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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

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

[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.

Worse yet...

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

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

(serves him right)

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.

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:Serves him right.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

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

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?

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

[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?

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.

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:Serves him right.

[TrekCycling]

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