7 ms·

City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

43 points by jjp9999 13y ago

UVB-76 13y ago
Press Release from the City of London Police with more information: http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Departments/ECD/PIPCU/PIPCUNews/130913-pipculaunch.htm http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Departments/ECD...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
regularfry 13y ago
> The unit will also be focused on influencing online behaviour by site owners, service providers and consumers through education, prevention and enforcement activity, and providing offenders where appropriate with opportunities to accept restorative justice. Er... is that implying that a police unit is being given judicial powers?
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Well we're fucked then. The police are not domain experts on the law. They are the halfwit broken outsourcing company.
  - UVB-76 13y ago
    If you disagree with a penalty issued by the police, you can appeal to the judicial branch. Allowing the police to deal with certain minor infractions themselves is far more efficient than the alternative; ordering every offender to appear before a magistrates' court even for the most minor infraction, such as a speeding ticket.
    - harrytuttle 13y ago
      You'd think but the two penalties I've been issued by the police which were speeding and talking on a phone whilst driving were wrong. I wasn't doing either. The first one was trickery by the officer who persuaded me to admit to it as it's be easier. The second, i was actually scratching my head after chicken pox. Both of those i had to appeal and won instantly when talking to the magistrate. Allowing these morons to issue fines and penalties for more complicated issues such as in this case is a very bad idea.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      If you disagree with a penalty issued by the police, you can appeal to the judicial branch. This is a fine principle provided that someone innocent who defends themselves successfully in court will then be compensated so they don't lose out in any way. The reality appears to be that for things like minor traffic offences, you can wind up spending more time and far more money travelling to have your day in court than you would have lost if you just paid up under protest, and you might also be risking a higher penalty if the court does find you guilty of exactly what you were previously charged with. With motoring offences there is also the points system to consider, so it might be worth going to court for that reason. However, generally someone prosecuted but found not guilty in the UK doesn't seem to get any sort of compensation for even actual financial losses they incur defending themselves, never mind the value of their lost time or anything to make up for the obvious distress for an extended period that going to court in these cases is likely to cause. It's rather like the small claims track. In principle, it's a worthy public service. In practice, for a professional with a full time job and family commitments who is working without expert advice because the point is to avoid involving expensive lawyers in low-value cases, the time just to figure out how to file against someone without jeopardizing your case before it's even started is prohibitive.
      - UVB-76 13y ago
        Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Defending yourself against an accusation will always be costly. I take comfort in the fact that the authorities very rarely make completely baseless accusations. There are certainly cases in which officers were mistaken, there are mitigating circumstances, or you can avoid punishment on a technicality, but I can't think of any instances in which authorities have been caught issuing vexatious fixed penalty notices.
        Silhouette 13y ago
        Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Defending yourself against an accusation will always be costly. Why must it always be costly? It is a perfectly rational alternative policy to bring a smaller number of prosecutions, and to compensate defendants for their costs, wasted time and distress, if a prosecution fails. I take comfort in the fact that the authorities very rarely make completely baseless accusations. You might like to look up some of the published data about the proportion of appeals that succeed against things like local-authority-issued parking tickets and ANPR-based congestion charges. It happens all the time, and erroneous charges aren't even close to the kind of isolated incidents you seem to believe they are. As a matter of fact, there have been plenty of stories of deliberate policies to issue penalties aggressively (and sometimes outright unlawfully), but this doesn't really matter to the victims anyway. Whether it was malicious on the part of the authorities or their enforcement people just got duped as in the cloning case you mentioned makes no difference at all to an innocent third party who gets slapped with a penalty notice they didn't deserve.
- Blahah 13y ago
  They already have them.. with fines and cautions. You can take those judgements to the judicial branch for appeal, but the initial power lies with the police.
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Yeah, this is true. I can't help but wonder what, exactly, this press release is referring to.
- tristanj 13y ago
  The City of London has a unique legal position that lets type of thing happen. If you look into this corporation's history it will make much more sense.
Blahah 13y ago
I skipped the word 'property' on my first take... > UK Launches Intellectual Crime Unit Mistake or premonition?
m010001 13y ago
I don't like the BPI, they investigated me and made me take my website down (they came to my house, it was a fun day). However, I must credit them as they warn people before taking them to court. So, if you're a website owner in the UK. I'm just giving you a heads up to say that if you're being investigated, they will probably contact you in person. I do think the BPI have definately gone too far, they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.
- citricsquid 13y ago
