Leak Star Wars, Go To Jail

Shea O'Brien Foley, a former production assistant at LucasFilm, has been arrested on 13 counts of theft of Star Wars material from LucasFilm worth $450,000. The police investigation was launched after an early Attack of the Clones cut was leaked to and reviewed by Aint It Cool News in March, two months before it hit theaters. Other than the fact that Ain't It Cool News and Harry Knowles aren't being charged with anything, police aren't saying much. Apparently, Jedi mind tricks didn't work on the arresting officers. Update: 10/14 23:51 GMT by T : Michael Singer points to an article on internet.com with more depth.

Comments

The Force...

[Anonymous Coward]

..was not with him...

Jedi Mind Tricks

[scrote-ma-hote]

Of course they didn't work. The guy's not a JEDI! You can't just pull something like that off, without years and years of training. Sheesh.

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[BollocksToThis]

But he put it on his census form!

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[lefthand50]

Isn't this actually how many medichlorians you have? A six year old could pull this off...

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[bmajik]

Actually, it does't require years of training, hard work, vitamins, or anything else.

See, thanks to EP1, it turns out that the force was all along a system of genetic advantage backed class superiority. Gone is the happy message of "work hard, do the right thing, and you will be honored".

Now, it's "hope you had the right parents, dirtbag"

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[ackthpt]

"This IS the droid we're looking for!"

"D'oh!"

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[kcbrown]

Yeah, but EP2 showed that the people who have the most of that genetic advantage aren't allowed to reproduce, at least on the Light Side.

So I guess that means that the Sith are going to kick the Jedis' ass simply due to sheer numbers...except that they limit their own numbers to two in the entire galaxy (a master an an apprentice. Guess that means they go out of their way to kill anyone else who has aspirations of becoming a Sith), unless the Jedi are simply deluding themselves about the Sith to make themselves feel better...

Looks to me like all these Force wielders are idiots. No wonder they've all but disappeared by the time of EP6...

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[carlfish]

This misconception annoys me.

Yes, the prequels sucked. Yes, the "midichlorian" thing was annoying because it replaces something that was comfortingly mystical: "I can feel the Force is strong in this one" with trek-like technobabble. "Oooh, his midichlorian count is off the scale!"

However, the idea that sensitivity to the Force ran in your family was pretty apparent throughout the first series. Even in the first Star Wars, you're left with the idea that Luke gets his ability in the Force from his father. It gets clearer towards the end of the trilogy. Think of Yoda's last words - "There is another Skywalker", or Luke talking to Leia in ROTJ: "The Force is strong in my family." All TPM did was take an idea that was already there (Force sensitivity runs in bloodlines) and over-explains it until it becomes dull.

Charles Miller

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[Decimal]

Of course they didn't work. The guy's not a JEDI! You can't just pull something like that off, without years and years of training. Sheesh.

Either that, or he didn't have enough Midichlorines in his blood. Poor guy, now he'll never be able to finish his C3PO robot...

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[hype7]

Now, it's "hope you had the right parents, dirtbag"

and if Anakin's anything to go by, the fewer the better :)

-- james

Re:Jedi Mind Tricks

[(trb001)]

Now, it's "hope you had the right parents, dirtbag"

Anyone notice that Shmi Skywalker had NO force capabilities? Qui-gon mentions that Anakin was conceived by the force, sure, but obviously there is a way in which midichlorians become a part of a person's structure. This is close to being as genetic as the chance you have to get green eyes. You may have them even though your parents don't. Granted, they have to carry the gene SOMEWHERE for it, but the midichlorians add that extra element of randomness, likened to making it possible for a middle-eastern man to end up with green eyes even though his parents didn't have that gene.

And for God's sake, it's Star Wars, stop making it so goddam political and elitist sounding!

--trb

Movie pirates

[dattaway]

And the movie industry keeps pushing for copy protection on video cameras just in case of the remote chance someone should shoot the screen and steal a movie. But an insider got the original and leaked it. Imagine that.

Re:Movie pirates

[garcia]

they need to send "screener" copies to many people so that they can give good reviews on the movies. I would say that these copies are the ones that are most generally leaked to the Internet.

See TMD's copy of My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which had a counter running in the top corner of the screen the entire movie), or Signs which had a red line moving from top left to bottom right every so often. Other movies I have seen that were found on the Internet have long scrolling messages from the MPAA about reporting if you have purchased or found this release anywhere except an offical source...

I absolutely *refuse* to watch CAM versions of movies that have been put on the net. I would rather wait for the DiVX copy of the DVD or the screener.

Most of the problems occur internally, not at the theater. They are just being annoying.

Re:Movie pirates

[scott1853]

That's why Lucas wants all the actors to be computerized.

After he achieves that, he'll start working on making all production assistants robotic.

Re:Movie pirates

[csnydermvpsoft]

After he achieves that, he'll start working on making all production assistants robotic.

He'd better be careful going that far, however - if he's not careful, he'll make himself obselete?

No more movies like The Matrix - too much slandering of the computers!

Re:Movie pirates

[Quirk]

I know a few people in the film industry and Production Assistants ( especially 3rds ) are usually people who have film degrees but have failed in every aspect of the business. Maybe the guy was in his 30s, knew he wasn't going any where and decided to deploy his own 'golden parachute'

Re:Movie pirates

[sharkey]

...Lucas wants all the actors to be computerized.

As opposed to wooden, like in AotC?

Re:Movie pirates

[0xdeadbeef]

I absolutely *refuse* to watch CAM versions of movies that have been put on the net. I would rather wait for the DiVX copy of the DVD or the screener.

Be ye steadfast in yar principles, video pirate. I tip me hat to ye, arr..

Re:Movie pirates

[John Whitley]

After he achieves that, he'll start working on making all production assistants robotic.

Ob. Jedi quip: "These are not the production droids you're looking for."

Re:Movie pirates

[The Turd Report]

He better switch that golden parachute for a golden chasity belt, so he won't get ass raped while in the slammer. :)

Re:Movie pirates

[susano_otter]

Have you seen his last two movies? He's obsolete already!

Re:Movie pirates

[Monkelectric]

I've worked in alot of different workplaces where there was theft ... and here's a few rules I've developed:

Normally honest people will steal when they think there is 0 chance of being caught.

People will steal the *stupidest* things just because they can.

People develop a sense of entitlement to what they are stealing.

The risk is almost never worth the item stolen.

I've seen people risk graduate degrees to steal reams of paper, risk a 200k job to steal 10k worth of stuff ...

Re:Movie pirates

[PhxBlue]

Right, but if he wants glowing reviews after the last Star Wars movie, he's going to have to make robotic film reviewers, too.

Re:Movie pirates

[BryanL]

Of course if he keeps the law suits up he may need a CGI audience as well.

Re:Movie pirates

[Quirk]

"The risk is almost never worth the item stolen."

This one generally will keep me honest if my conscience should waffle. I took too many semesters of stats, risk analysis to see any sense in stealing, especially when you factor in the radical shifts in life style and the layers of lies necessary to cover the crime. I think for alot of crime there has to be chemical triggers.

Re:Movie pirates

[Quirk]

"What the hell ever happened to someone just being a "crook"?

He had the tapes erased and he was President so they let him go.

Re:Movie pirates

[dachshund]

I've seen people risk graduate degrees to steal reams of paper, risk a 200k job to steal 10k worth of stuff ...

Quite frankly, any company that can afford to pay $200,000 but won't pony up for office supplies needs to seriously rethink its priorities.

If you're that valuable, the company should be going out of its way to insure that you get all the paper you need rather than classifying it as "theft".

Re:Movie pirates

[Xaoswolf]

It was also discovered by authorities that Foley had hoarded additional stolen materials in his Petaluma, California townhouse belonging to other Star Wars movies

What were the other items he had. It doesn't look like it's just a piracy case, but that its also someone that was taking peices of wardrobe, or other props home.

Re:Movie pirates

[Monkelectric]

If you're that valuable, the company should be going out of its way to insure that you get all the paper you need rather than classifying it as "theft".

You missed the point of my post entirely ... People will steal because they *CAN* not because they need to. We were paying our guys a good wage (30-40k /year and FREE HOUSING) and they would steal reams of paper instead of pay 3.50$ for them down at office depot. They would steal cables from computers ... Things got so bad after loosing a case of paper in 48 hours (our normal burn rate for a case of paper would be a month or two), that we had to lock the paper up ... it was stupid

My point is that humans have infinite wan't

Well, it's only lawful

[dwaggie]

Who cares how much hype there is, illegal is illegal. He stole what would be a viable product being engineered (and not finished) by a company. Outside of breaking contract, and just poor ethical judgement, he also just plain stole material before it was released.

I have no beef with after its release. People are going to see a movie for the effect whether they get a pirated version or not, in almost every case I know of (as far as) movie piracy.

We don't need no water ...

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Henry V .009]

He didn't steal something--stealing is depriving someone of a good that they own. No one was deprived, however he did violate copyright law and contract law.

This is illegal, of course. But how much damage did he do? The $450,000 figure is probably silly. I'd imagine that no money was actually lost. Anyone hard up enough to acquire the pirated good before release certainly went to watch it in theatre.

illegal is illegal

Hardly. There are levels of crimes. We don't punish traffic code violators like we do murderers. With no real damage, this is on the level of petty misdemeanor.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[s1r_m1xalot]

Who cares how much hype there is, illegal is illegal....

I have no beef with after its release. People are going to see a movie for the effect whether they get a pirated version or not, in almost every case I know of (as far as) movie piracy.

Not to be a troll, but you do notice you contradict yourself, right?

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Stonehand]

From an article with actual substance rather than a big graphic of the reporter:

Among the stolen items that were recovered, according to the affidavit:

? Nineteen CD-ROM discs containing the entire restricted library of sound effects
created during the past 25 years for use in the "Star Wars" films, with an
estimated "collectible value" of $95,000.

? More than 2,000 high-quality digital images from "Episode II," valued at
$125,000.

? Hundreds of video files of "Episode II," from concept shots to final clips,
valued at $100,000.

? About 113 storyboard images - or sketches outlining scenes from the film - with
handwritten notes by Lucas, valued at more than $100,000.

and

When threatened with dismissal, Foley admitted that he had taken photo images,
storyboards and a script for "Star Wars Episode I: Phantom Menace," but "nothing
big," according to the court document. He specifically denied having a copy of
"Episode II."

