Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Site Admin Sent To Prison
Marc wrote in with a Torrentfreak story which opens: "The 23 year old Grant Stanley has been sentenced to five months in prison, followed by five months of home detention, and a $3000 fine for his role in the private BitTorrent tracker Elitetorrents.
This ruling is the first BitTorrent related conviction in the US. Stanley pleaded guilty earlier this year to 'conspiracy to commit copyright infringement' and 'criminal copyright infringement.' He is one of the three defendants in the Elitetorrents operation better known as 'Operation D-Elite.'"
Rape
Murder
Theft
Or..
Drug posession
Helping people download music
One of the only good things about the bloated EU legal system is that nonsense and crock like this would be lucky even to make it to court. More and more I am convinced that the judiciary is being bought out by the newest form of governmental lobbies - and this is coming from a sternly traditional republican.
My only hope is that the liberal money in this country eventually wakes up from pointless pandering for touchy-feely issues like the environment and gets down to the vagarities and rediculous loopholes in the system itself - changing a policy without changing the idea behind it is worthless.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
As extortionate and ridiculous as the MPAA/RIAA are, at the beginning, middle and end of the day the crime is mass-distributing stolen goods, and that's all there is to it.
Five months in jail is, to my mind, fitting to the crime.
What? You think that because the crime was committed on computers, he should spend five months without a computer? Be serious.
IMHO, he simply shouldn't have let himself be caught. It's the only reason why *I* haven't started up my own torrent site yet, that I don't have faith in my own abilities to elude the law forever =P
When will we Get a LEGAL system that isnt Bought and Paid for by Greedy Corporations.. It took a NUMBER of Years for Enron Folks to be tried and imprisoned and they stole Billions and Destroyed peoples lives.. I guess the Law and rules only work in favor of the Rich and powerful :(
What a Crock of Manure.
The problem is, most people are content to live like this. Without questioning their rights (hell most people I've come across don't even know what their rights are). We live in an apathetic society, where people are happy just waking up every morning being alive and going to work without being shot at. And it only gets worse every day.
- Aetheral Research -
In order to imprison someone for violating the temporarily granted monopoly, the government should have to prove that he discouraged "the progress of science and useful arts". For that, they would have to prove that the people who obtained his pirated material would otherwise have paid for it. That is the problem with the arguments of strict copyright proponents: They fail to recognize that the absence of piracy does not imply equivalently higher sales. Some of us are simply not willing to pay $20 for one decent song on a CD.
The fine might be appropriate, but prison time is completely unjustified.
Trademarked by the "entertainment industry"
1. Make the (US) government happy by paying politicians for
legalizing monopoly over culture practically forever
2. Kill creativity and competition by killing the public domain
3. Nourish crap tastes, sell crap at monopoly prices
4. Profit
5. Goto 1
Hell, I never even agreed to be any citizen of any country. Show me a signature where I did. So therefore, how do any laws apply to him, or me? As far as I'm concerned, if you have no say so in the making of a law, then you have no obligation whatsoever to have to abide by it.
If it's that big of an issue for you, then go buy a private island or something and move there. You're not being forced to live here, you know.
You can make similar sarcastic comments about the prosecution of Martha Stewart and others convicted of insider trading. After all, what Martha did (had she gotten away with it) only affected people who had substantial investments in ImClone. Furthermore, those investors were going to suffer major losses no matter what - all she did was get out a little early, possibly skimming a minuscule fraction of each of their stakes.
In other words, there are crimes on the books that do not involve physically hurting someone else, or manually swiping their wallet or automobile.
For anyone that makes it this far, theft is legally defined as "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it." Until recently, copyright infringment was a civil matter. That means that you couldn't be brought to court by the state, and you couldn't serve jail time. You could be made to pay reparations to the party or parties whose copyrights you infringe, though.
So seriously, five months in prison is a gross miscarraige of justice. It's definitely five months, an arrest, and a criminal case too much.
So... what exactly are these "goods" and how were they "stolen"? Did it take a big truck to carry them around? How much is it going to cost the origional owners to replace them?
Oh wait... no theft occured at all. There were no "goods" and nobody lost anything tangible at all. Why is someone going to jail for this?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Jail? For adminning an indexing site?
When are they going to lock up the Google admins?!?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Sorry, hold up there. He mass-distributed /infringing intellectual property/. Labeling it as or drawing analogies comparing it to theft damages my language, and I don't intend to allow that.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
In other words, there are crimes on the books that do not involve physically hurting someone else, or manually swiping their wallet or automobile. Agreed. One of those laws dictates that you will not travel faster that the posted speed limit. Should we start sending people to prison when they violate that law?
