Operation Fastlink Nets 1000s in Pirate Sting

womanfiend writes "The Iowa City (Iowa) Press Citizen has been reporting the last two days about "'Operation Fastlink,' a multi-national investigation launched in April." Apparently, the investigation has netted a local college student hosting 13,000 titles worth a bundle of money both in simple value and liability for as many times as logs show the titles were downloaded. According to the P-C: "...'Operation Fastlink,' which targeted the underground community's hierarchy with [FBI] agents conducting more than 120 searches within 24 hours in 27 states and 11 foreign countries. At the time, authorities identified nearly 100 people as leaders or high-ranking members of international piracy groups." Sounds like somebody's in deep doo doo."

Comments

Call me when the headline reads:

[Chatmag]

1000's of spammers caught in sting.

Re:Call me when the headline reads:

[Creepy Crawler]

Substitute "Counterfeiting" or "Treason" instead of spammers.

*thinks of what Constitution says about federal crimes...

Re:Call me when the headline reads:

[b1t r0t]

Isn't that what 'piracy' is, counterfeiting?

Counterfeiting is when you try to pass something off as the real thing.

An MPEG2 file named "Gigli.mpg" is not a counterfeit.
A DVD-R with Gigli.mpg burned to it and "Gigli" written on it in Sharpie marker is not a counterfeit.
A DVD-R with a scan of the Gigli disc art printed on it with an inkjet printer, in a DVD snap case with a scan of the Gigli cover sheet is a poor counterfeit.
A DVD pressed in Hong Kong with the Gigli disc art silkscreened on it, and a 4-color printing of the Gigli cover sheet is a good counterfeit.

The same applies to money:

A piece of paper with "ONE DOLLER" written on it is not a counterfeit.
A piece of paper where someone has drawn something vaguely looking like US currency but with no attempt to copy the artwork or face is not a counterfeit.
A xerox of a $1 bill, trimmed to size, is counterfeit, especially if you attempt to pass it off as such, like by using it in a vending machine.
A $200 bill with the face of George W. Bush is not a counterfeit. Neither is a $3 bill with the face of Bill Clinton.

yeah the American people

[Shakrai]

Sounds like somebody's in deep doo doo

Because our law enforcement is acting on the behalf of private companies (who should be filing civil suits against these people) instead of going after the rapists/murders/terrorists of the World.

Well in fairness they are still going after them -- this just seems like wasted resources to me.

Re:yeah the American people

[dsanfte]

Terrorism -- the perfect invisible enemy for a nation consumed with fear. Do you enjoy being manipulated?

Re:yeah the American people

[conteXXt]

"Well in fairness they are still going after them ""

Are you sure of that? I thought that building prisons for non-violent drug offenders was the current priority.

Re:yeah the American people

[windows]

It's the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce all the laws. And when the content being distributed reaches a certain value, it does become a criminal offense.

There's a big difference between an operation like this and the lawsuits filed by the RIAA.

First of all, the RIAA stated previously that the people they sue on average are distributing 1,000 titles. The college student mentioned in the story was distributing about 13,000 titles. That's a big difference. I also can bet you that most of the people that got sued by the RIAA were downloading music for their enjoyment and weren't doing it with the intent of distributing it to other people. On the other hand, this sting operation was busting a piracy ring. These people ran the servers for the sole purpose of illegally distributing copyrighted materials to others.

The amount of material and the intent is very different.

Re:yeah the American people

[ScentCone]

Because our law enforcement is acting on the behalf of private companies (who should be filing civil suits against these people) instead of going after the rapists/murders/terrorists of the World.

Nope. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that should be part of law enforcement's routine responsibility. If a local college student had 13,000 shop-lifted DVDs in his dorm room, is the store he stole them from supposed to just sue him and hope for the best? Hire private investigators? No: you get robbed, and you know who did it, you call the cops.

Of course, if law enforcement simply refuses to help, that's when vigilantism increases, and then we get people complaining about businesses taking the law into their own hands.

And, of course, complaining that law enforcement should be pursuing other things is no different, philosphically, than suggesting that they should stop worrying about, say, arsonists burning down businesses, and only worry about arsonists burning down houses. This is crime. Civil judgements are great too, but crimal justice must also apply. It's not "wasted resources" to attempt to demonstrate that an entire area of intellectual property theft is in fact theft.

Re:yeah the American people

[Kithraya]

Exactly. I can't get anyone to do anything about the people dealing drugs across the street, but these dangerous pirates are locked away now. Maybe if I say the people across the street are selling copied DVDs instead of crack, something would get done...

Re:yeah the American people

[Cylix]

What was this product?

"but allowed you to run an efficent, competitive, and focused organization."

This is a rather vague statement... it could be a calendar application.