Foley said he was an "avid fan" and had taken the items for his "souvenir
collection" at his Petaluma home, according to the court document.

Foley agreed to allow Webb to look through the items at his home and when they
arrived at his Lakeville Circle townhouse the investigator saw "tons of 'Star
Wars' items," Webb said in the affidavit. Foley turned over numerous items,
including 25 CDs with images of the film, three videotapes of "Episode I"
voice-over tests, 115 storyboard image strips and a hard disk drive with
downloaded photo images.

He (or his mother, who lives in the Irvine residence cited below) also, perhaps, attempted to destroy evidence:

Authorities served a search warrant at the Irvine residence the next day, the
court document said, and found "Star Wars" production photos in a trash can, as
well as shredded documents that appeared to be "Star Wars" sketches.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Henry V .009]

Well I don't know about ideals of safety or such stuff, but I do know how society makes laws. Things that damage society a lot generally get punished more than things that damage society a little. Murder vs. stealing, what not.

The damage to society done by stealing is easy enough to estimate. You steal a car, and you've stolen the value of the car from that person.

Now, is copyright infringement stealing? No, because the damage is on a fundamentally different order. If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place. This can be more than the cost of an individual copy, less, or even negative. Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Henry V .009]

19 CD-ROM disks -- value $9.00 at Best Buy

2,000 high-quality digital images -- value $0.00 they're just bytes

Hundreds of video files of "Episode II," from concept shots to final clips, valued at $100,000 -- value $0.00, they are talking about computer files, right?

About 113 storyboard images - or sketches outlining scenes from the film - with handwritten notes by Lucas, valued at more than $100,000 -- now this is hard to value. Were they digital or dead tree? Were these the only copies? Given the inflated claims for the other items, I'd be skeptical.

Total: $9.00

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[_Sprocket_]

With this logic, I should go steal the Mona Lisa, since it's only a few dollars of canvas, oil, and pigments.

You've missed the point.

A closer analogy would be taking a picture of the Mona Lisa and being charged with the theft of the physical painting. Fear of damaging the portrait with constant exposure to flash photography aside... is making a copy of an item akin to actually stealing the item?

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[DaytonCIM]

Now, is copyright infringement stealing? No, because the damage is on a fundamentally different order. If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place. This can be more than the cost of an individual copy, less, or even negative. Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.

Huh? We're modding this as Funny, right?

The damage to society done by stealing is easy enough to estimate. You steal a car, and you've stolen the value of the car from that person.

If you copy a copyrighted work, and what is the damage? It's the amount of money that the copyright holder would have otherwise got if the violation had not taken place.

Yes, it is easy to value an automobile and then assess damage as necessary. However, how do you value a person's lost time from work? Or time it takes to replace the car? Or the salary of the insurance company employee who processes the claim? Etc...
Are those "costs" valid? Or are they on a "fundamentally different order"?

Simply calling all copyright infringement stealing completely ducks the issue and creates a draconian legal system.

Ok, I'll bite... what issue?

I think most people would agree that stealing is stealing. Whether you take a .50cent piece of candy or stick up a liquer store for $500 or embezzle $5million, it's all theft and it's all wrong.
Punishment is a completely different story. Did this person steal $450,000 worth of materials? The court will decide.

I think a much juicier question is: did the website, which ran the early review, generate income from this "inside information"? If they did, isn't fair to say that they owe Mr Lucas a substantial portion of that income, considering it was Mr. Lucas' creative product that generated their income?

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[_Sprocket_]

Stealing, to me, is not depriving someone of a good that they own, but depriving someone of the ideal of safety.

I find this to be an amazing concept. Tell me - how often are you a victom of theft? When the neighborhood thug looks at you a little too long - did he just steal from you? Are you affraid your employer may have to lay you off due to economic pressure... and thus steal your livelihood? Is the increase in political violence direct theft on your person?

Think you could get any form of law enforcement to make a case of these examples of theft?

I don't.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[_Sprocket_]

If he didn't "steal" anything, why were people lining up to watch the thing at the theatres?

If he did, in fact, cause so much damage to this project... why were people lining up to watch the thing at the theatres?

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Anonymous Coward]

The point I was making is that its wrong to reduce the value of an object to its raw materials. A car is worth a lot more than the price of the metal, and a CD full of unreleased material is worth a lot more than the price of the blank CD.

Cutting away all the fluff, the facts here are that Lucasfilm invested a considerable amount of capital into developing the materials in question, that they were in a postion to profit from their investment, both in the film and the behind the scenes material that could fill years worth of special features and making ofs, and that the individual in question obtained and released the material with neither Lucasfilm's knowledge nor permission. Maybe you can, but I can't twist that around in my mind sufficiently to make it not look like plain, simple theft.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[mindstrm]

Let's say you are at work. Your company compiles a database of information about something. This is how they make their money.

Then you make a copy of it, and give it away. Have you stolen from the company?

You better believe it.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[monthos]

Becouse true fans will not watch a crippled internet copy, they want teh real thing, and i do believe there was a significant monetary loss, as much as they claim, i am and noone on slashdot is in a position to know for sure, but face it, he leaked a movie to the internet, and you KNOW people downloaded it, and many of them didnt see it in theaters, its purely speculation to say they would have gone to a theatre had it not been on the internet, but noone is at a position to say one way or another.

As far as theft goes, he did steal, he stole a copy of the movie, and he stole many physical items from the company.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Henry V .009]

I think most people would agree that stealing is stealing.

I guess that my above post must not have made my point at all. You don't see the difference between stealing a book (hence depriving someone of a physical good) and xeroxing that same book? One causes damage to an individual, and the other does not--provided that you would not have bought a copy anyway.

Copyright infringement is called stealing, but it is a different order of property crime.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[Henry V .009]

Exactly my point, costs need to be based on actual damage to the copyright holder, not upon supposed value of the copies.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[hype7]

as
well as shredded documents that appeared to be "Star Wars" sketches.

sounds like he's in for a transfer to the audit department.

-- james

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[_Sprocket_]

The point I was making is that its wrong to reduce the value of an object to its raw materials. A car is worth a lot more than the price of the metal, and a CD full of unreleased material is worth a lot more than the price of the blank CD.

Sure. And I could agree with the point if what was taken was origional, unique objects. It is not clear whether this is the case.

Sure. Data has value - if it didn't, people wouldn't pay for it. But just because data has this value to it, does not neccisarily mean it equates to physical objects.

Cutting away all the fluff, the facts here are that Lucasfilm invested a considerable amount of capital into developing the materials in question, that they were in a postion to profit from their investment, both in the film and the behind the scenes material that could fill years worth of special features and making ofs, and that the individual in question obtained and released the material with neither Lucasfilm's knowledge nor permission.

If this individual took origional copies of the material, thus depriving Lucasfilm of access to it... sure. But again, did he? Or did he make a copy. If it was a copy, then the issue is... what damage did he do with the material in question? Is Lucasfilm now facing an evaporating market for all these special features and behind-the-scenes material?

I suspect these questions will show up in the guy's court case.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[_Sprocket_]

As far as theft goes, he did steal, he stole a copy of the movie, and he stole many physical items from the company.

Did he steal a copy? Or did he make an illegal copy? Was it theft, or was it violation of copyright?

On the issue of physical items (if they were physical items - this doesn't seem to be clear), sure. If he stole physical items, then he stole. Of course - what has me curious on this point is whether he actually stole something of "value". Does Lucasfilm archive all these items? Or are they routinely shredded and this guy, fanboi that he is, took them home rather than destroy Star Wars memorabilia? Consider that the vast majority of cells for classic Disney films were destroyed (although sometimes they were given away to friends) - much the way one would handle old documents at your local office. It wasn't until far later that collectors began searching out the rare, surviving cells and (in many cases) restoring them.

Re:Well, it's only lawful

[squaretorus]

This is where art and business collide, and peoples expectations differ. Should I have to buy an official licenced postcard of the Mona Lisa? Or should I be able to buy a cheapo version? The official one may be better quality...

Some Directors go over budget to produce the right movie, some try and kill anyone that leaks a bit of script. You can pretty much tell a movie with some integrity by its lack of hype surrounding the leaking of footage / script / plot info.

Those aiming to be 'the biggest grossing movie ever' tend to be far more uptight about these things, and far WORSE films. Massive generalisation. But hey!

Artists want to speak to the world, so should applaud the pirates so long as they don't steal the bread from their table - and no one is suggesting that Lucas needs the money are they!

Punish the lawbreakers!

[Anonymous Coward]

He should be put into jail. He broke the law!

I need an mp3 copy of Black Sabbath Paranoid. Could you send me a copy?

thanks

spoiler!

[Anonymous Coward]

Luke is Vader's son!

Is there an issue here?

[perrin5]

This hardly seems like news to me. Assuming of course, that this fellow had to sign an NDA to come to work every day (are there any industry people who know about this stuff present?), he did a BAD thing.

If there wasn't, there are still some fairly blatant theft issues here.

Re:Is there an issue here?

[timeOday]

There is no "issue," it's just an interesting story related to Star Wars.

13 accounts?

[Jonny Ringo]

man, how many star wars movies aren't out yet?

I wonder if he leaked the DVD also.....

[xjerky]

....It was realeased on the warez scene back in August, yet the movie isn't due out until November. And it was the real DVD, not some badly-made bootleg (though slighty downsampled to fit on a DVD-R, you can barely tell the difference).

Re:I wonder if he leaked the DVD also.....

[ceejayoz]

It's pretty easy to distinguish between a DVD rip and a crappy cam shot.

Re:I wonder if he leaked the DVD also.....

[xjerky]

I mean it used the real DVD menus (I don't think geeks are THAT crafty to come up with a menu system as good as the one that the Phantom Menace had, which this one does). As far as quality, you barely see any artifacts, even though its downsampled. Plus it's got 5.1 sound, and no camn-in-theater production is going to give you that.

Little sympathy

[Drawkcab]

Well, this was very poor judgement on his part, but he knew he was taking a risk when he did it. This would be a very different story if it were some kid who uploaded a divx of the movie on a file sharing network, but this was an insider who was entrusted with that material and chose to violate that trust, so I have little sympathy for him. If copyright infringement is stealing, then this is embezzlement, and thats a far greater ethical lapse because the only reason its possible to embezzle is that you were entrusted not to.

