Man Gets 7 Years for Software Piracy

mytrip writes to mention a C|Net article about the largest sentence for software piracy ever handed down by a U.S. court. Nathan Peterson of Los Angeles has been levied with an enormous fine after selling millions of dollars worth of software between 2003 and 2005. "U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III on Friday ordered Peterson to pay restitution of more than $5.4 million. Peterson pleaded guilty in December in Alexandria, Va., to two counts of copyright infringement for illegally copying and selling more than $20 million in software. Justice Department and industry officials called the case one of the largest involving Internet software piracy ever prosecuted. "

Comments

So?

[HairyCanary]

This is considerably different than the average "pirate" who downloads software for him/herself and perhaps distributes copies to friends. This guy was *selling* pirated software. That's a whole different ballgame, and it makes him a garden variety criminal in my opinion. Not really news, and certainly not relevant to me in a "Your Rights Online" sort of way.

Re:So?

[__aaclcg7560]

He won't have any Slashdot priviliges in prison.

Re:So?

[daspriest]

It's definitely news, but maybe not news that fits into the "your rights online" type. Unless you are in the business of selling illegal copies of software.

Re:So?

[evolseven]

I agree, its one thing to steal a copy of windows(or whatever frequently pirated program you desire) for your own use(and half of your neighborhood as well), but a completely different thing to sell it to other people.

Re:So?

[Cal Paterson]

Is it?

Richard Stallman often encourages the sale of Free Software (a position which many people unfamiliar with his ideology find confusing).

Why shouldn't third parties be able to sell the things they own for profit? Or are we bound to this idea that "For Free is good, but for profit is bad". Businesses are not, by their nature, bad. Much like a loony tunes television episode I recall watching as a child "It's not the automobile that's evil; it's the driver".

There are many piracy groups which are often seen as charities which almost aren't; pirate bay for example are most certainly profitable. Whether they are a business by the letter of the law I'm not entirely sure.

Other "piracy groups" are very obviously web startups. Isohunt, for example, provide a very useful service, and, I expect profit from it.

If something is bad to do for profit, it is normally bad to do it for free also. I think that piracy is neither. Binary is the property of whose media it is on, and to hell with anyone who wants to say otherwise.

Re:So?

[Paradise Pete]

According to convoluted logic we often see here, what he did was perfectly proper. After all, he didn't "steal" software, he merely "infringed copyright"

You might want to swap out that 40 watt bulb in your head for at least a 60, if not 75.

How in the world do you get "perfectly proper" from copyright infringement? Just because it isn't stealing doesn't necessarily mean it's OK.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you agree with government enforcement of existing laws governing software copyright infringement, including prosecution and jail time for large-scale offenders. Good on you, but many of your fellow posters here seem to differ. You know, the "Your Rights Online" thing.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Although, Pirate Bay and IsoHunt dont sell software... They dont even sell anything related to the sort.

They make money from advertisers and such.

They offer a very comprehensive torrent search (and the like), which just HAPPENS to be a nice way for pirates to, well, pirate.

Re:So?

[ewl1217]

I don't know what you're rambling on about here...

Why shouldn't third parties be able to sell the things they own for profit?

There's nothing wrong with selling something you own, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about software piracy. Software piracy is when you take a paid-for program that someone else owns, break the copy protection on it, use it, and possibly redistribute this. Nowhere in this do you own the software.

Binary is the property of whose media it is on, and to hell with anyone who wants to say otherwise.

Really? So does that mean I own the music on a CD I bought? Of course not! The artist owns it (I don't feel like dragging the RIAA into this, so please don't bring that up...). In the same respect, I don't own the words in a book I buy. That work is owned by the author, through copyright. Do you think that pirating a book in a similar fashion to software should be allowed (provided you had a means of doing this)?

Re:So?

[Cal Paterson]

Well, according to the law in most western countries you're correct. But the law isn't any kind of moral guideline (one only needs to look as far as the legal profession to discover this).

I (somewhat obviously) don't agree with the current position of the law, and think it should be different.

When I was talking about being able to share/sell binary in my previous post, I wasn't making legal speculation (I'm aware of what the law is on this subject, in the UK). I'm debating it; it's moral speculation.

I don't agree that music on cd should be property of the artist: I personally think it should be property of the owner of the cd. I'm aware that, by law, it is most likely copyrighted to someone.

Honestly, I think the law is currently flat out wrong in all areas of "Intellectual Property".

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, let's go through the first few words of his post again:

"According to convoluted logic we often see here"

See the words "according to" and "convoluted?" This should clue you in that he is

1. Attributing this belief to someone else
2. Does not find it to be appropriate

As far as #1 he's right. Any time the subject of illegal copying of software, music, or movies comes up on Slashdot, the overwhelming opinion is that it's okay.

Here's a link for some 75 watt light bulbs for yourself, sparky.

Re:So?

[Qadesh]

If you own the music on the CD what is the economic incentive for the artist to share it in the first place? While IP laws may be wrong in some instances, to adopt an extreme position that denies the artist (or other creators) rights in their own work does not adequately address the balance that needs to be sought between the creators rights to profit from their intellectual effort and the public interest in disseminating, sharing and building on that work.

Re:So?

[notaprguy]

Talk about moral relativism! So a guy who steals $1000 is a better man than someone who steals $10,000? What next. Someone who mugs someone by beating them is morally superior to someone who stabs their victim? Or someone who murders one person is somehow less morally reprehensible than someone who kills two? Theft is theft.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you'd stop using the word 'own' to refer to intellectual property we would understand what you are saying.

You own a stick-man-shaped cookie cutter. You can make 5 stick-man-shaped cookies and sell them.

You own a disc with pits and groves on it. You can make 5 CD-Rs with the same bit patterns on them and sell them.

The right to buy things, combine/process them to create wealth and sell the result seems *so* fundamental that it makes sense to question any law that tries to make it any other way.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you distribute pirated software to your friends/family then you are probably going to get something out of it at some stage. For example and friend will give you a copy of some other program.

You are really selling it just like that guy. Obviously not on the scale he did tho..

Re:So?

[westlake]

I agree, its one thing to steal a copy of windows(or whatever frequently pirated program you desire) for your own use(and half of your neighborhood as well), but a completely different thing to sell it to other people.

Let's just say you are the guy I don't want to see drooling over my newly restored '56 Chevy.

Re:So?

[Lehk228]

actually the difference is taking software and using it for free, and competing on the open market with legal sellers of that software

in one case you are not depriving the maker of anything, in the other every sale is taken directly from the legitimate owner.

Re:So?

[toadlife]

You just compared a CD with cookie cutter.

Re:So?

[dubonbacon]

In one case you are not depriving the maker of anything

Except his customer.

Re:So?

[shark72]

"If you own the music on the CD what is the economic incentive for the artist to share it in the first place?"

I'll save you some time and run down the standard Slashdot responses to this one:

1. Perhaps I'll buy a t-shirt.
2. Perhaps I'll go see them play live.
3. Artists should not be so focused on money.
4. Mozart didn't worry about selling CDs.
5. If you're doing it for a profit, you're a businessperson, not an artist.

"address the balance that needs to be sought between the creators rights to profit from their intellectual effort and the public interest in disseminating, sharing and building on that work."

I know you were probably just typing hastily, but one small correction. Creators do not have a right to profit from their work. They have the right to say how their work is copied. This is an important distinction, because many P2P advocates use the "artists don't have the right to profit" straw man.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

From where comes this axiom that we need economic incentive to create music? I thaught we did it because it was inatatly human, or fun, or just something we had to do to not explode (that's what artists always say). People will NOT suddenly stop making music just because they can't sell records, and can only get payed for live performances. Most of that money goes straight to the record comanies, and the musicians don't see it anyway. Honestly, I don't care if as a society we ensure artists can make money, as long as we continue to allow free expression art will flourish regardless of economic system (although seting it up so people have free time is certainly helpful). We're all artists, some are just professionals. Those who are good at it will continue to find a way to make a living, just like they always have.

With less push to distribute en mass, we'll get more music from more musicians. There are plenty out there, many are musicians as a "night job". As the big companies fall, these smalltime artists will flourish, having escaped the cloak of advertising and monopoly created by the recording industry. There's no longer any reason radio stations can't play this or that music. Currently radio stations are horribly limited in what they CAN play as a result of what they can afford to play, and what contracts they've sighned to drop those prices, to avoid paying even more. This means they could actually play music based on it's merit. A good radio host becomes someone who is good at sniffing out good music, through all of the garbage (of which, as always there would be plenty), without a mass media pushing it at him.

In response to the point that artists should have control over what they release.... why? Why should they? Pete Seager said that each song he writes is like a child, he raises it up as best he can, and then sets it loose on the world, just hoping it will do good things and make the world a better place. This is how music, and all art works, you can't control it, and pretending that you can with a set of laws is just rediculas. Let the ideas, and music flow.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The economic incentive is the ability to use other people's work as part of their creative flow without paying for it.

Despite there being many prorgams on BT, the sales of DVDs are still strong. People will buy quality even if they can get it for free.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

*ahem* I'll call BS on a bunch of items on your list.

3. Artists should not be so focused on money.

What lala land are you living in? It's money that makes the world go round in our society. You may not like it but that's a fact. We need it to survive. Artists do what they do for two reasons (usually). They enjoy the act of creation. Profit. It's a damn career you moron; one that should pay for their talents and thankfully it does.

4. Mozart didn't worry about selling CDs.

Lol. Umm. No Shit. Are you kidding or just retarded? Mass recording distribution didn't exist and only a jackass would attempt to speculate on whether or not Mozart *would* have sold his music in such a fashion. Fact is, Mozart was a rich man and his talents paid quite well - and it should be so for other artists as well. Nothing has changed in that respect. Seems you should educate yourself before forming your opinions.

5. If you're doing it for profit, you're a businessperson, not an artist.

Again, your logic is as insightful as a turd. What's to say that one cannot be both a business-person AND an artist? Why shouldn't a creative individual capitalize on THEIR talents? What makes it wrong for an artist to request that you pay them for the option of enduldging in THEIR gifts? It's THEIR time. THEIR effort. THEIR life. Who the hell are you to suggest that they shouldn't get return in any manner THEY choose for the gifts they happen to have received or have worked thousands of hours to perfect.

Answer: You (and any other /. idiot) are nobody to make such comments about what someone should do with their lives and their hard work. Grow the fuck up.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... ummm... as far as the law is concerned, every one of those is a big fat yes. You are punished relative to the magnitude, not merely the nature of your crime. As it happens you are also punished relative to several other somewhat arbitrary metrics relating to fault, rationale, and likelyhood of repitition (and let us not forgot monetary status, skin color, or whatever else gets thrown in the mix). Our country is founded on moral relativism... Whether it's the right ideology is a difficult question, but it's the one our justice system is based on.

It seems just as odd to say, "I get punished the same for stealing 1 dollar as for stealing millions? that doesn't seem right" For one thing, then, if someone does decide to commit a crime, therey is no punishment governing the magnitude... might as well go big if your gonna go. Imagine you realize you'll be convicted of killing a man... might as well kill those 5 who pissed you off last week, it won't matter anyway. From a game-theory standpoint moral relativism is a GOOD THING.

Re:So?

[Fred_A]

Why shouldn't third parties be able to sell the things they own for profit?

Nobody minds that. What the problem seems to be here is that he was selling things *others* owned for a profit. Which in the current social structure of most societies is a big no-no.

If something is bad to do for profit, it is normally bad to do it for free also.

In most places sex for profit is frowned upon. (that was just to find a counter-example ;) )

Re:So?

[johanw]

However, 7 years in prison for that? Here in The Netherlands, you get that for 2nd degree murder. Gives an indication on the relative priorities in penal systems that copyright violation seems to be considered as bad in the USA as 2nd degree murder here...

Re:So?

[hawfizzle]

i really doubt anyone engages in sex for intentional loss. the profit isn't always measured in dollars.

Re:So?

[SharpFang]

The basic fallacy of criminalizing -any- copyright infringement is that it implies loss of profits, while way more often than not no profit is lost.

The way of thinking of RIAA and friends is: If I copy the file, I have it for free. If I didn't copy it, I would have paid for it. This obviously doesn't take into account the far more likely case: if I didn't copy it, I wouldn't ever have it - I wouldn't pay, I wouldn't buy. The likehood I'd spend $3000+ on a legit copy of AutoCAD is near zero, so implying that I cause any loss to Autodesk by drawing a plan of my garden in an illicit copy, is simply bullshit.

This case is entirely different though: the buyers were paying money for software they believed legit. The money would go to authors of the software, but instead they went to that guy. In this case the loss of profit is not potential, assumed and unlikely, but definite and a fact.

It's like a difference between charges of causing risk of life or injury and a first degree murder.

Re:So?

[KDR_11k]

Noone's stopping you or anyone else from making your own music and sharing it for free if you just have the desire to spread music. However, not everyone wants to do that just for fun or maybe they like music so much they'd like being able to make music all day instead of having a day job to feed the family and only make music in their free time (which may not be much time after you subtract the time spent with the wife and children). I've certainly seen web comic artists strife for that, the ability to produce art without needing a day job. Without copyright there's nothing to stop people like Eric Bauman from taking everyone's hard work, aggregating it at their website and take the ad revenue for themselves instead of letting the artists profit from those ad impressions.

Re:So?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Well, the "IP wants to be free" crowd brings up music as their example because it's perceived that music is cheap to make so people will continue to make it for "free".

But what about movies? Each of the LOTR movies cost over 100 million dollars to make. If you took away the profit incentive, there would be no way that anyone would go into such an undertaking for free, just because it's "inatly humam or fun". Your argument may hold for small projects but not large ones, and if large projects like the LOTR movies were taken away from us (because there was no profit incentive to create them), then that would be a loss for society in general. Society can live with just "small" projects, but why should it? Large projects have their place as well, and those require ROI to make.

(As a side note, I question whether the LOTR *books* would even have been written if there were no profit incentive at all. Or maybe they would've been written, but not with the epic-scale that they have.)

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

That 100 million could have been better spent on something REAL. Like the space programme. I don't see why I should enable fantasists, in fact, if anything your post has strengthened my resolve to destroy copyright law

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because this guy offered a discount. That's why they bought from him instead of from Amazon.com or some other well known distributor. How can you assume that customers would have bought without that discount? It is well known that people often find a 30% off sale irresistible, if they have prior knowledge of the regular price. They'll often buy just for the discount.

You guys are experts at rationalization, and you keep collecting each other's lists so you can use them on forums like this one. Face it - people are getting hurt when you steal ("infringe", or whatever you euphemistically call it) their life's work. Those acts are illegal and should be.

Re:So?

[drsmithy]

But what about movies? Each of the LOTR movies cost over 100 million dollars to make.

How much of that sum was required to pay the salaries of "big name" actors ?

Re:So?

[drsmithy]

Richard Stallman often encourages the sale of Free Software (a position which many people unfamiliar with his ideology find confusing).

No one is surprised that Stallman encourages selling stuff people can trivially acquires themselves for free - he's more than crazy enough to write that one off. What they find surprising is that he seriously expects other people to subscribe to his craziness.

There are many piracy groups which are often seen as charities which almost aren't; pirate bay for example are most certainly profitable. Whether they are a business by the letter of the law I'm not entirely sure.

Pirate Bay aren't selling pirated software. In fact, they're not selling anything. They're (essentially) offering a platform for people who have data (be it pirated software or pictures of your mum) to tell others about it and subsequently download it - a *very* different thing by every measure - legal, moral, ethical or otherwise.

Now, I have a rather intense dislike of copyright law and, indeed, copyright in general as it stands now, but the examples you have posted are not particularly good ones, nor would they do a good job of supporting any arguments you might have against copyright.

Re:So?

