.
- tantalor 3y ago
  Those damages might even be zero, since the events are broadcast freely, the retail value is $0.
TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
It's not surprising that so many people are pirating sports streams. My understanding is that many sports require paying multiple different parties just to watch all of a team's games. Maybe the service providers are too greedy. The mention of UFOs is amusing. I'll admit that every time I hear about some UFO related story part of me really wishes it was real, just because it would be exciting to interact with aliens in our lifetime. Sadly it seems like UFO claims are usually hoaxes of some kind. Can you imagine actually having a UFO encounter and later having nobody else believe you? That would be quite devastating, I would imagine.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >Maybe the service providers are too greedy. You have the issue correct, but not the cause. Greed? The rights to the sports are owned by different entities, sometimes locally. Should they just hand that over to Netflix or something? I feel like if they own the product, they should benefit from the media distribution.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    They could get together, form and fund a new company that provided unified access to all games/teams, and then distribute revenue fairly to themselves from that. IIRC that is what the MLB did with BAMTech that was acquired by Disney at a valuation of $5B
  - TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
    I don't know enough about the subject but I'm happy to learn! Right now it seems they're not benefitting at all, since a significant number of people are just pirating their content. It seems like ideally you'd have a bunch of rights owners organize to create a single distributor that caters to viewer's desires. Maybe provide a seasonal pass to watch every game of your favorite team regardless of where they're playing? My understanding is that some sports require you to buy subscriptions with multiple different services if you want to follow your favorite team. This is obviously regarded as more favorable by the rights holder since they think they'll be able to get more money if people subscribe to their service rather than partnering with a different organization. I don't know if this is applicable to the domain of sports, but in other industries sometimes there are local distributors which were relevant in the era of PPV or TV, but which have largely become obsolete in the modern era. Usually these entities become middle-men that just happened to keep owning the rights to media distribution, but which no longer do anything to provide value.
LAC-Tech 3y ago
Magnanimous of them. Here's what you can get arrested for though: UK police launched an inquiry over offensive memes in a whatsapp chat. A man was later jailed for it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-officer-jailed-for-20-weeks-over-racist-whatsapp-messages https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-of... UK police arrest a man over offensive tweet. 150 hours community service followed: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-... UK police raiding a pub for displaying offensive dolls: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-grays-essex-pub-closes-b2331804.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-g...
- breakingcups 3y ago
  Don't forget "Police have seized my wife's laptop after one of her friends discovered and reported my wife's modded version of Skyrim." https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1974t9g/police_have_seized_my_wifes_laptop_after_one_of/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1974t9g/poli... Decency laws are a joke.
  - notfed 3y ago
    Seems law wasn't involved there, yet.
  - notso411 3y ago
    [dead]
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  How are they simultaneously doing that bs while at the same time being more anti-trans than other western countries. Brits are so odd.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    i don't see the contradiction
paxys 3y ago
It's absolutely wild to me that there is a law on the books that says you can get imprisoned for up to 10 years for watching a stream of a sporting event or TV show on your laptop. Even with the strictest interpretation of the legal framework how is it not just a civil matter between the viewer and the rights holder? Trick question because I know the answer is "large corporations lobbied for it", but still sad..
- tantalor 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_United_States#Civil_vs._criminal_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_...
  - asystole 3y ago
    TFA is about the UK.
- pjot 3y ago
  10 year old me was terrified of the FBI warning message at the beginning of every VHS tape.
  - graemep 3y ago
    Have you seen the IT Crowd version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
cynicalsecurity 3y ago
That's surprisingly good news.
kristianp 3y ago
Another reason why all of our police forces should be genetically modifed.

