Slashdot Mirror
$180 Million for Piracy Conspiracy
theCoder writes "According to an AP story printed in the Orlando Sentinel, Steven R. Frazier has been ordered to pay $180 million restitution for attempting to sell a device that would decrypt the satellite signals sent into everyone's homes. In addition to spending the next 5 years in Federal prison, Frazier will have to pay $500 a month for the next 30,000 years, though no one really expects him to live long enough to make all the payments. That value is based on estimated loses DirectTV and Echostar may have incurred had Frazier been able to sell his devices. Being ordered to pay restitution for actual damages is one thing, but paying for some made up number of future damages? Maybe if I catch someone trying to break into my car, I can sue him for the damage he would have caused if he succeeded..."
There's precedent. Kevin Mitnick got incarcerated for many years (without a trial) based on the potential damages the source code he had might have been worth. Turns out those potantial damges were *greatly* inflated (by many orders of magnitude), as is probably the case here with DirecTV/Dish Networks. It didn't help Mitnick get out of jail any earlier though.
Note: I'm not taking any sides here, just bringing up a fact.
Another reason for this is making the sentence stick. If one of the crimes was successfully appealed, the sentence for the other(s) would still stand.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
Well don't we all wish we could abdicate [dictionary.com] the death penalty. Now if you were advocating [dictionary.com] the death penality I'd have issues.
Sorry. I just couldn't resist being a grammer snob. This is gonna cost me some karma...
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Read this explanation from a political science professor, for instance, and try not to be confused. The author, in attempting to reconcile the absurd acts of modern legislatures with actual legal theory, has even managed to confuse himself:
What? He admits that a crime of omission cannot exist because it is an oxymoron. This conclusion is dependent upon the basic definition of crime that has existed since time immemorial: crime requires injury. An injury is an act committed against someone that results in harm to them.
Not doing something is not a crime; it isn't even an act. Yet, implicit also in the acceptance of "prescribed" rules of conduct being punishable as "crimes" is the acceptance of "crimes of omission," which he himself states is an oxymoron.
Thinking about doing something isn't an act, either. It would be more properly termed a thought crime, regardless of what Mr. Gates says.
It should be obvious that even the intellectual charlatans who affix themselves to the coattails of oppressive governments and attempt to explain logically it's actions cannot, in the process, help but become confused themselves.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Actually, if you knew the facts and theory surrounding the hot coffee case you would think differently...or maybe not.
Mickey D's had the temperature of their coffee for years at over 180+ degrees...at least that is what they served it at. At that temperature, a third degree burn occurs in seconds if the coffee is spilled on someone
The million dollars the plaintiff was awarded in that case was the amount McD's made on coffee in one day. The whole issue was that because of the temperature of McD's coffee (which is hotter that Starbucks), there were somewhere in the ballpark of 600 to 800 severe burns.
The theory is, if punishing McD's finacially causes them to either make better spill proof lids or but coffee cups that keep the temperature hot enough for a long time without having to make the temperature so hot, then this would prevent 600 to 800 severe burns a year
And yes, it worked, McD's improved their lids, their cups, and decreased the temperature of the coffee. I don't remember how much this cut down on severe burns a year, but its was over an 80% decrease.
Additionally, because of this case, other fast found joints, i.e. BK lounge, also changed their coffee lids, cups, and temperature....Starbucks and Caribou coffee then implemented the policy of never giving a drink to a patron unless the top is on it...
So, because of the McD's coffee case, which seemed completely ridiculous to me too at the time...actually had a greater impact in saving money in medical cost and other social cost from severe burns by getting those that serve coffee to implement some preventive measures.
A lot of severe burns caused by accidents have been prevented because of that one case....Don't always think a case that sounds absurd doesn't have some other positive impact...