[SharpFang]

For my SCADA systems exam, I was learning programming SCADA applications using a pirated version of InTouch. It costs around $10,000 for the version I used (old, single-node) in retail. It's a software for driving and controlling advanced factory machinery. Just to make things clear, I don't own a factory.

There is no way in hell I'd pay $10k just to buy a program that will allow me to learn for a single exam. Most likely I'd just use books, notes, two hours a week of real use when the SCADA lab at school is free to use. Wonderware wouldn't see a penny from me just the same as they didn't back then. But now I know the package better. I'm more likely to get a job involving it. I'm more likely to encourage implementing it - purchasing it by my employer.

How did I hurt authors of InTouch?

Re:So?

[d_jedi]

in one case you are not depriving the maker of anything,
Bullshit. In either case, it's taking money directly out of the software developer's pocket. You might as well steal their wallet - the effect is the same.

Re:So?

[Cal Paterson]

Pirate Bay aren't selling pirated software. In fact, they're not selling anything. They're (essentially) offering a platform for people who have data (be it pirated software or pictures of your mum) to tell others about it and subsequently download it - a *very* different thing by every measure - legal, moral, ethical or otherwise.

I never said they were selling anything (they actually are selling merch, but that's beside the point): it doesn't really matter. The actions they make are illegal in some countries, and I don't think they should be.

The selling point isn't really important; it's the right that people should be able to do anything they want with their property.

Re:So?

[1u3hr]

(As a side note, I question whether the LOTR *books* would even have been written if there were no profit incentive at all. Or maybe they would've been written, but not with the epic-scale that they have.)

Tolkien had been writing his Middle Earth sagas for decades. He showed them to a publisher early on who told him they were unpublishable. He continued writing anyway. Eventually of course a publisher did turn up who took a risk. Of course there was a profit motive in the publishing, but not the writing. And if it had happened today, perhaps JRR would have written it as a blog and not bothered with publishers at all. He had endless trouble with their changes to his text, both deliberate ("elvish" to "elfen") and accidental.

Re:So?

[Cal Paterson]

Excuse the bold, i missed a "close bold" tag.

Re:So?

[Cal Paterson]

In most places sex for profit is frowned upon.

I don't "frown upon" it. People have every right to let their bodies for sex in the same way they are able to let their bodies from labour.

The two issues with prostitution are that "it's immoral!" and that women get abused. In many ways, the latter of those is highly accentuated by the former: when prostitution isn't illegal, it becomes relatively above board (see the Netherlands for a good example of this). Banning prostitution is much like prohibition: it got banned because a certain group thought it was morally wrong, and criminality of something tends to draw criminals towards it.

Re:So?

[mdwh2]

In order to sell free software, you need to add value to it - since people are free to obtain the original software freely, this is not seen as profiting from someone else's work.

With piracy, chances are he isn't adding value - or rather, the only value he's adding is making it easier to get hold of, but the only reason it's hard to get hold of for free is because that's not legal.

Re:So?

[tinkerghost]

I don't know about cookies, but I have used one to cut a pizza - oh what will we do now that AOL no longer sends out CDs?!

Re:So?

[flosofl]

But what about movies? Each of the LOTR movies cost over 100 million dollars to make.

How much of that sum was required to pay the salaries of "big name" actors ?

How is that relevant? Who cares? The movie still costs $100M to make. You can argue about whether you personally beleive the actors are worth however much they were paid. Obviously, the studio felt they were worth what they were paid. And from the amount of money these movies made, they are more than justified in paying that much.

If you really think that Hollywood is going to change its ecnomic model to pay what *you* think is fair, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you on Ebay. Yes, they put out crap. Yes, in my opinion they spend way too much on "talent" and production costs. But you know what? They don't care what I think (or what you think). As long as a studio stays in the black, things will keep on as they have. The sheeple in the US (and abroad) are still throwing vast amounts of money at Hollywood. Until the public begins to punish (stop spending money) the entertainment industry for pushing crap products, it will not change.

Re:So?

[Paradise Pete]

If you would read the rest of what he wrote, he goes on to state what the "convoluted logic" is. And it turns out that what's convoluted is his interpretation. Similar, in fact, to your interpretation of my post. Say, you're not the same guy, are you?

Re:So?

[notaprguy]

I certainly wasn't trying to argue the point that someone who steals $1 deserves to be punished as harshly as someone who steals $1 million. My point is that both people are equally guilty of stealing. Similarly, stealing software for your own use is fundamentally no different than stealing software to sell it to someone else. In either case the thief benefits personally - either from using the software for his own use or by receiving money for selling it.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever do a paying job with pirate software? The scope of the case is bigger but it doesn't make angels of people that don't want to pay for software. Don't want to pay for Photoshop? Use Gimp. Need it for a paying job? Buy it. The people paying for software are carrying your ass. Simple as that.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about moral relativism!

No, talk about binary morality! Yes, the larger theft is more serious and should be punished more severely. Yes, the mass murderer is more at fault morally than someone who kills only one person. Yes, the average person has a sufficient sense of perspective to make quantitative as well as qualitative distinctions.

Re:So?

[Mr2001]

If you own the music on the CD what is the economic incentive for the artist to share it in the first place?

He can find someone (or a group of people) who'll pay him for writing and recording it in the first place, instead of trying to make money by selling copies after it's already been written and recorded.

Copyright isn't necessary in order for artists to make a living in general - only for them to make a living in one very specific way, that is, by treating information as a discrete, scarce physical product instead of as information.

Re:So?

[Mr2001]

Your argument may hold for small projects but not large ones, and if large projects like the LOTR movies were taken away from us (because there was no profit incentive to create them), then that would be a loss for society in general.

But not necessarily a net loss. We'd be able to freely share, remix, splice, and create our own derivative works without having to beg for the copyright holder's permission, which means there'd be more works available and more ways to enjoy them. I think that'd balance out the loss of the few particularly expensive works that couldn't be produced without copyright.

(And of course, eliminating copyright doesn't have to mean eliminating profit - it just means you have to make your profit up front, by charging for your labor instead of charging for copies.)

Re:So?

[drsmithy]

How is that relevant?

Because it's a non-trivial proportion of the movies' development costs.

Using equally talented, but vastly cheaper (to hire) actors could have resulted in a substantially lower production cost.

Who cares? The movie still costs $100M to make.

My point is the same movies could possibly (probably) have been made for less.

Saying that, for example, some movie cost $100M to make when $60M of that might have been spent on some pitifully small number of lead actors and then using that as a justification for saying movies are expensive to make, is not a compelling argument.

Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[Blahbooboo3]

Wait, so he sold $20million, pays $5.4 back? Not a bad return I would think. Should I assume the government also seized all his assets etc?

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Appears to be a total asset forfeiture as well. Merc News

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[Blahbooboo3]

Good. At least the government gets SOMETHING right :) However, I bet he has some nice off-shore bank accounts with some money hidden away.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[__aaclcg7560]

If he was smart, half his assets should be in a Swiss bank account and someone will be waiting with plane tickets to a safe-haven country when he gets out in three years for good behavior. Only then will crime pay.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[The Wing Lover]

No, I think he sold "$20 million worth of software"... counted at the retail price. I suspect he made nowhere near the $5 million that he will have to pay. Not to mention th efact that he's gotta sit in jail for 7 years.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[DDLKermit007]

Don't count on good behavior getting him out too fast. This was a federal case (interstate crimes?). "Good behavior" doesn't get you too far with Federal Prisons. Best he can hope for is a Club Fed prision which I'm doubting. Be it three, seven, or even one year in a pound me in the ass fed prision will likely scar this white-collar for life and you don't get away from those memories.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[RuBLed]

If it was retail price I agree that he could not even pay that $5 million. If I compare it with the pirates here at our country, the rule of the thumb for them is usually the price of the media/disc * 15 which usually falls on around $2.0 - $2.25 per software/disc. So for every $30 "average" retail price software out there, he makes $2 which would amount to only around $1.2 million. It is still a very high profit considering there is a very little expense but he is sure bound to be broke because of that $5 million fine. Anyway... just my $0.02 * 15

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad there is no good behavior in the federal system, except 54 days per year and 6 months of halfway house.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[sumdumass]

I doubt he has anything hidden offshore unless it is actual hidden some were. Generaly, it is almost impossible to hide assets from the government in this day and age. 20 years ago, it might have been more likley. Most countries now, will either have records of the money tranferes, or actualy willing to inform the government or the acounts people hold. There is probably a database availible for different governments to search thru.

A few years ago, a friend had some over seas utility bonds mature. He had them open an acount and purchased something else. The feds came a'knocking and asked all about the acount. He says they do it everytime. I guess this has happened in more then one country too.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[shark72]

"If I compare it with the pirates here at our country, the rule of the thumb for them is usually the price of the media/disc * 15 which usually falls on around $2.0 - $2.25 per software/disc. So for every $30 "average" retail price software out there, he makes $2 which would amount to only around $1.2 million."

These were his prices:

• PhotoShop CS: $99
• Acrobat 6 Professional: $99
• PhotoShop 7: $79
• Acrobat 6 Standard: $69

Sounds like he was making more than $2 per sale.

I've been enjoying the heck out of the posts from the "he was just selling backups!" crowd. Here's a quote from his site:

eTrust EZ Armor Security Suite from Computer Associates, the world's #1 supplier of Internet security software** combines award-winning Antivirus with industrial-strength Firewall protection. Built specifically for today's Internet-intensive computer user, eTrust EZ Armor leverages the core technology CA has developed for the world's most demanding users including over 99% of the Fortune 500. EZ to install and a snap to use, eTrust EZ Armor provides automatic virus updates, advanced email attachment protection, EZ to use firewall settings, activity control to stop website monitoring, ad blocking and cookie control features for a more enjoyable Internet experience.

This raises the question of why he would need to do the whole sales pitch if he was just selling backups to people who already owned the software. If this were truly the case, then the customer would already know how great the product is.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[Cyberax]

It's easy. Buy expensive jewelry and bury it in your garden.

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[ForestGrump]

Actually, I'm looking at the site on archive.org and this guy is greasier than you portray, IMHO.

Firstly, he has the disclaimer at the bottom of the home page:
This service is designed for current legal owners of the software listed at this site.

Then if you move away from the home page, you get a different note:
iBackups.net uses the latest secure 128 bit encryption when placing all orders so you may consider your order process secure and as safe as it can be!
(because nobody ever reads the home page in deatail. you're busy looking for what you want!)

A typical sale is for a file download, and for an extra 20 bucks you get a CD in the mail.

Lastly, there is pressure for you to buy ASAP and not research the matter any further wth:
Special Offer: Save BIG when you purchase from our site within 10 minutes of your first visit!

Grump.
This is from june 15 2004 http://web.archive.org/web/*/ibackups.net

The following is from his about us page (FAQ)
  We offer a service for our software titles that NO ONE else offers and that is instant downloads on ALL of our software!

  We give you the option to have a disc included in your order!

  The download servers we use are TOP OF THE LINE! A lot of companies will use cheap servers to save money, we use Dell Dual XEON servers connected DIRECTLY to the Internet backbone. Not once have we capped on our bandwidth, this means you can download as fast as your ISP allows you to!

  We guarantee that you will not find a cheaper price on the software titles at our site! If you do, we will beat that price, or refund you the difference within 30 days of your purchase so there is absolutely NO WAY you can go wrong with us

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[ArwynH]

Jewelry is a bad example as it tends to lose most of it's value after you've purchased it. Diamonds for instance are probobly the worlds worst investment. You've better off burying those 100 dollar notes, than you are burying purchased diamonds.

The best thing to bury would be something that gains value over time, something like antiques... mind you antiques are a lot harder to bury than jewelry...

Re:Sold $20 returns $5.4 = Profit! ?

[Koriani]

no. He sold $20 million WORTH of software for 5.4 million. he only received 5.4 mil for the sales. He has to return all of it.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Software piracy is illegal now a days?

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you get 11 seconds of jail time per dollar of software stolen.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Around two hours for Photoshop? Sounds good to me :)

Re:Wait...

[NosTROLLdamus]

That's more than enough time for buttsex! :)

Re:Wait...

[andymadigan]

rawr, i hope he's a nice big boy, federal prison has to keep up with it's advertising after all

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...Let's see how much that breaks down by sex acts... If he is made to give 10 blowjobs per day, and take it in the ass 5 times per day, do you really think it is worth it?!?

Re:Wait...

[Toby_Tyke]

Well, as I understand it, (although it's not made fantastically clear in TFA, so I could be wrong) the $20 million figure is the market value of the software he sold, not the amount he sold it for. So say Program X sells for $400 in PC World, and our guy sells 50,000 pirate copies for $50 each, that would be software with a value of $20 million, but he only made $2,500,000. That's the standard way the softwre industry* produces figures for piracy, using the amount it would have sold for legitimatly.

*Actually, every industry in any way affected by piracy/counterfeit goods does exactly the same thing.

Got what he deserved

[Vacuous]

Once you start selling the stuff you download on the internet you deserve anything you get as far as the law is concerned IMHO.

Re:Got what he deserved

[russ1337]

There is plenty of software you are allowed to charge money for after you download it. Here is one example

Good deal

[Anonymous Coward]

5.4 million and 7 years in prison is a fair price to pay for a $15 million revenue. What else would he have done in those 7 years anyway? Provided that his prison experience isn't traumatizing, and we all know what that means in this context, he should be better off in the end.

Re:Good deal

[OrangeTide]

I would like the place a bet on that it is traumatizing. And I would also like to see what he's like 10 years from now. Likely he'll be commiting real crimes or be a "weird uncle" to some unlucky child. 7 years of real prison will screw anyone up. Maybe he'll just commit suicide. I don' think this is very funny at all.

Re:Good deal

[Anonymous Coward]

And I would place a bet that nobody cares what you think is funny. Rest assured he'll be out much sooner than 7 years. Next, I would like to point out that "the place a bet" does not make sense in the English language. Hooked on phonics might help out?

Re:Good deal

[Danga]

he should be better off in the end.

I am guessing "his end" will not be better off after 7 years in federal prison!

Re:Good deal

[OrangeTide]

Hooked on phonics would not help with grammar. but seriously my brain randomly replaces words with other words. Proof reading the post didn't help either, I still read it as 'to'.

And why you do mean about the remark about nobody caring what I think is funny? ... seeing as it is pretty simple to find at least one person who cares (Hi Mom). I guess you lose the bet.

Re:Good deal

[nasch]

I am guessing "his end" will not be better off after 7 years in federal prison!

Only if he goes to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. (Office Space reference for anyone who thinks this a completely redundant comment)

The law

[sanmarcos]

He got what he deserved.

He was stupid to allow himself to be caught. Lost 7 years of your life for only money.

Again everything in this world seems related to money one way or the other.

Re:The law

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost 7 years of your life for only money.

Compared to those of us who lose approximately 10.5 years of our lives for only money? 8 hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year, 45 years of our life = 10.6 years (give or take...).

I've often thought committing fraud, secreting the money away in an untouchable overseas account, and spending 5 or 6 years in prison, would be just about worth it in the end. Exit prison, recover money, live like a king.

Re:The law

[sanmarcos]

Actually, putting the money in an overseas account is quite a good idea if you can manage to keep it "clean and quiet".

In Argentina, most of the above middle-class population (I'd say 10-15% max) does that to avoid paying local taxes. They get foreign credit cards (in foreign banks) because Argentines have mostly european ancestors (therefore citizenship if applied), and avoid paying taxes in large purchaes (electronics specially).

However the government has been cracking down recently, not allowing cheaters to get out of the country if they dont pay taxes (they check you before you cross the border to Uruguay, a popular wealthy tourist resort). They also put signs in shopping mall bathrooms saying "You will be caught" and so on.