Re:Little sympathy

[Sodium Attack]

If copyright infringement is stealing, then this is embezzlement,

It's worse than that, even. The person is accused not of making a copy of the movie, but of actually stealing physical material. Regardless of the varying views of intellectual property law found here, I think most /.ers still agree that taking physical items without permission is theft.

How do you calculate the damage?

[jukal]

was arrested last week and charged with 13 counts of felony for the theft of an estimated $450,000 worth of "Star Wars"-related material from his ex-employer

Is it a certain a percentage of the revenues? I mean, if the movie had proved to be a complete flop and would have generated negative revenue for Lucas Film. Say minus $420 million dollars, should Lucas Film actually pay the ex-employer for stealing it :))

Re:How do you calculate the damage?

[Em Emalb]

"Is it a certain a percentage of the revenues? "

Nah, It was RLGN. Random Lawyer Generated Numbers. They take a number three times higher than the average guy not named Lucas can make in 4 years and go with that. Thought this was common knowledge? :)

Re:How do you calculate the damage?

[InnovATIONS]

The internet news article said that the 450K was the actual cost of the items found in his appartment, and that the potential lost revenue from the early review was incalculable. Apparently this guy had stolen a lot of stuff.

Re:How do you calculate the damage?

[davinciII]

From a related article:

Among the stolen items that were recovered, according to the affidavit:

Nineteen CD-ROM discs containing the entire restricted library of sound effects created during the past 25 years for use in the "Star Wars" films, with an estimated "collectible value" of $95,000.

More than 2,000 high-quality digital images from "Episode II," valued at $125,000.

Hundreds of video files of "Episode II," from concept shots to final clips, valued at $100,000.

About 113 storyboard images - or sketches outlining scenes from the film - with handwritten notes by Lucas, valued at more than $100,000.

Why is this bad?

[Wakko Warner]

He stole intellectual property that wasn't his and gave it to others. This seems like a pretty open-and-shut case.

- A.P.

Damages?

[timeOday]

Assumably the punishment will be base on the value of the "thing" stolen. How is that caclulated? Or will the guy go up on a more generic charge like breech of contract?

Re:Damages?

[Thurn und Taxis]

This is an excellent point. IANAL, but I think they can only base the cost of the theft on (1) the market value of the items stolen, or (2) actual (not potential) loss of revenue resulting from the theft. It sounds like they wouldn't have much of a case with (2), so they're going with (1) and arguing that most of the items have a high collectible value. If they could argue potential losses, the guy would probably be charged with millions in theft....

Re:Damages?

[Sodium Attack]

IANAL, but my understanding is that breach of contract is a civil matter, not criminal, so there could not be a "charge" associated with breach of contract.

Now, if the employee signed an NDA, he could potentially be up against both criminal charges for theft and a civil suit for breach of contract, but only the former would involve the police & prosecuting attorneys.

Re:Damages?

[_ph1ux_]

you may not be able to determine how much money the movie may generate - but you can definitely determine how much it cost to produce.

and you can certainly argue that the earnings potential for the movie could be reduced in such events - as a bad review might deter people from seeing the shitty movies that Lucas is releasing under the Star Wars name these days.

Re:Damages?

[InnovATIONS]

The Internet News article said that the 450K was the actual cost of the items stolen. They guy apparently had quite a horde of stolen stuff from all of the films that he had worked on.

No, this will not be prosecuted as a breach-of-contract. It will most likely be prosecuted as plain and simple grand theft. Lucasfilm will most likely not try to sue this guy for financial damages because this guy hardly has the money to be worth the suit.

What is more important to Lucasfilm is a publicized case to make folks think twice about lifting stuff from a film set (as happened very recently from the set of The Cat in the Hat film).

Re:Damages?

[Rogerborg]

The 19 CD's worth of Star Wars sounds are quoted as being worth $95,000. Now, given that I'm sure that if he took the only copies of these, then somebody would have noticed sooner, I think we can assume that these are clones (heh).

Wow, if I manage to get copies of them, can I sell them for $95,000 too? Every set of copies I make? Wait, what if the people that I sell them to have the same idea? We can all make $95,000 for each copy we sell? Cool!

What's on trial here is the idea that the artificial scarcity of information should be protected by law. I think that's pretty much an inversion of the intent of copyright law, and that this guy should face criminal charges for the actual value of what he took, i.e. 20 cents a CD. Lucasart can bring civil charges for breach of copyright for the rest, but I'm damned if I want my tax money to pay for this guy to live behind bars.

YMM, of course, V.

What drama!

[splattertrousers]

I wonder if the defendant's jail cell is next to a garbage chute that has an exit near his ship?

And after he's found guilty, I wonder if he'll be thrown in some sort of pit containing some sort of monster and from which he couldn't possibly escape.

Waddaminute!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to tell me that the actors in the last two StarWars films were REAL?!?!

DMV Cops?

[shoppa]

Foley, 30, moved back to his native Southern California earlier this year to work at NBC. He was arrested at his Burbank workplace at 10:10 a.m. yesterday by officers with the Department of Motor Vehicles' computer forensics and investigations office.

The DMV cops? How do they figure in?

Maybe the real cops and the FBI didn't think there was a case to pursue?

Re:DMV Cops?

[llamalicious]

That's because it was a moving picture violation.

*ducks*

Related News

[Shadow Wrought]

In related news, the Marin County Sheriff's Office is vigorously denying rumours of violating the civil rights of criminal suspects by locking them in a room with a Wookie...

George Lucas

[Gizzmonic]

he seems to be the focus of a lot of geek hatred since the phantom menace. slashdot has run a lot of stuff showcasing his ugly side, whether it's his prissy creator's attitude towards fanfic or now having this fellow arrested.

i don't know whether that was exactly the right call, but i bet the guy doesn't serve much jail time. his name in hollywood is mud, so he'll probably go back to debuque or wherever and start a new career making indie films about black lesbians rediscovering the joy of lyme disease.

oh and another thing. i predict matt groening to be the next target of geek betrayal and disgust. we've all known and loved him for the simpsons, but when the movies come out, they are gonna suck, and no one will remember him fondly anymore, and they will invent their own simpsons mythos that makes more sense.

then george lucas and matt groening will have a beard staring contest, and the loser will have to shave it off on PBS during fund drive week. at least that's what i heard.

Re:George Lucas

[reflector]

oh and another thing. i predict matt groening to be the next target of geek betrayal and disgust. we've all known and loved him for the simpsons, but when the movies come out, they are gonna suck, and no one will remember him fondly anymore, and they will invent their own simpsons mythos that makes more sense.

i disagree. i've been a groening fan since before the simpsons. his 'life in hell' comic strip totally rocked, and if you read it i think you'll get a feel for him and his world-view, and get an idea as to why he won't be a sell-out. matt groening has too much integrity to turn the simpsons into some cash-making scheme that's not true to the original feel of the simpsons.

Erm,

[Schnapple]

am I missing something here? This guy did Lucasfilm a favor. The geeks of the world were perturbed by The Phantom Menace and a few probably vowed to never see another prequel. However, Harry "LOTR OWNZ ME" Knowles says, "nah, this is good..." and the geeks regain faith. I mean, you can't buy that kind of publicity.

Of course, at $300 million, Attack of the Clones didn't pull in nearly as much money as The Phantom Menace, nor did it do as well as Spider-Man, itself a $450 million film, but consider this: TPM was more for children (not surprising in the long run, given that the lead character was a child), so kids went to go see it en masse, dragging parents along, for multiple showings. Box office gold. AOTC, what with its violence (Boba Fett picking up Jango's helmet and with the head falling out probably didn't make parents happy), lack of Jar-Jar (kids these days don't know who Yoda is), and love story, didn't make the kids want to go see it over and over again. Spider-Man, however, did. No surprise there. Plus don't forget that Spider-Man had the bizarre "luck" of being a movie about a superhero saving NYC in a post-9/11 world. The USA decided they liked that idea quite a bit (especially with the New Yorkers bonding on the bridge against the bad guy towards the end).

I personally think the reason AOTC didn't do as well as TPM was because it was the middle film. I walked out of there thinking "great - now I want to see the ending" (episode 3). My test of this theory will be how The Two Towers fares...

Re:Erm,

[Stonehand]

Or, maybe, they saw "TPM", asked "what the hell is Lucas is on -- or what were WE on to think he might produce a good SW movie", and avoided AotC. Pre-TPM, all many of the fans would have had is childhood memories of the earlier movies, and children may be far easier to wow with flash... adults have higher standards with regards to, oh, plot and acting, one might suspect.

Oh, but they CAN (Was Re:Jedi Mind Tricks)

[danish]

What are you talking about? Jedi mind tricks can and do work on arresting officers, even without years of training.

Let's get this straight....

[VivianC]

From the Marin Newspaper:

Foley agreed to allow Webb to look through the items at his home and when they arrived at his Lakeville Circle townhouse the investigator saw "tons of 'Star Wars' items," Webb said in the affidavit. Foley turned over numerous items, including 25 CDs with images of the film, three videotapes of "Episode I" voice-over tests, 115 storyboard image strips and a hard disk drive with downloaded photo images.

Someone send a copy of this story to the RIAA and MPAA. THIS is stealing. Someone has been deprived of property! Throw the book at this clown.

Gotta run and see if maybe he put some of these sound effects on GNUtella before he got busted. I need a clean light-sabre .WAV file.

Re:Let's get this straight....

[drinkypoo]

Well I agree that if he actually stole this stuff then he's a thief and not just in violation of copyright law. However he could have made copies of the CDs, made copies of the videotapes, run off copies of the storyboard strips (or gotten them out of trash cans, which is arguably stealing I guess, but is not depriving anyone of anything in and of itself... And the 'hard disk drive with downloaded photo images' ... uh, *I* could have a hard disk drive with downloaded photo images of the movie if they were leaked onto the 'net, so that in itself wouldn't prove anything.

So, has he copied material he has no rights to? Looks like. But has he deprived anyone of anything? I don't think so. A good enough lawyer could possibly build a defense with this. You can't sue someone if you haven't lost anything. If he hasn't reduced the value of your product by taking these things (In reality the additional publicity can only enhance its value) then you aren't losing anything.

I realize you were speaking (at least mostly) in jest, but you also do raise a valid point, and I felt a need to raise the counter point :P

Keep Your Mouth Shut

[portege00]

This guy got busted because he went in a chat room and ran his mouth. I guess he wasn't a h4x0r or he didn't read enough text files. f00! Fux0r3d!

