BPI joins in the bandwagon

[NDGAARONDI]

It's probably been seen b4 but saw it on Google searches for news:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36553.html

I don't think the BPI realises how clogged up the courts of the United Kingdom are clogged up. I heard that this is a factor preventing the reviewing cases of cot death, when mothers have been tried when suspected of killing their children. Now, if they want to pay for a private prosecution then go ahead, can't see the CPS taking up to the gravity that they would like.

[Malicious Intent]

CPS stands for crown prosecution service. Key word being "prosecution", not suing. Breaking copyright is a civil offence, not criminal.
It is only threats at this stage. There wont be any action until we have alternative services here.

[shawners]

Well what they did hear is MADE a few pay services.. then sued people to get them to use them.. Its like they know people would go away to others, and they said "we have to have a place for them to go besides hell" ANd here we are.

[NDGAARONDI]

Doesn't section 107 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 have any bearing on criminal sanctions?

I remember reading about R v Johnstone not so long ago. Although this was a different area within IP if I remember correctly - trademarks.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030522/john-1.htm

I know this isn't copyright but I guess it shows there are parts of IP that aren't only civil matters.