"The fact is that in this situation everyone knows what happened. A few key employees from one established place took a copy of the server with all the data files and software and all that, and went to establish a competitor in an adjoining state. Same product, 25% cheaper. That 25% is almost entirely made up by the fact that they did not license the software everyone else has to pay for."

Boookooo lawsuit bucks!

Piracy is going to happen, you have to factor this into any software sales. Even if you hadn't removed the licensing features they would have been worked around anyway given enough time. (Assumming the software was truely popular enough)

It really does sound like the product did a good job, but was horribly expensive. Combine that with bad decisions and lack of a legal offense for clear software theft, it seems to spell disaster.

Yeah, piracy is bad, but lets be honest here... most companies don't pirate software that is critical to their infrastructure as they need support contracts when something goes awry.

Re:yeah the American people

[Bimo_Dude]

<RANT>

I agree that this is a total waste of taxpayer money. As of June 2002, 1 in 142 US residents are in jail. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate in state prison is $22,650 . This is the country that is supposed to be the world leader in freedom and democracy? Am I to believe that this many people constitute a threat to society, that we have to lock them up? What about the real criminals... those that raid the resources of the world and kill thousands (millions?) of innocent people all in the name of corporate greed? I'm not sure who said it, but there is a saying, "Little thieves have iron chains, and great thieves gold ones."

The US government is supposed to be representative of the people, not corporations.

</RANT>

Re:yeah the American people

[nolife]

If a local college student had 13,000 shop-lifted DVDs in his dorm room, is the store he stole them from supposed to just sue him and hope for the best? Hire private investigators? No: you get robbed, and you know who did it, you call the cops.

Theft of a physical product is a criminal offense. A civil case is not required at all. Violating a copyright law is completely different as the damages and what was actually "lost or stolen" must be argued. If copyright law loses were cut and dry, the person who stole an the half-life code would be liable for exactly $49 and the editor that copied Shrek3 prior to the release date would have to pay up $12.99, the retail price of those products on the street. They only stole one unit from the owners. Involving the higher crime fighting organizations in the US is the copyright owners trying to get the best of both worlds.

Re:yeah the American people

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirates destroyed the lives of many honest people here.

Don't complain when your business model is based on an artificial monopoly law created by the state. Make some creative work instead of destructing, stop hoarding information. I don't have any symphaty for people who take the software freedom of others away.

Re:yeah the American people

[b1t r0t]

The fact is that in this situation everyone knows what happened. A few key employees from one established place took a copy of the server with all the data files and software and all that, and went to establish a competitor in an adjoining state. Same product, 25% cheaper. That 25% is almost entirely made up by the fact that they did not license the software everyone else has to pay for.

This software package that was cracked and passed around so viciously on many of the big warez networks was the lifeblood of a vibrant partnership of interests.

So how does an inside job with employees stealing the source code and data relate to removing anti-piracy features? And what makes you call that "cracking"?

Geez, if you're going to troll, at least take the time to make up a consistent story.

Re:yeah the American people

[Famatra]

"In the meantime, consider the "artificial monopoly" that keeps millions of folks in business. "

Or slavery that kept the south in business with cotton. What is your arguement that we can tolerate something bad (like stopping information flow or slavery) if it gives us jobs or coin?

[The] free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny...Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
- Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Re:yeah the American people

[Grym]

Why should one HAVE to do that [factor piracy into sales]? Because software pirates say so?

No, you factor it in because the reality of the situation (not pirates) dictates it. It's like factoring the cost of the locks on the doors when you build your house. The fact that some people ignore such an unnatural convention as "intellectual property," is a reality no different than the fact that some people will steal.

Which doesn't matter. You don't have the right to pirate something just because you think the price is too high.

I don't think he was saying that. Simple economics dictates that the price match the highest price the market could bear. It should be no wonder that a company that a company whose price is too high would go out of business.

Just because current IP laws allow you to get literally something for tangibly nothing, that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that you can charge anything you want. The fundamentals of economics still apply, and I believe that was the purpose of the original poster's statement.

This is the piracy justification I posted about elsewhere in this thread. This is where you start offering reasons and defense for the piracy. You blame it on the software company. "I've decided your software was too expensive, and you made bad decisions! You should just accept piracy because it's your fault!" This is the same reasoning software pirates use so that they don't feel guilty about their behavior. When you point this out to them, they often lash out. Here on Slashdot, that lashing usually comes in the form of downmods.

Now wait a minute. Sure some posters/mods on slashdot are merely apologetic with regard to piracy, but that doesn't change the fact that there are serious and legitimate problems with our IP laws as they exist today. Not only that, but some people, myself included, aren't convinced that the concepts of physical ownership should apply to things as diffuse and indefinable as an idea.

-Grym

Re:yeah the American people

[drinkypoo]

You have not actually shown that piracy is what caused the downfall of this company, and your comment was somewhat disjointed (as was your story) but this was nonetheless fun to read. Work more on supporting facts next time! B-.

