Slashdot Mirror
FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges
luigi6699 writes "The BBC reports that 'the US authorities have charged eight people in connection with the illegal trading of copyrighted films, music, games and software over the net.' According to Acting Assistant Attorney General John C Richter, 'cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce.'"
If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."
how someone can be an Acting Assistant Attorney General and not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Well think about this, if they are taken to court or pay an out of court settlement then they might not have enough money to feed them selves (etc.) as they might me heavily i debt(etc.), so then they might turn to crime as means of income. There must be a better way.
Try RIAA/MPAA.com.
You didn't hear? Yeah, they run the government now.
I never thought I'd ever live in a time where something that is so clearly a civil issue would be come a criminal charge. What's next, arresting people for slander or violating a contract?
How we know is more important than what we know.
There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.
Priorities? We're the FBI, we don't need no steeeeeeeenkin priorities!!!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
#1) Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity, without allocating many law officers. All the FBI has to do is make an example of one person, charge him with everything, throw the kitchen sink at the guy and make sure he never gets outside of a jail, and that might stop other people from doing the same act.
#2) Follow the money. There would be no FBI without money, and they get their money from congress. Members of congress get elected, and that takes lots of money. I can't give/donate nearly as much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me. If the RIAA wants music file sharers chased, arrested and prosecuted, and members of congress want money for the next election, guess what the FBI will be doing?
#3) Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks. Whenever there is an attack, the people collectivly lose more rights. Police put up camera's in cities to videotape everyone (chicago and boston both have over 3,000 each). Libraries require fingerprints (Naperville). Gas prices soar. Companies like Halliburton get rich. I also noticed a direct relationship between acts of terror and rednecks getting very patriotic, which means they vote republican. For some reason, people in the south think democrats are pussies because we want to understand a problem before shooting at it.
I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills? The terrorists target public trains and busses which the avarage joe takes to work. The rich live in gated communities, they have private security in addition to the police. And when the rich call the police, the police know to anwser quickly and with their best officers. The last thing the police departments want is a millionaire with lawyers pissed off at them.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."
The problem with the system is I can't own a damn thing anymore. There was a time if I wanted to tape something off TV, I would have used a VCR. Now people are paying a monthly fee for TiVo. 20 years ago, people could buy a satelite dish and get all the channels for free on C-band. And back then cable was fairly inexpensive. Today, a "basic" subscription to cable can cost over $60 a month. AND back then there were not as many commericals on television as today. What has changed? Did these companies hire specialists to determine just how much bullshit people can take before they break?
And it is not good enough to have a phone in the house, now everyone needs a cell phone. I had one employer ask me to update my file with my second phone number, a cell phone number. I did not have one. My boss gave me one hell of a look.
And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.
Every buisness is figuring ways to not sell a product, but to sell a reoccuring service. One day, people won't be able to buy underwear, they will have to buy a license from fruit of the loom. Perhaps washing machines will need to call fruit of the loom before you can wash underwear.
And the music industry and movie industry is doing the same thing. It is not bad enough that they want $10 to see a movie, after half an hour of commericals (what is the point of paying $10 if they will force people to watch commercials anyways, isn't that just like TV?). In addition to the $10 ticket and forced viewing of commercials, the theater has a monopoly on snacks, and they use that monopoly to charge $5 for a soda that probably costs them a thin dime. One year later, the movie gets released on DVD for $29.99. The movie quality is so-so. Three years later a nicer version comes out for $29.99.
And If I want to back up my copy, in case it gets scratched so I have a working copy, the movie industry won't let me. They shut down DVD Decryptor.
And about the music industry. Remember, they kept prices inflated to over $15 a CD. They were sued and they lost. They were ordered to give free CD's to libraries and what did they do? 100 different CD's that would be interesting? NO. They gave 100 identical copies of Christmas songs.
So, no, sharing is not theft. What is theft is what the corporations are doing to people.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
"......online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce......'" Im sure they work REAL hard, maybe 1% as hard as the average blue collar american? and they make more a minute than I make an hour..... Sorry guys, Not only do I think your grossly overpaid, I have a hard time swallowing calling what you do "Hard work"
These people were likely the old fassioned type of copyright theft, where you make money out of selling illegal copies, or producing good quality counterfiets and selling them to legitimate retail outlets as if they were the real thing.
:)
They definately do need to be locked up, if I pay for software I at least expect it to be legit
Umm.. while you appear to have completely discredited yourself at the end there all on your own, I thought I may as well reply anyway. While people don't realise it, they do definitely want the middlemen, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, they provide the music in what is a more useful form (eg CDs), this is the one and only aspect which may be partially obsoleted by MP3s and P2P. Secondly, they see that the music is actually produced to the best quality possible, by helping provide recording and postproduction facilities. After all, music is more than just a guy in front of a microphone. Thirdly, they provide the commercial infrastructure to make sure music is paid for, and artists get paid. Fourthly, they find good (in the sense "popularly demanded", not necessarily "talented") musicians, preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might. Fifthly, they help cultivate those particular musicians, by ensuring they continue to make music in the way people want. Lastly, and most obviously, they provide the marketing and advertising that commercial success requires. Of course, there's more than just those factors, but they'd be the main ones. Also, I'd love to know how you think the MPAA are anything like that, given that major films are produced and marketed by the same firms.
The point is, there's a lot more to mass music than a guy with a guitar and someone who wants to listen, and these "middlemen" provide all those things. Perhaps a good analogy would be stores, should you steal milk because supermarkets pay farmers a fraction of what they sell the milk for? After all, all we need is farmers and people to drink milk, how dare those supermarket assholes get in the way!
If you don't like the RIAA/MPAA, don't buy their stuff, but the fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.
And what is to stop the musicians hiring people to do this, rather than these people hiring the musicians?
This cold still happen if they worked for the musicians, instead of the musicians working for them.
Not "popularly demanded", just popular, there is a difference. "Preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might" could be replaced with "Preventing people expiriencing as much diversity as they might"
Or, they cultivate their cash cow by ensuring the artists creativity is stifled.
Which, again, they could do if they worked for the artists instead of the artists working for them.
I think the supermarkets are a good analogy. They should be more like supermarkets in the sense that supermarkets are competitive with each other, reducing prices. Heinz doesn't work for the supermarkets, but the supermarkets distribute and advertise their products even though you can buy them elsewhere. You can buy eggs from the supermarket, but you can also buy the eggs direct from the farm that supplies them, cheaper and fresher, if you want to. Supermarkets embrace new technology, you can buy stuff from the supermarket via the internet and have it delivered to your door. And it's the same product that you get from the shop, it hasn't been disabled in any way.
This is false logic, if people want their product there is nowhere else to go, they've got it sown up.
There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.
What would the point of "nailing" pedophiles be?
You don't "nail" Satanists. Nothing wrong with being a Satanist. The problem comes in if some guy starts cutting human hearts out on an altar somewhere -- then you're nailing a murderer who happens to be a Satanist.
Similarly, you could maybe nail someone guilty of sexual abuse of a child who happened to be a pedophile, but what would be the benefit of nailing pedophiles?
Identity thieves, on the other hand, have committed a crime.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.