... had an opportunity to vote on your state's murder statute either. Or, more to the point, that guy creeping up behind you never voted on it. Never even asked to be a member of this country, either. Show *him* the signature. Of course, in my experience anarchists always seem to learn the value of police and courts when it is their own lives and/or property in danger.
:) Its the least worst of all systems anybody has managed to come up with. Anarchists say "Ahh, but its still a bad system, we'd be better off with no system", which just means you end up with a dictatorial government by whoever owns the guns when the current government goes under. Given that I'm 120 lbs and have never fired a gun outside of Duck Hunt I rather hope we don't go Hobbesian tomorrow.
The US version of representational democracy / republic isn't a total crock of ****
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Considering the amount of fines copyright infringement can garner, five months in jail is probably better than being saddled with a debt level so high it would take several lifetimes to pay itoff. If I was faced some multi-million dollar fine (it could easily add up to this sort of money) or 5 months in jail, I'd stock up on paperbacks and head for the slammer.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
That's right -- it makes excessive punishment more acceptable.
You're much better off using the Freenet network itself to share and download files. Download Freenet here - make sure you get the 0.5 version, not the 0.7 version. Freenet 0.5 is anonymous and offers plausible deniability. 0.7 does not have these benefits yet; you must connect specifically to a set group of people (mostly Freenet developers) and anyone you connect to in 0.7 is able to tell what you insert/retrieve. This will be resolved in the future, right now the top priority in 0.7 is to build a reliable network.
Despite what you may have heard, there is very much an active community on Freenet 0.5. Once you get Freenet running you'll definitely want Frost (see the link above), it's a messaging system that runs on Freenet. There are boards for just about every category you'd find at a torrent site.
Have fun..and contribute..!
So, drawing conclusions from your logic, NO white collar/non-violent criminals should be imprisoned?
Who's the one not thinking again?
Why send someone who hasnt harmed anyone to jail?
Wouldnt getting him to do community work be a better way of dealing with him? And a better use of your tax dollars?
I hope that Australia doesnt end up following America down this path.
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
As somebody who loves innovation and change, and sometimes dream of the pie in the sky, I normally hate this saying with a passion, but I must say it. C'est la vie. There is nothing else I can say. You have to either live with the current system, work and change the current system from within, or relocate to a place where the laws and values matches yours. There are no alternatives. Although I have libertarian-leaning views and I remain a staunch individualist, I also recognize that we don't live in a vacuum; it is very inconvienent (and almost impossible these days) to live on an island or another secluded area by yourself, with no help from anybody. Nobody to grow your food, nobody to make your clothes, nobody to build your housing, nothing. Nobody to talk to, nobody to be with, just lonely. There is a cost to living in a society. We all have some implicit social contract to obey both the explicit rules of society (governmental laws) as well as the implicit rules (moral codes). Sometimes those rules are bad rules that are flawed, foolish, or downright stupid. But you must either live with them, change them, or leave.
Is a private island with your own rules, your own laws, and your own government (assuming that you have one) worth the seclusion, the loneliness, and lack of help and resources from the outside world? If living with my loved ones and friends meant not being able to legally download movies and music on BitTorrent, then I'll choose my loved ones and friends. My free movies and music can stay on Utopia Island.
It's not he didn't know what he were doing was determined to be unlawful and punishable as a federal crime.
It's not? It sure is the first time that I have heard someone being prosecuted for providing the technological means to somone else to violate copyright law. For that's all a Bittorrent-tracker is. It is NOT an act of copying or distributing anything, merely a way for clients to get in contact with each other in order to copy something.
As far as I can tell, this verdict means we will haul librarians to jail if they put a photocopier into the library: providing others with the means to violate copyright.
Where exactly is the line here? Which section of the USC was actually violated here?
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
Anyhow, I think we need a big celebrity to get arrested on what used to be a civil crime of copyright infringment, to bring the issue to light.
Meanwhile, if you are not rich, good looking, and popular, don't steal stuff or infringe on copyrights and you will be OK. It's all crap anyhow, right?
That said, if you have an ordinary lawyer, you are probably more likely to get off "scott free", in front of a jury, in a case involving shooting someone who deserves it over a case of some high-falutin' copyright thingamahoochi.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Being on Earth with idiots like you is punishment enough for any crime.
The GPL violator steals from the poor and sells to the rich.