The same in the US, I mean if you can get a foreign bank account, it is a good idea to do so to keep, say 5-10% of your monthly income in there and lie saying it goes to something else. Believe me, you will always need money for a divorce, car crash, something bad happening in your life, etc.

Keep it safe, and quiet. The same concept goes for almost anything in life, why give away information? why give away posible vulnerabilities?. It is a good practice to save your money early, start early and work your ass off. Make sure nobody knows that you have more money than you really do. If they can screw you, they will (in life, generally).

Re:The law

[Rob the Bold]

He was stupid to allow himself to be caught. Lost 7 years of your life for only money.

Reminds me of a job I had.

Re:The law

[TheLink]

It's fine to not pay more tax than you owe, it is illegal and unwise to not pay tax you owe. You seem to be suggesting doing the latter especially since you suggest lying about your income.

I'd recommend not messing about with the Tax Dept. If the Gov can't get you on anything, they get you on tax.

They could walk up to you and say you owe hundreds of thousands (or even more!) for unpaid taxes for the past X years. They could say Mr San Marcos, how can you afford your houses and cars with your declared income? We think you owe us P. Please pay that plus the fines or go to jail.

After all you are going to want to spend the money eventually. Don't tell me you are planning to amass millions and die without using any of it (that sounds even more foolish).

If you don't want to pay high taxes, do it legally - there are plenty of countries with low tax rates. And plenty of rich people who have figured out how to use (abuse?) the various systems (I heard the Germans had this film industry tax scheme thingy).

Look at the number of crooks Govs jail for tax evasion often because there wasn't enough evidence to jail them for their other crimes.

Re:The law

[tinkerghost]

You do not mess with the IRS - Banks don't mess with the IRS.
I once accidently sent the fed check to the state govt & vice versa. The state sent the check back with a nice letter saying you screwed up, send us the right check. The IRS stamped over MA Dept of Revenue with a big red IRS rubber stamp & the bank cashed it.
I asked the bank why they cashed an obviously altered check, and I was told 'because they are the IRS'. It must be absolutely cool to be able to casually do things that are a felony for everyone else.

Re:The law

[TheLink]

Ouch! Did you ever get back the money? Or at least get it to where you intended it to be going?

Govs maintain their monopoly on violence with the military and the police (the ones that want to last anyway).

And they also have the Tax department. While they don't normally have nukes and live munitions, that big red rubber stamp packs a punch.

That's why I disagreed with that post about lying about income, "keeping quiet" etc.

Re:The law

[tinkerghost]

Get it back?! hell they kept that, the check for the full amount, AND fined me for being 3 months late paying - because they posted the check to my wife's SSN instead of mine & took 3 months of saying 'yes we see it, & it's all taken care of' before they put it to the correct acct.
Remember boys & girls, the justice department couldn't take down Al Capone, but the IRS did.

A tad harsh

[saskboy]

I think people who cheat others out of their legitimate software purchases ought to get jail time when it's obvious they or others will do it if no harsh penalty is on the table.

Isn't 7 years a bit long in comparison to more serious crimes of violence and fraud? Perhaps 7 years is average for a fraud conviction, but I don't understand why rapists [in Canada at least] get about 5 year sentences, mercy killers [Robert Latimer] 10 years, and serial killers [Karla Holmolka] gets 9 years. Where is the equity?

Re:A tad harsh

[Keeper]

Would you argue that someone who hacked into a banks computers and stole $20m in one shot should get off equally as easy? Are you arguing that the severity of punnishment should be directly proportional to the skill required to commit a crime?

Re:A tad harsh

[Somnus]

A good point -- the marginal cost of serious (e.g., violent) crime goes down if you're already doing a mandatory drug minimum or get the book thrown at you for stuff like this. It just encourages sociopaths to enter previously innocuous rackets.

Also, if he pays restitution, what's the point of the jail sentence?

Re:A tad harsh

[themonkman]

While I hate thieves more than most, it is quite maddening and ironic that we put software pirates away for longer than we do child rapists. The courts tend to favor the rights and property of corporations over that of human lives. It's deplorable.

I'm sure that this man had sold this software at prices far below what any legitimate retailer could afford. With that being a reasonable assumption (since he sold so damn much of this software), the people he sold it to would probably have been unlikely to purchase the software at all had it not been at such a deep discount. If they would not have purchased the software otherwise, there is a net damage of almost zero to the manufacturer of the software. There is no lost supplies, real property, or investment. They did not have to do the advertising for this person's business either. If anything, the pirated software he did sell made for great PR to those software companies. The people who would've not otherwise purchased the software at regular or semi-discounted prices are probably pleased with their purchase, and will now be far more likely to buy the new improved releases of that product later on.

Re:A tad harsh

[danjcn]

Software piracy is not merely "cheating", it's "stealing". Think of the software developers who are victims of piracy. The money they deserve is stolen by those who sell pirate software. Don't you think the crime deserves harsh punishment?

Re:A tad harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Karla Homolka, and she got 12 years.

Re:A tad harsh

[Cal Paterson]

Software piracy is not merely "cheating", it's "stealing". Think of the software developers who are victims of piracy. The money they deserve is stolen by those who sell pirate software. Don't you think the crime deserves harsh punishment?

It's not a moral wrong, authoritarians call it "copyright infringment" and I personally think it deserves encouragement.

Software developers don't deserve money just because someone passes binary to another person. The binary is the property of the person who owns the media it is on. If I were to invent a new word, would I be able to charge money for it every time someone used it?

Re:A tad harsh

[Ironsides]

While I hate thieves more than most, it is quite maddening and ironic that we put software pirates away for longer than we do child rapists.

On the one hand, you have someone who was convicted of several thousand counts of software piracy. Comparing that to what someone gets for maybe a dozen acts of rape would be useful to factor in. On the other hand, if a child rapist is going away for less than 7 years, a fix would start by putin them away for longer.

Remember to always factor in the number of counts in the conviction. I could easily come up with a way that could get me sentenced to 1000+ years in prison. Many counts of mail fraud can get anyone put away for longer than any serial killer has been sentenced to.

Re:A tad harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just curious do the developers get royalties? or do they just get salary?

Re:A tad harsh

[rahmza]

Apparently yes.

Re:A tad harsh

[amRadioHed]

Also, if he pays restitution, what's the point of the jail sentence?

There's no deterrent to others if the only punishment is paying back what you made and carrying on with your life.

Re:A tad harsh

[Embedded2004]

Thank goodness we'll never have such a system. Why would I ever become a software developer if there was no money in it?

We need to design our legal system in a way that is to the maximum benefit of society. Your way would hold technological development back, possibly halt it.

Re:A tad harsh

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Isn't 7 years a bit long in comparison to more serious crimes of violence and fraud? Perhaps 7 years is average for a fraud conviction, but I don't understand why rapists [in Canada at least] get about 5 year sentences, mercy killers [Robert Latimer] 10 years, and serial killers [Karla Holmolka] gets 9 years. Where is the equity?

I doubt this'll make much difference, but I'll throw it out there: The article says he was charged with two counts. Would I be correct in assuming that if it had been one count, his sentence would be shorter?

Re:A tad harsh

[Cal Paterson]

Thank goodness we'll never have such a system. Why would I ever become a software developer if there was no money in it?

Software can still be profitable even when it is not directly sold for a profit. In fact, it's probably just as profitable.

We have big companies just like they do: Red Hat, IBM and large parts of Novell. Except our software is Free, for anyone to use. IBM conduct business in the Free/Open Software areas which measures investments and profits in the billion-dollar range. To pretend that it is not profitable is entirely moronic.

Your way would hold technological development back, possibly halt it.

Jesus, that's weird. It doesn't correlate with real life at all. The Free Software community has been writing software for around 20 years, doing exactly this, and we currently have a complete operating system, which in the vast majority of cases compares extremely favourably to the software-as-a-product sector. We have big companies just like they do: Red Hat, IBM and large parts of Novell. Except our software is Free, for anyone to use. IBM conduct business in the Free/Open Software areas which measures investments and profits in the billion-dollar range. To pretend that it is not extremely profitable is entirely moronic.

Re:A tad harsh

[saskboy]

Copying software is different from copying software and selling it to someone as the real thing which is what I believe he was guilt of? That's fraud, which is different from downloading Word for your home computer.

Re:A tad harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

How many million dollars do you have to pirate before 7 years starts getting reasonable? Why isn't that number 20 millions? It doesn't look like the actual economic harm entered your argument anywhere.

Re:A tad harsh

[zippthorne]

The interesting thing about the salaries though, is that they're paid during the period in which the software isn't being sold. Where is that money coming from? Obviously, it's borrowed against the future potential return to be gained from sale of the completed product.

So, salary is a tradeoff between taking the risk that the software won't sell and living comfotably but not extravagantly right now.

Obviously, there is some level of salary that makes up for having no royalties at all.

Re:A tad harsh

[cryfreedomlove]

I agree with you tbat the Free Software community has made great contributions to society and I agree that companies like IBM have found a road to profit in that system.

But, here is my question for you: would you, given the chance, create a legal system in the USA where the Free Software model was the only one allowed? In other words, directly charging for software distribution and licensing that does not allow copying would be illegal.

Re:A tad harsh

[fm6]

It just encourages sociopaths to enter previously innocuous rackets.

And why is that bad? Would you rather have sociopaths committing armed robbery or selling bogus software?

Anyway, I'm a little tired of the way sociopaths tend to dominate every discussion of criminal penalties. Most criminals aren't sociopaths, and trying to design your criminal justice system around sociopaths is stupid. That system is supposed to deter and rehabilitate, and those are things you can't do with outright sociopaths.

Re:A tad harsh

[Cal Paterson]

But, here is my question for you: would you, given the chance, create a legal system in the USA where the Free Software model was the only one allowed? In other words, directly charging for software distribution and licensing that does not allow copying would be illegal.

No, I wouldn't. While I don't agree with the closed-source method, and think it's an immoral action, I wouldn't stop companies from making software and attempting to charge money in return for it. Free Software must compete with this kind of software development; outlawing it in the way they have tried to outlaw us with patents and the like would be an abuse of power.

However: I would not enshine intellectual property in law; if companies wish to restrict distribution of their software, they should do it from within their own powers.

I would most certainly allow DRM, for example. While I think it's a terrible thing, and I'll always work to destroy it, I don't think that the law is a tool to remove those I disagree with - I just think it shouldn't give unnatural advantages to the closed-software sector (via DMCA, Copyright Law etc) as it currently does.

Re:A tad harsh

[saskboy]

In Canada people don't get consecutive sentences, they are concurrent. In the States, I think consecutive penalties [which often make more sense for serious crimes] are the norm. So yes that may be why the years are so many in this criminal's case.

Re:A tad harsh

[Somnus]

And why is that bad? Would you rather have sociopaths committing armed robbery or selling bogus software?

a) They won't give up their established entreprises when they branch out to piracy.

b) I'd rather that software pirates not use violent means to get payment for their merchandise or guard their turf, like drug dealers do now.

Anyway, I'm a little tired of the way sociopaths tend to dominate every discussion of criminal penalties. Most criminals aren't sociopaths, and trying to design your criminal justice system around sociopaths is stupid. That system is supposed to deter and rehabilitate, and those are things you can't do with outright sociopaths.

You're right -- most criminals are not. However, 30% of all violent criminals meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy, and nearly all violent criminals who were not convicted for crimes of passion meet the diagnostic criteria for sociopathy/antisocial personality disorder.

(A good article on these topics.)

By pushing the penalties for non-violent crimes to a level appropriate to violent crime, incidental criminals will be priced out of the labor market by hardened criminals who don't mind doing 7 years. Violence will increase.

Re:A tad harsh

[fiendy]

On the one hand, you have someone who was convicted of several thousand counts of software piracy.

A little light on the reading eh? You didn't even have to RTFA article for this one:

"U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III on Friday ordered Peterson to pay restitution of more than $5.4 million. Peterson pleaded guilty in December in Alexandria, Va., to two counts of copyright infringement for illegally copying and selling more than $20 million in software.

Re:A tad harsh

[westlake]

Isn't 7 years a bit long in comparison to more serious crimes of violence and fraud? Perhaps 7 years is average for a fraud conviction, but I don't understand why rapists [in Canada at least] get about 5 year sentences, mercy killers [Robert Latimer] 10 years, and serial killers [Karla Holmolka] gets 9 years. Where is the equity?

In the American system crimes of violence are almost always prosecuted at the state and local level. Prisons are crowded, courts are stressed, and there is pressure to cut a deal. When the Feds do claim jurisdiction the gloves come off.

Re:A tad harsh

[westlake]

While I hate thieves more than most, it is quite maddening and ironic that we put software pirates away for longer than we do child rapists. The courts tend to favor the rights and property of corporations over that of human lives. It's deplorable.

Rape is almost never prosecuted in the federal courts.

Economic crimes that impact interstate commerce are prosecuted frequently in the federal courts. The Feds have never taken economic crimes lightly.

However, the chances are excellent that when on the rare - very rare - occassions when a rapist enters the federak system he is going to do some very hard time.

You want equity? Talk to your state assemblyman, senator or governor.

Re:A tad harsh

[WetCat]

Do something about it! Call your representative?! Put the question on the sentences in other (non-slashdot) forums?!
Lawmakers should know the people opinion...

Re:A tad harsh

[shark72]

"While I hate thieves more than most, it is quite maddening and ironic that we put software pirates away for longer than we do child rapists."

Can somebody please provide an example of somebody who was convicted of raping a child and who received less than seven years? I'm sure there are examples out there, but my guess is that they are quite rare. By comparison, the seven year sentence for software piracy was the largest such ever. So, seven year sentences for software piracy are also exceedingly rare.

"I'm sure that this man had sold this software at prices far below what any legitimate retailer could afford."

Correct. Here is a list of his prices.

"If anything, the pirated software he did sell made for great PR to those software companies. The people who would've not otherwise purchased the software at regular or semi-discounted prices are probably pleased with their purchase, and will now be far more likely to buy the new improved releases of that product later on."

This is the broken window fallacy. It's also used quite often by fans of P2P and Russian music download sites, although they usually add "plus, I might buy a t-shirt or go to a concert because that's where the real money is."

Re:A tad harsh

[shutdown -p now]

I think people who cheat others out of their legitimate software purchases ought to get jail time when it's obvious they or others will do it if no harsh penalty is on the table.

What if pirates do not hide the fact that software they sell is not legitimate? At least those I've dealt with so far never tried to conceal it.

Re:A tad harsh

[Rix]

No, that isn't an example of the broken window fallacy, as the total economic production after an act of piracy is not lower than it was before. ie, there's no missing window.

Re:A tad harsh

[mapkinase]

The fact that Homolka got only 9 years in prison is a Canadian problem (and a general European as well). I have no idea how do these laws make the Canadian society more humane with the crazy killer walking the streets.

Re:A tad harsh

[I'm Don Giovanni]

What if pirates do not hide the fact that software they sell is not legitimate? At least those I've dealt with so far never tried to conceal it.

"Those you've dealt with so far?" Sounds like you're a frequent purchaser of pirated software. You're probably a regular customer, and word gets around to the pirates in your area, so there's no need to hide from you the fact that the software they sell isn't legit. But to some J6P off the street, they probably sell pirated XP as "legit" (and then J6P wonders why he's getting WGA notifications).

Re:A tad harsh

[shutdown -p now]

"Those you've dealt with so far?" Sounds like you're a frequent purchaser of pirated software. You're probably a regular customer, and word gets around to the pirates in your area, so there's no need to hide from you the fact that the software they sell isn't legit. But to some J6P off the street, they probably sell pirated XP as "legit" (and then J6P wonders why he's getting WGA notifications).

Truth is simpler than that. I live in Russia, and something like 99% of all software purchased for home use here is pirated. Nor do those selling here hide that fact.