Re:yeah the American people

[shark72]

"Or slavery that kept the south in business with cotton. What is your arguement that we can tolerate something bad (like stopping information flow or slavery) if it gives us jobs or coin?"

I think you've nailed it. My right to say how my program or my musical composition is distributed is just like the enslavement of black people in the 19th century.

I second that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd much rather see spammers lose their assets and livelihood than a 1000 pirates get sent down for pirating the latest blockbuster movie/crap pop song/Windows OS

Wrong Department

[TrollBridge]

Should read "From the finally-going-after-the-lawbreakers dept."

We pissed and moaned when the authorities went after the makers of P2P software, crying that they should go after the people doing the infringement.

Predictably, now that authorities are actually going after the infringers, we have something new to piss and moan about. Let's get consistent, can we?

Re:Wrong Department

[JaffaKREE]

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. There's so much crazy, crazy shit going on in the world. To think that a massive, worldwide sting operation was conducted to go after WarEZ D00Dz - undoubtedly costing millions of taxpayer dollars and occupying law enforcement agents for weeks or longer - is just insane. MOVIES, SONGS, SOFTWARE. These aren't life-threatening. I'm not saying such things should be ignored, but the scale, preparation and implementation seems to have been amazing for this project. Was it REALLY worth all that effort ?

Re:Wrong Department

[tenman]

Yes, ridiculous. This crime is nothing compaired to all that "crazy, crazy shit going on in the world" you talk about. Which is the same thing you cry when a cop pulls you over for driving to fast. You want everyone to turn their head to small crimes. Let's just stop following up on anything that doesn't injure someone. If they didn't rape or kill anyone, let's just not follow up on anymore claims of wrong. Right? You will never understand the concept of owning something of value, until you actually do own something of value, and some punk comes and takes it away. And as for your claim that it was a "massive, worldwide sting operation", it was 120 searches in 24 hours. Not massive by any sreach.

Re:Wrong Department

[NDPTAL85]

Do you think every company that depends on intellectual property is some huge megalithic entity? Aren't some of these companies small or midsized businesses that will go OUT of business if they can't get paid for what they're producing? So when those companies go under and those folks lose their jobs is that not an important issue? The perpetrator of the crime may appear generally harmless, but you greatly underestimate the amount of economic damage one twerp behind a keyboard can do while still in his mother's basement.

Come on Teal'C. I would have thought you'd have a much higher sense of honor than this! JaffaKREE!!

Re:Wrong Department

[plover]

Is it "worth" the effort? Cynically, considering that the government is probably going to collect millions of dollars in fines from the people involved, the answer would be "Yes. It's worth it."

If you were to "prioritize" all of law enforcement based on the severity of crime, every cop on the street would be fixated on catching every murderer. Once the murderers were all behind bars, the cops would all swoop en masse down on child molesters. Then, once every molester was in prison, they'd focus on rapists, etc. Burglars would never get noticed, and petty street crime like purse snatching, etc, would run rampant.

Obviously, that's silly. Cops spread themselves around, doing the best they can. So, what kinds of priorities do they use? They pick the so-called "low-hanging fruit" when the opportunity arises. Solve the easy cases, lock up as many bad guys as you can. It's kind of based on the idea that if you jail enough petty bad guys they won't have the chance to be really bad guys.

Now throw intellectual property laws into this mix. Hollyweird has managed to purchase enough congresspeople to convince them to consider copyright infringment "theft". Whether you agree that copyright infringment is theft or not, the cops are bound to the laws of the land, not what makes sense to you or I. So, if the RIAA does the work, cracks a case, chases down a "ringleader", sticks a mythical $200,000 price on his misdeeds and presents him to the FBI all tied up in a bow, yeah, they're going to take him in.

If you want to do something about it, send your outrage to your congressperson.

My collection is bigger than yours ...

[orangeguru]

Why are some people so stupid and put everything they collected online - especially when it's pirated? It's like screaming 'get me! get me!'

Poor college students easy targets

[vision33r]

The software industry are busy spanking poor college students who couldn't afford over-priced software while not going after companies that use pirated software.. It's everywhere and they can afford to pay for it.

false Math

[hhawk]

"personally responsible for as much as $200,000 in losses to the industry"

That is making the assumption that everyone who pirated software would actually buy it and if they bought it they would pay full price..

Re:false Math

[deblau]

The big change that accounting needs to incorporate is that traditional rules of economics simply don't apply to intangible 'property'. Economic principles and markets operate on the assumption that goods are scarce, which is false in the case of intangibles. If I build a chair and someone steals it, I'll write that off as an operating loss. If I play a record and someone tapes it, there's no loss. Economists have to bootstrap scarcity into the equation using legal fictions like "copyright".