Seriously, what kind of socially-deprived moron would blow a job with Lucasarts by bragging about it on IRC? I hope he has Jedi mind powers to block out the force he will feel on his backside at Leavenworth.

Maybe if you read the article...

[rebelcool]

You even quoted it ...'related material'. I read about this a few days ago in a more in depth piece. He stole many things, the movie being only one of them. He also stole assorted props and other things. The cops raided his mom's basement where he was living (no, really) and found it chock full of star wars goods.

Even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

He stole Fizzy-lifting drinks! Now the room must be washed and scrubbed. He wins nothing! Good day to you sir! I said Good day!

Re:Even worse

[sconeu]

And then the Oompah-Loompahs need to be washed and scrubbed. He can start at 8AM tomorrow!

no one noticed the best part...

[Orgasmatron]

He was arrested by the Computer Forensics and Investigations office of, wait for it, the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Anyone care to tell me why the DMV has an office for computer forensics and investigations?

Ouch!

[nightsweat]

If he's going to jail, I bet he wishes he'd leaked a better movie...

Actually they did work

[giminy]

Or didn't you ever watch Mallrats? Silent Bob, erm, figured out the Jedi Mind Trick (at least manipulating objects). I'm sure that, since it's been a few years since Mallrats, he has figured out the Jedi Move Along trick...

Re:Actually they did work

[PhxBlue]

He did a lot more than that in Jay and Silent Bob Stike Back. Silent Bob is a Jedi, methinks, in a way a few thousand Aussies will never be. :)

Re:How is this figure determined?

[CodeWheeney]

But did he cause $450K in damages, or did he steal $450K in goods (or some combination of such)? Someone somewhere assigned this value to the theft of some company property (according to the article) and some intellectual property. Does LucasFilm feel that they would have had $450K more in ticket sales if this hadn't leaked? That'd be an interesting argument to back up with numbers. I understand the review was good (the link was slow for me), so it might even have done some good.

OH HELL NO.

[unicron]

You've done it now. Don't you know that all of us at Slashdot can justify ANY type of action with ANY type of media? Lemme whip out my magic 8 ball of "why I pirated this movie"..(SHAKING)..ahh, haven't seen that one in a while: "I wasn't going to pay to see it in the theatre anyways, so I can download it because Lucas isn't losing money either way"..any oldie but goody. Maybe next time you'll think twice before you bring your "laws" in here. I mean honestly, I didn't like the last Star Wars movie, so I have to be entitled to download burn this one to divx for compensation, right? It's only fair.

Re:OH HELL NO.

[DaytonCIM]

LOL!

I mean honestly, I didn't like the last Star Wars movie, so I have to be entitled to download burn this one to divx for compensation, right? It's only fair.

You nailed it, my friend. 99% of the movie, music, software pirates justify their actions with the "I deserve it" excuse.

"I have been a fan of Star Wars since I was 9, so I deserve to 'own' a copy before anyone else."

"I deserve lower prices at the box office, so I'll just download an illegal copy."

"I wasn't going to pay to see it in the theatre anyways, so I can download it because Lucas isn't losing money either way"

It burns me that some in the /. community can jump up and down and scream when Microsoft begins to charge for something they think should be free.

Shout the praises of Linus when he releases something new for free.

And support people that pirate a movie like Star Wars... a movie funded SOLELY by George Lucas.

Review:
It's ok to pirate Microsoft, 'cause they're bad.
It's not ok to pirate Linux, 'cause they're good.
It's ok to pirate Star Wars, 'cause Mr. Lucas has enough money already (forget that he employs nearly 2000 people).

I love /. community logic.

Re:OH HELL NO.

[unicron]

Damn, I thought I was alone. Don't let it get you down, though. In the world technology and computing, /. is a joke. No one takes this site seriously anymore, and it's dismissed as a haven of wanna-be hackers and software pirates. What's funny is, watch how the posts die down during weekends. My bet is it's because /. is generally "tolerable-browsing" in the workplace, so you'll notice higher numbers during weekdays.

Re:OH HELL NO.

[PhxBlue]

It's not ok to pirate Linux, 'cause they're good.

Pirate Linux? Wha. . ?? It's already free!

Re:OH HELL NO.

[unicron]

Your moral compass holds no weight in a court room. While I wonder if "I'm letting my conscious be my guide" has worked for you before, remember it doesn't mean jack shit in the world of actual laws.

Re:OH HELL NO.

[unicron]

My point is this site wouldn't get half as much traffic that it does if it security cracked down on it more.

Re:OH HELL NO.

[swankypimp]

I think he's talking about non-free Linux programs, like VMWare or WineX. Either that, or he's using the term "pirate" loosely, and is discussing the hardcore Linux people who urge you to buy two hundred dollar boxed copies of RedHat or pre-installed Linux laptops as a message to developers that Linux is popular/profitable enough.

Re:OH HELL NO.

[unicron]

First of all, thank you for the comment about my posts being usually more intelligent. I was getting modded down for making serious anti-piracy posts, so I made a humorous one, and it got modded up. Big suprise.

As for your comments, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I, myself, commit piracy. Not on any grand scale, but maybe a program here or there, and a song if I heard it on the radio and liked it. The thing that seperates me from the majority of /. users is the fact that I don't attempt to justify it to myself using shallow logic. It is NOT your decision which laws you are going to obey(and please don't bring up people like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr., you're stealing movies, not fighting for the rights of a race of people). "I'm happy, isn't that enough?" I honestly cannot believe you said that. No, it's not enough. That movie, and all it's rights belong to someone. You pay for the privalige of watching it. If you don't like the price, or can't afford it, tough. Watching a movie is not something you need to live, it's a privalige.

I asked Harry Knowles about this...

[joshsisk]

I emailed Harry Knowles and Moriarty, the Ain't It cool News guys several days ago, and submitted this story, as well. Both maintained they had MORE than one source, AND that this guy was not one of those aforementioned sources. Here are the responses I got :

"If they charged him, he was stealing stuff, but I've never heard nor met that guy." - Harry

"We've never heard of him." - Moriarty

If they are to believed, then this guy is unrelated to them. The fact that LucasFilm has not pressed charges only backs up that fact.

Oh, and by the way:

2002-10-09 19:48:17 Steal from George, go to jail (articles,starwars) (rejected)

Such hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I was an assitant production manager for the "Dude, Where's My Car?" project and I got a bonus of $450k for leaking copies to the public.

Stolen by Shea O'Brien Foley

[geigertube]

Pirates, nothing, the movie industry needs to keep an eye on the Irish.

Hmm. Reversing this, Im suddenly seeing the those Lucky Charms commercials as an analogy for the MPAA vs video pirates. :)

Don't you mean 'Steal, go to jail'?

[verch]

If you need to read /. to realize stealing is illegal...

The only somewhat interesting question here is if the AIC news folks gave the guy up, which would have some interesting freedom of the press/protecting your source issues. (And you thought protecting the source was Linus' job)

On the plus side...

[unicorn]

Given the crappy jobs outlook in the Bay Area lately. At least there's one less person that you'll EVER have to worry about competing again, for a job. Any job.

I sure as hell wouldn't trust this bozo behind a register at McD's after all.

if this guy is smart...

[happyclam]

If this guy is smart, he'll get a good lawyer and sue his (former) employer LucasFilm for not warning him that taking home company items could be a crime. What with being arrested AND having to give the stuff back, the pain & suffering damages could be astronomical.

Remember, if you're a burglar and you fall through a skylight or electrocute yourself disarming the burglar alarm, you can get a big settlement!

Re:if this guy is smart...

[NeoSkandranon]

Oh, yeah, next time i get caught shoplifting remind me to sue the store for not informing me that taking items home could be a crime.

Re:if this guy is smart...

[happyclam]

you have to be careful only to steal from stores that don't already have signs stating that shoplifting is a crime.

The Cost of Collecting

[DaytonCIM]

I do hope that the remaining portion of his "vast" memorabilia collection is able to support his defense fund and maybe pay down some of the expected criminal fines and civil judgements.

Stealing is stealing.

I don't think Mr. Foley should spend any amount of time in a cell, however, probation, counseling, and LOTS of community service is definitely in order.

But in this case, malum in se

[werdna]

He didn't steal something--stealing is depriving someone of a good that they own. No one was deprived, however he did violate copyright law and contract law.

Are you proffering a legal or linguistic argument here? Either way, you lose. Per Webster's Third New International, "to steal" denotes many types of conduct, including many kinds of theft, including:

Steal 1b:

to appropriate (as another's conception or invention) and use as one's own

"To steal" might well denote the conduct complained of by a dictionary, but probably also denotes the conduct asserted under California law. Virtually every state's definition of theft incorporates (directly or by separate statute) criminal penalties for theft of trade secrets, for example, often denominated as theft.

In this case, as understood from an article snarfted from Google, he was charged with plural counts of computer crime and grand theft.

Hardly. There are levels of crimes. We don't punish traffic code violators like we do murderers.

True. So what?

With no real damage, this is on the level of petty misdemeanor.

This guy, however, is facing thirteen felony counts, with penalties that can lead to incarceration over seven years.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[Henry V .009]

This guy, however, is facing thirteen felony counts, with penalties that can lead to incarceration over seven years.

And hence the injustice.

Where is the level of harm to individuals and society that would warrent this?

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[werdna]

And hence the injustice.

If you say so. But at least we understand now the source of your concerns. It isn't the language definition of "theft," which you do not dispute here -- nor is it the legal definition, which you acknowledge here -- it is merely that you disagree with the result.

Fair enough, but that wasn't what you wrote -- you wrote that the crimes with which he was charged were not serious crimes, but merely petty misdemeanors. That, of course, was false. He was charged with thirteen felonies -- serious crimes.

Whether he is guilty of them or note remains to be seen, and quite frankly, i for one will wait until i see the verdict before calling this an injustice.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[Henry V .009]

You are having trouble reading. I wrote that the crimes that he committed were on the order of petty misdemeanors.

He was charged with grand theft.

I will write this very slowly, so that I now get my point across to you. If someone commits a crime that is small in degree, but is charged with a crime that is large in degree, there is injustice. Look up the definition of draconian.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[werdna]

You are having trouble reading. I wrote that the crimes that he committed were on the order of petty misdemeanors.

He was charged with grand theft.

