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.'"

68 of 685 comments (clear)

  1. "What are you in for" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rape

    Murder

    Theft

    Or..

    Drug posession

    Helping people download music

    1. Re:"What are you in for" by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Rape

      Murder

      Theft

      Or..

      Drug posession

      Helping people download music


      Uh.. this raises a question: Would he go to a prison with rapists, murders, and other violent people or would he go somewhere where he'd sit and think about what he did instead of worrying for his life?
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:"What are you in for" by Propaganda13 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand,
      and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
      father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the
      bench.

    3. Re:"What are you in for" by Xzzy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uh.. this raises a question: Would he go to a prison with rapists, murders, and other violent people or would he go somewhere where he'd sit and think about what he did instead of worrying for his life?

      Dude, your terminoligy is wrong. Let me rephrase in a way more people will understand:

      Uh.. this raises a question: Would he go to federal pound me in the ass prison, or white-collar resort prison? (did you know they have conjugal visits there?!)

    4. Re:"What are you in for" by anagama · · Score: 4, Funny

      think they had glossy 8x10s screen shots?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:"What are you in for" by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative
      Uh.. this raises a question: Would he go to federal pound me in the ass prison, or white-collar resort prison? (did you know they have conjugal visits there?!)

      The federal prison system does not allow conjugal visits. Conjugal Visits

    6. Re:"What are you in for" by Redlazer · · Score: 3, Funny
      Honestly, i think its reasonably safe to assume that most prisons are rape-me-in-the-ass-prisons.

      I mean, i doubt if someone is GOING to rape you, one of the other inmates is going to tap him on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, but we just really don't to do that here. Sorry. Take it to maximum security."

      -Red

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    7. Re:"What are you in for" by livewire98801 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IIRC, you only get the 'pound me in the ass' in prison, and prison is only for those sentences over a year in most places. He'll get county lockup for this one, I'm pretty sure.

      --
      "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
    8. Re:"What are you in for" by slim · · Score: 4, Informative

      There really is no other type.

      In the UK there are "Open Prisons": low security places for low-risk criminals. Armed robbers, gangsters, murderers, rapists etc. go in high security prisons, while perjurers, embezzlers, tax avoiders, shoplifters, manslaughterers by negligence and, er, copyright infringers are put in open prisons.

      As I understand it, in an open prison, you're locked in a cell -- more like university accommodation than a barred cell like in Prison Break -- for stretches of time, but if you wanted to escape, you could just wander off during the time you're not locked up. Very few people do escape, because when you're re-apprehended, your original crime is trumped by the worse crime of escaping from prison, and this time you get put in a far more unpleasant high security jail.

      Isn't there something similar in the US?

    9. Re:"What are you in for" by indifferent+children · · Score: 4, Funny
      money put into the pirate "industry" ... goes directly into organised crime and people trafficking

      That's for the street vendors and back-alley shops selling physical media. How much money do you think the Mafia or Al Quaeda gets when someone downloads a thousand songs for free? If they want to cut-off the flow of money to the criminals, they should promote profitless online file sharing.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    10. Re:"What are you in for" by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah some people can be SO anal about it.

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
  2. Silly Punishment by 9mm+Censor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) I see no need to send someone to jail for copyright infringement. The punishment does not fit the crime, and its not helping society, by removing a danger, nor do I suspect it will be useful in rehabilitating.
    2) I hope he stocked up on torrents of stuff to watch/listen/play during house arrest.

    1. Re:Silly Punishment by aaronl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Silly Punishment by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the crime is mass-distributing stolen goods, and that's all there is to it.

      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.
    3. Re:Silly Punishment by jesdynf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Silly Punishment by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Five months in jail is, to my mind, fitting to the crime.

      Then you aren't thinking.

      What is prison for? What's the purpose to putting someone in prison? To answer this, let's look at what prison does; It removes a person from the general population. Why would this make sense for a bt operator? Are they a threat to themselves or others? No, it's silly to imply otherwise.

      A fitting punishment to this crime can and should be settled in civil court; They are forced to make restitutions.

