Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

cityoflondon.police.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#11

Post by citricsquid »

m010001 wrote: post #8

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 tryi…

> 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-...

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#12

Post by Silhouette »

UVB-76 wrote: post #9
harrytuttle wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we're fucked then. The police are not domain experts on the law. They are the halfwit broken outsourcing company.

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.

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.

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#15

Post by DanBC »

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)

See section 7 (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-la...)

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#16

Post by patrickaljord »

citricsquid wrote: post #11
m010001 wrote: post #8

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 tryi…

> 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…

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-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.

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#18

Post by citricsquid »

patrickaljord wrote: post #16
citricsquid wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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-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 r…

The CEO of Spotify has stated that they are choosing to forego profits at present so that they can invest in the long term success of the service, however they could be profitable if they needed to be. The comments on that article you linked to provide a valuable example of the value of what Spotify are doing: Amazon.

http://allthingsd.com/20121206/spotifys-daniel-ek-on-profits...

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#19

Post by UVB-76 »

Silhouette wrote: post #12
UVB-76 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: City of London Police Launch Intellectual Property Crime Unit

#20

Post by regularfry »

Blahah wrote: post #7
regularfry wrote: post #4

> 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?

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.

Yeah, this is true. I can't help but wonder what, exactly, this press release is referring to.
Post reply on HN