I am pleased that you agree that to assert either the linguistic or criminal argument that the conduct was not theft is incorrect. I am further pleased that you acknowledge that he was, in fact, charged with thirteen major crimes for his conduct. It is reasonable to assert that you think grand theft of this kind should be a misdemeanor and not seriously penalized -- though it is likewise reasonable to disagree. I concur that arguments what "should" be the crime are a different thing altogether.

Judging from the several responses posted here, I was not the only one who took your original message to be making broader and different arguments than this current one.

Still, even given the backpedaling construction of your posting that you now hold, I disagree:

Here's the neat thing about this -- the legislature gets together after getting themselves elected, and they decide what constitutes various crimes, and the punishments for them. Another politician, the governor, then gets to decide whether or not the law goes to far, and either signs it or lets it pass into law without signature. I'd be willing to bet the laws passed in this case passed virtually without controversy.

You can like it or lump it -- and indeed, you can think that things are criminal (or, as in this case, quite highly criminal) that are not.

But you know, at the end of the day, you don't get to decide for yourself what is and is not permitted, and what is the punishment that will be lodged against you for violating the law.

This man was charged with thirteen felony crimes. You don't think that what he did was all that bad. But if the elements of those crimes are proved, he committed the crimes. This isn't injustice -- this is the way the system is supposed to work -- indeed, precisely to keep people from engaging in unbridled and uncontrolled exercises of authority. If you think that the standard for grand theft is too low, by all means, speak to your legislators. Indeed, if you are correct, and he didn't do the deeds, or the deeds he did were not the crimes with which he is charged, then he will have an easy time defending himself. But please, for gosh sake, stop whining.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[Henry V .009]

you think grand theft of this kind

Good God! I can't get through, can I? I'll repeat myself one last time: He was charged with grand theft, but committed no crimes on the order of grand theft.

I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get across. Maybe you live in a foreign country where everyone charged with a crime is assumed to be guilty. In my country, America, just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn't mean that he guilty. We assume that person is innocent. We even allow him to defend himself with the proposition that he may not have committed the alledged crimes at all.

This man was charged with thirteen felony crimes. You don't think that what he did was all that bad. But if the elements of those crimes are proved, he committed the crimes.

Your residence in a far off land obviously keeps you from any real understanding of the justice system. There are any number of prosecutors who "bend" the definition of a statute to serve their purposes. The acts alledged don't always fit the statute. So just because he was proven to commit the alledged acts, does not mean he has actually committed grand theft under the definition of the statute.

Hell, according the the newspaper accounts the only physical items that that the police claimed he had were 19 CD-ROMS. We don't know that he stole the CD-ROMS, or simply brought some from home and burned him. Anyway, $9.00 worth of CD-ROMS is not grand theft under the statute.

The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[werdna]

Good God! I can't get through, can I? I'll repeat myself one last time: He was charged with grand theft, but committed no crimes on the order of grand theft.

Had you read my messages as carefully as you insist I should read yours, you would see that I directly confronted that position -- your response, not on the merits but mere gainsay -- does not lead me to forget the points I made.

Whether he had committed crime on the order of grand theft or felony computer crimes remains to be seen, and certainly time will tell. But the elements appear to be satisfied by the allegations, and though YOU don't think terribly highly of the state charging someone with this crime, as I noted in particular, YOU don't get to make the decision, either normatively or legally.

I don't know why this is such a hard concept to get across. Maybe you live in a foreign country where everyone charged with a crime is assumed to be guilty. In my country, America, just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn't mean that he guilty. We assume that person is innocent. We even allow him to defend himself with the proposition that he may not have committed the alledged crimes at all.

Let me get this straight. He was charged with a crime. You say that he must be presumed innocent. Hence, you conclude that an injustice has occurred.

The presumption of innocence does not preclude charging someone with a crime, or the discussion whether the facts, if they occurred, would give rise to the crime. You aren't disputing the facts -- you are asserting that the facts, if true, would not be criminal at the level charged. I am disagreeing with THAT point, not asserting that he is guilty because he was charged.

Your residence in a far off land obviously keeps you from any real understanding of the justice system. There are any number of prosecutors who "bend" the definition of a statute to serve their purposes. The acts alledged don't always fit the statute. So just because he was proven to commit the alledged acts, does not mean he has actually committed grand theft under the definition of the statute.

Personal attacks on me make no difference. After all, I am a lawyer. :-) Seriously, you have it all wrong. The prosecutors have a far better case on the merits than your credit it. the value of personal property is not limited to the price of the media stored on it, and the case books are filled with criminal grand theft involving unpublished works and intellectual property -- primarily trade secrets. Such cases have been heavily appealed on similar grounds (Taborsky being one of them), and the defendants have lost.

My suggestion -- don't whine about injustice. Do something about it by changing the law -- if you think you can make the argument stick. But in this case, this charge doesn't seem to raise too many meaningful legal hackles.

I *DO* expect the defense attorneys to try to win on the ground that the property isn't valued grand theft. They may not do so well on that theory, but hey, its worth a shot. Time will tell which of us was right.

Hell, according the the newspaper accounts the only physical items that that the police claimed he had were 19 CD-ROMS. We don't know that he stole the CD-ROMS, or simply brought some from home and burned him. Anyway, $9.00 worth of CD-ROMS is not grand theft under the statute.

So you say. Who knows? Maybe you are right. On the other hand, a prosecutor probably thinks he has a pretty good case to file such an information. Let's see what the judge and jury say later on.

The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.

No, he was accused of computer crimes as well as grand theft? I understand that he is innocent until crucified, but that doesn't make your statement less false.

I read several articles, but saw none that made any reference to criminal copyright infringement (which would be brought only by a USA, and not by a state attorney; I agree that infringement is malum prohibitum, by the way). Were you just guessing, or did you see otherwise?

See, we here in the United States live under the laws promulgated by the legislature, prosecuted by the Executive in the Judiciary. We, as individuals, don't get to make it up as we go along -- the laws are the laws, and the penalties are the penalties. As I said, this is the system working as it should.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[Henry V .009]

Maybe you live in a foreign country

After all, I am a lawyer. :-)

Good God Damn. I include Florida, to be sure. Anyways, it's rather impossible to argue with someone who in turn only argues with what he would like you to have said, rather than what has actually been said.

Let me get this straight. He was charged with a crime. You say that he must be presumed innocent. Hence, you conclude that an injustice has occurred.

Why do I bother? No, that is complete mischaracterization of what I wrote earlier--like most of your statements concerning what I have said. Is there some point to that sort of thing? It's a cheap debating trick that only works with an audience. And as far as I can tell, we're the only two participating. Again, I'll say it very simply: I argued that injustice occured because he was charged with the crime of grand theft, when his alledged actions do not fit the definition of grand theft. The presumption of innocence comment was a reply to your earlier comment which states: "It is reasonable to assert that you think grand theft of this kind should be a misdemeanor and not seriously penalized." All you did here was again mischaracterize my original point and further contradict me in a roundabout way with no supporting arugument. Beautiful piece of cheap rhetoric.

The presumption of innocence does not preclude charging someone with a crime, or the discussion whether the facts, if they occurred, would give rise to the crime. You aren't disputing the facts -- you are asserting that the facts, if true, would not be criminal at the level charged. I am disagreeing with THAT point, not asserting that he is guilty because he was charged.

Finally. It took you this long to disagree with it in a direct manner. Now that you have finally stated the real argument without mischaracterization of any kind, make your point.

the value of personal property is not limited to the price of the media stored on it, and the case books are filled with criminal grand theft involving unpublished works and intellectual property -- primarily trade secrets. Such cases have been heavily appealed on similar grounds (Taborsky being one of them), and the defendants have lost.

You prove my point. It's the amount of damage done, not the street value of the copyrighted material that is the issue. Stealing the only copy of an original manuscript is quite different from copying an expensive software program or electronic book. Again Taborsky is another case where the damage is important and not the items (the notebooks), but the invention (kitty litter, wasn't it?). What if he had merely xeroxed the notebooks, as more or less (apparently) occurred in this Star Wars case? Quite a different thing (assuming it was the university that got the patents). Suddenly you have much smaller real damages, and if I recall, grand theft statutes usually have a damage minimum in cases of non-violent theft--that is if we are talking about damage done, and not price of files stored on the media.

My suggestion -- don't whine about injustice. Do something about it by changing the law

Wow. What an incredible statement. I don't suppose you could give one example of a single law in all of history that wasn't changed by people 'whining about injustice?' (Please don't include examples of dictators or the powerful making the laws more unjust.)

The rest is copyright infringement, which is handled under different statutes.

No, he was accused of computer crimes as well as grand theft?

In that context I was only speaking about the grand theft charges. He should be held liable for the computer crimes. Of course, even for those computer crimes, the issue of actual damage remains important, I would assume.

I read several articles, but saw none that made any reference to criminal copyright infringement (which would be brought only by a USA, and not by a state attorney; I agree that infringement is malum prohibitum, by the way).

Exactly, which makes me feel that he is being charged under the wrong statutes.

We, as individuals, don't get to make it up as we go along -- the laws are the laws, and the penalties are the penalties.

Yes, but certain people called prosecutors will often try to bend the wording of a statute (more often the spirit) in order to land a big case.

And finally I apologize for the personal attacks. Rather, I was trying to colorfully say that the quality of your argument up to this point, was that of a foreigner who misunderstands both law and the English language.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[werdna]

I don't see any point in addressing your allegations that I was not being responsive -- it is apparent that as between us, we will have to agree to disagree whether or not you must confront the arguments I made. I will leave that to our gracious colleagues to decide for themselves how they feel about all of that.

You prove my point. It's the amount of damage done, not the street value of the copyrighted material that is the issue. Stealing the only copy of an original manuscript is quite different from copying an expensive software program or electronic book.

If you say so. The law, I am here to tell you -- at least in the areas in which I practice, is quite different. The theft of content is actionable in fact. Computer Fraud and Abuse, and comparable state laws operate on similar principles.

Again Taborsky is another case where the damage is important and not the items (the notebooks), but the invention

You are mistaken (except that it was about a material that can be used as a form of kitty litter). Petr Taborsky was convicted, among other things, for theft of trade secrets. Indeed, the reason he served time on the chain gang had to do, in part, with his disclosure of those secrets by filing a patent application based upon the subject matter of the lab notes.

What if he had merely xeroxed the notebooks, as more or less (apparently) occurred in this Star Wars case?

Same result on these counts at least.

Quite a different thing (assuming it was the university that got the patents).

Ultimately they did. Among other restitutionary relief, a patent was assigned to the U.