Re:A tad harsh

[Ironsides]

Ok then, let me rephrase. Several thousand acts of software piracy. One act for each sale.

Re:A tad harsh

[tinkerghost]

Actually, any rape that involves crossing state lines is federal. In theory, that includes if you go from NYC to NJ to commit a rape, you bump from NJ to Fed jurisdiction. That rarely happens because then they have to prove you crossed state lines with the intent of commiting rape. Much easier to just let the NJ court have you.

Re:A tad harsh

[themonkman]

"Can somebody please provide an example of somebody who was convicted of raping a child and who received less than seven years? I'm sure there are examples out there, but my guess is that they are quite rare. By comparison, the seven year sentence for software piracy was the largest such ever. So, seven year sentences for software piracy are also exceedingly rare.

Of course. Ready to be rudely awaken? Granted, these are sentences handed down from state courts, not federal.

Judge - No prison time for child rapist

Sex Offender ruled too short for Prison

Man rapes child for 10 years. Gets no prison time

Child Rapist gets 60 days in prison

And I could go on and on and on. You want to see how many years the proclaimed "Worst Child Rapists" gets? Twenty years. Not life. Twenty. fucking. years. Worst Ever Rapist gets 20 Years I do write to the senators of my state when things like this happen. I would implore those of you who live in states from these above articles to also write your representatives. I'm sure I'll be modded off-topic, but this is worth arguing over.

Re:A tad harsh

[nasch]

the people he sold it to would probably have been unlikely to purchase the software at all had it not been at such a deep discount.

That's an awfully big assumption. I don't think it's a good idea to give someone just a slap on the wrist for commercial piracy on a huge scale because "maybe they wouldn't have bought it anyway." If I see a piece of software (or anything) listed for $X in one place and $X/10 in another, I suspect something fishy is going on. But some people think "hey what a great deal, I was going to spend 100 bucks on this but now I can get it for 10!"

Re:A tad harsh

[shark72]

Thanks! I hope my theory is correct that those absurdly short sentences are rare.

To add another data point, the fellow who raped my ex-wife got something north of 50 years in prison. A disinterested third party might say that 50 years for one rape is too much. However, me and the ex-wife disagree.

Re:A tad harsh

[poot_rootbeer]

it is quite maddening and ironic that we put software pirates away for longer than we do child rapists.

I know you chose "child rapists" for your comparison to provoke a specific emotional response, but let's think about what happens to those people when they're caught.

Convicted felons might not have much honor, but the unwritten prison code deals pretty harsh justice onto people who hurt children. A molestor is much more likely to be killed my another inmate than a software pirate. And even one does survive prison, he has a lifetime of mandatory registrations, surveillance, and harassment from neighbors to look forward to.

No, I don't feel like we're coddling child abusers in the current system.

Re:A tad harsh

[themonkman]

I would agree that he shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist. What he did was entirely illegal and unethical. There is no doubt about that. What I am saying is that there needs to be a reassessment in the country in making the time fit the crime. There are deplorable discrepencies in the amount of prison people get for white collar crimes vs. violent crimes or crimes against children. The chasm is beyond offensive, which I think you would agree with.

Re:A tad harsh

[nasch]

I'm not sure I do agree, because I don't think it's practical or maybe even ethical to have the time fit the crime. IMO hurting a child is so much worse than embezzling millions of dollars that if the latter carries 1-5 years sentence the former would have to be something like being eaten alive by snails. I think if white collar crimes and child abuse were to have proportional punishments, either the former would be so lenient as to be meaningless, or the latter so severe as to be inhumane. I think disproportionate punishments are preferable to either of those alternatives.

Re:A tad harsh

[Copid]

Question: How many acts of software piracy equals one sexual assault, morally speaking?

Re:A tad harsh

[themonkman]

"Thanks! I hope my theory is correct that those absurdly short sentences are rare."

Unfortunately, it's not that rare. It's insane also that people who rape children get less time than those who rape adults. There is just something particularly evil and worthy of more than when it's against a child.

Re:A tad harsh

[Ironsides]

Question: How many acts of software piracy equals one sexual assault, morally speaking?

Morally? No idea, but both are still wrong. Legally? I'd have to check.

This man is my hero.

[Anonymous Coward]

He should be elected to parliament, not imprisoned.

Seven years?

[Selanit]

Well, that should give him PLENTY of time. Heck, I could do it in a few minutes!

Re:Seven years?

[Kamineko]

On dialup? No way!

Re:Seven years?

[BiggyP]

Why's there never a {+1 Groan} moderation entry when you need it?

And the lesson is...

[DDLKermit007]

*drumbroll* sell pirated software to defraud BOTH the customer and the company that made it and land in pound me in the ass prison. Piracy is one thing, but making a buck off of it is something else entirely. At least with a personal pirater theres a chance they'll buy the next version (say they need support). People doing what this guy does deserve every day they get (and white-collar criminals have a much harder time behind bars). Now if only we could get the same kind of treatment with equally criminal C*Os that just skip the piracy part and just steal cash.

The guy miaswell have put a sign up that said "come arrest me PLEASE!!!" Just because you can doesn't mean you should kids.

Re:And the lesson is...

[OrangeTide]

What's stopping him from just continuing his "business" while he's in prison?

Re:And the lesson is...

[JoGlo]

"Piracy is one thing, but making a buck off of it is something else entirely" - is entirely an attitude that is just plain wrong, IMHO. I'm not personally picking on DDLKermit007, but this is a common attitude amongst people - that it is OK to pirate a copy of something for "personal use", but selling it on is somehow a no-no. Sure, I suppose we've all used "evaluation copies" at one time or another, and this, unless the evaluation copy is posted out there by the owners, is also piracy. Stupid law, but piracy (or theft, to give it its proper(ish) title). And then, when we've found that the software does what we want it to do, we go out and buy it, don't we? Well, yes and no. If it's fully working on the PC, and there are no knobbled features, and no nag ware in it, well then, what's the harm in just letting it go, and keeping on using it? It's piracy - that's what the problem is. And all because the company that owns the software doesn't make a demo version, so we "have" to get the key or the crack so that we can use the "real" version. Look fellas, even Microsoft appears to have (finally) understood that the old "try before you buy" is a good idea, and are hustling Windows Vista, Office 2007, and Good Ol' FS's latest incarnation as either feature or time limited demos. And once Vista, for instance, goes live, who can use the defence "I only cracked it so that I could try it out". Perhaps the time is coming when you'll be able to give just about any software a try before you buy, and the sooner that is a reality, the sooner the penalty that bites the real pirates will become a reality.

Re:And the lesson is...

[JoGlo]

Well if those "white collar crims are very popular with a certain class of crim" statements are correct........ Oh, you mean THAT business!

Re:And the lesson is...

[DDLKermit007]

I don't remeber defending personal piracy. I do however aknoledge that personal v. comercial piracy are completely different things with ramafications attached to them. I do however agree with you completely. I even have a server full of MS Betaware sans the Windows Server licence. Unfortionately at least with me these companies are all too often giving piracy a legitmate angle to fly in on. Activation, SecuROM, custom downloads, etc. All this distrust of the customer makes the customer not want to trust the company.

Re:And the lesson is...

[Anonymous Coward]

*drumbroll* sell pirated software to defraud BOTH the customer and the company that made it and land in pound me in the ass prison.

*drumbroll* [sic] If you think it's moral, or even humorous, to condone the extra-judicial punishment of homosexual rape (in either men's OR women's prisons), you have absolutely no moral standing to participate in any discussion of the penal system. THAT's the lesson.

With any luck, maybe you'll be given instruction in it some day so you can reconsider your superior attiude. After you quit squealing about your own violated rectum.

The Solution: Mandate Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution to this scurrilous criminality is not to be found in ever harsher penalties. So he copied a few programs. And sold them. But it helps move money in the economy, and he worked his way out of the gutter with a high sense of business acumen. It's like any prohibition: criminalize the behavior and you get even more social dislocation as a result. Then, we're all victims.

The solution is to mandate the use of Free Software everywhere. If M# and $ony want to sell their warez, then they should be forced to release their source under the GPL. This way, everyone wins! We get software and the guy who copies and tries to sell it on ebay doesn't get butt rammed in prison....

GPL everything!!!

Re:The Solution: Mandate Free Software

[postmortem]

selling "few" programs for mere $20 Mil?

What do you think how much effort it would take to make $20Mil from GPL software?

GPL is hardly a serious answer.

Re:The Solution: Mandate Free Software

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think how much effort it would take to make $20Mil from GPL software?

Heeeeeey, that's the free market - ba-by!

7 years?

[OrangeTide]

It's not like he was out gunning people down, conning windows out of their money or touching children. I don't like the idea of someone out there ripping businesses off. But when there is no discernable victim I'm not sure the punishment fits the crime in this case.

Re:7 years?

[ZachPruckowski]

Victims:
1) Software companies not making the money for the copies used
2) The guys who thought they were buying the real thing, only to eventually find out they don't have Adobe/MS support, because they bought a copied version

Re:7 years?

[OrangeTide]

1. not discernable. that was the key word there.
2. fair enough. I guess I didn't realize that people were buying software from the guy without realizing that they were getting a pirated copy. (15% of the price didn't tip them off?)

Re:7 years?

[ZachPruckowski]

1. not discernable. that was the key word there.

The piracy argument of "wouldn't otherwise buy" is a lot less effective here, simply because people are buying the stuff, albeit at reduced prices. I think that argument has merit in economic harms discussions in regards to people playing with photoshop as amateurs, but most of the people paying for pirated copies would probably use it somewhere.

Insofar as people getting duped, why would you buy software you thought was pirated when 99% of it is free on the net? I mean, most people either didn't know how much Photoshop is supposed to cost, or thought it was a massive sale or something, I'd bet. If you know it's pirated, it's barely harder to get it free.

Re:7 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've hit on a salient point there, if the buyers actually knew how to download pirated software and where to find it they would. These idiots knew it was stolen they just didn't know any better way to get it.

Re:7 years?

[OrangeTide]

Redirecting potentional customers away from a company, depriving them from profits. Even if you do it in an illegitmate way (as this person has done), is not the same as stealing.

Mostly I feel uncomfortable handing out harsh punishment to non-violent criminals. If you gave a compulsive shoplifter 7 years in prison, I would feel the same way. Although I might be more sympathetic to the shoplifter, they might have a legitimate illness.

Also, I would like to point out that I never mentioned the whole "wouldn't otherwise buy" arguement. So it seems in your attempt to understand me you have tried to place words into my mouth.

I'm not sure why anyone would buy software from this guy. Maybe it was more convenient than trying to find the warez-scene and downloading it. Although P2P has been the great equalizer, since when downloaders also contribute to the network the underground has to be less exclusive.

I'm a software developer, I really don't like people pirating software. Although thankfully I tend to work in an industry where the software is tied tightly to the hardware, so it's almost never pirated. New programmers are always asking me for compilers, ebooks, etc. I tell them if they are serious they should pony up and pay their way through it. online guides aren't terribly valuable for C or C++ programming, so I wouldn't recommend those as the only resource.

Re:7 years?

[ZachPruckowski]

1) I never said it was equal to stealing, I just said these are more of potential customers than your average guy bittorrenting a copy of CS2. I didn't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, just convey that.
2) And for the record, I still think that this guy getting less jail time than some rapists is frakked up.

Re:7 years?

[JoGlo]

There is a very noticable difference in penalties for crime against people versus crime against property, and it appears that to our lawmakers, enforcers and judiciary, there is more emphasis nowadays in favour of punishing people who commit crimes against property. Having said that, there is also a very flexible set of values that are placed on human lives. If you shoot some poor individual known to no-one, I can just about guarantee that the enforcers will put less effort into catching you, and the judiciary will put you behind bars for fewer years than if you manage to get to some really highly placed person, with good media coverage, and do the same thing (especially if the person involved has political connections, and is part of the currently ruling political faction in your country). Steal a couple of million dollars (while not in control of a multi-national corporation) and the chances are, you're going away for a significant stretch.

Re:7 years?

[Chrondeath]

It's not like he was [...] conning windows out of their money

I thought he was conning Windows out of their money....

Re:7 years?

[OrangeTide]

damn you Windows(tm) for being so popular that I can no longer type widows reliably.

Worse yet...

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

... his website ibackups.net has been defaced.

(serves him right)

Re:Worse yet...

[AaronLawrence]

Yes, and lets not forget these kinds of crap sites are also responsible for a lot of spam, so the FBI has done us all a small favour here.

Why Not a Billon Dollar Fine and Life?

[ac7xc]

I don't believe that putting a person in prison for seven years and make them pay an unrealistic fee is good public policy. I think that anyone convicted of a non-violent crime should receive no more then one year in prison and the fines should not exceed 10% of their expected lifetime income. Now we have to pay $250,000 to house this guy and he will never pay the fines against him becuase they are impossible to pay. I remmeber in the 90's a man accidently started a fire and the USFS gave him a bill of $100 million dollars. He filed for bankruptcy and moved out of the country.

Re:Why Not a Billon Dollar Fine and Life?

[BobSutan]

I agree with your overall idea pretty much. Hell, if I had mod points right now I'd mod you up myself.

People do need to be punished, but the punishment should also fit the crime. And when it comes to intellectual property, rarely is there even a victem. Lost sales is NOT victimization because you cannot guarantee those numbers would have been concrete sales. What he did do was violate the copyright codes and there should be defined punishements for that. However, like most things in the US court system there are many layers of subjectiveness that empowers judges to give out punishments as they see fit. This is one of the true travesties of our justice system IMO. There shouldn't be such diverse punishments for similar crimes. If a person has something in their background that would mitigate punishment, then instead of giving a lighter sentence, how about simply charging them with a varient of the crime that carries the lesser sentence. It may seem like semantics, but when looking at punishements en mass you'll see that its not.

In any event this guy should go to jail, if even for a short while. However, I don't think its fair to equivocate him to a rapist or murderer, which by the punishment he's about to get would have been about the same!

Re:Why Not a Billon Dollar Fine and Life?

[Overzeetop]

I agree about the prison term. 1 year (heck, 4-6 months) for any first offender is probably enough. Prisons are bad places. Period.

I disagree about the lifetime income limitations. Hit white collar where it hurts - in the pocket. I don't think there should be a limitation on fines, I think fines should be exempt from bankruptcy in all cases, and I think fines should be as large as the crime, plus treble damages. I don't think you should take more than all of the individuals assets (but should include retirement account forfeiture) and, say, 75% of income or all but 2x minimum wage, whichever results in a larger burden.

I'd rather see them suffer for years and years in effective poverty as punishment for their crime, than pay for them to rot in jail, only to be absolved of the any remaining debt when their assets are liquidated at their death as a final payment.

Espically since

[Sycraft-fu]

Selling illegally copied software is fraud. Unless you are being explicitly clear that people are buying an illegal copy (in which case they aren't likely to buy) you are defrauding them. They believe that they are getting a great deal on legit software. Ok, you can argue they should be smarter than that but hey, fire sales happen sometimes (for example I got a free copy of Visual Studio 2005 for going to a launch event). Regardless, the crime is on the seller's end. They are the ones pushing their merchandise as legit.

So while I firmly believe that copying software illegal for personal use is a minor civil infraction, like speeding, and should be punished accordingly (a small fine that's enough to make you not want to do it but proportional to the harm) I believe that commercial copyright infringement is much more serious.

Re:Espically since

[Richard W.M. Jones]

So while I firmly believe that copying software illegal for personal use is a minor civil infraction, like speeding, and should be punished accordingly (a small fine that's enough to make you not want to do it but proportional to the harm) I believe that commercial copyright infringement is much more serious.

