Slashdot Mirror
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. "
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?
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.
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.