  > they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry. Grooveshark is a company that profits off of content that they have no rights to. They hide behind the DMCA and are complete scumbags who pretend to engage in fair business practices and then turn around and renege on agreements, all the while people defend them as if they're making some form of moral stand against the oppressive music industry, when in reality they're choosing to make money on the back of the hard work of others. Spotify is a fantastic alternative to Grooveshark that has a wealth of music in their library, they're compliant with labels and the law and have millions of users, I don't see the BPI trying to shut them down. Maybe, just maybe, there can be an instance where the "music industry" is in the right. Grooveshark is a shameful business. I look forward to the day that Grooveshark shuts down. I'm all for revolutionising the music industry and changing the world, but there is a serious line crossed when a company consistently uses others work to profit, without permission. Spotify is doing it legally. http://www.theverge.com/policy/2013/8/6/4592346/grooveshark-settles-emi-publishing-lawsuit-still-faces-uncertain http://www.theverge.com/policy/2013/8/6/4592346/grooveshark-...
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    Spotify is not a fantastic alternative. They keep on losing money in spite of growing revenues: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/31/4575506/spotify-doubled-revenue-in-2012-but-losses-grow http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/31/4575506/spotify-doubled-re... The only reason Spotify doesn't have too much competition is because few are those willing to waste so much money on such a low margin business, not because they have a ground breaking technology or business model. The fact that they now have to compete with rdio, pandora, apple and google streaming will probably deepen their losses. A fantastic company in this field will be one that will print money like it streams music.
touristtam 13y ago
er .. ok, what a waste of public money. really.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Par the course for the UK then.
r0h1n 13y ago
Wow, that was fast. Just a day ago the UK PM, David Cameron, appointed an ex-music industry executive as his "IP advisor" - http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3254862 http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3254862
- seiji 13y ago
  The UK (and maybe everywhere else?) corporate music people have a lot of very old industry insiders who think music can't be produced without studios (they "provide value," after all), think the internet is a fad, and think all real music should be sold on physical media.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Werent "record" labels were replaced by >Copy >Paste...with the advent of pro-tools?
    - seiji 13y ago
      Exactly. They don't realize that though. I was at a talk with some UK IFPI execs last year who just didn't understand computers or the internet or online self-promotional distribution. It was kinda astounding. He kept harping on the point that "you just can't get quality" unless you're backed by a studio belonging to his organization.
DanBC 13y ago
So, the police should only be getting involved in copyright infringement when done as trade, right? right? They seem to be keeping that bit quiet. See section 198 of the relevant law, which is clear about the need for business to be involved for a criminal offence. (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf) See section 7 (http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law) - where they don't mention "trading", which is what tips it into a criminal, rather than civil, offence. See also section 8, which doesn't mention "format shifting" - it's not legal to rip a CD that you buy to MP3, but this is changing. (Or has changed?) (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/20/uk-copyright-law-parody-relaxed http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/20/uk-copyright-la...)
- UVB-76 13y ago
  Based on the initial arrests made by this unit, it would appear the target remains commercial IP infringement: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/13/police-intellectual-property-crime-unit-first-arrests http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/13/police-intellectu...
  - deletes 13y ago
    There are people still pirating on physical media !? I think it is ok to go after the sharks but where do you draw the line, 10 copies, a 100?
    - UVB-76 13y ago
      Absolutely. It's an enormous market in parts of the world. Worldwide, I suspect more people are pirating things on physical media than downloading direct from the Internet. I think common sense applies in drawing the line. A kid who burns the occasional DVD and sells it in the school playground to cover his costs, probably not worth pursuing. An organized group importing counterfeit DVDs by the container-load and distributing them through an established distribution network, probably worth pursuing.
w1ntermute 13y ago
Note that the "City of London"[0] is a city within Greater London. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london
- antimatter 13y ago
  Also explained by a CGPGrey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
- graeme 13y ago
  Yes, this title should be changed.
eikenberry 13y ago
Looks like the Brits haven't changed much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Act
- EllaMentry 13y ago
  I really have no clue what your point is here... The first link concerns a small group protesting against increased automation...this has happened in practically every place that has had manufacturing... The second concerns road safety acts, although they sound ludicrous by todays standards, served as an important step in the transition from horses to automobiles - in a country which had been relying on horses for transport for atleast 1000 years prior.
misnome 13y ago
Pretty hilarious, given that this just came up on the BBC also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24094435 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24094435 - using fonts without permission ("The Home Office said it was trying to contact the copyright owner to reach an agreement.").
Create 13y ago
Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
jwatte 13y ago
Would you like some Pirate Cinema with that?

