Reply to post: "Industrial scale" crime

Sky customer dinged for livestreaming pay-per-view boxing to Facebook


"Industrial scale" crime

It's a disturbing notion, that a guy drinking beer in the evening with his mates in his living room has the ability to commit a criminal offence on an "industrial scale", simply by holding his hand in the air and pointing an ipad at the telly.

A link in the article above leads to another of the author's pieces regarding the relevant legislation, in which the following is written:

'"This is not about private prosecutions, but serious criminal offences” a source familiar with the plans told us. “Nobody’s going to go after a teenager in their bedroom, unless that teenager is operating a serious scale pirate site. Just as with physical goods, nobody goes after the small fry.”

Wording in the new recommendation will make clear that it only applies to “egregious” operations involving infringement at scale. The government said as much in its recommendation that the new maximum is for hard-core operators only.'

But in the article above, we are told:

"Foster is likely to lose even more money should he proceed to contest the case; the Digital Economy Act introduced custodial sentences for "egregious" or industrial-scale piracy, such as movie release groups."

Is the semicolon there to warn us that what follows is a non sequitur? Based on the piece above it seems highly unlikely that Foster is a "hard-core operator" and there's no indication that his behaviour was anything other than one-off, so pointing out the penalties for dedicated criminals seems redundant here.

In fact, the above piece seems to suggest that the filming was done by one of Foster's friends. So perhaps Foster may indeed be able to mount a successful defence in court.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019