Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) calls for equity in sentencing for copyright infringement, saying that online crimes must be punished equally as physical ones.
The Federation Against Software Theft (FAST), formed in 1984 as the world’s first anti-piracy organization, and dedicated “to promote the legitimate use of software and protect its members. rights through education, enforcement, lobbying and promoting standards and best practice in business,” is now calling on the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to make online copyright offenses as severe as physical ones.
The IPO is currently considering changes to criminal sanctions in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 based on the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property that was independently conducted from 2005 to 2006.
The review concludes that the UK’s intellectual property system is fundamentally strong but makes 54 concrete recommendations for improvements, broadly covering the areas of: strengthening enforcement; providing additional support to business; and striking a balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing free market competition.
FAST is upset that the IPO has failed to take into account Recommendation 36 from Gowers which reads: “Match penalties for online and physical copyright infringement by amending section 107 the CDPA by 2008.”
”Recommendation 36 of Gowers clearly states that the penalty for online commercial copyright infringement should be increased to ten years’ imprisonment to bring parity with commercial dealing in pirated works,” said John Lovelock, Chief Executive of FAST. “Nowhere in this consultation document is this referred to.”
“In reality all we have been presented with are three options – make no change, in other words do nothing; introduce a statutory maximum fine of £50,000 for all copyright offences or option three, a maximum fine of £50,000 for all IP offences,” he added.
FAST wants parity between digital and physical copyright infringement offenses as suggested in Recommendation 36.
“The proposals in the consultation leave the custodial sentences for copyright offence unchanged: the maximum sentence in the Crown Court for the commission of online infringement still remains at two years, compared to ten years for commercially dealing in or distributing infringed goods in the physical world,” added Lovelock.
It also notes that the Gowers Review made no distinction between physical and online copyright infringement, that both were equally of harm to copyright holders.
“The intention and impact of physical and online infringement are the same,” reads the Gowers Review. “Crimes committed on the online and physical world should not be subject to different sentences. Increasing the penalties for online infringement will therefore make the law coherent.”
This led to Recommendation 36, one of the many made by the Gowers Review. It was the Government itself that endorsed these recommendations, stating that it would “be taking forward the recommendations for which it is responsible to ensure that the UK IP regime is fit for the digital age.”
We have welcomed a number of initiatives in this consultation document such as the detailed review on Proceeds of Crime Act and the fact that this could potentially be extended to cover those who profit from online crime,” concludes Lovelock. “But the fact still remains: the online criminal is still being treated differently and more leniently than the physical, and this flies in the face of Gowers.”
But, with online copyright infringement being an entirely different breed from physical copyright infringement does the UK really want to start locking up file-sharers for 10 years if parity is granted by the IPO?
More importantly, motive and intent are always considered when it comes to the commission of a crime. Those who plan and carry out a murder are treated quite differently from those whom commit one by accident. Thus, online copyright infringement – WHERE THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE – isn’t the same as selling bootleg movies and albums. Trying to treat them equally ignores this crucial fact and treats passive illegal acts in the same manner as it does premeditated ones.
The Gowers Review and FAST are both wrong to ignore this distinction.
jared@zeropaid.com
Loading ...
I’d be curious to see whether or not an individual sharing files online could be considered a commercial copyright infringer. If there is no profit being made I would think it would be classified as non commercial infringement. So to me the law would not legally be applicable to individual file sharers although I’m sure they would try to use it that way. The situation that would worry me is whether such a law would apply to websites like YouTube or hosting companies could they be locked up for not blocking content? Clearly this isn’t as cut and try as the lobby group would like it to be.