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.

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!