Where to start? Speeding endangers not just yourself but other road users and pedestrians. The amount of energy in your car increases with the square of speed making stopping harder and your car more deadly when it hits someone. Rules about speeding are one of the ways to prevent injury and death (rules against careless or dangerous driving, and driving under the influence being others). In the UK speeding is very much not a minor crime. People can be and are routinely banned from driving and imprisoned for speeding.

The "war on copying" is something like the modern "war on drugs". Computers are all about copying - it's their most basic operation. Networks have brought the price of copying down to almost nothing. The question becomes, in a world where distribution costs nothing, how to make sure people keep creating stuff? Should that be through the old industries who controlled distribution very tightly? Well, probably not. In the arts, it turned out that those industries were both very bad at producing works of art, and they didn't compensate the artists very well either. In software it seems that for whatever reason people will write the software for free and live by selling support.

Now I'm no more going to defend this guy who was caught selling millions of $$$s of software illegally. He's rather like a crack dealer. I may think that coca-derived products should be legalised (ie. regulated), but I won't defend someone who makes his living in the current unregulated environment selling crack to anyone.

Rich.

Re:Espically since

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling illegally copied software is fraud. Unless you are being explicitly clear that people are buying an illegal copy (in which case they aren't likely to buy) you are defrauding them. They believe that they are getting a great deal on legit software.

His site was called "ibackups.com". You'd have to be really stupid to believe those were legit originals.

But the stupidity of some people always manages to surprise me.

Not piracy,illegally selling copies of software

[Anonymous Coward]

"piracy" is that marketing thing they put on dvds, to convince you that copying/downloading information is
similar to assaulting people on boats.

"You wouldn't steal a car"
"You wouldd't steal a DVD"
"You wouldn't re-sell stollen slave children abroad"

"Downloading is stealing"

-MPAA

Re:Not piracy,illegally selling copies of software

[Zixia]

'Piracy' is the term used to describe illegally copying software for as long as I can remember, including back to the early days of the C=64, over 20 years ago. It's not a new term, nor is it specific to DVDs.

The term may have been adapted from imagery over pirates of the seas, but I would venture that it is the software pirates who adopted the imagery and term themselves, not the authorities who wanted to make the crime seem more sinister.

'Piracy' is just another bit of jargon used in the world of computer software, nothing more. To say that it's 'not piracy' but simply 'illegally selling copies of software' is like saying 'it's not water, it's H20'.

Re:Not piracy,illegally selling copies of software

[malkavian]

And like I keep telling the Advertising Standards Authority in complaints letters.
It's not stealing, it's "Copyright Infringement". Saying otherwise is false advertising.

Re:Not piracy,illegally selling copies of software

[MrSquishy]

"You wouldn't steal a car"
"You wouldn't steal a DVD"
"You wouldn't re-sell stollen slave children abroad"

HA! Shows what they know.
(Kidding, I only steal the 1's and 0's off the DVDs)

So?-Wishy Washy Citizens.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read "Everybody Does It: Crime by the public by Thomas Gabor". ISBN:0-8020-6828-6

I can see it now: GPLNarc

[patio11]

>>
It's like any prohibition: criminalize the behavior and you get even more social dislocation as a result. Then, we're all victims.

The solution is to mandate the use of Free Software everywhere.
>>

Well thats a pretty stunning juxtaposition. If the existence of laws creates crime, won't criminalizing closed-source software make criminals out of closed-source software developers, causing even more social dislocation among them and their customers? I can see it now: "Pst, buddy, you need a productivity suite? I got a holo-certified copy of Office 2007 right here. This "#$& is real, holmes -- usable UI, attractive ribbon interface, backwards compatible with all your documents, contains actual documentation, and a comes complete with a toll-free number for tech support. I just gotta ask you -- you ain't a GPLnarc or nothing, right?"

"Open up, this is the police!"

"Aww #$%", its the GPLaw. Quick man, hide that "#$" under a Knoppix CD and pretend we were discussing something innocuous, like crack."

Re:I can see it now: GPLNarc

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well thats a pretty stunning juxtaposition."

Yes, but it makes perfect sense. I mean, get the government out of copyright enforcement - they can't do anything right!

Re:I can see it now: GPLNarc

[Anonymous Coward]

usable UI, attractive ribbon interface, backwards compatible with all your documents, contains actual documentation, and a comes complete with a toll-free number for tech support

On the plus side, in your scenario the quality of closed-source software seems to have gone up.

Better slang for GPLaw

[patio11]

If you're going to write cyberpunk about cops inforcing the GPL you'd have to call them pengs instead of pigs.

"Awk, man, its the pengs! We're so fcuk'ed."

DRM

[TLouden]

Still, it seems like we should lock down all consumer products because it's not like the real profit killers are organized and highly motivated people who can get around it anyways.

Re: Especially since

[wwwillem]

... clear that people are buying an illegal copy (in which case they aren't likely to buy) ...

Duh ?!?!?

If the price is right, people will buy anything. Why do you think pawn shops are doing good business?

Now he's set for life.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they KNOW he made 20 mil, why only order him to pay back 5? Sure, 7 years in prison is a big hefty sentence, and I'm sure it's going to be the worst experience of his life... but once he gets out, he'll be a millionaire without a worry in the world. Some days, that doesn't even sound like a bad idea to me. You'll never earn that much money in seven years at work.

Re:Now he's set for life.

[NRO826]

Clearly you havent read the comments above which raise the very valid point that he did not make 20 million dollars. the software he sold at a discount was estimated to retail at 20 million dollars.

Re:Serves him right.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Serves him right. (Score:-1, Informative)"

Dude, you got a -1 Informative on Slashdot. Put that on your resume!

Hog Wash

[Frosty Piss]

While I hate thieves more than most, it is quite maddening and ironic that we put software pirates away for longer than we do child rapists.

You know very well that's not really true. Convicted pedophiles are marked for life, having to register where they live and sometimes not able to live certain places at all. Sex crimes generally prevent people from obtaining decent employment as well. People convicted of sex crimes are punished until the day they die, not just while they are in prison. Many would say these punishments are well deserved, but that's for a different debate.

This guy sold millions of dollars worth of counterfeit software, he's nothing but a thief. But in a few years when he gets out (do you really think he'll do the full 7?), he'll be able to move on in most respects.

Re:Hog Wash

[saskboy]

I'd argue that theivery is something you can train people not to resort to if they have a decent skill, but pedophillia is something a person lives with until they die or have brain surgery at the very least.

Re:Hog Wash

[ZorbaTHut]

There is a difference between wanting something and doing it. I would hazard a guess that almost every male on the planet, and a significant fraction of the females too, has been intruiged by the idea of rape or fantasized about it. This doesn't mean 70% of humanity are rapists, because the vast, vast majority of us will never do it.

I will bet that for every pedophile who carries through on his or her desires, there are a thousand or more who share the same desires and would happily jail for life anyone who actually goes through with it.

Re:Hog Wash

[RsG]

True, but (at least in a just society), we don't punish thought, we only punish action. While there are some people on the planet who want to make thinking certain thoughts illegal, thankfully the law isn't on their side yet.

Ergo, somebody who has actually commited rape is considered monsterous, whereas someone who's merely thought about it is not. And moreover, the rapist has proven through action that they are willing to commit such a crime - in other words, they have identified themselves as dangerous.

While I think that the way many sex offender registries are handled is hair brained (there is no way on Earth that public nudity and child mollestation should be in the same list), the basic idea is sound. By violating the rights of others, the convicted person has in turn had some of their own rights stripped, such as to make it difficult for them to reoffend. There should be no penalty beyond this, though unfortunately there usually is in the form of social stigma.

Re:Hog Wash

[imthesponge]

Uh-huh. You know this how, Mr. PhD?

Re:Hog Wash

[Anonymous Coward]

we don't punish thought

Yet.

Re:Hog Wash

[themonkman]

Time and time again I see child rapists get no more than 3 years. Sometimes first time offenders get suspended sentences with probation. Every state of course has their own sentencing rules for such acts, but you would be extremely surprised. Child rapists deserve all the negative stigma they deserve. They destroy lives, cause children to commit suicide, lead lives addled with drug addiction and sometimes as adults even facilitate the very abuse they received onto others. One count of child rape should equal one count of at least Murder 3. Even murderers these days are getting out of prison in less than 15 years. Besides, do you think that anyone is going to want to hire a man convicted of a multimillion dollar felony charge? No. He will likely carry that for the rest of his life.

As you can see, I don't sympathize with child predators as you may. You reap what you sow. Again, that is for a different debate that I am more than willing to publically have with you elsewhere.

Re: Especially since

[Ingolfke]

Why do you think pawn shops are doing good business?

I was thinking prime locations, friendly staff and clean stores with outstanding merchandise... no?

Cause of piracy, anyone?

[madbawa]

Has anyone wondered why people indulge in piracy? Or anything illegal, for that matter?
I think that would happen only when a person needs something and that need is not fulfilled. People have different reasons for indulging in criminal acts. Money, glory, recognition are some reasons that I can think of.
The problem with today's world is that things are just too expensive. My grandfather talks of the time he has seen (just about 50 years ago) when things were actually available at 1/100 th the price they are today (in Indian Rupees)! He says that people were truly happy then. Because all their needs were taken care of. Two factors have ruined that: Economy and Population.
Our so-called 'leaders' today care only about their seat of power. Everything has become too damn expensive. People just aren't happy with what they get as salary. Its pittance. Everyone has dreams to fulfill. That propels them to earn more money. Business is the next option. But no one wants to leave a secure salaried job and dive into the uncertainity of business. So, they take the easy way out. Part-time business. Piracy is just one of these easy ways.
Today, I can get whatever 'commercial' software I want for less than a dollar (alghough personally, I use Linux and open source and free software or whatever you want to call it). Once things become cheap and affordable for all strata of society, people won't NEED to indulge in piracy and think of other ingenious ways of making money. The basic problem lies not in piracy itself, but in our inflation-ridden economies and the strain that increased population puts on our resources.
I know that the time my grandfather speaks of will never return, but I shudder to think what my children will have to go through to earn a respectable living.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[Living Ghost]

There IS something called inflation, supply, and demand...

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[TapeCutter]

"I know that the time my grandfather speaks of will never return"

Mainly because it never existed in the first place. Older people (like me) tend to talk of the "good ol' days" because the human mind represses bad memories and enhances good ones. For example, a pack of smokes in the 70's cost $0.50, but by the same token in 1976 I was taking home $60/week.

I do agree with the population thing but how do you stop people breeding without resorting to a totalitarian state?

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[madbawa]

"a pack of smokes in the 70's cost $0.50, but by the same token in 1976 I was taking home $60/week."

Well, the point is that the difference between what you 'could' afford and how much you 'could' spend was significant. I haven't known of anyone having to take a loan to get their children married in the "good ol' days". But today, getting children married requires taking a loan. Of course, I agree that this varies from person to person, place to place. What I am saying here may not necessarily apply to what you may have experienced. I completely honor this fact.

"because the human mind represses bad memories and enhances good ones."

Yes, I agree with you. But then there are pessimists and negativists (like me) :) who keep finding fault with the world as it exists today and keep trying to improve the quality of life around us.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[fishbowl]

>But today, getting children married requires taking a loan.

What? I think in most states the license fee is on the order of $50.

A minister will usually charge something between $100 and $200.

If you desire more, you are so entitled, but you should try to remain within your means.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[madbawa]

Well, where I come from, we invite the whole village for a feast that lasts 4 days. There is great rejoicing and festivity. Meals are prepared at home for the 400-odd people who turn up. And even today, I don't intend getting married in some musty government office with a clerk and a witness. We have a proper ceremony with 4 priests presiding over the rituals. I am not Catholic, in case you still haven't guessed. I'm Zoroastrian :) One of the very few remaining of our community.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[LordLucless]

I haven't known of anyone having to take a loan to get their children married in the "good ol' days". But today, getting children married requires taking a loan.

I think you're confusing "getting married" with "putting on a wedding". Unless your daughter is butt-ugly and you're forking out big dollars to buy her a hubby or something.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[TapeCutter]

No offense but there are people in all cultures who make a big thing of thier wedding. If you want a big wedding then go for it but don't fall into the trap of thinking it is something you need.

My own wedding was at a private home, it cost $200 in 1980, $40 went to the celebrant who felt sorry for us and gave $20 back. We were definitely young and impulsive but we spent 20 (mainly good) years together and I have two grown children that more than make up for the not so good years.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[fishbowl]

"Well, where I come from, we invite the whole village for a feast that lasts 4 days. There is great rejoicing and festivity. Meals are prepared at home for the 400-odd people who turn up."

Wonderful; it sounds like fun.

Does it *require* taking a loan?

Do you universally frame it in terms of "getting your children married?"

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, a pack of smokes in the 70's cost $0.50, but by the same token in 1976 I was taking home $60/week.

Young punk. In the 40s, a pack of Camels cost a quarter out of a machine, conveniently located on the street outside the store so underage kids wouldn't be inconvenienced. The pack contained two shiny pennies change under the cellophane wrapper.

Re:Cause of piracy, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, where I come from, we invite the whole village for a feast that lasts 4 days. There is great rejoicing and festivity. Meals are prepared at home for the 400-odd people who turn up."

Do you butcher the water buffalo on the living room floor of your hut?

Sweet deal

[future assassin]

Profit?
So he pays 5.4 mil, gets out after a couple of years and legaly has 15 mil left over? Good deal. Sign me up.

Re:Sweet deal

[crashelite]

humm 7 years and 15 million$ damn thats a nice paycheck... not to mention he doesnt have to pay rent or anything lucky bastard! he even gets cable TV and a free lunch... all for doing illegal things!!!! if u didnt already check that 2.14 milion a year that he is in prision... (given he has 15 mill after court, and then also given he serves his whole sentance and doesnt get off for good behavior what he most likely will) depending if he has most of that in the bank still thats one awesome ammount of intrest he is gaining off that...given that he hasnt spent it all ...

Re:Sweet deal

[Almahtar]

Well, TFA says he sold $20 Mill worth of software. It doesn't mean he sold it for $20 mill. From what I've seen, pirates usually sell software for about 10% of what it's worth. If that's the case here he got $2 mill before hosting expenses, etc... and fined $5.4 mill + jail time. Now fudge the numbers all you want but I really doubt he's going to come out of this thrilled with his financial situation.

Re:Sweet deal

[A beautiful mind]

for about 10% of what it's worth.

Nah. Pirates sell software for EXACTLY what it's worth. Companies are those who sell them for more than it's worth.

Re:Sweet deal

[Lissajous]

Nah. Pirates sell software for EXACTLY what it's worth. Companies are those who sell them for more than it's worth.

Not really. Pirates sell software for as much as they think they can get away with. People won't spend more than about 10% of shelf-price because buy and large they require a hefty discount to salve their consciences over (pretty much always) knowingly breaking the (albeit relatively minor) law.

Companies are those that sell it for a price that will cover the costs of producing the software. Writing software is an expensive business - it takes lots of people lots of time to do. People take up space in offices, use electricity powering the computers that need to be bought for them to write the software on. Salaries need paying, taxes need paying on those salaries (the employee isn't the only one to pay income tax - in the UK at least, the employer also pays tax on your salary as well as you) and so on.
The company also needs to promote the product so the end consumer actually hears about it. After that, the company then needs to invest in research & development of future products and heck, maybe even turn a profit. They also have to indirectly cover the earnings lost through people buying their product through pirate channels - those that would've bought it if they had no other alternative for getting (yes these people do exist!).

The large-scale software pirate has none of these expenses. All they need is a broadband connection, a china-hosted spam server and a disc duplicator.

Scum.

But 7 years? That's OTT.

Re:Sweet deal

[A beautiful mind]

Companies are those that sell it for a price that will cover the costs of producing the software.

You're kidding, right? So software companies sell the first copy for 2 million dollars and every one after for the price of the plastic it's printed on?