Suddenly you have much smaller real damages, and if I recall, grand theft statutes usually have a damage minimum in cases of non-violent theft--that is if we are talking about damage done, and not price of files stored on the media.

The fundamental difference between grand theft and petit theft is precisely the amount of damages -- not of the consequences after restitution, but assuming that the theft was non-recoverable.

Look, there is no point on going on with this -- I'm done responding here. You seem to think you know a great deal more about the law than do I, and I seem to think I know a great deal more about it than you. I do not know the facts of this case in any detail, nor can I predict the result. But assuming the facts are as we assumed here, I believe it is quite clear that you would lose.vvMoreover, the theft claims aside, the computer abuse counts aren't even close to dispute.

So, let's part friends or enemies as you prefer, let's see what happens. You bet he will go free on these facts, and I would bet he would be convicted, which conviction would survive appeals. So what? This isn't the forum in which that will be decided.

I agree to disagree -- this is my last posting on this thread.

Re:But in this case, malum in se

[Henry V .009]

You are mistaken (except that it was about a material that can be used as a form of kitty litter). Petr Taborsky was convicted, among other things, for theft of trade secrets. Indeed, the reason he served time on the chain gang had to do, in part, with his disclosure of those secrets by filing a patent application based upon the subject matter of the lab notes.

Again changing the subject. This would have been a lot shorter if you had just argued with what I said instead of what you would have liked for me to have said. Taborsky was convicted of grand theft of research materials and theft of trade secrets. The trade secrets charge was not under discussion. The reason he was convicted of grand theft, was because that was the only copy that he stole. The school was deprived of access to his research. Xeroxing them would have been an entirely different issue. You can look up the ruling if you'd like. The patent filing which got him sent to the chain gang was a probation violation.

The theft of content is actionable in fact. Computer Fraud and Abuse, and comparable state laws operate on similar principles.

Hate to bring you back to the subject, but we were talking about the grand theft statute, not other codes.

You bet he will go free on these facts, and I would bet he would be convicted, which conviction would survive appeals.

Now when the hell did I say that? He's going away unless he can afford a good attorney.

I agree to disagree -- this is my last posting on this thread.

Next time try arguing with the other party rather than points you dream up yourself. It's less aggravating all around.

Damn, but I had fun, though.

Re:How is this figure determined?

[FuddChuckles]

Several types of damages:

1. Contractual: you signed a contract saying you wouldn't disclose confidential information and agree to forfeit some predetermined fine if caught. Powerful companies like LucasFilms can convince wannabe production assistants to sign practically anything.

2. Lost revenue - did releasing the preview to aintitcool, a very popular site among earth-bound Jedi, have the *foreseeable* effect of hurting potential revenues? Potential revenues is purely mathmatical, but somewhat arbitrary. Multiply X% of aintitcool users who would be turned off by a mediocre review by the per ticket revenue for LucasFilms. In a civil trial, X is determined by a jury, generally.

3. Lost Property - Consider how much just one of those still shots with Lucas' comments would go for on eBay. Multiply.

-FC

Re:Why?

[Keighvin]

Oh, you mean this Dark Redemption, the freely available on the net fanfilm that was entirely independently created (not using Lucasfilm sets no matter what you've heard), on the virtual shelf right next to several other good entries on TheForce.Net.

The fanfilm scene is alive and well - don't anybody remember Duality?

Re:libertarian view qjkx

[the eric conspiracy]

But anybody who distributed it is not a part of the contract and has no liability at all.

Except for copyright and trademark infringement.

CNN thinks you're funny...

[DanMan]

Looks like "chrisd"'s comment about Jedi mind tricks was funny enough to be broadcast on CNN. They quoted it in a reference to the story about 2 minutes ago.

Such a lovely legal system

[interstellar_donkey]

Take a copy of a movie and show it to other people while not making any money, go to jail.

Make millions as a CEO through deception and fraud destroying the financial lives of thousands and contributing to the collapse of the economy as a whole... you can go free.

Sell a relitivly harmless plant to someone to help them releave stress, go to jail.

Make billions by putting out drugs at prices that bankrupt people less they die... you can go free. ... there examples a pleanty. But the moral of the story is, in America's justice system it's only really wrong if you don't make a fortune.

Re:Such a lovely legal system

[JWhiton]

I dunno, some of them folks who are at the top of groups that sell said plants and similar items are pretty rich, from what I understand. But then again, they don't have a lot of positive clout with the folks in DC.

Re:Jango's head

[Schnapple]

His head most certainly did not fall out of the helmet - I was extremely disappointed

Well according to starwars.com, it did. I'm not sure if they made this non-obvious on purpose or if it was just inevitable that the shadow could be missed, but I didn't notice it on the theater either.

The other possibility, but I don't have a link to back it up, is that the shadows were only in some versions of the film. I read somewhere that Lucas continued to tinker with the film after its release and that, depending on when the date that the particular piece of celluloid was made, the film was that version. For example, if a theater got theirs a few months into the run or had to get a new version of the film, they got the "latest" version. This is why no one can agree on the exclusive scene for the digital version (the scene was included since there's less lead time on manufacturing - it was included in later celluloid prints, whatever it was) and part of the reason Lucas wanted the film to be a digitial exclusive - so he could issue "patches". We already know that the version of AOTC playing in hotel rooms has some differences (a few longer scenes) and given that the rumor is that there's been 50 slightly different versions of the film in theaters, it'll be interesting to see which one makes it to DVD.

Re:Is there an issue here? I think so.

[enneff]

It is interesting that we see people going to jail for 5+ years for 'computer crime', whilst the average sentence for violent crime in the USA is 2 years.

"Intellectual Property"

[Simon Garlick]

I am reminded of the theme introduced in Stephenson's "Snow Crash" -- of corporations desiring control over the information which their employees possess IN THEIR HEADS in virtue of their work.

I wonder how long it will be before we see "LucasFilm employee Joe Bloggs was today charged with 11 counts of Grand Theft as a result of leaving the company without submitting to a LucasFilm-endorsed memory-erasure program. A LucasFilm representative was quoted as saying 'Bloggs was personally exposed to many different pre-release versions of our latest movie and to early script revisions -- the information he has illegally reproduced in his memory may be worth up to ten squillion dollars!"

Unfounded allegations.

[Performer Guy]

This is complete bullshit. There's nothing here that suggests he stole the film, he didn't even have a copy.

The guy has a few copies of starwars production images and some audio effects on CDROM and they accuse him of theft. He's a production assistant, are you telling me this isn't commonplace? They all have this kind of stuff lying around. As for the storyboards, look at the memerobelia that regularly surfaces after years, that would otherwise have been thrown in the trash if some grip hadn't grabbed it. Not only do they have the gall to charge him with theft mind you, but grand theft! The guy's an ex-employee and has some images on a CDROM he didn't use and it's "grand" theft. He didn't deprive Lucasfilm of their use and he didn't use them illegally, they were just lying on his disk.

Lucasfilm you hypocrites, look at your own hard disks and 'souvenir' collections and then examine your conscience, if you have any.

Let this be a lesson to the reader, DON'T work for Lucasfilm, DON'T have anything to do with the assholes.

A fishing expedition fails to catch what they're looking for so they charge the guy for something many of them do.

Re:what did he do?

[Stonehand]

He broke his contracts and betrayed his employer. Not content to be merely dishonorable, he also proved to be mind-bogglingly stupid by posting messages on a forum about that, using the handle "Shay" (which rather strongly suggests his own name... a problem considering that it undoubtably helped narrow the list of suspects rather sharply).

The movie revenue is irrelevant with respect to the morality of the man's actions. Mr. Lucas could have served up two hours of Jar-Jar making pornographic hand-shadow gestures and there still would have been a ridiculous amount of buzz about the movie, and probably profit... but that would have justified harsh criticism and dismal sales, not breach of contract and leaking of material.

Punishment...

[davew2040]

... in the "corporatized" American justice system sure doesn't seem to fit the crime. These days it seems that if you work for a major company, the mere act of coming in late could lay grounds for the claim that you've cost the company $100,000. It's gotten particularly ridiculous in the digital age, where some lawyers seem to excel in arguing that intellectual property whose distribution is virtually victimless is magnitudes worse than the outright stealing of material properties. Sure, selling your company's product's codebase to the competitor is a crime, but claims like this one are far murkier.

In case anyone hasn't been paying attention over the past decade, the moral of the story for employees of the world is to watch your step. Because in huge industries where billions of dollars get thrown around in the production of what is essentially a single finished product, it's apparently reasonable to assert that your misstep as an employee has caused irreparable though quantifiable damages. These damages, though a negligible drop in the bucket for such an employer, can be easily enough to ruin the average wage-earning employee.

And no, I'm not saying that this guy did the right thing...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Umm .. can you say 'FAN'

[RembrandtX]

Lets face it folks, anyone who is a fan of something .. then finds themselves in a position of WORKING for a company that produces what they love .. is going to wind up with stuff.

I worked for games-workshop .. and man .. the stuff people would ask to take home. Big card board cutouts of orks .. dice .. tape measures with 'games-workshop' on them.

I personally have FOUR jackets given to me by the company .. some signed artwork from the studio in the UK, a japanese bayonette , [I helped start Gmaes-Workshop Japan], a few coffee mugs from the studio I worked in, (we were all given mugs) and tonnes of toy soldiers that were not released.

The studio often passed out copies of rules for games that were not out yet .. asking folks to take them home and read them over (i have a bunch of this stuff still to.)

My point being, this kid worked for friggen STAR WARS. If he really was such a goober on this stuff .. of COURSE he brought some stuff home .. Hell .. some or all of it could have even been legimitate.

I work for Black & Decker now .. and every once in a while someone will give me one of the tools they are producing .. if to say 'thanks for working on my project' or to bribe me to get theirs done before someone elses .. it doesnt matter. These are written off by the guys who have 100's of them to give away.

SO lets get back to lucas. Some drafter is working on scenery .. has a few duplicates of storyboards to work off off (photo copies .. or what not) finishes his job .. and the geek who was running the rotoscoping camera over it asked if he was just gonna throw those out.

This guy thinkgs its kinda cute that the geek is drooling over a copy of this story board (that now has epoxy stuck to it) and makes his day by giving it to him.