Do you really see no difference?
Where exactly is the line here? Which section of the USC was actually violated here?
Because he was knowningly and willfully helping others to comit illegal acts.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Calling copyrighted information intellectual property isn't any better. It's still Orwellian doublespeak.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I pity you. Truly. To have so little regard for human rights and decency that you think putting this guy in a place where he will probably be raped reapeatedly, beaten and stand a greatly increased chance of developing a chemical dependency degrades us all, including you.
All for sharing a 1s and 0s.
Was he wrong? Undoubtedly. But until the law catches up with this class of crime, this is simply mob justice.
"Intellectual property" == "redistribution of wealth"; it's rent-seeking using government grants of monopoly, not legitimate profit-seeking from making scarce goods more available.
There's no natural scarcity on ideas. Ideas are not mutually exclusive, and thus do not meet the criteria defining "property"; hence why "theft" is defined legally as "denial of use". If anything, copyrights and patents "steal" my ability to use my justly acquired property in specific ways.
As to you earning a living as an ISV, you could sell your services for creating new software instead. The "free rider problem" is a myth -- pure voodoo economics; it's a euphemism for price controls.
I have filed the waiver (basically cannot afford it) of financial hardship several times. Basically I couldn't afford to take a potentially long time unpaid off work .
Now let me get out the soapbox yet again. I don't understand the injustice system. The judge gets paid well, the bailiffs & cops get paid well, the lawyers get paid very well, but the jurors get lunch money. What is wrong with this picture?
If you want to get a jury of your peers, the jury MUST be paid the same wage they would otherwise earn. Without this you'll get nothing but juries which are composed of retirees, stay @ home parents or the unemployed.
Good luck trying to justify your high tech crime to people who know nothing about computers or intellectual property.
I been working 20+ years and I've never had a job which would pay my regular wage for a potentially long time. No thanks.
BTW I have mod points, but once again this needs to be said.
Who will guard the guards?
As far as I know, no one went to jail for violating the GPL. But I suppose you already knew that, and were fishing for responses such as this, werent you.
More than mere navel gazing.
Fixed.
open source != non-profit
once you go slack, you never go back
More than you imply.
Prison is for:
Seems to me that 1 & 2 definitely are satisfied by a jail sentence. #4 may be as well, if one assumes that the fact he probably won't do what he did again to mean he is rehabilitated. You're right that #3 isn't really necessary in this case.
I don't think copyright infringement should be a criminal offense, but it is, and so long as it is, the punishment seems to make sense to me. It's not overly harsh, but it gets the job done. If you don't want it to be a criminal issue, you should be talking to your politicians and using your vote accordingly. Go organize some marches. Make some noise. If the majority of people truly feel as you feel, you'll get changes--not out of altruism or (necessarily) because the politicians agree with you, but because they want to keep their jobs. And if the majority does not agree with you... well, welcome to democracy.
>Copyright laws protect the little guys as well as the big guys.
Do let us know when one of the little guys gets to shut down a business just by writing a letter.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Messing wit da man's money is a bigger crime than killin each other.
illegal, maybe, criminal? no.
this is and should only be considered a civil case and jail time should NEVER have even been considered. this is beyond ridiculous.
MABASPLOOM!
Right, and telling people the combination to the safe and the security guard patterns etc, is only knowingly and wilfully helping others to share wealth represented as currency and those others have decided to take that wealth which falls under property law, amongst different wealth which is theirs for the taking, right?
You'd have a point if you could narrow that down to individual users that say one thing about one subject and then change their minds on the GPL. But from looking at your post you haven't done that. You can't characterize all of Slashdot as a singular entity.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
You know, if it weren't for government enforcement of an artificially-created monopoly, your example of Jane's attempt to make money would be called a "bad business plan". Without the legal fiction of "intellectual property", if someone expected to make money off a product which can be easily copied and distributed, they would be perceived to have a really poor sense of business (no matter how hard they may have worked on the product).
On the other hand, if they have a business model where they either write software solutions for customers (i.e., a software-writing service), or write software for themselves which they use to provide services for customers (software-assisted customer service), or package the software into a nifty little consumer electronics doodad of some sort, then those are business models which allow people to write software to make a living without depending an artificially-enforced monopoly. (I'm focusing on software since I'm a software developer - other content-creation activities might require greater differences in how they can be sold.)