104 points by CTOSian 3y ago

The UK police is so massively underfunded since austerity started in 2010 that it's no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. They just don't have the manpower to enforce something so prevalent and hard to police. The bigger surprise is that they have enough manpower to fill the freedom of information request to begin with. That's probably the reason the other two departments refused to answer.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
I thought the second half of the article basically disposed of the notion that lack of resources was the reason for refusing to answer. > West Yorkshire Police received the same request (pdf) and was able to confirm that the words ‘UFO’, ‘UAP’, ‘ALIEN’ or ‘SPACESHIP’ appeared in log text 1805 times.
cornholio 3y ago
> no surprise there's been zero arrests for viewing illegal streams. I can only fathom "viewing illegal streams" leading to arrest in the case of CSAM. Regardless of any staffing or resources, it's a complete travesty to arrest anyone for using their internet connection to view lawfully produced content. The power to restrain the physical liberty is a substantial corollary of the state's monopoly on violence, which should be employed when those arrested are a menace to other peaceful citizens. I could see law enforcement getting involved in copyright crimes committed by commercial pirates, issuing fines to consumers or identifying them to the rights holders who can then seek redress in a court of law.
- duxup 3y ago
  Yeah if it is tied to a larger / other crime I could see it happening if only because they're really looking into another issue.
- ta1243 3y ago
  There are companies selling boxes which stream massive amounts of material they don't have the rights to, for very large profits. Some teenager watching the latest game of thrones (or whatever's hip nowadays) because their parent doesn't subscribe to Sky, or because they were out when it was on, isn't really the same thing.
- 127361 3y ago
  Nobody should ever be prosecuted for viewing or reading anything, anywhere. Doing so is a hallmark of a de-facto police state. It's a fundamental liberty we have forgotten about as the frog has slowly boiled over the last 40 years.
  - WheatMillington 3y ago
    Do you honestly believe that viewing CSAM shouldn't be a crime? Is this really the logical end-point of this style of techo-libertarianism?
    - mmh0000 3y ago
      Yes. Imagine how easy it is to get people you dislike arrested with a bit[1] of CSAM. On the other hand, I feel that creating and/or distributing CSAM should result in instant death for the creator. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Solon EDIT: Creating and/or distributing.
      - 127361 3y ago
        This is just the tip of the iceberg: Bluetooth keystroke-injection in Android, Linux macOS and iOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38661182 These laws which criminalize viewing or reading things need to go now.
    - 127361 3y ago
      Yes, absolutely. It is today's equivalent of moral puritanism. It is absolutey inconceivable to me that a 21st Century society could be prosecuting people for viewing images. Distributing and making those images should remain a crime, of course. But absolutely not viewing. And we can continue to shut down the sites hosting such material, and encourage those who come across them to report them. It is not acceptable to prosecute someone for the act of viewing a web site, regardless of it's content. Doing so is absolute totalitarianism. In a free society, people should be able to browse any part of the Web without fear of punishment, it is fundamental. That includes exploring the darknet, one of the most interesting parts of the Web, without having to fear prosecution for unintentionally coming across child pornography.
crote 3y ago
> The UK police is so massively underfunded Is it, though? According to the government itself, funding has increased from 12B in 2015 to 17B in 2023[0]. In real terms, the UK police now has more funding than it had pre-austerity (16.5B in 2023 money). If they don't have the manpower, it isn't due to a lack of money. [0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023/police-funding-for-england-and-wales-2015-to-2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-funding-for-...
- wulfeet 3y ago
  2015 is not pre-austerity.
  - crote 3y ago
    No, but 2010 is - that's where the 16.5B is from.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  > Is it, though? It is. Police cuts here in Scotland are dire. If your house gets broken in to they won't even visit. Squatting is on the uprise including violent behaviour. The list is too long to even mention. https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-cuts-071123.pdf https://spf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/police-budget-...
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    Why do you equate this to police being underfunded? They just care about other things way more. Like people writing mean things on the internet.
    - gadders 3y ago
      Exactly https://archive.is/v1YwM https://archive.is/v1YwM "..the teenager prosecuted for posting the lyrics of a rap song on her Instagram, because the music in question included the N-word. The 18-year-old girl, who has Asperger’s, was given an eight-week curfew and had to wear a tag, though the conviction was later overturned."
ranger_danger 3y ago
why would the police be involved in the first place? how is this not a civil issue for the courts to decide? certainly that would be the case in the US.
gadders 3y ago
They don't even turn up for burglaries, so I don't think someone is going to get their collar felt for watching a dodgy stream of Strickland/DuPlessis on their laptop.
- graemep 3y ago
  Depends - the people lobbying for copyright law enforcement are rather more influential than the average person who gets burgled. Then there is PICPU and presumably other specialist units that do nothing else.
  - gadders 3y ago
    I think if you have a business selling iptv gear then you could get nicked, but I doubt if individual streamers would (unless it was in a pub).
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
The UK police is busy hunting people for their tweets.

wait_a_minute 3y ago

Illegal…streams? Why does the UK have police monitoring what streams people watch? That’s not good. UK wants thought police?