      So you tell me, which makes more sense; Taking someone off the streets and stop them from being a productive member of society. OR, let them continue working and paying off a fine. Which makes more sense given the crime involved? Which makes more sense for soceity ( remember, over crowded prisons )? Which makes more sense for those wronged ( what benefit does the RIAA get out of him being in prison aside from evil pleasure )? And finally, what makes more sense for the convicted?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    5. Re:Silly Punishment by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:Silly Punishment by Iron+Condor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Silly Punishment by Schemat1c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And who says the definition of a crime cam't change? It's not he didn't know what he were doing was determined to be unlawful and punishable as a federal crime.

      When the penalties of a law does more damage than the crime it's addressing then the law is wrong. If we in the US could just hold all laws to that standard I think we could clean up the books quite a bit and put a lot of lawyers out of business, so in other words it will never happen.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    8. Re:Silly Punishment by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    9. Re:Silly Punishment by Darth · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      that kinda of depends on what you think is recent.

      The willful infringement clause that 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. So you've been able to serve jail time for copyright infringement for over 24 years.

      (This addition had nothing to do with the internet. Name servers and the use of TCP/IP as the standard protocol for the internet didnt happen until 1983. DNS was introduced in 1984.)

      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 (depending on the type of infringement. that's the worst possible case).

      That isn't to say that i agree with the charges against him.. The actual infringement of the copyright is done by the seeders. The tracker maintainer seems like he would be the person in the chain who is clearly not guilty of actual infringement since all he is doing is saying "hey, that guy is giving away free copies of Memento, Microsoft Word, and Half-Life 2".

      However, he did plead guilty. I cannot fault the judge for finding him guilty when he pleads guilty...and in light of the possible sentence he could have received, he got off pretty light. Given what i know of the case, i think he could have fought it, but he (and his lawyer) might have been privy to more damning evidence against him.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    10. Re:Silly Punishment by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Messing wit da man's money is a bigger crime than killin each other.

    11. Re:Silly Punishment by neoform · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!
    12. Re:Silly Punishment by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative
      I've recently started using the term "intellectual monopoly" for patents and copyrights, which is more accurate.

      You're in good company -- Thomas Jefferson always referred to them as "monopolies" (albeit without the "intellectual" part) too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Silly Punishment by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which means that only suckers/chumps would pick the pumpkins (or write the software, or create music), since their hard work would be immediately leeched away.

      Here's a hint... if everyone could get infinite free pumpkins then anyone who picked pumpkins *would* be a chump.

      Software's not quite the same. Software is a complex tool that lets people accomplish things - accomplishing things is worthwhile, so software will continue to be developed even if nobody buys it.

      A more interesting example is expensive Hollywood movies - as home thearters get as good as cinemas they may stop being sustainable. That's sad, but it's not so sad that I'd be willing to give up basic freedoms to preserve the MPAA's business model.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    14. Re:Silly Punishment by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Silly Punishment by werewolf1031 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You know, if it weren't for government enforcement of an artificially-created monopoly [...] IP laws are socialistic at their fundamental - attempting to "twist" free-market economics to try and achieve a social effect (encouraging innovation).
      So, you're saying that if I spend a year of my free time creating a fantasy game, complete with a new and unique world with its own history, events, species, characters, etc., and release that game for retail download from my website, according to you I have no right whatsoever to complain if someone else simply copies my work and tries to sell it themselves? I'm no fan of the *AA et al, nor of their (IMO) mobster business practices, and I believe Stanley got a bit too-harsh a punishment, but what you're saying goes too far the other direction. Intellectual property may seem like an artificial contrivance to you, but to someone who actually creates original works, the complete lack of IP laws would be just as bad for innovation as the current penalties for breaking those laws is bad for balanced justice.

      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.
    16. Re:Silly Punishment by dircha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:Silly Punishment by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      1. Jane Doe spends 10 years of her life 80 hours a week and $400,000 in funding from family and friends and loans to successfully build a revolutionary piece of software, which gets promptly stolen and mass distributed outside of her control. Jane and her family lose their livelihood and has to declare bankruptcy.

      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.

