UK Govt fabricates research behind 10-year sentence for online pirates?

The UK government’s reason behind its push for an increase in the punishment for online copyright infringement offenses was reportedly fabricated.

As previously reported by TMN last month, a study commissioned by the Government’s UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) suggested online pirates’ punishment should fall in line with offenses such as counterfeiting and be jailed for a maximum of 10 years. The maximum sentence for the crime is currently two years.

The IPO’s justification to amend the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) wasn’t actually published in the study. Instead it cited "unpublished research" and the fact the suggestion was welcomed by copyright holders. 

The official summary of the study read: “The rationale for the proposed changes originate from a number of areas including recommendations in the 2005 Gowers Review, debates on the IP Bill in 2014, Penalty Fair?, other unpublished research and ongoing exchanges with stakeholders.”

Now, the IPO has responded to a Freedom of Information request by UK publication The Register, which asked for details on the "unpublished research" that was cited.

The IPO’s response read: “The term "unpublished research" in the context of this report was meant to refer to inferences and conclusions drawn following the IPO’s internal policy formulation and development.

“Such information was derived from our analysis of the evidence and opinion provided to us by a wide spectrum of interested parties, over the consultation period.”

In other words, the IPO’s policy staff came up with the justification internally, based on opinions and evidence given by “a wide spectrum of interested parties.”

As previously pointed out by TMN, the IPO’s push for 10-year jail sentences for copyright-infringing file sharers wasn’t actually supported by the aforementioned stakeholders. Only 21 of the 1,032 stakeholder responses agreed with the harsher penalty.

What’s more, the Penalty Fair? Report cited by the IPO in its summary defense of the measure, actually provided mixed views of the 10-year jail term for copyright offences.

A summary of the report partly reads: “The evidence gathered by this study suggests that there are problems with the operation of the law and that these do require fresh consideration.

“The argument put forward by the Open Rights Group and others, that physical and online offences are not the same, is persuasive. However, the fact remains that these two offences end up having a very similar detrimental effect on the rights holders, and the question remains whether the maximum penalties are set at an appropriate level.”

As The Register points out, the IPO’s own stakeholders opposed the harsher penalty and a Parliamentary debate in 2014 saw the withdrawal of the penalty’s proposal. Yet the UK Minister for Intellectual Property Baroness Neville-Rolfe released the findings of its consultation last month, stating the government will be asking Parliament for a 10-year maximum sentence.

TMN has reached out to the IPO for comment.