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.'"

Comments

Priorities!

[Capt'n Hector]

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.

Re:Priorities!

[mboverload]

But they protected the most important thing of all, the profits of media conglomerates.

Re:Priorities!

[Antony-Kyre]

I think they consider that, and probably spike our taxes so they can hire more and more FBI agents and such. 'Gotta get them all' so-to-speak.

I think there are two main issues. People who freely share copyrighted material, and people who SELL copyrighted material. Personally, I see the latter as being flagrant theft.

Consumer

[mboverload]

Glad to see our government is looking out for the consumer.

Arresting teens for committing the hideous crime of downloading music and stopping monopolies right in their tracks.

Ok, maybe not the second part, but 1/2 isn't that bad.

Makes me sick

[QuantumG]

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?

Re:Makes me sick

[Saeger]

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore, "intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity. Copyright infringement, then, is "economic terrorism" and a threat to national security.

Re:I wonder

[phobos13013]

I LIKE this logic!
Now if we could only get Bush to misrepresent the truth in only the way he can under grand jury proceedings about say weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... we could arrest him for LYING UNDER OATH by the Figure of Speech conversion.

Shoplifting VS Copyright Infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

One actually deprives people of something that they possesed, the other doesn't. Yet which is more heavily punished? It's just crazy.

I had an arguement about copying vs sharing, the guy was saying that copying software isn't the same as sharing, he said if you gave away your copy to the person then that would be sharing. I guess that he also thinks that someone writting down a copy of a recipe for a friend isn't sharing either.

There are many methods that could be used for allowing artists to make money and allowing people to share. One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art (instead of the big labels soaking it up and dripping a little down to the artists) and more people would have access to the music. The only people that don't like this seem to be those that think 'why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free'.

Murderers...

[John Seminal]

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.

#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.

Re:Murderers...

[Antony-Kyre]

About number three, no kidding on the millionare with lawyers angry at the police department. But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

I don't like the concept of requiring fingerprints unless someone is convicted of a crime. People not convicted of their first offense ever should have their fingerprint copy destroyed. What if someone has no fingerprints for whatever reason?

About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.
-
Personally I think they should never be lively monitored. Just review the tapes when necessary. Delete footage after 30 days. But still require voter approval every 4 years.

About the terrorist attacks, namely September 11th, let us think about that for a second. What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?

By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things. But more often than not in our federal Congress we see them voting for stupid things, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.

Re:Murderers...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

It takes more than cash to be rich. You spend years making connections and earning favors. As a newly won lottery magnate, you wouldn't even have access to the best lawyers. The police have nothing to fear from a family that's been rich less than 40 years.

By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things.

Wrong. Both do bad things, all the time, never good. They've not passed any necessary legislation in decades, their only real work at this point would be the budget... and they've screwed that up to. If you have any sense left at all, you'll promise not to vote for either, ever again.

Nobody owns anything anymore...

[John Seminal]

Everything is becoming rented and licensed.

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.

Worked so hard?

[Icicle509]

"......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"

Pedophiles and Satanists

[typical]

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.