IP laws are socialistic at their fundamental - attempting to "twist" free-market economics to try and achieve a social effect (encouraging innovation). Unfortunately, there has been little or no solid proof that IP laws do any better at encouraging innovation than just allowing the free market to dictate what will sell. Every argument always seems to be couched in terms of emotion or anecdotes.
It kinda makes me wonder: what exactly constitutes a "non-useful" art? Let's pretend that I'm the best in the world at weaving creative designs into submersible helicopters made of wicker. If nobody wants, desires, or even critically appreciates my wicker-woven submersible helicopter customizations, does that make their creation a useless form of expression? Could someone flagrantly violate my copyright in this case without repercussion? Does the very fact that someone might _try_ to violate my copyright make the art a "useful" one, and thus make that phrase meaningless?
Yep, definitely missing the point. IIRC, jacking a car while the driver is inside (ie. forcing/demanding their exit from the vehicle so you can take it) constitutes a violent felony, and carries greater penalty than stealing a car while it's parked and unattended. It may not be a huge difference, but yes, violent crimes should carry greater penalties than non-violent crimes. Hell this doesn't even constitute "theft" (denial of use), it's merely "theoretical loss of possible future revenue that we think we might have made". Hardly grounds for five years in prison.
Like many before have pointed out, that system of reparations is flawed. Not everyone who downloads copyrighted works can be considered a potential customer, had the work not been made available for free. The reality is that most of those who knowingly download copyrighted material are doing so only because they cannot otherwise afford the purchase price of the material in question. Had they not downloaded it, they still wouldn't be a paying customer. Furthermore, they'd also be less likely to recommend the product to another (potential) customer had they not experienced it.
Again, same rings true for any of the following: Music, movies, software, games, books, etc.
I do not believe it criminal to fulfill the needs of which would otherwise remain unfulfilled due solely on the fact that most (if not all) copyrighted works these days are overpriced. So much so that the average person cannot easily afford them, even if the need blatantly exists.
You want to see the Enron exec go to jail. Fine. But don't start whining when the smaller fry have to serve their time as well.
There is a vast, vast gulf of difference between premediated corporate fraud causing direct and demonstrable loss, and casual, non-profit copyright infringement. So vast a gulf, in fact, that it's difficult to see how the two can even be considered vaguely similar.
And that's what it's all about, folks: balance. On one hand, creators of original works need some way to make sure no one else can simply steal their hard work out from under them; on the other hand, the punishment needs to fit the crime and not be too heavy-handed. I don't claim to have the perfect solution, but the current set of laws isn't it.
No "people" owned the copyrights. Enormous, faceless corporations which are having no trouble turning a profit did.
+++ATH0
"They don't actually host the illegal material; just a reference to it."
This is exactly why he was nailed for "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement," and not "copyright infringement."
"If they're going to arrest admins for that, then why are search engines still indexing crack/serial/warez sites?"
Because the search engines are not in a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. EliteTorrents was. This wasn't a Linux distro or creative commons torrents site.
"If you want to get technical about it, the users submitting the torrents are the ones at fault, here."
Those who upload the files are liable to be busted for copyright infringement. As the summary stated, he was nailed for conspiracy to commit. This isn't an RTFA issue here... it's RTFS. My guess is that you're of the assumption that there can only be one wrongdoer, and thus if the users are infringing, then the torrent site operator cannot be charged. It doesn't work that way.
"But if he simply provided the web space for the torrent of copyrighted material to be hosted, and provided the bandwidth for the same, then his liability is somewhat questionable."
This reminds me of those Internet chain letters that state that if you send along a note to the effect of "add me to your mailing list" along with $5, you are providing a service, and not participating in a pyramid scheme. You seem quite certain in your belief that there's no legal liability in running a torrent site, and your post is presently +4 Informative, so many people appear to agree with you. You're still incorrect.
"BitTorrent has a valid use, just as an automobile. When it's misused though, it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer, the used car dealer, or even the gas station!"
Precisely -- that's why they nailed the guy who was misusing the software.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
But I think the GPs point was that GPL violations are largely infringing on the copyright of people who work for the community (read: anyone who wants to join in and use GPL'd software), and an overwhelming amount of the time, they don't get paid for it. On the flip side, the large majority of copyright infringements like those touched on in this discussion are against an industry that rakes in billions a year and has a track record of fucking over customers and artists alike for profit.
You might not agree that this makes it a worse "crime" by definition, but there is definately a pretty clear distinction in many people's eyes.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
It isn't that clean cut though. Chevrolet aren't making their offering as a "pedestrian killer 1500", they are offering something which clearly has a legitimate purpose and are offering it for that purpose.