To make the distinction crystal clear, if the guy from TFA had stolen a CD from Best Buy, it would be operating loss for Best Buy. If all he stole was the music on the CD (which he borrowed from a friend because he couldn't afford to buy the disc), no loss. The reason I know that there's no loss is that if there were, it wouldn't be claimed by only Best Buy, but also by everyone else who sells the same CD. That doesn't make any sense at all.

What little I know of basic microeconomics tells me that what's going on here is a black market. People aren't willing to pay full price, so they pay less through non-legit channels. The point is that they weren't willing to pay full price, so you can't count them as customers in the first place, hence no "lost revenue". It was never there to begin with, which is what I think GP post is saying. Again, the reason that this scenario is different from ordinary retail is that the thing being 'stolen' is intangible. If my CD ends up in someone's hands without them paying me for it, I can (and should) nail them for it. This situation is different.

Black market transactions take into account the cost of being discovered. This guy is facing 15 years in jail. Usually, this cost prevents black markets unless there is a serious cost/value discrepancy, such as (in this case) artificial scarcity through legal fiction. From what I understand, the reason there's so much piracy is that many people feel that the scarcity is a little too artificial. If the sales price would come down to something actually approaching marginal cost, maybe there would be less piracy. If the music distributors can't sustain at MP=MC, then they obviously can't compete in an open market, and should fold. This is the basic cycle of destruction and renewal brought about by technological advancement, and it's been working fine for several hundred years. Why muck it up now?

Now we know...

[mshiltonj]

... why our intelligence community can't catch Osama bin Laden -- they are being used as flunkies for the MPAA/RIAA.

I feel so much safer knowing those dangerous file-sharers are off the Net and no longer threatening the American way of life.

I can now look forward to the next riveting season of MTV Cribs and see millions of dollars being wasted by morons with good lawyers.

Re:Now we know...

[AndyChrist]

Most of the people who would be involved in hunting Bin Laden wouldn't have a lot to contribute to hunting warez groups.

The other way around, probably still true, but almost certainly less so.

And the usual BSA propaganda

[pommaq]

From TFA:
is personally responsible for as much as $200,000 in losses to the industry
Business Software Alliance, which represents several software manufacturers, examined the two computer servers linked to Desir and reported that each contained client titles exceeding $2,500 in retail value. The $2,500 value is a benchmark in the federal criminal code.

This is, of course, complete bullshit. It's like Adobe always trying to claim that 12-year-olds warezing Photoshop are thousands of dollars worth of "losses" when there's no way in hell they would be able to buy the software. In many instances the widespread warezing of their software actually helps Adobe, since in a couple of years those 12-year-olds are going to enter their professional lives trained on Adobe's product, not their competitors'. Doesn't matter, though, piracy is wrong and you shouldn't do it (like doom2 said, if you're playing a pirated copy you're going to HELL) but these claims always strike me as ridiculous. Sure, send him to jail for a couple months or whatnot, but don't yell about how one pirate cost you bullions and bullions of dollars because it just isn't true!

Re:And the usual BSA propaganda

[leonardluen]

it doesn't matter if the people pirating the software are not able to aford it, or never would have bought it anyway, it is still a person using adobe's software without paying for it. had that person paid for it adobe would have gained however much adobe charges for photoshop. so it indeed is a loss for adobe. you can't deny that the person is using software with a retail value of several thousand without paying a single dime. so the person gained something of value without paying for it. technically it maybe be true that adobe did not lose a real physical object, but that doesn't mean that someone pirating adobe's software doesn't hurt adobe.

these arguements of companies not "losing" anything from piracy are "complete bullshit". to use your own words...they may not "lose" anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt them.

Re:And the usual BSA propaganda

[vantagec]

Why do people equate "Failure to gain" with "Loss"?

Re:College kids?

[jellomizer]

Nothing forces a kid to grow up more then multiple lawsuits. The kid was probably figuring that he was above the law and there was no way they could track him and he got more cocky over time. When they are in college they are usually 17 youngest and most likely 18-19 so they are no longer kids and they should know right from wrong by now and just because he was a college student it shouldn't ease his sentence.

Amen to that!

[Sgt O]

It's been said a thousand times in /. and I'll say it again.

These idiots are stealing other peoples/companies stuff and redistributing

They know it's illegal but they do it anyway so they get no simpathy from me.

I speed (allot) normally doing 80-90 mph on the way to/from work. If I get busted, guess what? I got busted! I know I'm breaking the law so you won't see me whine when I get a ticket.

Re:Amen to that!

[3terrabyte]

Yea, but you don't get 15 years in a federal prison for speeding, do you?

Re:Amen to that!

[latroM]

It's been said a thousand times in /. and I'll say it again.

Unauthorized copying isn't stealing.

Don't let the "intellectual property" term fool you. Nobody has lost anything and in some of the cases the gain for the society as a whole is posivite (a poor guy copies a $$$ program because he doesn't have money to buy the license).

Re:Amen to that!

[Diabolical]

got busted! I know I'm breaking the law so you won't see me whine when I get a ticket.