Imagine, a REAL fan boy .. who gets himself into this situation as much as he can. [Knowing folks in the Video Game industry, at Games Workshop, At Wizards of the Coast .. I can rest assured from PERSONAL experience .. This happens ALL the time .. some geeks would rather take home something 'cool' from their job than go to lunch .. so the spend their lunch hours talking to the guys who don't need this stuff anymore.

Now is this going to be the case every time ? I don't know . but lets step back and look for a second. Its QUITE possible that all (or at least most) of the stuff this guy has .. was legimatly aquired .. or at least aquired the same way im sure 90% of the guys at SkyWalker Ranch have some cool prop from one of the movies at home.

I mean, WHO wouldnt ??

Ian McCullen has the door knocker off of Bilbo's Door at Bags End. Why is it so hard to believe that this guy ... considering his job .. might have either brought this stuff home for work purposes .. or just cause he was a geek ?

Foley effected more than just his own life

[jvenzon]

While some might argue that 13 CDs and paperwork don't add up to much, what is not being mentioned is what Foley took represented over a decade of sound design work on the part of Ben Burtt and his sound crew. What also gets lost in the George Lucas good/evil is that Foley's actions didn't just impact his life, but also those of the editing crew he worked for. Being a feature film editor in Hollywood, the single greatest fear is having a copy of the movie leak out, not because we are afraid of people seeing the movie before we're 'done' with it, but because we know that the producers and studio execs will blame editing department for the leak. While we might agree that the figures that Lucasfilm propose are inflated, that doesn't change the fact that the producers believe that's what the theft cost them. Those same producers are not likely to rehire us for the next project or worse, tell others that you or your editing crew can't be trusted. If you don't believe me, wait until Episode III comes out and see how many people in the editing crew aren't asked to come back because of this. Foley's actions will have ramifications to that editing crew long past whatever time he ends up serving.

Re:This exists in the retail biz, too

[anonymous cupboard]

There is one major super market chain in Germany that regularly puts videos and DVDs out early. It seems to happen in more than one store so I guess it is policy.

Mod parent up please, TIA

[drinkypoo]

I've been holding off posting this same sentiment because I just knew that someone would say it below.

There is only one possible response to this; Make sure to make a rip of the movie and distribute it via the internet.

I wouldn't say it's exactly civil disobedience, though I suppose technically it is. But it's capital disobedience.

Face it, we want to see these materials. We will see these materials. And if you insist on being this much of a dick to the people who bring it to us, we will cause you a loss of revenue. We have the ability to make our feelings known to the world. Corporations only feel hits to their wallet.

In this capitalistic society in which the almighty dollar can buy you anything, and therefore rules all, the most effective way to vote is with your money.

The guy took maybe $5 worth of stuff

[Rogerborg]

Assuming that he was too cheap to bring in his own CD's to burn copies on. Uncle Sam can bring criminal charges against him for that. Lucas can bring a civil copyright case for the rest, and demonstrate that they had a right to make whatever figure they care to put on the leak. I'm sure that he can subtract an equally imaginary figure for the extra revenue generated by Knowle's excstatic jerkoff review.

I agree that what he did was wrong, but I don't want my tax money paying to keep this guy behind bars when there are career burglars and muggers and rapists walking free simply because we don't the police or court time or the jail space to deal with them. Let's keep some perspective here, and remember who's paying for this show trial.

Quit making unfounded allegations.

[Performer Guy]

No he didn't steal what the headline says, READ IT. There is no evidence he stole anything (except a story board, which was probably headed for the trash can). They searched his mom's apartment looking for evidence he leaked the film and found none. So instead they throw the book at him because he has some images and sound samples on a disk. He was a frikin' production assistant and they charge him with grand theft because he had some *copies* of data on a disk. NOT the whole film, just a few images.

The criminals here are Lucasfilm and others who dupe law enforcement into thinking this is some kind of outrageous theft.

Re:Quit making unfounded allegations.

[Performer Guy]

He hasn't admitted to that. Jeeze learn to read before accusing people. He had 2000 images, NOT a movie. He never had the movie, go back and read the article.

Re:Legitimate? What?

[RembrandtX]

No .. i read that point :P
I also remind you that California is the land of frivilious lawsuits and trumped up charges.

*My* point was .. normal office drones don't get arrested for bringing home pen's with the company name on it .. or maybe a stapler.

Used story boards, and various other brick a brack that it sounded like this guy had .. could very much be the equalivant of pens & staplers if you worked for Lucas.

[Kinda like dice and Toy soldiers are the equalivant of pens & paper clips if you work for Games-Workshop]

He was arrested because they needed a scape goat to blame for EP II's lower-than-expected take in .. Now .. if YOU needed to justify your movie to someone/yourself .. and you KNEW Carl the goob always used to bring stuff home ..

Is it easier to say 'Gee .. maybe since im 50 .. im a little out of touch with what folks want.' or 'GOD DAMN that CARL ! I *KNEW* he leaked it .. thats why it did so bad.'

Which one seems to fit human nature better ?

Make the punishment fit the crime

[DrXym]

Sentence him to have Harry Knowles sit on his face while watching a sneak preview of Episode 3.

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[gosand]

The problem is that there is a fine line of distinction with taking "intellectual property". The whole fair use mess is a tough nut to crack. Yes, I have downloaded songs before. But I really don't like much of what is out now. I used to own a lot of tapes which have since broken or worn out. If I find a good version on the net, should I be entitled to download it? I think that is fair use. I bought it once before, I should still own it. (or is it just the media we own?) Same reason that I have downloaded some of the artists whose CDs got ruined.

Then I have this gray line, where I have downloaded songs, or had people give them to me, that were from my era. One guy is collecting the Top 10 songs from every week during the 80s. It is nostalgia more than anything. Am I going to go out and buy all of those CDs, just to get the songs I want? No way. So technically I haven't purchased them, but there is no real viable alternative. If the record companies offered older songs at a reasonable price, I would buy them. They don't, they are hoarding what they "own". Everyone else has embraced digital music except the people who control the music industry. They really need to wake up.

Third is the outright stealing. I wanted to hear Eminem's new album, so I downloaded it. I listened to it a couple of times, and now it sits. I decided I didn't want to buy it, but I haven't deleted the files. I think this falls in the "wrong" category. But I rarely do this.

I refuse to download movies, just because I don't think it is right. I'll pay to see something I want to see. I like good movies, so I try to avoid crap anyway, which is why I still haven't seen Episode II. Why would I download it if I didn't even go to a theater to watch it? Even Lucas deserves to get paid for his hard work, but I don't think he deserves to get paid for this one (at least not by me). I usually go by the consensus of reviewers that I like, and recommendations from friends. Or maybe I'll rent it if it looks interesting.

Come on people, it is up to us to draw the line when it comes to piracy, because if we don't someone else will. And I doubt that line will be very forgiving. If you morally believe that things like music and movies should be free, so be it. Then stand up for those beliefs. Don't download stuff just because you can, and because it is "free". Pretending to be some type of freedom activist just to get free stuff makes you an idiot.

waisting?

[Hoi Polloi]

Actually he'd be charged with WASTING our time.

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[DaytonCIM]

So technically I haven't purchased them, but there is no real viable alternative. If the record companies offered older songs at a reasonable price, I would buy them. They don't, they are hoarding what they "own". Everyone else has embraced digital music except the people who control the music industry. They really need to wake up.

You know I would buy an AC Cobra if it was offered at a reasonable price. However, Ford and current private owners refuse to lower the price to one which I can afford; so they're hoarding them too!

Am I justified in going out and "acquiring" one through other-than-legal means?

I applaud your "stand up and be heard" rhetoric, however I have to call into question your self-promoting ethics. Just because the labels and distributors price music above what we may think is fair, doesn't give us justification to steal. Just because studios and theatre chains price admission above what we think is fair, doesn't give us the right to download a pirated copy or sneak in through the backdoor.

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[gosand]

You know I would buy an AC Cobra if it was offered at a reasonable price. However, Ford and current private owners refuse to lower the price to one which I can afford; so they're hoarding them too! Am I justified in going out and "acquiring" one through other-than-legal means? I applaud your "stand up and be heard" rhetoric, however I have to call into question your self-promoting ethics. Just because the labels and distributors price music above what we may think is fair, doesn't give us justification to steal. Just because studios and theatre chains price admission above what we think is fair, doesn't give us the right to download a pirated copy or sneak in through the backdoor.

The difference is that it costs money for a company to produce a car. We are talking about music that has been created, and is just sitting doing nothing. They don't make it available because they are too busy pushing the "next great thing". I know I have crossed the line, but that was because there was no alternative. To the positive thinker, that means "there is an untapped market out there that people are swarming around". To the RIAA, it means "Pirates! We must stop them!"

This goes well beyond me and you. It is about the RIAA and record labels wanting to maintain their control over music. There is absolutely no doubt that online music is an incredible force. So instead of embracing it, and giving back to the fans that lined their pockets for so many years, they simply want to exert more control over them. Instead of trying to kill online file trading, they should make it not worthwhile by offering a better product. Why bootleg video cassettes when a DVD costs the same or less? Because it is a better product. They aren't hearing the message that is being screamed in their ear.

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[DaytonCIM]

The difference is that it costs money for a company to produce a car.

When did it become free to produce an album? Because if something has changed recently, I have a couple of songs I'd like to put down on vinyl.

We are talking about music that has been created, and is just sitting doing nothing.

No. What we're talking about is a group of companies and individuals that hold the rights to hundreds of songs and albums. It's their property. And they don't want people downloading it for free.
An entire industry survives because people have always PAID for music. What has changed? With the advent of P2P, why is it ok to not pay for music, movies, or software?

They don't make it available because they are too busy pushing the "next great thing".

$899 to $12.99 will get you just about any CD from an artist's back catalogue.

To the positive thinker, that means "there is an untapped market out there that people are swarming around".

To the marketing company it means an entirely new way of delivering product to consumers. And I'm sure one day we'll see the Net play a much larger role in the music industry.

To the RIAA, it means "Pirates! We must stop them!"

Granted the RIAA goes WAY too far in trying to enforce its monopoly. However, can you blame them?

P2P networks are distributing, for free, copyrighted works. If the same P2P networks distributed pirated (i.e. ripped) copies of Unreal 2003 wouldn't that be stealing? It's someone's intellectual property. A group of individuals sat down and worked from someone's idea to create a video game. What's the difference?

Is it fair for a competing network to pick up Fox's broadcast of the World Series and show it on their own network?

It is about the RIAA and record labels wanting to maintain their control over music.