If someone is running a bittorrent site and they have set up categories such as "TV Shows" or specific show names then I can't see how anyone can claim that they are offering something neutral.
Bittorrent as a tool is neutral. However if you expend effort designing a site in a way which specifically assists illegal use then I don't think it's surprising to be included as part of a "conspiracy". You have specifically assisted people to use the tool for illegal means.
I've not seen Elite Torrents so I don't know how much this applies to it specifically. Having said that from what (little) I have seen "subtlety" isn't a word I'd associate with that sort of site.
Search engines and so forth may contain similar information. However they have not expended effort to specifically help people find that type information, it is just there because it happens to be part of all the information out there.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I couldn't agree more. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Isn't this a widely accepted minimum standard of justice? I've heard it said that the "An eye for an eye" standard of the Torah can be considered progressive in that it restricts arbitrary, disproportionate punishments. Whether this meant anything in practice I do not know, but I think most would agree that judgments of "Your arm for a finger" or "Your life for an eye" would be unjust, and not just because of their brutal nature. There is something that seems fundamentally wrong to us about disproportionate punishment.
It is troubling that our society and our lawmakers seem to lose sense of this principal when it comes to monetary awards.
U.S. Code pertaining to Copyright on a plain layman's reading (and the hell if I'll be ruled by laws that can't be understood by the common man) explicitly states that the prosecution need not establish that the award sought is even porportionate to the cost to the copyright holder of the defendant's infringement. If I were to send you 10 copies of the latest Christina Agulera (sp?...) album - whatever that might be - the fact that under no circumstances would you have considered paying for the album does not factor in at all. In fact, there isn't even any requirement that the actual cost of the album be factored into the monetary judgment against me at all.
The amounts awarded in suits against casual file sharers are absurd.
Judgments of many thousands of dollars against students and working people who in practice most likely resulted in an actual loss to the copyright holder of - if anything - a small fraction of the monetary award, are miscarriages of justice.
And now jail time and a criminal record for facilitating casual infringement by a bunch of poor teenagers watching movies??? I personally don't infringe their copyrights primarily because I don't want their crap. But these vindictive bastards do not merit our money, and I would suggest in many cases neither do the artists who are in bed with them to make bucks.
And you're right, the only thing worse than lawyers backing big monetary awards to line their own pockets are lawyers literally writing (for corporations, through congressmen) our needlessly complex legal code while at the same time criminalizing laymen trying to interpret amongst themselves the very laws we are ruled by, without paying their exhorbitant fees.
It is no wonder our legal system lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the next generation.
That's right, if you're stupid enough to do all that work & distribute it in a form that anyone can copy & resell it, then you've got nothing to complain about except your bad business model. Same result as if I spent millions of dollars and years of my life doing research & development to discover the perfect toy, and determined that the perfect toy was the common everyday cardboard box. Lots of money & hard work, but I would have made a bad investment of my resources.
You do not have the "right" to make money off anything you do, just because you happened to work hard to accomplish it. Goods & services have their values set by the BUYERS, not by the sellers. This is really basic Supply & Demand stuff. Even if you think your product is worth $10,000,000, if people are only willing to pay $10 for it then it's only worth $10 - no matter how much work you put into it. That's called the free market. Getting "special" laws passed to force people to pay for "value" which they would not otherwise be willing to spend is just the same as extortion.
There is no reason to "balance" anything. The whole point behind IP laws was to encourage innovation - there haven't been any kind of reliable, objective economic studies showing that IP laws have resulted in more innovation than would occur without them. (Feel free to point me at some if you know where they are located.)
You've still got this emotional attachment to what's "fair" (which is always one of those terms that everyone agrees on principle, but no one can agree on the details). The law shouldn't be concerned with what's "fair" though - that's too subjective, and ambiguity provides opportunity for greed & corruption. The law should be concerned with what will be best for the overall society.
If you want to encourage content-creation, then figure out a societal mechanism to pay creators for their services (in those cases where there are no viable business models that can be exploited by the individuals). Maybe society can mandate a "cultural" tax, but allow each taxpayer to decide how (and to whom) they want those tax monies to be spent (just throwing out an idea). There's no need to violate free market economics & peoples' private property rights to encourage "innovation".
Or tell them to fuck themselves and flee the country. Neither outcome - a lifetime of debt in imaginary restitution, or hard time in prison - should be lent legitimacy by a just society as punishment for contributing to the casual infringement by a bunch of internet dwelling poor teenagers of some silly moves. Should we destroy a young person's life for contributing to the infringing distribution of copies of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy?