Yeah.. but this guy can get 15 years for something which isn't even close to doing a person bodily harm. However, if he did that he would face far less prison time.

C'mon ppl, these sentences are way too heavy for these kind of crimes. Punishment should be equal to the crime and not public (or corporate) outcry.

I can't wait to see the first death sentence spoken out for offering 100.000 illegal software titles.

Re:Amen to that!

[Dan the Intern]

Unauthorized copying isn't stealing.

Does that make it any less illegal? Let's at least agree that arguing over semantics is not a valid debate tactic.

Re:Amen to that!

[EllF]

Somehow, bringing in examples of law in other countries doesn't quite defeat my argument about the intent behind American law. The intent of my first point was that certain laws protect against the deprivation of life, liberty, and property -- such as laws that don't let you go 90mph in a residential neighborhood; these laws are inherently different from laws that prohibit certain behaviors that don't result in that sort of deprivation.

The counter-argument to my position is, at least so far as I can tell, that file-sharing DOES represent a tangible loss of property in the form of money not spent. I haven't heard a particularly convincing argument to that effect yet, however. On the other hand, I have seen reports showing that since the introduction of wide-scale P2P software (and to a lesser extent, easy access to file-sharing), media creation companies have seen a tangible -increase- in profits. Granted, that doesn't mitigate the illegality of stealing; if someone can prove that file-sharing is theft in some other way, the profit margins of the **AAs don't really matter.

Re:Amen to that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's just as illegal, but it's not as unethical. I consider harming people to be far worse than illegally violating someone's government granted monopoly. Don't you?

Re:Amen to that!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yea, but you don't get 15 years in a federal prison for speeding, do you?"

And by speeding you actually endangered lives (yes I speed too)

Piracy is a monetary offense, and punishments should match the crime. When Kenneth Lay is sentenced remember the college kid who got 15 yrs for copyright theft. Enron's treasurer got 5yrs.

Remember when MCI defrauded the stockmarket out of $13bn and settled with SEC for a $500m fine (reduced from $1.3bn).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3053 068.stm

Or maybe RiteAid - $1.6bn restatement - got 8yrs in prison. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/18/national /main559152.shtml

15yrs...for a warez group that didn't collect a profit - maybe if they did, they'd have enough for those lawyers?

Just my 2cent perspective(not adjusted for US$ inflation)

Worse (cyber) crimes in the world.

[dahl_ag]

When I drive, I speed all of the time. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong or unsafe with the speed that I drive. But I know what the law is, whether I like it or not. And I know that I am breaking it. So if I get a speeding ticket, I deal with it like a big boy. I wish people would take the same approach to illegal file trading. If you want to do it, fine. But you know it is illegal, and there isn't much you can do about the laws. (lets be realistic, there are powerful influences behind these laws) So if you get busted, deal with it. You knew what you were doing.

Re:Worse (cyber) crimes in the world.

[ChairmanMeow]

Yes, but it's sort of a false analogy. You can't get 15 years for speeding.

Re:Worse (cyber) crimes in the world.

[smooth wombat]

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong or unsafe with the speed that I drive.

Yeah, nothing wrong with doing 40 in a 25 mph zone. After all, instead of having 5 seconds to react to a kid running into the street you have less than 2 seconds.

Of course doing 90 in a 65 means you've increased the time it takes you stop by an additional 3 seconds and roughly 90 more feet.

Yeah, nothing unsafe about speeding.

Re:Worse (cyber) crimes in the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I appreciate the sarcasm, you're flat wrong. The government just assigns some arbitrary number as a speed limit that is often based more on target revenue from tickets than actual public safety. What's unsafe on highways is a variance in speed - and by setting the limit so low, that variance increases considerably.

Example: I used to live on a highway in the Kansas City metro that was 15 MPH faster going south than north - for no reason whatsoever. Of course, there were always plenty of police officers sitting in those northbound lanes and the small city with jurisdiction raked in the cash. Also, in Nebraska (where I frequently travel) the fine is supposed to be doubled in construction zones - but its actually doubled virtually everywhere in the southeast part of the state. "There is a road cone 50 miles west of here - better double the speeding fines!"

I'll agree that in-town speed limits are generally more reasonable..and I NEVER speed through a school zone.

(Note: I am not anti-police. In fact, my father is a decorated police officer and I run a small business providing software to police agencies)

Re:Worse (cyber) crimes in the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course doing 90 in a 65 means you've increased the time it takes you stop by an additional 3 seconds and roughly 90 more feet.

What makes me think that speed limit laws are fundamentally flawed is that they don't take into account the different characteristics of different cars.