Btw, I'm against copyright, so I'm advocating charging for creation, not for distribution.

Companies way overshoot the price, because it is outragous to pay for the right to use the distributed content, instead the actual production costs of the given content. Yeah, companies wouldn't be able to nail outrageous profits either, they'd just revert back to standard profits a painter has to be content with, rather than royalties every time someone looks at the walls he painted.

Oh btw, my model would get rid of copyright infringment entirely (when there is nothing to infringe ;)).

Re:Sweet deal

[Lissajous]

You're kidding, right? So software companies sell the first copy for 2 million dollars and every one after for the price of the plastic it's printed on?

That would be a stupid stupid way of doing it, wouldn't it? No-one in their right mind would even contemplate doing business that way.
No I'm not kidding. And no they won't sell the first copy for 2 mill, and every one after that for the plastic cost. That would be dumb. They work out roughly how many copies are going to be sold, how much it's cost to produce the software, divide one by the other and hey presto! Then factor in some profit, and out comes the price per copy.

Btw, I'm against copyright, so I'm advocating charging for creation, not for distribution.

Ah of course, how sensible. So they should sell the first company for 2 million dollars, and every one after for the price of the plastic it's printed on? (see above).

Companies way overshoot the price, because it is outragous to pay for the right to use the distributed content, instead the actual production costs of the given content.

Two things.
One: it's not outrageous to pay for the right to use the distributed content rather than the actual production costs of the given content. Have you ever played a game, watched TV, gone to the movies? How much do you think it costs to produce the content you're watching? You get insane value for money when everyone chips in. That's how these things work.
Two: not piece of software developed makes a profit...taking games for instance, on average it's between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10, depending who you ask. These profit makers need to recoup the losses of the others. It happens that these blockbusters *do* make an insane amount of profit on them, but thank heavens they do, cos they pay for the others that fall by the wayside.

Yeah, companies wouldn't be able to nail outrageous profits either, they'd just revert back to standard profits a painter has to be content with, rather than royalties every time someone looks at the walls he painted.

Ah - you're a painter rather than a content creator. If you're in Copenhagen, my spare room needs redecorating. I'll burn you a copy of Kubuntu in exchange, yeah?

White collar crime should be punished.

[Freaky Spook]

Just because the crime is not violent doesn't mean it should have a more leinient sentance.

I know there is a huge difference between murder and copyright/fraud etc, but White collar crime should be treated as seriously as others. A 7 year sentance should discourage anyone of trying the same thing, if this guy got 12 months with 6 on good behaviour whats to stop the next guy doing the same thing and hiding his profits in an offshore account with the intent to serve a minimum sentance.

Cases like this are not commen and the courts should slap a harsh punishment to keep discouraging this sort of behavior.

Most people will have no sympathy for this guy, he got greedy. Even self-admitted pirates on P2P networks would say this guy deserves everything he got.

What about the people who bought the stuff?

[Hamoohead]

Ok, so this turd gets fined for selling warez on a web site. Now, tell me. What kind of idiot would pay for something you can get from pirate bay or eMule for free? luser: "Damn I hate spam! Maybe if I buy something they'll stop."

7 years?-Tough Touch

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not like he was out gunning people down, conning windows out of their money or touching children. I don't like the idea of someone out there ripping businesses off. But when there is no discernable victim I'm not sure the punishment fits the crime in this case."

To any artists lurking on this forum. Read the above very carefully. Now ask yourself this. Do you still want to produce content for members of an audiance that apparently can see the value in physical goods, F/OSS goods (and apparently can locate the victums easily in cases of wrongdoing), but not in what you produce (and heaven help you if you complicate things by asking for money in exchange)?

BTW They want the transgressor to get off easy. Guess "she was just asking for it, looking so tempting. He just couldn't help himself". Lesson: Make what you create as undesirable as possible (fat) and you'll be safe from...THEM!

Wait...

[SirKron]

$20 million
-$5.4 million
-----------------
$14.6 million over 7 years That is like a job that pays a little over $1000/hr! Wow...

He did deserve it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong link, moron.

Re:He did deserve it!

[MustardMan]

Goat Sech just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:He did deserve it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor does Goat Cx.

iBackups.net

[ubiquitin]

The FBI and the Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section of the United States Department of Justice have essentially "tagged" the web site of a piracy guy. That's the first time I've seen them do that and I hope it is an effective way to keep raise awareness of the consequences of disregarding the law. see: www.ibackups.net

The individual responsible for the operation of the iBackups website has pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and faces up to 10 years in prison, a $500,000 fine, and restitution of over $5 million.
They're basically tap dancing on this guy's grave. Sweet!

Re:iBackups.net

[The Cydonian]

Yes, but they still could have used a better background than red. :-D

alt link to story

[Anonymous Coward]

SIIA reported this back on friday here: http://www.siia.net/press/releases/iBackups_senten cing.pdf (warning PDF)

Re:Serves him right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspicious as usual. Why is that "big" criminals always have a name sufix?

The crucial piece of information is missing...

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did he sell the software for?

There is no indication that the supposed $20M "worth" of software would have fetched that much in the market. In fact, it is entirely possible that his gains and their losses are closer to the thousands than the millions. The $5.4M restitution is absolutely meaningless without this information.

The article reads more like a piece of propaganda against software piracy. It seems more likely that they are simply making an example of someone, rather than appropriately punishing the crime. While it is a serious crime, if the restitution is any more than the software was sold for, I'd say that this is just another corporate abuse of our justice system. After all, it is only the purchasers that lost real money; in the end, they still don't have licensed software. The loss to the software companies is exactly nothing--if the restitution is made to them, then something is seriously wrong.

Even in the worst case, 7 years in prison is simply not appropriate. How can it be, when much more serious crimes like rape will get you less time? Or, perhaps it is merely that in our country, money is more important than peoples lives. At least when that money (real or not) is "stolen" from a corporation.

Re:The crucial piece of information is missing...

[Living Ghost]

Through Google, it said he was selling Photoshop for about $150, so let's round PS's cost to about $600, he was probably selling them for 25% then, so you *could* say he made 5million, which would explain the restitution, but then he still has the $500,000 fine to pay...

Proof You Can Do Anything With Statistics

[cyberbian]

Software piracy resulted in a loss of $34 billion worldwide in 2005, a $1.6 billion increase over 2004, according to a study commissioned by the Business Software Alliance.

The BSA has been making up numbers of this type since its founding. Please note, that their acronym has many other fun derivations. These Bull Shit Artists are claiming that there has been a 34 BILLION dollar loss, and worse, it's a 1.6 Billion dollar increase over last year! While they have yet to PROVE unequivocably that there is this type of loss, they're getting plenty of press on the reason you're getting DRM shoved down your throat. Perhaps those 'perceived losses' are from the software vendors who are having trouble making their bottom line. Perhaps those losses are coming from a tanking of the PC industry because they keep rehashing the same processor and stamping it with a different name. 'Ooooh, I know, let's up the voltage on the clock and see if people buy last years fab!'

There is absolutely no proof of these losses. They are estimates based on what they think people should be buying. Being an industry lobby (well paid by the vendors) OF COURSE they think people should be buying more software.

Here's the rub, people can't afford to buy them... They're still reeling from when computers used to be 2-3 THOUSAND dollars each (or more), and still needed to be upgraded every five years (or less)... Let's face it, the PC business has raped the populace for 25 years now, we're starting to get a little sore down there...

Good. Should have 20 years probation too.

[notaprguy]

In my experience, people who steal once tend to do it again...even if they get caught. It becomes a wierd habit. Look at George Bush. He stole the first election and, even thought he got caught, he proceeded to steal another. Software thiefs are much the same.

Re: Especially since

[Bodrius]

I'd take a guess that if the price was right for pirated copies, he wouldn't be making US$ 20 million dollars selling them.
Or maybe it's like the 'change bank', it's all about volume?

Re: Especially since

[UncleRage]

Actually, having worked in a pawn shop in my younger years, I feel forced to chime in here.

Most states have extremely strict laws regarding the pawn trade; and most pawn shops today are extremely careful concerning their business practices.

Pawn shops in Florida (as an example) are highly regulated and are required to work with both state and local authorities. Forms (including make, model and serial numbers) of merchandise are filled out in triplicate and provided to the local police. When make, model and serial are not applicable (as in the case of jewelry), exact measurements (in both carat and composition) of stones and and metals are recorded as is a precise description of said piece. All of the above are matched against local and state stolen item reports on a weekly to monthly basis. (I use Florida as my example, as that is the state in which I worked; I gladly tie that in with others, as the National Pawnbrokers Association allowed me the opportunity to meet and speak with pawnbrokers from all over the country -- 99% of which followed the same practices).

Often, in the case of theft, the Pawn Shop owner is the one that actually loses out in the case of stolen merchandise; as the property is then pulled into state custody as evidence and eventually returned to its owner.

The pawn trade itself is, by and large, nothing more than a lending mechanism for the lower (to lower-middle class) establishment. Afterall, please tell me a single bank that's going to loan Bob Whoever a c-note to cover his insurance payment while waiting for a drywall job to pay up. Granted, it charges a higher interest rate, but even that is regulated in most states.

I might suggest you take a look at the business models of both Cash America and Value Pawn as an example of how the industry has changed. Personally, I think the indy shop has more in the way of value for the lendee, but I mention them only to counter the "dark and stinky" shop notion that seems to surround the pawn industry.

So, if you want to cite a comparison between immoral activities (such as the active sale of pirated software and something else), why not point the finger at professional lobyists, criminal defense lawyers and/or telemarketing firms?

What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[twitter]

I see lots of people saying things like, "He deserves it and death!" but no one bothering to report exactly what ibackups.net actually did. According to this, the guy was selling "backup coppies" of software that people claimed they already owned. The business model, presumably, was made to fill the very real service gap in commercial software for people who manage to lose their original distribution media. As far as M$ and many other companies, people like that are out of luck and have to buy the software all over again. This happens much more often than you would think. Unlike MP3.com, it was not possible to check if the customer had a copy by asking them to insert it though he could have asked for product activation keys. In any case, this guy was not simply pressing CDs and selling them, he depended on the honesty of his customers.

It's no surprise that this guy got slapped down after the demise of MP3.com's similar backup scheme.

I don't really understand the vindictiveness of the responses. Once again, using free software avoids all of this monkey business. Why give money to people who throw people in jail for trying to help you? It's not like the guy actually hurt anything but the bottom line of some of the country's most wealthy companies. Seeing as those companies are still doing just fine selling software to complete suckers, I don't see where this person hurt anyone. Financial ruin should be punishment enough. I don't want my government wasting law enforcement resources on nonsense like this.

Re:What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[MC68000]

"It's not like the guy actually hurt anything but the bottom line of some of the country's most wealthy companies"

Umm, WOW. So I can shoplift from WALMART because it's a big company?
"Seeing as those companies are still doing just fine selling software to complete suckers, I don't see where this person hurt anyone"

Yeah, I know I'm a sucker for thinking proprietary software is ever worth anything. The GIMP is so much better than Photoshop, right? Can you really claim with a straight face that Audacity is better than SoundForge?

Re:What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

• As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
• Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
• A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
• Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
• Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
• Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
• Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
• Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
• Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
• There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy

Re:What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[shark72]

"The business model, presumably, was made to fill the very real service gap in commercial software for people who manage to lose their original distribution media."

"Unlike MP3.com, it was not possible to check if the customer had a copy by asking them to insert it though he could have asked for product activation keys. In any case, this guy was not simply pressing CDs and selling them, he depended on the honesty of his customers."

When head shops tell you that their stuff is for smoking tobacco, they are lying. When hydroponics stores tell you that their gear is for growing, say, tomatoes indoors, they are lying. When cable box outfits tell you that they sell their stuff simply so you can avoid "monthly rental fees for cable boxes" or that they are for "testing purposes only," they are lying. And, when vendors of pirated software tell you that they are selling it as "backups," they, too, are lying.

Re:What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[WWWWolf]

Recently, they also shut down one vendor who sold "backup copies". Only that the mention of that was in the small print of the user agreement, and the site just advertised selling really cheap software.

I don't think selling "backups" is any defense at all. Legitimate software vendors usually sell replacement media for legitimate customers for reasonable prices (I seem to remember reading someone getting in touch with Microsoft and receiving new Windows CDs for a couple of pennies by just verifying they did purchase the thing). Heck, to some corps it's same as if the media doesn't matter at all, they let just them to download the whole application and type in their serial number to run and install it. (My favourite is Neverwinter Nights, the Linux version says the retail package comes with "aluminium-reinforced Windoze brand coasters" and lets you download the entire darn game and data - just untar, run, and type in your CD key...)

Besides, the copyright laws usually allow you to make backup copies for your own use. Not any other way.

Re:What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[abbamouse]

This was my first thought. Then I checked out the Wayback Machine's links to the site. The "this is sold as a backup only" bit is nowhere to be found on the main page of the site -- it only pops up as section 9 of the lengthy terms and conditions page. He was quite clearly defrauding the customers. Note also that a quick Google search showed plenty of complaints from people who received software but no serial number (since it was theoretically just a backup -- but they didn't know this!)

In other words, this guy was as sleazy as a used-car salesman who sells stolen cars.

Re:What Ibackups.net did, kind of like MP3.com

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Give us a little credit. We're not stupid and neither was the FBI. It's clear that this "selling backups of stuff you already own" was a cover for what was really happenning here.

Besides, why would anyone buy a "backup" from a third party? Sounds like an easy way to get malware on your sytem. Who knows what malware might have been added to the "backup" (as a special bonus!)?

As a side note, this is one advantage to buying software online (or registering software you buy in stores). I bought some commercial software online. Later, my harddrive crashed, so I lost the software (I do backup data, but not programs). In order to recover the software, I simply went to the commercial software sites, entered my email address into a "Did you lose your software?" or "Did you forget your registration key?", etc, field, and presto! - they emailed me a new key and allowed me to redownload the software. Much better than going to some shady "backup" salesman, as it's legit, cheaper (redownload for free rather than paying a criminal for "backups"), and safer (the software is the real deal, rather than the potentially malware-infected backup that the criminal "backups" vendor might provide).

Re: Especially since

[nolife]

Odd because I've never found a good deal in a pawn shop. The ones in my area have car stereo and electronics equipment for sale more then I can get it new and is there really a demand for Duck Hunt/Mario Bros for the NES for $20? Used CDs on occasion but they are typically in random order and you have to flip through the hundreds of copies of Diana Smith and her church choirs greatest hits to find them. I wonder who actually buys stuff from them?

Re: Especially since

[Opportunist]

Dude, you're so 80s... Today, only the price has to be right.

Punishment is no deterrent

[Opportunist]

If it was, there would be no more killings in states with capital punishment. Hell, I for one certainly don't want to die!

Whether a crime is committed depends only on two factors: How much is to gain and how likely is it to be caught. The only thing punishment means is that people will go out of their way to avoid it, probably committing worser crimes to circumvent it.

Re:Punishment is no deterrent

[nasch]

Whether a crime is committed depends only on two factors: How much is to gain and how likely is it to be caught.

Factor number 2 would not be a factor if there were no punishment after getting caught. The question is how much the degree of punishment increases the deterrent factor, and I've heard not much.

Re:Punishment is no deterrent

[Opportunist]

That's actually very subjective. A person who's spent about half his life in prison will laugh at 6 months, while it's more than plenty for your typical middle-class family father. To err on the "big" side of punishment could be a very wrong signal, though, because if there's nothing to lose anymore, the criminal will do whatever he can to decrease the chance of being caught. If you, for example, put the same punishment for abduction and murder, you'll never find hijacked people alive again.