Isn't it enough that this guy is now a convicted felon? He is 23 years old. He was just a college student. But now for doing something stupid in school - something of which most college students know no shortage - he has lost his right to vote - his right to a voice in our democracy - for probably the rest of his life, he has lost the right to bear arms, and he will carry this mark on his record at every background check and job interview for years to come.
Is this the way to show the way for the next generation? Isn't this enough? But now we need to throw him in prison too?
We The People grant copyrights - temporary and limited monopolies on reproduction - to promote the Useful Arts and Sciences, not to promote the bottom line of large corporations. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the promotion of Useful Arts and Sciences afforded by some corporation making a few more bucks off of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy outweighs the destruction of a young man's life.
I cannot fault the judge for finding him guilty when he pleads guilty...
Certainly you can. The potential punishment allowed by these false scarcity laws makes any "I did it" declaration suspect as being in exchange for lenient punishment. That is, guilt established under duress is no guilt at all. It is a shame the legal system allows and even encourages "plea bargaining" and thus sells the justice out from under us.
5 months in prison is a pretty light sentence compared to what he could have gotten. the maximum prison sentence for willful infringement is 5 years
You prove my point.
establishes criminal liability for willful copyright violation was added to section 506(a) of title 17 of the u.s. code on May 24, 1982
This is less than 30 years ago. The paint is not even dry on this law.
Name servers and the use of TCP/IP as the standard protocol for the internet [and DNS] didnt happen until [after this law]
Good point. One might think this law is not really appropriate, seeing as it passed to appease distribution companies that did not like consumers buying videocassette tape players with copying capabilities.
I talked to an old friend recently who works in the music industry. He both plays in a band, runs a studio and does A&R. He's always been extremely anti downloading music and we've crossed swords on this a few times as for *me*, the ability to sample huge amounts of music has resulted in me actually buying considerably more CDs.
We had a chat about how in the good old days a band could have maybe 3 or 4 albums before they started to get it together, the label would support them as they grew and matured. The few mega bands, the likes of the Beatles, U2 etc all earned so much money for a label, they allowed them to prop up the other 90% of their roster that lost money. Record companies made money, bands thrived, everyone was happy.
These days an artist gets maybe two singles or an album out the door and if they're not hits (and big hits at that) then they're dropped. Why? Seems the bands that make big money no longer do so. If the price of a CD (or vinyl) since 1980 kept up with inflation, wages etc they should be almost 4 times higher than they are now so the big bands are making the label one quarter of what they were. Thus, less money to support the up and coming ones. A&R is all but a memory for many of them.
On top of that, we have all got used to polished sound so studio time and costs grew to ridiculous levels, again eating in to the bottom line. I read that Heaven 17 only just broke even on their 1982 album last year. Result is that many of the big studios are shutting down as they can't cover costs with production moving to purely PC based setups in many cases.
Music downloads make it even worse as the amount of money everyone gets from a (legit) download is less than from a CD.
It's a bad state but TBH, whilst it means big record labels, studios etc are all falling by the wayside, the alternative model of bands doing their own thing, selling via web sites etc is really taking off, as is live performance. I guess we're seeing a shift away from the 'music industry' back to the musicians. The EMI's of the world see the writing on the wall so are fighting for survival hence the heavy handed tactics. I can't see how they can avoid it now though, the Genie is out the bottle and the power has shifted. Good or bad? I can't say myself.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
How tragic. But this guy isn't going to jail for bankrupting Jane Doe. He's going to jail because his site had a Star Wars III pre-release. So now try making us feel sorry for George Lucas. Lucas actually got a load of free publicity from the "pirated release" at the time, and the box office was enormous.
The feds don't give a shit about Jane Doe unless she has a lobbyist in DC.
I swear to god I'm going to take a claw hammer to the next person who repeats that myth.
For the thousandth fucking time, that bill only applies to non-citizens!
We are all citizens...
When the constitution was written it did not at any point say that these rights should only apply to a subset of people. Americans have over the past 200 years changed into something else, a people that have no regards for the rights of the people that the constitution was supposed to protect, that is 'ALL' people. It is now simply, I'm OK so fuck the rest. Americans are losing those rights at such a fast rate that it will not be long before you will see the real stupidity of what you are saying. Yesterday you would have shouted about how the government can only spy on non Americans but today you see that they can spy on you too. Today you say but it is only non Americans that can be locked up without a reason, what will you say tomorrow?
