On the justifiability of criminal copyright provisions: a (harm) principled analysis

Thesis

Since their introduction, criminal copyright provisions have expanded in scope and severity. At the same time, rapid technological advancements and the dynamics of internet use have made copyright infringement easier and more widespread, raising questions about the legitimacy or justifiability of criminalisation in this domain.

This thesis critically examines the justifiability of the United Kingdom's criminal copyright provisions. It begins by exploring the historical context and rationale behind the introduction of these provisions. This is followed by the development of a normative framework based on the Harm Principle and supplemented by principles of proportionality, necessity, and other negative constraints designed to ensure the judicious application of criminal law.

The normative framework is then applied to assess the justifiability of the UK’s current criminal copyright provisions and prosecutorial practices. In the analysis, the thesis critiques the historical rationale for introducing criminal copyright provisions, which overlooks the unique aspects of criminalisation and views criminalisation as merely another regulatory tool. It also identifies areas where the current provisions and prosecution practices align or fail to align with the normative framework. Finally, the thesis offers recommendations for reforming criminal copyright.

Authors: Mohamed, AS

• DOI: 10.5287/ora-g2zddd52o
• Type of award: DPhil
• Level of award: Doctoral
• Awarding institution: University of Oxford
• Language: English
• Keywords: harm principle; prosecutorial practices; criminal copyright; criminal copyright history; justifiability of criminal copyright provisions
• Subjects: Law; Intellectual property--Great Britain; Criminal law; Criminal liability; Copyright; Criminal justice, Administration of--Moral and ethical aspects; Intellectual property infringement; Prosecution