43 points by jjp9999 13y ago

Press Release from the City of London Police with more information: http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Departments/ECD/PIPCU/PIPCUNews/130913-pipculaunch.htm http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Departments/ECD...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

regularfry 13y ago

> The unit will also be focused on influencing online behaviour by site owners, service providers and consumers through education, prevention and enforcement activity, and providing offenders where appropriate with opportunities to accept restorative justice. Er... is that implying that a police unit is being given judicial powers?

harrytuttle 13y ago
Well we're fucked then. The police are not domain experts on the law. They are the halfwit broken outsourcing company.
- UVB-76 13y ago
  If you disagree with a penalty issued by the police, you can appeal to the judicial branch. Allowing the police to deal with certain minor infractions themselves is far more efficient than the alternative; ordering every offender to appear before a magistrates' court even for the most minor infraction, such as a speeding ticket.
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    You'd think but the two penalties I've been issued by the police which were speeding and talking on a phone whilst driving were wrong. I wasn't doing either. The first one was trickery by the officer who persuaded me to admit to it as it's be easier. The second, i was actually scratching my head after chicken pox. Both of those i had to appeal and won instantly when talking to the magistrate. Allowing these morons to issue fines and penalties for more complicated issues such as in this case is a very bad idea.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    If you disagree with a penalty issued by the police, you can appeal to the judicial branch. This is a fine principle provided that someone innocent who defends themselves successfully in court will then be compensated so they don't lose out in any way. The reality appears to be that for things like minor traffic offences, you can wind up spending more time and far more money travelling to have your day in court than you would have lost if you just paid up under protest, and you might also be risking a higher penalty if the court does find you guilty of exactly what you were previously charged with. With motoring offences there is also the points system to consider, so it might be worth going to court for that reason. However, generally someone prosecuted but found not guilty in the UK doesn't seem to get any sort of compensation for even actual financial losses they incur defending themselves, never mind the value of their lost time or anything to make up for the obvious distress for an extended period that going to court in these cases is likely to cause. It's rather like the small claims track. In principle, it's a worthy public service. In practice, for a professional with a full time job and family commitments who is working without expert advice because the point is to avoid involving expensive lawyers in low-value cases, the time just to figure out how to file against someone without jeopardizing your case before it's even started is prohibitive.
    - UVB-76 13y ago
      Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Defending yourself against an accusation will always be costly. I take comfort in the fact that the authorities very rarely make completely baseless accusations. There are certainly cases in which officers were mistaken, there are mitigating circumstances, or you can avoid punishment on a technicality, but I can't think of any instances in which authorities have been caught issuing vexatious fixed penalty notices.
      - Silhouette 13y ago
        Unfortunately, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Defending yourself against an accusation will always be costly. Why must it always be costly? It is a perfectly rational alternative policy to bring a smaller number of prosecutions, and to compensate defendants for their costs, wasted time and distress, if a prosecution fails. I take comfort in the fact that the authorities very rarely make completely baseless accusations. You might like to look up some of the published data about the proportion of appeals that succeed against things like local-authority-issued parking tickets and ANPR-based congestion charges. It happens all the time, and erroneous charges aren't even close to the kind of isolated incidents you seem to believe they are. As a matter of fact, there have been plenty of stories of deliberate policies to issue penalties aggressively (and sometimes outright unlawfully), but this doesn't really matter to the victims anyway. Whether it was malicious on the part of the authorities or their enforcement people just got duped as in the cloning case you mentioned makes no difference at all to an innocent third party who gets slapped with a penalty notice they didn't deserve.
Blahah 13y ago
They already have them.. with fines and cautions. You can take those judgements to the judicial branch for appeal, but the initial power lies with the police.
- regularfry 13y ago
  Yeah, this is true. I can't help but wonder what, exactly, this press release is referring to.
tristanj 13y ago
The City of London has a unique legal position that lets type of thing happen. If you look into this corporation's history it will make much more sense.

