14 DAY TRIAL // The public has spoken, and 98% of all respondents to a UK government-sponsored survey have pronounced themselves against a harsher prison sentence of ten years for those who commit piracy-related crimes.
Last year, UK copyright protection agencies pressed the government into rethinking its approach towards online piracy. This manifested in the government proposing a change to its Copyright, Designs and Patents Act that would increase prison sentences from the current two years to ten years jail time.
The decision was opened to public debate, and the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), who initially proposed this change to the law, also ran a public consultation session.
Now, the UK government has released the results of this public consultation, revealing that 1,032 people weighed in, of which only 21 approved with the new penalty of ten years for all copyright infringers.
Only 20 companies and one individual support a harsher prison sentence
20 out of these 21 were business entities. The rest, all 1,011, were all opposed to IPO's proposal and sent in their criticism and reasons this should not happen.
According to a summary provided by the UK government, and obtained by TorrentFreak, opposers of this initiative say a ten years is too harsh for a penalty for such crimes.
Additionally, they also add that the proposal is too vague and does not distinguish between criminal counterfeiting gangs and one-time offenders.
Furthermore, the term "affect prejudicially" is also too vague in their view, especially in cases where one song was shared via torrents, and the copyright infringer gets treated like a criminal that made money for years by counterfeiting and selling DVDs.
On the other side of the barricade, IPO and other copyright protection agencies like BPI, FACT and the MPA, pointed out that the harsher penalty would serve as a deterrent, but would also ensure the maximum penalty would not be foolishly handed out to one-time, naive offenders.
"There are many services in the UK offering content for free or at low cost," the supporters also said. "Making available infringing content is in clear defiance of creators’ rights to receive remuneration for their work."