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
Just because he 'confessed' to breaking the law doesn't mean he actually broke the law.
Also, a BitTorrent tracker has absolutely nothing to do with copyright violations! - Those that upload torrents and those downloading them *may* be breaking some laws, but the tracker itself holds no data and thus cannot in any way break any laws.
If they did, we end up in an absurd situation - for instance would all automobile manufacturers and resellers long ago have been convicted for aiding and abetting countless murders, robberies and so on, not to mention their central role in all DUI-cases...
Why isn't this so then? - Well, for one only the copyright area has people crazy enough to push for absurd convictions and prosecution of their own customers, but also most people would say that an automobile has many legal uses and it is abused when used in connection with a crime... but wait! - that is exactly the case with BitTorrent trackers as well. They were invented to provide a more efficient means of download the often fairly huge Linux/BSD distros, and then someone abused the technology to seed illegal materials.
We don't ban cars even though almost all robberies involve a getaway car - they most likely could not have been executed without a car. Why ban BitTorrent when the technology is used primarily for legal purposes (I downloaded FireFox 2.0 yesterday through BitTorrent for instance) and it's not even so that most illegal filesharing is using BitTorrent; actually BitTorrent is only a minor niche compared to the huge dedicated P2P networks.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Would web site operators be any less liable if they JUST listed the DHT hash URI addresses on their site instead of the tracker file?
Better make sure the person is a "non-citizen" before you start swinging that hammer. They're the ones with no rights, you can do what you want to them. Otherwise you might get into trouble.
Of course, the next step would be defining exactly what is meant by a "citizen". Lets get that sucker narrowed down shall we? Open up what we can do to those damn annoying "non-citizens". Hell, let's stop pussyfooting around, just call them "non-persons" and be done with it.
5. Learn how to be a better criminal
He went in a non-violent criminal. Let's see how he comes out.
Seriously, we really need to re-evaluate as a society what we actually put people in jail for. I understand that #1 and #2 are applicable in this case. It's just that #5 above is an unfortunate part of the reality of prison. When you put lots of bad people together, they learn from each other.
As someone else mentioned, he's also been put in physical danger by being in proximity to violent criminals and possibly the guards themselves. For a first offense, it seems that 1 year of house arrest and only approved computer usage would have cured this guy. Just make his life a pain in the ass for a while. If he does it again, then yeah, send him to prison for a few months.
The idea is to only punish as much is necessary. Anything more is gratuitous. Sort of like Occam's Razor for the judiciary.
This is undoubtedly something he did because he thought he was like Google -- providing a search and point kind of service without actually downloading or uploading the illegal material himself. Now that he's been disabused of that notion, I'd say that there's a good chance he'd never do it again -- especially if he knows that the next step is FPMITA prison. It's tough to be the first guy EVER prosecuted for something when you see others making billions per year doing essentially the same thing.
I swear to god I'm going to take a claw hammer to the next person who repeats that myth.
For the thousandth fucking time, that bill only applies to non-citizens!
Or anyone who is determined to be an enemy combatant. And the rules for being declared an enemy combatant is that the president says you are. So yes, it DOES apply to every single person, since anyone at any time can be declared an enemy combatant for any reason.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
For the thousandth fucking time, that bill only applies to non-citizens!
That's ok then - as long as it's only non-citizens* that you treat as being sub-human.
(* And anyone declared to be an enemy combatant for whatever reason, citizen or not)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
People, you need to actually go READ the freaking laws you are screaming about. Not just read some summary on a website that happens to inline with your political and personal beliefs.
Also, here's a fairly objective review of Hamdi's case. An American citizen detained as an enemy combatant.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I argee with most of what you're saying, but I don't think you can ignore the authors when making copyright laws. Copyright is kind of like a contract between authors and the rest of the public, and like any contract, it should be fair to both sides.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
We stopped another 10 terrorist attacks today thanks to the Patriot Act! Yay us. Aren't these the same people who were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then couldn't find them? Aren't these the same people who KNOW (as well as the world) that N. Korea is a bigger threat but in that case, we prefer diplomacy? I wonder what could be the primary difference in those two situations? Maybe if Americans where consuming billions of barrels of Kimchi things might have played out differently.
North Korea could not be invaded without the utter destruction of Seoul. Not only that, but it is possible that the Chinese would have backed the North Koreans. In the case of Iraq, they posed no serious threat to their neighbors, and even their friendly neigbor could offer no serious support for Iraq. The two situations could not be any different. Now, Iran, on the other hand...