Re:Punishment is no deterrent

[nasch]

That's all right on. However, what I was getting at is that if someone is contemplating a crime, whether the punishment for getting caught is six months or six years doesn't make nearly as much difference in their decision as their estimate of how likely it is they'll get caught. If they think they can get away with it they don't care if there's a severe penalty. This is just what I've read and I can't back it up with anything at all.

Re:Punishment is no deterrent

[Opportunist]

Your back up is very simple: Take murder. Cold blooded murder, best would be for money. Killing a person completely unrelated to you for a few greenbucks in a state where the penalty for murder is being killed yourself. Does it happen? Yes it does. People kill people over and for money, knowing well that, if they get caught, they are dead.

The only thing it leads to is fugitives who have nothing to lose. The police catches up to you? Get a hostage, grab a car and start to fight your way out! Yes, your chances are zero, but hell, if they get you you are DEAD ANYWAY, so why not at least try a one in a billion chance? Giving up? No bloody chance!

Incentive for...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the artist. If he really loves music, enough to call himself an "artist" and desire to be addressed and thought of that way, he would realise he would be "paid" with other's music that they produce. That is the nature of sharing. All currency is not reflected in digitized bits produced by closed source central bankers who are allowed by law to just print the money up and then charge you labor for the privelege of using "their money". The artist can take other sorts of digitized bits as payment, ie, more music that he *didn't* produce. That could be his payment for *copies* of past performance.

Until you can fix this basic economic inequality with the ultimate pirates and crooks, the bankers, most other economic arguments are DOA as they have no basis except through governmental coercion, threat of violence and a conman's confidence scheme. There is no rational reason to think the world needs to support artists merely based on producing art copies. The original,in the flesh, yes, copies, not much to no way. They may wish it so, and many do, but as you can see there are a lot of problems with it as it is run now, because we have this thing called technology, which in the past century, and especially in the past generation, has made it possible for artisitic musical works to be reproduced for incredibly cheap, so cheap as to be as close to free as possible.

This is good news! Why aren't humans dancing in the streets over this, lead by the musicians?

  Now, we don't have food replicators - yet, nor instant just add water cars, etc, but when we DO have such things, should we still as humans insist that the older methods of "being paid" continue in perpetuity forever and over for those producers, or should we accept the fact that we have hit yet another technical human major paradigm shift and just go on?

I propose we embrace the paradigm shifts brought about by better technology and move forward. And everyone will have a chance to have their "job" become technically redundant as regards "making copies", and then that job can be relegated back to being a hobby or other sort of muse. If they continue to want to accrue central bankers digitially created out of thin air credits, they may go back to what musical artists always did, perform in front of live crowds,and charge for the performance, but leave the cheap copies of past work to be shared equitably with others. Really, with digital bits, we have hit the future! Let's enjoy it and go on to the next level.

Re:Incentive for...

[Anonymous Coward]

He needs to be paid money so he can eat, buy instruments, and rent/buy access to studio equipment.

You are not ingenious.

Re:Incentive for...

[Qadesh]

Changing our monetary system is a different question altogether from whether an artist should be paid for their product.Whether they are paid in dollars or other "digitized bits" is irrelevant to the intellectual property question.

Re:Incentive for...

[Anonymous Coward]

quoting the retard above...
"...the artist. If he really loves music, enough to call himself an "artist" and desire to be addressed and thought of that way, he would realise he would be "paid" with other's music that they produce. That is the nature of sharing."

Again back to the Book anaology...
say I have a friend, he spends 5 years writting a book, he goes to the trouble of writting, publishing that book etc...
is it then right that I scan that book to PDF and sell his work (online ebook) for my profit?

by your logic the fact that I've chosen to release my words to the wild in this post means that everybody else should because they could read my words, and copy them if they wanted, (there is no copyright on my words/views here),

it's a sad fact that artists have to make money to survive, it's not possible to write record and perform whilst holding down the same regular 9-5 job that everyone else has, therefore artists need to have the fiscal insentive to keep releasing music.

that's why artists who don't sell have to go get themselves 9-5 grinds rather than rock and roll lifestyles.

the person above who wrote that it's not a problem to copy software/music obviously never put effort into anything creative (be that Music/word/code) in their life whilst expecting to get something back for it...

Opensource FTW, but surely even the OS zealots in here realise that most opensource foundations are in fact money making corperations.

Does it?

[argoff]

In all fairness, the wrong he did was not copying, not selling, but defrauding the people he sold to to believe they had a valid key when they didn't. In that sense, he is no more a criminal then Microsoft is every day for criminalizing people for mere act of copying.

Re: Especially since

[Lehk228]

pawn shops aren't in business to sell crappy stuff, they are in business to make interest on loans, and they defer the losses due to unpaid loans by selling the items taken as collateral.

Crimes and Punishments

[edward.virtually@pob]

I don't like those who sell pirated versions of software. They deserve to be heavily fined and driven out of business. However, in a world in which the man who started a war in the middle east based on pretenses continues to roam free and unpunished, I think condeming them to seven years of being imprisoned, subject to the whims of power tripping bureaucratic thugs and regular anal raping is a bit disproportionate. I'm sure this will be mod'd off-topic, but it really isn't.

Re:Crimes and Punishments

[MWojcik]

Sorry for nit-picking, but started? Middle East countries were in a state of permanent war (more or less open) with each other or with someone else for as long as I remember.

OT: graphical validation picked for me the word 'warring'. What a coincidence.

Re:Crimes and Punishments

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that the reason why the legal system is screwed an unenforceable to the general person.. THink Laws in Tiaawan are tough.. Just look at out software legal system. Till we all get serious about software piracy, nothing is going to happen.

SInce the average person who has pirated material might have 100 mp3s and some software.

This easily adds up to like 25million dollars worth of damages + 200 years life sentence. This is totally uninforcable against the average person, and would be thrown out of court faster than you can say "Lets get serious about pirarcy" on the grounds of being unconstitional. Other than that you need to have a very large legal system to process half a billion people and build a very large penal colony on the moon, alternatively you can discover a new continent. Or you can pick random people and use them as a scapegoat and sue the crap out of them.

The person would get of easier if he robbed a store with a gun and accidental shoot someone in the process.

Until we enforce software piracy with the same penatlties that you see with petty theft nothing is going to work. Then software companies that identify users that pirate their material will have legal avenues to use that is reasonable, hence enforceable. Such as they might get a criminal record for theft if they continue to be caught pirating.

Offtopic: population

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>how do you stop people breeding without resorting to a totalitarian state?

By giving women control over how many babies they have and opening up other work and professions to them.

Countries with near equality for women are the ones with controllable population growth.

Re:Offtopic: population

[TapeCutter]

Glad someone here can talk sense.

Man Gets 7 Years for Software Piracy

[benplaut]

In hopes that the Software Piracy market will triple in 7 years.

Think again: 1997 No Electronic Theft Act

[Anonymous Coward]

This is considerably different than the average "pirate" who downloads software for him/herself and perhaps distributes copies to friends. This guy was *selling* pirated software. That's a whole different ballgame, and it makes him a garden variety criminal in my opinion. Not really news, and certainly not relevant to me in a "Your Rights Online" sort of way.

Nice way to try and rationalize why you aren't really a criminal. The fact is, since the 1997 NET Act, the law treats a casual downloader and a guy like this pretty much the same. You can see three years in prison for 'sharing' software on a P2P network. So maybe rather than insisting that you aren't a garden variety criminal, you could pull your head out of the sand and try to get the 1997 NET Act repealed. Your insistent little rant might get you a +5 Insightful on Slashdot, but in the real world it isn't going to help you or anyone else in court.

Re:Serves him right.

[TrekCycling]

Meanwhile you have to drive drunk a few dozen times before they put you in jail, if they even do.

And it doesn't even validate

[chis101]

And you think for such a simple site, they could have easily made it pass W3C validation.

OSS Profitability

[Z34107]

We have big companies just like they do: Red Hat, IBM and large parts of Novell.

IBM is a horrible example of profitable free software. They sell hardware, license technology, and do consulting to the tune of millions. Without free software, they would still have their millions - open source's contribution to IBMs bottom line is negligible.

Novell initially profited by gaining a monopoly in the 80s. They created their own proprietary network standards (IPX/SPX) and sold the then-expensive cards that actually used these standards at cost, driving out competitors. This is called "predatory pricing" and allowed them to lock in consumers. (Does monopolistic lock-in sound familiar to anyone?) When the Internet Protocol we all know and love was adopted and the quality of Novell's competing IPX software began to degrade, declining profits forced them to make a mad dash towards interoperability. Granted, their migration to Linux is welcome - but, it's merely an attempt to salvage the closed source that used to make them millions.

Red Hat is actually a good good example of Open Source being profitible, but I think their business model is somewhat underhanded. Perhaps I'm citing out of context or the article is misleading (The latter I doubt, as it originally came from Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution), but the following lines illustrate exactly how they leverage free software into profit:

Drinking water can be had in most industrial countries simply by turning on the nearest tap, so why does Evian sell millions of dollars of French tap water into those markets? It boils down to a largely irrational fear that the water coming from your tap is not to be trusted. This is the same reason that many people prefer to purchase "Official" Red Hat Linux in a box for $50 when they could download it for free or buy unofficial CD-ROM copies of Red Hat for as little as $2.

It's nice that Red Hat is able to make a living spreading Linux; the fact that they do it by convincing people that "bottled" Linux is better than "tap" Linux is asinine. It's unfair to say that this is their only business model - they also supply support and consulting services like IBM and Novell - it's just the least virtuous.

To pretend that it is not extremely profitable is entirely moronic.

Microsoft is "extremely profitable." Red Hat is merely "profitable." Open Source is a superior software development model; as of yet, it's not a superior economic model.

But, back to the grandparent's original point: Why would I ever become a software developer if there was no money in it? You cited three examples of how there is money in Open Source - just not any for the developer. Code is written by a skilled, volunteer community - emphasis on volunteer. This is Open Source's main advantage: many eyes looking at code. If you actually paid any of these eyes, the "many" part would necessarily go away. In other words, there's little room for the professional software developer in Open Source, which I believe to be the grandparent's point.

Before I get dragged down to the level of a troll, don't misconstrue anything I say as a slander on OSS. My points are simply that

• Open Source produces superior software, not superior profits.
• Although there's money to be made with OSS, there's little of it for the developer.

Re:P2P

[mackyrae]

I recall the band AFI saying they have no problem with P2P and that it helped them get more fans since back when they were on Nitro they didn't have huge promotion budgets and had to rely on word-of-mouth. Their 5th album, The Art of Drowning, was released on P2P a few months before the real release, and it made it onto the Billboard charts the first week (something they never did before). I think it was somewhere around #160. When bands are like that--no promotion on MTV or Fuse or whatever--P2P can be good. Most people here music for free from the radio or tv before they buy a cd for a band they've never listened to. When a band can't get on the radio or on tv, how does someone get a demo of one of their songs? Download it. After a song or two, they either say "eh I don't like this" or "hey, this is good". The former results in no further downloads. The latter either results in a cd sale (or two, or three, or their whole catalog) or at the very least the sale of merch and concert tickets.

Doesn't work

[njdj]

If he was smart, half his assets should be in a Swiss bank account

Swiss banking secrecy does not apply to someone convicted of a crime (in any country), if the deed would also have been a crime under Swiss law. (And what this guy did would definitely meet that requirement.)

There is also some special agreement between Switzerland and the US which AFAIK waives banking secrecy for US citizens and US green-card holders anyway, to some degree. I don't know the details but I know that when a US citizen opens an account with a Swiss bank, he/she has to sign a bunch of forms agreeing to waive certain secrecy protections. Your government protecting you against those nasty Swiss :-)

Photoshop for $600?

[cdn-programmer]

Photoshop was free with HP and other scanners a few years back. I haven't checked recently. There is no way that the vast majority of people even paid for Photoshop.

Fact is that if people actually had to pay for products like Windows they would try to find freeware. THE ONLY REASON WINDOWS MADE ITS MARKET PENETRATION IS BECAUSE IT WAS PRE_LOADED

People like me were expected to pay for windows as a bundled product then reformat the disk and install another OS we paid for like OS/2. Microsoft owes me quite a lot of money. Of course they have no intention of paying. No worries. I have no intention of supporting Microsoft.

What these shysters fail to realise is that short term gain does little more than gain them an enemy and I for one have a very long memory.

Linux WILL replace microsoft.

It will do so through large institutions, businsess and schools. Large organisations have the resources to be able to support an alternative and over the last few years we have begun to see many reports of the cost savings involved with switching to Linux. This will expose more and more people to the benefits, and as has been happening, through this process a critical mass will form.

Most people use a computer like a phone. They would never consider swapping an operating system any more than they would consider swapping the motor on their car. It has to be done for them. Like a phone - the computer is only worth what it can do for them at the moment. Most people do not back up their work because ususally they have no real work worthy of being backed up. This is in stark contrast to the graduate students who routinely fail to back up their Thesis!!!

For people like this - there is close to ZERO vendor loyalty. The minute something better comes along they will switch. In fact, its worse... Our field is very subject to fashion trends. Often those who adopt a new fashion do so without any logical reasoning why the new custom might be better than the old. They just switch because they want to try something new for a while.

The thing is this switch will take place and it will do so likely at the speed a large herd of buffalo changes direction.

One can look at the herd while it is stampeding and think this herd has a large areal extent and hense it cannot change direction quickely. Yet it can. Suddenly the individuals decide to switch and they do. Stampedes are not lead by leaders. When they change direction it can be totally non-obvious and just as unpredictable.

Vehical buying patterns can switch suddenly as well and for the same reasons. The actual "investment" people have in a vehical is not very large. They can be driving one model one day and another the next day. In fact the automobile industry takes advantage of this through the sale of so many different models.

Taken in this light, Linux offers far more flexibility than M$ ever has. We have several choices of shells and desktops for instance, it is actually a very rich environment.

What the USA auto manufacturers discovered in the early 70's and now again in the 2005-present time frame is that there is little in the way of vendor loyalty. Once there is a perception to change something a large part fo the population will hop on the new bandwagon whatever direction it is going.

The stockmarket also shows this. The "investment" one typically has in a share is the amount of time and the commisions to sell out. Of course some folks form an emotional attachment to the stocks they own. I rather think day traders make their living off these emotions.

Most market crashes have not been predicted very well. We might have a general feeling of unease that a crash may be forming now. We can surely find some pundits who are predicting this. We can also find some who are not. Thus whatever happens - some folks will be right and we can search them out for interviews by the talking heads and ask them how they were so smart.

------------

The crit

Re:Photoshop for $600?

[nasch]

Your car analogy is (predictably) terrible. But I hope you're right about open software. I'm not convinced, though. When Windows is essentially (or perhaps actually) free to the home user with the purchase of a new computer, and computers are so cheap, the financial incentive to switch isn't there. Most people don't care (or don't even know) about open source philosophically. A plethora of choices in terms of distros, shells, etc. is actually a demerit for the average buyer - they want to just pick out the computer and be done with it.

So there would have to be something different in the future to convince people to go to the effort and trouble of switching to a new OS - clearly that something isn't present today. Windows is already good enough for almost everyone. Maybe businesses will switch in large numbers (the case for switching is much better for them) and people using Linux at work will think about using it at home too? That might do it. I can't come up with anything else at the moment, unless MS makes their DRM/registration/etc so onerous that ordinary users are severely annoyed by it.

Re:Photoshop for $600?

[Anonymous Coward]

When they change direction it can be totally non-obvious and just as unpredictable.

As info, in birds this is called alimomimetic flight. Similar for fish

As long as we're on the subject of piracy, when will MS make restitution for the billions of dollars it has extracted from users via the MS tax on preinstalled Windows? The perfectly shitty part is that it's not really a usable copy. You can't actually install it on a different box if your original one catches fire. Instead, you get a single use, OEM-fucked thing that's useless off the original box. Wanna upgrade to a new box with a clean HD, have fun.