At 90 mph, I know my BMW M3 can still stop more quickly and in a shorter distance than my Honda minivan driving 65 mph. I don't ever drive my minivan over 70. OTOH, if the road is straight, the weather is clear, and no one's around, I periodically get my M3 up close to 100. (Unfortunately not as often as I used to, since I presently live in an area where it's not safe to drive that fast, whereas I used to live in a rural area with miles and miles of freshly paved highways and no people.)

Of course, we can't have speed limit signs that read "80 for high performance cars, 60 for cheap half-beer-can-on-wheels-imports, 50 for trucks" ... clearly the law has to address the lowest common denominator. There's no way around this; the law has to be enforced evenly.

Now, if I get a ticket doing 90 in my M3, damn, I'll pay the fine and watch my insurance go up a bit. But this is why I have a radar detector in my M3, but not one in my minivan.

Just because the posted speed limit is X mph doesn't mean that X+25 mph is invariably unsafe.

Re:Worse (cyber) crimes in the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I drove 8 mph in a 25 mph zone, I would have even more time to react.

Or maybe if I drove 120 mph in a 25 mph zone, the odds of a child running out in front of the vehicle are less because by the time they did, I would have already travelled through the neighborhood. Thereby, the child is safe. (kidding...don't speed through neighborhoods you pimpled face kids)

Virus Writers

[pawnIII]

I know its alot harder to track virus writers, but why doesn't the FBI, instead of monitoring these type of operations, spend more time trying to track down the latest virus writers?

It seems to me, that even a middle of the road virus does alot more damage than any p2p group can. Not to mention, there is malicious intent behind the people who write viruses.

In an age, where the number of viruses released each year continues to rise at an incredible rate. It would seem a better use of taxpayers fund to find the people who are trying to maliciously attack other computer user's computers.

Re:I wonder

[conteXXt]

debate? no debate allowed.

Ask the DEA about scientific experiments with medical cannabis. Not allowd to study it because it is dangerous. Proof? no proof necessary. It's illegal. why is it illegal? because it's dangerous.

This is your government on drugs.

Re:Just goes to show

[BobSutan]

If everybody and their brother wants to share, then doesn't that show that the system is in fact broken? If our laws are supposed to prevent "bad" behavior and whatnot, then what constitutes "bad"? In the past "bad" was determined by a general concensus that it was naughty behavior and needed to be corrected/punished. If everyone is alright with file sharing, then why not change the laws to reflect the shifting idealogy that culture shouldn't be locked up? Besides, copyright is meant to facilitate useful arts and sciences. Just how useful is a movie about someone getting their head blown off anyway (which seems to be the bulk of American action flicks these days)?

Re:13000 titles of what exactly?

[tenman]

What difference does it make what media type they were holding? While it's lame to hunt down people for things like this, they were holding items that weren't theirs, then turning around and giving use of it away. I'm more suprised that if they did 120 searches of "high-ranking members of international piracy groups", and only got 13,000 titles. Seems like they should have done better homework on who these "high-ranking members of international piracy groups" really are."

13k.... giggle...

Software/Shmoftware....

[Himring]

In a couple of years all of those 1000s of titles will be a buck a piece in some bargain bin and shortly after chucked into the trash "bin" out back....

Is this really worth ruining some young person's life over?...

Re:College kids?

[tomstdenis]

Share implies that it was yours in the first place.

You can share your DVDs or CDs all you want. That's not illegal and in fact a nice gesture. I'll presume this is what you are talking about.

You can't download media for which you haven't paid then re-distribute it. I'll presume this isn't what you are talking about.

Don't tell me my presumptions are wrong.

Tom

Re:College kids?

[tomstdenis]

I wouldn't hire a college dropout thief to plug in a keyboard let alone develop and implement software.

Also what says this kid had any tech knowledge about him? I can easily go on gnutella and get a GB or two of hot titty porn in oh say a couple hours.

I do agree that prison isn't a solution for non-violent crimes but I think that's the case for all non-violent crimes [drugs included].

But as per my other comment, the martyrdome has already become. Just look at the one of your post. You almost revere the kid already and all he did was copy movies!!! Imagine how you'd feel if he actually did something beneficial for mankind!!!

Tom

Because we don't have enough people in jail

[HangingChad]

There's got to be some corner of federal prison somewhere we can stuff the infringer gang. Because obviously we don't have enough of our population in jail now that we have to give college students 15 years and remove any possibility of them ever finishing school and doing anything productive.

This way we can pay to keep them in prison, then continue to pay when they end up going back and back and back because they can't ever get a job anywhere.

But we sure showed them we're serious about getting tough, didn't we? Ha! Just like getting tough on drugs. That's been a really successful program, too. Got tough on those druggies to where today the cost of drugs is...well,lower than it used to be but that's besides the point. You gotta throw those bastards in jail! Not a grain of common sense, but we're definitely tough.

it's like trying to bust drug dealers

[Anonymous Coward]

Every couple months the FBI does one of these stings and within 2 weeks everything is back to normal.

It's like trying to stop drugs. You arrest a bunch of people and in 2 weeks someone has already replaced them.