It's there music! They own it. Copyright holders OWN it. They can do whatever they want with it. Just because a certain song or album brings back fond childhood memories, doesn't mean you own the song and can do with it what you please.

Instead of trying to kill online file trading, they should make it not worthwhile by offering a better product.

Now, I've ranted and raved throughout this little diatribe and I apologize if I've offended you. When I got to this part I smiled. You have hit the capitalist nail on the head.
The music industry doesn't want to involve itself in new technology... never has. The only reason the industry agreed on the CD format is they knew it would "wear out" quickly and people would have to buy more. It took 15 years before digital recording became the standard in the industry. Why? Because it is sooooo easy to make copies from a digital recording, the label executives were afraid that artists would realize that they could make the same recording at home as they could at the million dollar Sony Studio in NY; and that putting it out on their own "label" would give them a larger share of the profit.

Bottom line is most people that use a P2P network don't feel the slightest grief about downloading copyrighted works (be it music, movies, or games). The majority feels as if they "deserve it" and justify their actions by telling themselves that Metallica and George Lucas are rich enough, "they don't need the money."
They're right: they don't need the money. But the people they employ do.

Example: after Jerry Garcia died and the Grateful Dead stopped touring, they had to lay off 75% of their staff. The remaining 25% support the website and merchandising. What happens if someone comes along and copies the same GD shirts you pay $25 for on the website and offers them for free? Is this stealing? Is this copyright infringement?

What's the difference between bootlegging shirts and downloading music from the NET?

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[gosand]

...The difference is that it costs money for a company to produce a car.

When did it become free to produce an album? Because if something has changed recently, I have a couple of songs I'd like to put down on vinyl. I wasn't talking about new music as much as archived stuff.

... We are talking about music that has been created, and is just sitting doing nothing.

No. What we're talking about is a group of companies and individuals that hold the rights to hundreds of songs and albums. It's their property. And they don't want people downloading it for free.

Sorry, that is hoarding. The whole copyright issue (aka the Mickey Mouse law) is a whole different issue. Although it is somewhat related.

An entire industry survives because people have always PAID for music. What has changed? With the advent of P2P, why is it ok to not pay for music, movies, or software?

It isn't. As it stands now, it is illegal. But that doesn't mean it is right. And it sure doesn't mean that P2P is an illegal application. THAT is what the RIAA wants, to shut it down. They are backing laws to allow only approved digital devices to access digital content. The way they are trying to enforce the law is WRONG. The fact of the matter is, there is an entire market of people out there who are downloading music. Should I give up my fair use rights in order for the RIAA to stop them? Hell no. They want to incorporate DRM to stop me from doing something that is legal. If P2P goes away tomorrow, I don't care. But I want to be able to have my MP3 server in my house, and burn CDs for my car. The RIAA doesn't want that.

...They don't make it available because they are too busy pushing the "next great thing". $899 to $12.99 will get you just about any CD from an artist's back catalogue. How many people actually do that? Like I said, I would like to have some of those old albums, but I won't pay $12.99 for them. Nevermind the price fixing of CDs, and WHY they cost that much (they don't). It isn't worth my money. The record companies could make all of those songs available . It satisfies the fans, they make MORE money than if they just sit and nobody buys them. I don't see a good reason to not do it. They would still own the copyright on them, they aren't losing anything. It gets people interested in music, which is their business.

... To the RIAA, it means "Pirates! We must stop them!"

Granted the RIAA goes WAY too far in trying to enforce its monopoly. However, can you blame them?

Yes, I can. It infringes on my fair use of a product that I bought. That is all I want. Being able to buy old songs cheaply would be nice, and it is something that they could certainly do. As long as they don't infringe on my rights, I don't care if they go after people who are stealing their music.

P2P networks are distributing, for free, copyrighted works. If the same P2P networks distributed pirated (i.e. ripped) copies of Unreal 2003 wouldn't that be stealing? It's someone's intellectual property. A group of individuals sat down and worked from someone's idea to create a video game. What's the difference?

Well, the whole concept of intellectual property is something I won't go into here. I personally think that it is OK, but as usual, someone has to Disney it up. If it was just about intellectual property, I don't think this would be such a big deal. It goes way beyond that. They are pushing for legislation to suit their business needs, and it is going to F up everbody else in the process.

...It is about the RIAA and record labels wanting to maintain their control over music.

It's there [sic] music! They own it. Copyright holders OWN it. They can do whatever they want with it. Just because a certain song or album brings back fond childhood memories, doesn't mean you own the song and can do with it what you please.

If I owned Led Zeppelin IV on 8-track, I bought the music. If I borrowed that CD from a friend and ripped it, is that stealing? Are they selling me the music, or the right to listen to that particular media?

... Instead of trying to kill online file trading, they should make it not worthwhile by offering a better product.

Now, I've ranted and raved throughout this little diatribe and I apologize if I've offended you. When I got to this part I smiled. You have hit the capitalist nail on the head.

Not at all. All of my rants are because the RIAA holds a monopoly, and refused to acknowledge that there is a market out there for digital music. Yes, I am being selfish by saying that I want cheap, maybe even free, music. Why is that so bad? Just because the recording artist sold their soul to get an album produced doesn't mean that it is right. Don't assume that just because something is illegal it is wrong. Maybe the basic assumption behind WHY something is deemed illegal is wrong.

I don't argue these things because I am a cheap ass and like sticking it to tha man. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the way the RIAA and record companies run their business, and the way they treat artists. Not to mention how they stick it to their customers. That's me. I am just standing up for myself.

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[DaytonCIM]

So, your point (simplified) is:
1) entertainment (music, movies, software, literature, etc) is too expensive and should be less costly
2) entertainment should be easier to attain (i.e. watch a new release movie in the comfort of your own home), and
3) entertainment should be owned by the people and not by the artists or corporations?

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[gosand]

So, your point (simplified) is: 1) entertainment (music, movies, software, literature, etc) is too expensive and should be less costly

No. Movies cost a LOT to make. I don't think people should be able to download them for free. DVDs are cheaper than CDs in many cases, and the costs behind movies are much more than that of CDs. (did you ever wonder why CDs still cost the same to buy as they did 10 years ago?) The MPAA is bad, but the RIAA is so much worse. Yes, it is well known that by charging what they do for CDs, they are just lining their pockets (and not paying the artist what they deserve). This is all very well documented. Which is all fine, they can charge whatever they want - I won't buy it. BUT.... Then they start wanting to pass laws that infringe on my fair use of CDs that I have purchased. If I want to have an MP3 server in my house, I can. If I want to burn copies of the CDs I have purchased to protect against losing or damaging my only copy, I can. If I want to make a compilation CD, I can. The RIAA wants to make these activities illegal. It isn't that they are losing money, they see "piracy" as money owed to them. Which isn't really true at all, but they are twisting those "facts" to pass laws to make them more money, and to make sure that they have complete control over the music industry. What I am saying is that there is a business model out there that they could fill if they weren't blinded by their own collective ego and greed.

2) entertainment should be easier to attain (i.e. watch a new release movie in the comfort of your own home), and

The technology isn't quite there yet for movies (well, there is PPV) but for music it is there and has been for a few years now. Imagine walking into a record store, or even online, and being able to compile a CD of MP3 files of any song from 1920 to 1999. And pay for it. That technology is possible, and a lot of people would love it! The possibilies are fantastic, but it won't happen because the companies in the RIAA own all that music, and they will do with it as they see fit. (which is only in their interests) What they don't see is that they could provide this and still make money at it. The fact is, music IS easier to attain. It is just illegal because the people who "own" the music haven't accepted that fact and provided a legal alternative. Why not? It has been proven technically feasable.

3) entertainment should be owned by the people and not by the artists or corporations?

First, take artists out of there. Artists don't own squat! They sign it away to get that record deal.
After a reasonable amount of time, yes, things should be public domain. Do the heirs of Robert Frost still deserve royalty checks for his poems, or should they be released into the public domain? Should the silent movies be released to the public domain, or should some company own them and just sit on them because they can? There are many people out there who can argue this point better than I can, and have. Do a search on google to find more info. The problem is that companies are lobbying for laws to extend the copyright laws to some ridiculous amount of time after the author's death. It is all about control, and stifles creativity because no matter what you do, you may be infringing on someone else's copyright. Don't release a CD with 4 minutes of silence on it, someone has that copyrighted. Don't use a term that is similar to Mickey Mouse, or you'll hear from Disney's lawyers.

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[DaytonCIM]

If I want to have an MP3 server in my house, I can. If I want to burn copies of the CDs I have purchased to protect against losing or damaging my only copy, I can. If I want to make a compilation CD, I can.

I agree as long as the above is for personal use. If you open your MP3 server to the world and allow people to download files, then you are supporting piracy.
You'll get no argument from me on personal use. I believe once you buy one cd you should be able to make a 1000 copies or more, but only for personal use.

First, take artists out of there. Artists don't own squat! They sign it away to get that record deal.

Not completely true. I can name an artist that owns his own music for every artist you name that signed his rights away.

Do the heirs of Robert Frost still deserve royalty checks for his poems, or should they be released into the public domain? Should the silent movies be released to the public domain, or should some company own them and just sit on them because they can?

You're using examples that are more than 80 years old and as such are easier to argue that they should be part of public domain.

What do you think is a fair time frame for copyright? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

Re:OH HELL NO. (thank you)

[gosand]

I agree as long as the above is for personal use. If you open your MP3 server to the world and allow people to download files, then you are supporting piracy. You'll get no argument from me on personal use. I believe once you buy one cd you should be able to make a 1000 copies or more, but only for personal use.

But the RIAA and the purchased politicians are trying to make personal use illegal at worst, and "only if we approve it" at best. I don't support piracy either, but I also realize that they aren't just going after piracy.

Not completely true. I can name an artist that owns his own music for every artist you name that signed his rights away.

And I bet I will have never heard of them. :-)
Normally, the people who aren't afraid to speak out against the music industry are those whose indentured servitude has expired.

You're using examples that are more than 80 years old and as such are easier to argue that they should be part of public domain.

And they are trying to extend the copyright laws to keep them out of the public domain. Check out this article . Yes, they are old examples, and yes, corporations are fighting to extend the copyright for them. If it were up to them, copyright would be infinite. I don't know what should be fair, but I know that "life + 70 years" for personal work and "95 years" for corporate created work is atrocious! They are buying politicians to enact laws to do whatever they want. It is disgusting.