Blahah 13y ago

I skipped the word 'property' on my first take... > UK Launches Intellectual Crime Unit Mistake or premonition?

m010001 13y ago

I don't like the BPI, they investigated me and made me take my website down (they came to my house, it was a fun day). However, I must credit them as they warn people before taking them to court. So, if you're a website owner in the UK. I'm just giving you a heads up to say that if you're being investigated, they will probably contact you in person. I do think the BPI have definately gone too far, they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry.

citricsquid 13y ago
> they currently trying to get Grooveshark blocked from popular UK ISPs. The BPI only exists to monopolize the music industry. Grooveshark is a company that profits off of content that they have no rights to. They hide behind the DMCA and are complete scumbags who pretend to engage in fair business practices and then turn around and renege on agreements, all the while people defend them as if they're making some form of moral stand against the oppressive music industry, when in reality they're choosing to make money on the back of the hard work of others. Spotify is a fantastic alternative to Grooveshark that has a wealth of music in their library, they're compliant with labels and the law and have millions of users, I don't see the BPI trying to shut them down. Maybe, just maybe, there can be an instance where the "music industry" is in the right. Grooveshark is a shameful business. I look forward to the day that Grooveshark shuts down. I'm all for revolutionising the music industry and changing the world, but there is a serious line crossed when a company consistently uses others work to profit, without permission. Spotify is doing it legally. http://www.theverge.com/policy/2013/8/6/4592346/grooveshark-settles-emi-publishing-lawsuit-still-faces-uncertain http://www.theverge.com/policy/2013/8/6/4592346/grooveshark-...
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  Spotify is not a fantastic alternative. They keep on losing money in spite of growing revenues: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/31/4575506/spotify-doubled-revenue-in-2012-but-losses-grow http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/31/4575506/spotify-doubled-re... The only reason Spotify doesn't have too much competition is because few are those willing to waste so much money on such a low margin business, not because they have a ground breaking technology or business model. The fact that they now have to compete with rdio, pandora, apple and google streaming will probably deepen their losses. A fantastic company in this field will be one that will print money like it streams music.

touristtam 13y ago

er .. ok, what a waste of public money. really.

ihsw 13y ago
Par the course for the UK then.

r0h1n 13y ago

Wow, that was fast. Just a day ago the UK PM, David Cameron, appointed an ex-music industry executive as his "IP advisor" - http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3254862 http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3254862

seiji 13y ago
The UK (and maybe everywhere else?) corporate music people have a lot of very old industry insiders who think music can't be produced without studios (they "provide value," after all), think the internet is a fad, and think all real music should be sold on physical media.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Werent "record" labels were replaced by >Copy >Paste...with the advent of pro-tools?
  - seiji 13y ago
    Exactly. They don't realize that though. I was at a talk with some UK IFPI execs last year who just didn't understand computers or the internet or online self-promotional distribution. It was kinda astounding. He kept harping on the point that "you just can't get quality" unless you're backed by a studio belonging to his organization.

DanBC 13y ago

So, the police should only be getting involved in copyright infringement when done as trade, right? right? They seem to be keeping that bit quiet. See section 198 of the relevant law, which is clear about the need for business to be involved for a criminal offence. (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf) See section 7 (http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law) - where they don't mention "trading", which is what tips it into a criminal, rather than civil, offence. See also section 8, which doesn't mention "format shifting" - it's not legal to rip a CD that you buy to MP3, but this is changing. (Or has changed?) (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/20/uk-copyright-law-parody-relaxed http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/20/uk-copyright-la...)

UVB-76 13y ago
Based on the initial arrests made by this unit, it would appear the target remains commercial IP infringement: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/13/police-intellectual-property-crime-unit-first-arrests http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/13/police-intellectu...
- deletes 13y ago
  There are people still pirating on physical media !? I think it is ok to go after the sharks but where do you draw the line, 10 copies, a 100?
  - UVB-76 13y ago
    Absolutely. It's an enormous market in parts of the world. Worldwide, I suspect more people are pirating things on physical media than downloading direct from the Internet. I think common sense applies in drawing the line. A kid who burns the occasional DVD and sells it in the school playground to cover his costs, probably not worth pursuing. An organized group importing counterfeit DVDs by the container-load and distributing them through an established distribution network, probably worth pursuing.

w1ntermute 13y ago

Note that the "City of London"[0] is a city within Greater London. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london

antimatter 13y ago
Also explained by a CGPGrey video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
graeme 13y ago
Yes, this title should be changed.

eikenberry 13y ago

Looks like the Brits haven't changed much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Act

EllaMentry 13y ago
I really have no clue what your point is here... The first link concerns a small group protesting against increased automation...this has happened in practically every place that has had manufacturing... The second concerns road safety acts, although they sound ludicrous by todays standards, served as an important step in the transition from horses to automobiles - in a country which had been relying on horses for transport for atleast 1000 years prior.

misnome 13y ago

Pretty hilarious, given that this just came up on the BBC also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24094435 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24094435 - using fonts without permission ("The Home Office said it was trying to contact the copyright owner to reach an agreement.").

Create 13y ago

Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

jwatte 13y ago

Would you like some Pirate Cinema with that?