dijksterhuis 3y ago
That’s kind of the point of the article… they aren’t.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  I think what OP is saying is that it’s a bit crazy they’re asking the question in the first place. What is an “illegal stream” and why are we even talking about it in the first place? This shouldn’t even be something the police have control over at all.
  - CrazyStat 3y ago
    Copyright violation. People restreaming a PPV boxing stream, for example.
    - cchance 3y ago
      Copyright violations are the distribution side, not the consumption side to my knowledge, those PPV Boxing streams don't get the viewers sued they get the distributors sued.
      - dijksterhuis 3y ago
        pretty sure you’re right — but from the article > A key component of an ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the UK includes sensitizing the public to the risk of being convicted for fraud offenses carrying prison sentences of up to 10 years. Not for getting involved in the supply or sale of pirate streams, but for simply watching them. Pretty sure the premise of the article is to discredit “scare tactics” being used to claim otherwise by interested parties. I’m a big fan of copyright. Not a big fan of scaremongering.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Ekaros 3y ago

Not surprising. Actually even speculating any damages for just viewing would likely be waste of time. Even if you could claim legal costs, the non claimable costs of overseeing such case would be substantially more than any penalties.

tantalor 3y ago
Those damages might even be zero, since the events are broadcast freely, the retail value is $0.

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago

It's not surprising that so many people are pirating sports streams. My understanding is that many sports require paying multiple different parties just to watch all of a team's games. Maybe the service providers are too greedy. The mention of UFOs is amusing. I'll admit that every time I hear about some UFO related story part of me really wishes it was real, just because it would be exciting to interact with aliens in our lifetime. Sadly it seems like UFO claims are usually hoaxes of some kind. Can you imagine actually having a UFO encounter and later having nobody else believe you? That would be quite devastating, I would imagine.

itsoktocry 3y ago
>Maybe the service providers are too greedy. You have the issue correct, but not the cause. Greed? The rights to the sports are owned by different entities, sometimes locally. Should they just hand that over to Netflix or something? I feel like if they own the product, they should benefit from the media distribution.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  They could get together, form and fund a new company that provided unified access to all games/teams, and then distribute revenue fairly to themselves from that. IIRC that is what the MLB did with BAMTech that was acquired by Disney at a valuation of $5B
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  I don't know enough about the subject but I'm happy to learn! Right now it seems they're not benefitting at all, since a significant number of people are just pirating their content. It seems like ideally you'd have a bunch of rights owners organize to create a single distributor that caters to viewer's desires. Maybe provide a seasonal pass to watch every game of your favorite team regardless of where they're playing? My understanding is that some sports require you to buy subscriptions with multiple different services if you want to follow your favorite team. This is obviously regarded as more favorable by the rights holder since they think they'll be able to get more money if people subscribe to their service rather than partnering with a different organization. I don't know if this is applicable to the domain of sports, but in other industries sometimes there are local distributors which were relevant in the era of PPV or TV, but which have largely become obsolete in the modern era. Usually these entities become middle-men that just happened to keep owning the rights to media distribution, but which no longer do anything to provide value.

LAC-Tech 3y ago

Magnanimous of them. Here's what you can get arrested for though: UK police launched an inquiry over offensive memes in a whatsapp chat. A man was later jailed for it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-officer-jailed-for-20-weeks-over-racist-whatsapp-messages https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-of... UK police arrest a man over offensive tweet. 150 hours community service followed: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-... UK police raiding a pub for displaying offensive dolls: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-grays-essex-pub-closes-b2331804.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-g...

breakingcups 3y ago
Don't forget "Police have seized my wife's laptop after one of her friends discovered and reported my wife's modded version of Skyrim." https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1974t9g/police_have_seized_my_wifes_laptop_after_one_of/ https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1974t9g/poli... Decency laws are a joke.
- notfed 3y ago
  Seems law wasn't involved there, yet.
- notso411 3y ago
  [dead]
BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
How are they simultaneously doing that bs while at the same time being more anti-trans than other western countries. Brits are so odd.
- em-bee 3y ago
  i don't see the contradiction

paxys 3y ago

It's absolutely wild to me that there is a law on the books that says you can get imprisoned for up to 10 years for watching a stream of a sporting event or TV show on your laptop. Even with the strictest interpretation of the legal framework how is it not just a civil matter between the viewer and the rights holder? Trick question because I know the answer is "large corporations lobbied for it", but still sad..

tantalor 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_United_States#Civil_vs._criminal_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_...
- asystole 3y ago
  TFA is about the UK.
pjot 3y ago
10 year old me was terrified of the FBI warning message at the beginning of every VHS tape.
- graemep 3y ago
  Have you seen the IT Crowd version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

cynicalsecurity 3y ago

That's surprisingly good news.

kristianp 3y ago

Another reason why all of our police forces should be genetically modifed.