Re: Especially since

[brassman]

"pawn shops aren't in business to sell crappy stuff, they are in business to make interest on loans, and they defer the losses due to unpaid loans by selling the items taken as collateral.

One interesting exception: In at least some (US) states, it's not legal to use a firearm as collateral for a loan; it has to be sold to the pawnshop, not merely "hocked."

Civil vs Criminal Copyright Infringement

[I'm Don Giovanni]

This is considerably different than the average "pirate" who downloads software for him/herself and perhaps distributes copies to friends. This guy was *selling* pirated software. That's a whole different ballgame, and it makes him a garden variety criminal in my opinion.

Yes, this guy is a "criminal", while the "average pirate" that downloads warez (and distributes copies to friends) is guilty of a "civil" infraction of copyright infringement. Unless this "average pirate" does this for more than $1000 worth of software (and music, movies, games) in the span of 180 days - at that point the infraction becomes "criminal" rather than "civil". So watch how much you pirate if you want to make sure that you stay out of the "criminal" category. (See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506) .

BTW, it appears that when distributing multiple copies to friends (and by "friends", I assume you mean real friends, not just anyone that happens to connect to your computer via P2P) each copy counts towards that $1000 threshold. For example, let's say a particular program costs $250. If you download a pirated copy for yourself (that's one illegal copy) then distribute it to three friends (that's three more illegal copies), then you've participated in the illegal distribution of 4 copies, for a total of $1000, which gets you into the "criminal" category (and making the program available to millions over P2P would get you into the "criminal" category with the quickness).

Re:Civil vs Criminal Copyright Infringement

[Mr. Underbridge]

Basically anyone who engages in any serious pirating will cross that $1000 barrier. The issue is how fast, which turns into a matter of who sets the value of the work. If I pirate a song, is the value $10 (for an overpriced CD single in a store) or $0.88 (what I could get it for completely legally from Walmart) or $0.02 (what I could probably get it for quasi-legally on Allofmp3). If they win that argument, you're looking at 100 songs being criminal, possibly as few as 30-40 movies. With software, 2 copies of MS Office would do the trick. So, illegally installing Office on the machines of 2 family members would be a crime, punishable by jail time.

[OT] Your user name

[AaronLawrence]

Is your username some tricksy play on Rubles and Realtime Black Lists? Just curious :)

Sounds like he did alright to me...

[Antifuse]

He sold over $20 million worth of software, but only had to pay restitution of $5.4 million? I don't get it. Is that on TOP of having to forfeit the $20 million of income as well? The article is a bit short on details. If not, then it sounds like he's gonna still be sitting pretty when he gets out of jail, at almost $15 million to the good.

Re:Sounds like he did alright to me...

[Koriani]

As stated in the article, AND many times above:

The man only made 5.4 million.

The software he sold would have sold for 20 mil + if it had sold at normal prices - but it didn't.
The 5.4 million he has to pay in restitution is the same 5.4 million he made - no less.

Re:Sounds like he did alright to me...

[Antifuse]

Umm, I didn't see it stated in the article that he made that much money. Maybe somebody mentioned it in the comments above me, but I'm not going to go digging through hundreds of comments to find information that should have been provided in the original article.

The only mentions of money in the article:

ordered Peterson to pay restitution of more than $5.4 million...illegally copying and selling more than $20 million in software.

So perhaps I misattributed how much money he made (I presumed that the article's saying that he sold $20million in software meant that he actually took in $20million), but I still don't see where in that article it says the 5.4million is what he made himself.

Re: Especially since

[Lex-Man82]

I can't understand why anyone would pawn anything. I live in England and walk past a pawn shop everyday and there is a sign advertising there 102% APR loan rate. Although I guess you only really use it for short term funds.

BuysUSA.com

[I'm Don Giovanni]

The same thing happened to http://www.buysusa.com/ last month. Except he only got 6 years, so I guess he got off. ;-)

Re: Especially since

[cHALiTO]

Hm, when they say "20 million worth of", they mean 20 million is the real price (as in, the price if you buy it original) of the software, and the profits the companies will claim to have lost because of this guy. While I agree its a crime under current law, and a whole different thing than someone downloading for personal use, etc. I seriously doubt this guy made 'millions' by selling this. In Argentina it's pretty common to find people who sell pirated software for say $10 or $5 (that's argentine pesos.. like $3 or $1,5 dollars) per CD. Also, people who buy from them are perfectly aware that those are illegal copies, but most of them simply refuse to pay dollar price for a copy in a box (Imagine having to pay half your salary to get an original copy of windows XP). Only business and wealthy individuals can pay that price and even then some small and very small business also use pirated copies.
Those guys who sell copies, at least the ones I've seen, usually make a living out of it, but they certainly don't swim in gold. They can barely pay services, taxes and keep some pocket cash at the end of the month to go see a movie or something.

disclaimer: not arguing the morality or legality of the matter, just offering a different viewpoint of how and why piracy works in other parts of the world.

Re:Serves him right.

[shibumi9000]

Meanwhile you have to drive drunk a few dozen times before they put you in jail, if they even do.
Ummm no, they pretty much toss you in jail the first time...

What He Bought....

[Aqua_boy17]

If you click on the link in TFA you get some insight on what he did with his money: "He must also continue to sell all the assets he procured with his profits, which, according to the FBI, include a Lamborghini, a Hummer, two Corvettes, two Cessna planes, a helicopter, a motor boat and an ambulance."

An ambulance? WTF? I don't know about the rest of the /. crowd, but if I had that kind of cheese I can tell you that an ambulance would be waaaaay down on the list.

Re:What He Bought....

[robertjw]

Sounds to me like he was waaaay down on the list.

Re: Especially since

[1u3hr]

I'd take a guess that if the price was right for pirated copies, he wouldn't be making US$ 20 million dollars selling them.

He didn't. See here: "Peterson pleaded guilty in December to the charges of selling illegal software valued at more than $20 million. He earned $5.4 million from the illegal sales, equal to the amount of restitution he must pay." Interesting the Cnet story omits that in favour of the "value" of the software, and ends it with the mandatory quote from the BSA: "Software piracy resulted in a loss of $34 billion worldwide in 2005, a $1.6 billion increase over 2004, according to a study commissioned by the Business Software Alliance."

Yeas, he profited, lots, but they still spun it to seem worse.

-1 Offtopic

[MightyYar]

Wow, two highly-modded George Bush comments in a story about a software pirate. So much for Slashdot's attempt at a user-moderation system. Sure, the spamming activists are assholes, but the moderators helping them out are just as complicit.

Re: Especially since

[tinkerghost]

Hm, when they say "20 million worth of", they mean 20 million is the real price (as in, the price if you buy it original) of the software, and the profits the companies will claim to have lost because of this guy. While I agree its a crime under current law, and a whole different thing than someone downloading for personal use, etc. I seriously doubt this guy made 'millions' by selling this.

According to an earlier artical, he took home between $5 - $10M. So yeah, he was selling discounted, but believable discounted not 'this is obviously stolen so don't ask stupid questions' discounts. IIRC he was selling W2K for about $60. Checking pricewatch, XP is running as low as $80 now. So $60 would have been a believable price for a company reselling unused liscenses 3 years ago.

Re: Especially since

[Lehk228]

it is for short term loans, such as getting your phone bill paid when nobody will give you an unsecured loan and you don't own property

Re: Especially since

[cHALiTO]

heh then he should go to jail for ripping off his clients more than for stealing from microsoft ;-)

Re:So? This site does the same thing

[iamhassi]

http://www.ankhsoft.com/ does the same thing, sell OEM software online and I found them on froogle so they're not some no-name never heard of company. I almost bought a copy of Windows XP Pro since the price was about half what it costs elsewhere... until I read the fine print saying that I couldn't receive services updates with the CD key they were going to send me. That's when I knew something was wrong.

iBackups.net looks almost identical to that site, with similar pricing. iBackups wanted $99 for a downloaded copy of Adobe Acrobat Professional. I'm glad the guy got 7 years in prison.

Yes, complete suckers.

[twitter]

Yeah, I know I'm a sucker for thinking proprietary software is ever worth anything. The GIMP is so much better than Photoshop, right? Can you really claim with a straight face that Audacity is better than SoundForge?

I can tell you with a straight face that only a few professionals actually need the one or two tweaks found in non free software and that even they would be better off if software patents and device makers games did not make things that way. Given the choice between a free and non free program that do the same things, the one with less restrictions is the obvious winner. Given the choice between software costing $100s of dollars and a free, restrictionless program that does everything you need or want, the choice is also obvious.

Re:Yes, complete suckers.

[jb.hl.com]

Given the choice between software costing $100s of dollars and a free, restrictionless program that does everything you need or want, the choice is also obvious.

His point was that the restrictionless program doesn't do everything he needs and wants. A point you seem to ignore.

Re:Yes, complete suckers.

[Keith Russell]

I can tell you with a straight face that only a few professionals actually need the one or two tweaks found in non free software and that even they would be better off if software patents and device makers games did not make things that way.

And you base this on what... Personal experience with both the free and non-free programs in question? Or is this just more of the mindless, reactive "Twitter smash big bad business!" hatred that you've cultivated such a well-deserved repuation for?

Re: Especially since

[nasch]

So, if you want to cite a comparison between immoral activities (such as the active sale of pirated software and something else), why not point the finger at professional lobyists, criminal defense lawyers and/or telemarketing firms?

OK, you got my interest. I'll concede there's a good chance a significant number of lobbyists have little respect for ethics. Defense lawyers, though? What would you rather we do, not give the accused representation? Should the lawyers not do everything they can to help their clients within the bounds of the law? How would you feel about defense lawyers if you were indicted for a crime? Assuming they abide by no-call lists, what's immoral about telemarketing? I know perfectly well they could be described as annoying, rude, distasteful, disrespectful... but immoral?

You must be new here

[Sigg3.net]

You must be new here. We're basing our discussion on stereotypes and stuff we've learned from movies.
Just keep your head down, pay attention and you'll get the hang of it, kid. Welcome!

Re:Serves him right.

[Ruvim]

Nope, they make you The President of The United States!

archive.org that's a good idea.

[twitter]

Then I checked out the Wayback Machine's links to the site. The "this is sold as a backup only" bit is nowhere to be found on the main page of the site -- it only pops up as section 9 of the lengthy terms and conditions page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207063857/www.ib ackups.net/index.php?main=company&sub=about

Yeah, that's what it looks like. The only caveat is the rate at which his site was defaced recently. It's hard to tell if part of the battle against him was hacking his site.

Like I said, all non free software has the same stink to me. The snake oil vendors he defrauded set themselves up for it by making backups very difficult. The difference between him making money off other people's non free software and what Bill Gates does with other people's software is marginal. Both have stolen other people's works and both have broken laws to make a buck and neither has any respect for the end user. Nathan was a little more blatant about it and will pay a heavy price. You would think that some of the M$ officers, who have taken far more from everyone else, might have had a similar penalty at the anti-trust trials.

Re:archive.org that's a good idea.

[jb.hl.com]

The snake oil vendors he defrauded set themselves up for it by making backups very difficult.

You mean like copying a CD using a common CD burner program (for the sake of argument, let's say K3B)? Not hard, is it twitter?

The difference between him making money off other people's non free software and what Bill Gates does with other people's software is marginal.

"Other people's software" being sold by Bill Gates? I'd ask for a citation, but you'd only say something like PC-DOS, which happened in the EARLY 1980s. Anything more recent?

Both have stolen other people's works and both have broken laws to make a buck and neither has any respect for the end user. Nathan was a little more blatant about it and will pay a heavy price. You would think that some of the M$ officers, who have taken far more from everyone else, might have had a similar penalty at the anti-trust trials.

Microsoft was being sued as a corporation. Because of limited liability, one of the main features of a corporation, "M$ officers" could not have been individually punished; the most that could have happened would be Microsoft having its charter revoked and ceasing to exist. This Nathan guy was operating as a sole trader, and therefore has unlimited liability, meaning he can be personally punished. This is standard business law (and I'll bet you'll blame said law on Microsoft.)

Re:archive.org that's a good idea.

[twitter]

"Other people's software" being sold by Bill Gates? I'd ask for a citation

It's a well known fact that M$ does not enter a "market" until it's ready to make money for them and that they almost always enter it by acquiring other people's software. At least that's what they tell their investors. The acquisition is always done under threat of destruction or by actually putting the company out of business. It's not a question of what "market" they have entered this way, but what market they have not entered and what's actually left on their platform. Browsers? Office Suits? Yes, that's old but the Anti-virus virus take over is on and ugly right now.

Re:archive.org that's a good idea.

[jb.hl.com]

It's a well known fact that M$ does not enter a "market" until it's ready to make money for them

Nor does any other business.

they almost always enter it by acquiring other people's software.

1) There's not actually anything wrong with this, so long as they paid the relevant license fees and what-have-you.
2) Windows was homegrown (save a few things like disk compression and TCP/IP), as was Word, which was made for Xenix (Yes, MS Unix.)

Browsers? Office Suits? Yes, that's old but the Anti-virus virus take over is on and ugly right now.

Microsoft Office is, to most people, the right tool for the job. It's integrated, and SharePoint etc have no match. As for anti-virus, aren't you the one always complaining about Windows having lots of viruses?

Re:Serves him right.

[TrekCycling]

Where do you live? I always hear about people getting pulled over for their 5th DUI. They may get a night in the hole, but it takes a lot to lose your license, much less your freedom, even though you're actually endangering other poeple.

profit

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Sell $20 million in software illegally
2) Go to jail
3) ???
4) Profit!

7 years is not excessive at all

[walterbyrd]

This guy wasn't just downloading music to listen to himself. He was actively defrauding thousands of people.

Shop-lifting is a similar crime, so add it up: 1st offense, 2nd offense, 3rd offense, keep going to about 10,000 counts.

Re:Serves him right.

[ishepherd]

Uh... the first time *on which they catch you*.

(Duh...)

Here comes another stalker

[Anonymous Coward]

And just when twitter thinks he's fought off iced_773 jb.hl.com returns. Poor twitter just can't win.

Re:Serves him right.

[zero_offset]

In Florida, at least, jail time (beyond the overnight stay) is a possibility beginning with the second DUI. In cases involving massive property damage or injury, the first DUI can land you in jail. My brother was facing five years for his second DUI -- and he was under the influence of legally proscribed medication, which makes the whole thing suck that much more. (He's a good guy, but he ain't that bright, unfortunately.)

On the other hand, I know a guy who has 15 DUI's and has only spent six months in jail. He lost his license after the 5th DUI, so I have no idea how he keeps winding up behind the wheel. Another person I know who has known him longer said he still owned a car around the time of his 10th DUI. But that would have been about 20 years ago, and I guess the MADD types are ratcheting up the DUI thing in their ongoing back-door prohibition campaign. But I digress...

Re: Especially since

[wwwillem]

I stand corrected!!! I was the one bringing up pawnshops into this discussion. My whole argument got sidetracked (which is OK, this is /.), because I was only trying to oppose the argument that "if the price is so low that you can suspect illegal activity, people WON'T buy it". Where I expressed that I didn't believe that people are not buying things because they suspect/think/can know the item is stolen.

Maybe unfortunately I used pawn-shops as an example. It was just based on the "common thinking" that a lot of stolen goods are going around there. And (maybe in the past) there is some truth in that, otherwise there wouldn't be so much process around it, that you describe so clearly.

So, I was wrong regarding pawnshops, but that was not my main point, I was more talking about people willing to buy stolen goods. But I'm still happy I brought this up, because you gave us a really insightful story on how pawnshops are managed nowadays. Thx.

I would give you mod-points!! I even have mod-points today ... but unfortunately I'm not allowed to because I'm also a contributor in this thread.