It is true that there is not an invasion going on in America in terms of an occupying force entering the country. However, America's interests are being attacked. When an embassy or ship gets blown up, that is no different than an attack on our soil. Certainly the attack on New York and DC can be argued to be a significant enough threat to take the current fundamentalism movement seriously. Just because our enemy is not a state or a king doesn't make it any less threatening. The barbarians are at the outskirts of Rome.
I enjoy Orwell just as much as the next guy, but the man was just a gifted writer. While it is worth bearing in mind his warnings, I think the future he imagines in 1984 is a bit far-fetched.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But when the courts can't efficiently go after the ones breaking the law, the usual response is to go after those that are enabling them or are otherwise involved even if not actually responsible.
I suppose if you can't herd cats, you bomb the catfood plant instead?
Some of it I wonder isn't just the legal system taking out its frustrations on any targettable group that is in any way connected to their frustrations?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The problem with this solution is it's a losing battle. For every "Bin-*, Abu-*, and Al-*" you kill off, another dozen replace them from a Madrasahs in Pakistan or Afghanistan. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasasin )
In the meantime those of us in the West have our freedoms eroded piece by piece.
IMHO the only real solution is a very long term one - Things like funding education in Pakistan so the children learn to read and write and learn geography and history and mathematics - Instead of just studying the Koran all day long and learning Israel is evil and America is the great Satan. But sending textbooks to Pakistan so thirty years from now they don't blow up the Golden Gate bridge or explode a dirty bomb in Atlanta doesn't win any votes today.
The drug use itself isn't the problem, but it's a symptom.
Then why is posession of the drug illegal? You said it yourself. If junkies bought drugs with their own money, then quietly shot up in the corner and never bothered anyone, it wouldn't be an issue. So why is this a crime, again?
The people who are in prison for "using drugs" are not innocent drug users. That's simply all they got caught for. But make no mistake: they are liars, cheaters, thieves, burglars and in many cases, much worse.
Lying and cheating are already crimes (fraud). Thievery and burglary are also already crimes. If this is all that those evil drug users do, then why do we need to make possession a crime? Surely they could be put away for robbing people.
If you swept through a neighborhood and locked up all the drug users, you'd see virtually all other property crime disappear.
You'd see virtually all the people disappear too. Mass imprisonment is not the solution to any problem.
Let me correct your view on this. Simply put, doing any drug should not be illegal. Possession of those drugs should not be illegal. Committing an actual crime is what we should be locking people up for. I've done almost every drug you can think of that doesn't require a needle (I'm a wuss). I was never a thief, I was never a liar. I went to school, college, and work and in my off hours would hang out with friends, get high, and play video games or whatever. We never destroyed anyone's property. We never went out and mugged people. We got up and did our part being a cog in society's gears and otherwise were calm and peaceful people. At no point in time have I EVER done anything that would warrant my freedom being taken away; being thrown into a cell with who knows what kind of sicko, and having any chance of a prosperous future destroyed.
People who drive cars are more likely to drive down a sidewalk and mow down innocent people. Why don't we lock up people for owning a car. I mean, if they own a car they *might* run down our kids.
Sure, they might just stay on the road and follow all the traffic laws, but there is hard evidence that people who run over pedestrians tend to also be drivers. So let's lock up all the drivers whether they've done anything wrong or not.
The enemies of freedom are all around us.
So putting them in jail will make them not addicts and perfectly law abidding citizens?
Do they steal for fun, or only because drugs are expensive?
Addiction is a health problem that leads to crime. As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system and daily with addicts (not as an advocate) I can tell you that jail doesn't solve anything. The real crime issues are not with the addicts who commit petty crimes to get money. The real crimes are by the people who SELL the drugs. Take away the profit, you take away the reason to push people onto crimes, and you take away the need to commit crimes to get drugs.
So yes, I am for a type of legalization, but not for why you think. The only way to reduce drug DEALERS is to make it unprofitable. The only way to reduce petty crime from addicts is to allow them to get drugs free WHILE THEY SEEK TREATMENT. It isn't a perfect world, but the war on drugs damn sure isn't working.
Personally, I find all the crime that is caused because drugs are ILLEGAL much more offensive than the addict themselves. I have known well over 100 addicts, and a good chunk of them had very good paying jobs and loving families before the drugs fucked them up. I would rather PAY for their treatment, than to deal with the crimes they will commit.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!