Re:15 years....

[curious.corn]

Ok but as I said about another guy getting buried in jail for stealing CC off a WiFi network: there's a limit to the cumulability of certain crimes; you can't transform a relatively minor crime in a life sentence by stodgily adding up jail time per act * number of violations. If anything it should have a Log progression and in any case a cap; nothing less severe than loss of life / pain should be punished with more than 10 years. Corp Excecutives get away anyway so being tough of little guys is maximally unfair... On the other hand, a sentence to some socially useful job is way more effective towards social rehabilitation / damage repair.

Aren't Fed Law Enforcement Priorities Broken?

[swb]

For example: This priority -- I can't even believe that a group of serious adults gets up in the morning with the idea that they're working to end the vast and dangerous conspiracy known as the "bong industry".

I can accept that they'd go after commercial counterfeiters and pirates of intellectual property, but given the extent of fraud and other naughtyness associated with spam (ie, selling prescription drugs), why hasn't the FBI gone after that before college kids trading bad movies they'll never watch and probably won't even have five years from now (hard disk crashes, changes in life priorities, etc), let alone wouldn't have bought or paid to see anyway (and despite the fact that the movies have probably broken even or made a profit *anyway*).

I'm sure if they actually *did* investigate spam via stings, they'd find massive tax evasion, fraud, violations of more substantive drug laws, and a bunch of otherwise legitimate corporations collecting a tidy profit by selling services needed to run a spam operation. Which is probably why they won't make the effort -- whenever big business gets involved, somehow the law doesn't seem to apply.

Oh well, at least we'll know that "college kids" and "bong makers" can be safely removed from the Bad Guy checklist.

Re:Aren't Fed Law Enforcement Priorities Broken?

[b1t r0t]

It's simple. Follow the money. The **AA have lobbyists. Stupid people who buy things via spammers don't have lobbyists.

Re:Aren't Fed Law Enforcement Priorities Broken?

[LurkerXXX]

And exactly why should they limit the profits? If someone wants to spend $1,000,000 for a ticket to see a two hour movie, I'd consider it insane, but it would be their choice to make. Why should they be regulated on how much they can charge for the entertainment they produce?

It's entertainment. It's not food or some basic utility (electricity, etc). You don't *need* to see any movie. If you want some entertainment you go see whatever you find entertaining that you can find for a price you think is reasonable. Don't want to spend $7 for a movie ticket? Don't. You don't NEED to see it. And you don't have a RIGHT to see it at some price you consider reasonable. Get over it.

Re:Aren't Fed Law Enforcement Priorities Broken?

[LurkerXXX]

Oh please. If you need *intellectual food", they've got more than you could ever consume, available for free from your local public library. Once again, deal with it.

Only difference

[thrill12]

Is: those people get sentences which are the equivalent of the sentence for murder one.
This you can protest: why not fine them instead ?

Or, to go along your analogy, why not sentence you to 15 years for speeding, knowing that there is a chance you will hurt someone else ?

It is the absurdity of the punishment that strikes me odd here.

Re:Just goes to show

[I8TheWorm]

The problem is that everyone does not agree that file sharing is ok... and I'm one of them. There are more people murdered every day now, but that doesn't mean the laws should be changed because it seems a larger percentage of poeple think it's ok now.

Laws are not necessarily made to prevent bad behavior, but to prevent behavior that is considered harmful. Murder is an obvious one. But taking software/songs/movies without paying for them is harmful to the people that put it together. And don't think for a minute it's hurting the label/movie executives. It's hurting the few people they're going to lay off when their revenue dips.

I think your assumption that everyone is alright with file sharing is way off, given that not even everyone on /. thinks it's alright.

In other words..

[bannerman]

You're better off just robbing a bank and buying the software, if you can't afford it! Less jail time if you're caught!

On a more serious note, these guys aren't in big trouble for using/sharing pirated material, they're into mass distribution. The fellow who's looking at a maximum of 15 years is there because he's 1337 and is distributing tons copyrighted material for the heck of it. If you don't want the time, don't do the crime. Pretty easy to avoid this one.

I'd want the help of law enforcement if someone was stealing things from my place of business. I don't see that it's all that much different to have help with the piracy issue. It's true that the developer doesn't physically lose anything, but surely the developer's license ought to be respected. If you don't like the licensing or cost of Photoshop, use The Gimp. There's really no excuse.

Can somebody tell me...

[Golias]

What exactly does the arrest of criminals by constitutial and fair procedures have to do with "My Rights Online"?

Has software piracy become a right? Perhaps sometime when I wasn't looking?

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[Surt]

Sure, it's what's known as a fundamental right, which is differentiated from a legal right. The legal rights around this issue are hazy, but the fundamental rights seem fairly clear.

Your rights are not only what the government tells you they are. At least, you should hope and strive that they not be so.

