City of London cops in Christmas karaoke crackdown shocker

Big Business's Corporate-Controlled "Police" Force Strikes Again!

Don't blame "LONDON", blame the "CITY OF LONDON". (Read on if you don't get why).

Anyway, yeah, the City of London Police- again. Strange how the police force covering little more than one of London's 607 square miles (#)- let alone the 93,000 square miles of the UK itself- appears *very* frequently as the one behind stories regarding IP and copyright "offences".

Okay, so I'm lying- it's not remotely surprising at all when you consider that the square mile "City of London" is the financial district which has countless law-unto-itself special privileges and blatantly undemocratic governance (not just hyperbole or opinion- 21 of its 25 electoral wards are controlled by businesses and corporations in proportion to their size and power).

I would say that the whole setup is the epitome of corporate corruption- but only in the ethical sense. It's absolutely and constitutionally legal- which makes it worse. And most people aren't even aware of it.

Remember that we're not talking about any old square mile of the United Kingdom, we're talking about one that's home to some of the most powerful financial interests in the UK, and on the planet. Its effect is far out of proportion to its size- and that includes its police force.

One might suspect that the police force run by that state-within-a-state haven for vested interests was serving their corporate masters in a blatantly partisan way.... I couldn't possibly comment.

No, wait, I can- of course they f****** are, and no, they're not going to prosecute those same bankers- do you think they're stupid or something? But they *will* go after a few non-commercial sharers of karaoke files who aren't even on their pinhead-sized "patch".

(#) Note for foreigners not au fait with the "quaint" use of terminology. The "City of London" should not be confused with the city of "London"; the former is the square-mile sized financial district. The police force for all but this tiny area of London is the separate Metropolitan Police.

Re: Why?

Because they've got to come up with something or they look rather silly. Now they've stuck their foot in it, they might as well do it properly.

Re: Why?

Because "sharing=piracy" and is bad if some company doesn't make any money. Simples. But we'll let the bankers off and not put a lot of effort into tracking down the ransomware scum.

Re: Why?

If they can find one instance of one of these guys asking for a donation to cover server costs or something then they can take it out of context and make them out to be hardcore pirates, out to defraud those poor, hard working, record execs. (Musicians? Screw them!)

Oh, and they'll probably mutter about "funding terrorists" as well.

Re: Why?

If it's able to be classed as commercial activity then it goes from plain old copyright infringement, where they'll actually have to prove how much was lost by the licencing companies (which will be difficult if the article is accurate and these weren't sold to the public) to commercial copyright infringement which has set penalties and was intended to be used against people selling bootleg CDs and such, plus I believe (although I could be wrong) that it has to be commercial copyright infringement to be classed as a criminal act, and if they can't prove that then the onus is on the licence owners to bring a civil case

Basically the police are certain the law has been broken, it's just a matter of whether it's civil or criminal, what needs to be proved and what form the fines/charges would take

Re: Why?

> Why are they investigating if they tried to monetise it if it's immaterial?

If it's monetised then it's clearly commercial infringement and therefore a criminal offence.

If it's not monetised they have to convince the court that three older dudes giving away something that's not available elsewhere is "commercial". If they fail then it's a civil matter. Which the BPI would have to pay for.

Re: Why?

Why they are investigating? They are not... They are demonstrating to their masters that they earned their salaries, is all...

This is PIPCU - a Police unit in name but on a payroll of IPO. That's quite official. They are paid by the industry to be a bunch of enforcer thugs for the rights holders.

So, every now and then they walk down the Internet street, overturning the stalls, smashing windows and breaking legs - as thugs do.

Re: What I want to know is...

They could well do if the good old US of A claims jurisdiction.

Re: Costing money? How?

Indeed people might purchase the full version with the lyrics. I'd have thought that on balance this boosts sales if these lyric / voice free versions are not available. Seems yet again the publishers are missing a trick.

The creation is copyright violation, requires a civil suit. If there is monetisation, then perhaps there is unpaid VAT, unpaid tax on profits, possible criminal cases for forgery etc ...

Re: Costing money? How?

They might argue that people having access at home would be less likely to go to karaoke bars/nights with legitimate licences, meaning the business case for hosting them is weaker and therefore they sell less licences. Also they might argue that, by the fact that the tracks are available free, there will be less of an incentive for people to buy legitimate licences. Will be a pain in the ass for them to get actual monetary numbers on that though

Re: Costing money? How?

"uploading and distributing would still have been costing the legitimate music companies money"

is the same as

uploading and distributing would not have been making any money for the legitimate music companies

Apparently. Profit is the be all and end all, apparently - maybe the Ferengi are in charge?

Re: I'm humming "I fought the law and the law won!!"

Hope you are not doing it close to a mobile phone mic - you'll have GCHQ widening their remit next.

Yes

Yes it does. And the music companies own the soundtrack.