Another way to look behind such laws is, who benefits? In this case one of the main provisions, as so often the case, is hidden innocuously almost as if it were a commonsense, obvious inclusion.
"Modifying the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to raise the maximum sentence for Internet copyright infringement to 10 years in prison, and allowing English and Welsh courts a greater range of sentencing options in such cases."
On the surface this is all very well and good, especially from the viewpoint of smaller artists, musicians and writers who don't see much for their work. But the real interest is for the major companies (the little man won't get protected). Most of those are American. American copyright laws are brutal, taking stuff out of the public domain or guaranteeing copyright through generations, not just to an artist.
The provision wil have been added at American insistence, to cream more more from abroad. Much of it is commercial: little of it benefits the artist. It also includes another massive area which is academic publishing, where almost ALL of the profits go to the big publishing houses and almost none to the authors.