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[avgjoe62]

What exactly does the arrest of criminals by constitutial and fair procedures have to do with "My Rights Online"?

According to those same "constitutial and fair procedures..." all of those arrested are inncent, not yet criminals. Once the charges are proved, then you can call them criminals. Untill then, they are suspects awaiting trial to determine if they are criminals.

And actually, this has a lot to do with your rights. I've said it here before (and I'll keep repeating it until you folks get it :-)) that the old line "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." is about as big a fairy tale as you can find. False accusations, and the arrests they can lead to, can ruin your life without your ever being convicted of a crime.

This has everything to do with your rights. The sooner you realize this, the safer you'll be.

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[Golias]

Sure, it's what's known as a fundamental right, which is differentiated from a legal right.

Oh... So it's a fundamental right to profit from somebody else's labor?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[maximilln]

THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! LAW ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER THEM!

It's not my law and it's my right to speak out agains the frivolous use of my taxpayer money to enforce the rights of the yuppie next door to his latest finger-painting. Screw him. His work sucks, his art sucks, and it's not worth my protection.

Also, pursuit of unlimited profits IS a right. It's capitalism

You want to be a hard-nose? Fine. Copying is a right. It's called nature and nature existed long before capitalism.

providing jobs for millions of Americans

Has nothing to do with the DMCA or file-sharing. Artists existed long before any laws.

The movie industry funds a lot of other industries, and perhaps you should take an economics class to learn about it.

I did. I learned about monopolies, cartels, and money-laundering. Perhaps you slept through those classes.

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[Golias]

It's not my law and it's my right to speak out agains the frivolous use of my taxpayer money to enforce the rights of the yuppie next door to his latest finger-painting. Screw him. His work sucks, his art sucks, and it's not worth my protection.

So for art which you judge to be "good" it is moral to protect the product of the artist's labor, but if you judget it to "suck" (yet still good enough to be worth stealing), the creator should not be allowed to make a living selling it, because you are entitled to a free copy.

Interesting take.

Stupid, but interesting.

I did. I learned about monopolies, cartels, and money-laundering. Perhaps you slept through those classes.

The movie industry is a monopoly? That's funny, I thought there were a lot of competing studios (and lots more competition from Hong Kong, India, Japan, and Europe.)

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[Golias]

Their right to due process by your assumption of their guilt merely from their arrest. This also puts your due process rights in jeopardy. I would also submit that you cannot determine if the arrests are justified or not. That is a matter for a court of law.

I'm not the one jailing them. My clumsy omission of the word "alleged" on a web forum does not deny them any rights. At best, you could accuse me of slandering them, but only if you can show that I had malace towards these people (who I don't know), and what I said turns out to not be true.

Let me be more specific about the question I asked you before. What rights has the State violated by arresting these people who are reasonable suspected of committing a crime? Any?

The arrest described in the article is the first step

Bzzt!

Oh, sorry about tat. I have this buzzer that goes off whenever somebody uses a "slippery slope" argument in place of logic.

Some people who should have been arrested (because there is compelling evidence that they have broken the law) have been arrested. You have not made a case as to why this is a Bad Thing. You've just nit-picked over my semantics.

Re:Can somebody tell me...

[Surt]

I don't have any rights to that revenue stream, that's the fundamental problem. People think they have a right to make money from certain things, even if that overrides fundamental rights of others. Clue: they don't. And their attempts to manufacture rights that conflict with natural rights will end in failure or tyranny. I'd prefer failure.

Re:I call self-serving BS

[danheskett]

A case in point - you apparently never did file criminal charges, did you?
I was a contractor, it was a nice company to work for. That's all. It was solid basis for a business: people who want and demand a good product, who can pay for it, and who have a strong desire to be efficent.

A 5,000 unit basis for business means that if only 500 users switch your bottom line revenue is deeply hurt.

Cheap, pirated copies will only get one so far. In fact, it's superb marketing for the real product (the one with real support). What counts is the technology, the imagination of the people involved, and the management of the organization.
No, its not. When users stop paying for the licensing to use pirated copies it a direct hit against the bottom line. When all new sales stop but your software is turning up at hundreds of new locations, it has nothing to do with management or sales department or imagination. It has to with lost income and poor revenues.

License management and copy protection

[puhuri]

Every copy of the software used an active form of product activation.

Sounds like real pain to support. I've seen lots of different license services and product activation keys and they usually result in lost productivity. Currently we use "only" four software packages that use license server, each its own. After an OS upgrade, it is very likely that some of those breaks and if you want to support several versions of operating systems you need to tweak license manager tools for the magical combination.

The protocols are not documented, so you need to try to find out how you configure firewall and you still worry for security problems.

I wonder why companies must treat their customers as thieves. If your customer cannot use software because your copy protection sucks, she may end downloading a cracked version. Then you wonder why those customers do not pay to you...