  3. New technology for prisons? by Jack+Pallance · · Score: 5, Funny

    What does BitchTorrent mean?

  4. Captain Obvious breaks it down for 'yall by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pirate caught and hung, film at 11. Or as 'hung' as our justice system can manage; I mean hell, murder only rates a couple of years if it is your first offense and it wasn't a brutal gangland slaying or anything like that.

    The Napster kerfluffle should have told anyone with three brain cells that building a site for the express purpose of putting people with a copy of a copyrighted file in contact with people who want a copy is infringement. The technology that implements it isn't all that important, it is the intent. And elitetorrents was ALL about warez. Just because the guy wasn't running an FTP site hosting the files wasn't going to save his butt and he should have known it wouldn't.

    Don't like the laws? Either work to change em or violate them as an act of civil disobedience and accept the consequences in the hope of gaining sympathy for your cause and eventual change. But don't act shocked that the operator of what was a major warez site got busted and sent up the river.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Captain Obvious breaks it down for 'yall by dircha · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      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.

  5. Thank god I feel so much safer now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NOT.

    My guess is that he nor any of his users ever got any chance to vote on any copyright law. Can't say I have. Have you? Have you ever gotten to vote on any copyright issue?

    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.

    Kind of like your neighbors down the street getting together and making an assinine aggreement, that all windows in the neighborhood must be left open in the winter time. And then enforcing that law on you. Fining you and or imprisoning you when you don't abide by it. Assembling a police force of patrollers to enforce this rule and smashing down the door and taking prisoner those who are in violation of it. Conformity and enforcement at the end of a barrel of gun.

    Only the neighbors aren't down the street, they are 100 miles, or 1000 miles away. Or worse, somewhere back in time, even before you were even born.

    Tell me the US version of representational democracy / republic isn't a total crock of ****....

    Further, if you're under 18, you have no say so whatsoever. If you're over 18, your say so is generally limited to the joke of a vote. Which is nothing but a weak concession to undermine your primary right, which is the right to riot.

    1. Re:Thank god I feel so much safer now by yamamushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 -
    2. Re:Thank god I feel so much safer now by linguae · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Being forced to "buy" a private island and then pay travel fees to go there emphasizes the OP's point: You've been forced into this situation, and if you don't like it, *you* have to change.

      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.

  6. Makes you wonder... by bobdotorg · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... what his, umm, sharing ratio will be in prison.

    Do you think he'll leave it open for peers after he's done?

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  7. Re:Guilty of what? by retro128 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There isn't going to be a trial. The prosecutors probably offered him a deal, and he plead guilty. He probably would have been looking at a hell of a lot more time if it went to a jury trial. I certainly wouldn't trust my future to the mouth breathers they get on the jury. After all, all the smart people are dodging the duty because they have jobs that pay more than $5 a day.

    --
    -R
  8. Safe At Last by Phantom100 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I will sleep much better tonight knowing that this horrible criminal is finally behind bars.

  9. Re:To you lawyers out there by skelator2821 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Stupid is as stupid does by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously how fucking dense do you have to be if you think putting up a torrent to Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith before it was released to cinemas was not going to put you top of the MPAA shitlist and destined for special attention.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  11. This makes me very sad. by oblivion95 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the U.S. Constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.articlei.html#section8
    • To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    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.

    1. Re:This makes me very sad. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      I downloaded some. Did anybody actually lose any money?

            The MPAA would have you believe that they lose $60 billion a year. Now let me put that into perspective: $60 billion US is like almost 10% of the annual GDP of a small country like say CANADA... These people are so full of shit.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. The profit scheme with no question marks by siddesu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  13. Martha Stewart | Grant Stanley by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...crimes that benifit herself and deal with actual money : 5 months

    Grant Stanley, crime characterized as sharing : 5 years of butt sex.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  14. Jail for adminning? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jail? For adminning an indexing site?

    When are they going to lock up the Google admins?!?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  15. Re:Here we go again... by oblivion95 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The music pirate steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

    The GPL violator steals from the poor and sells to the rich.

    Do you really see no difference?

  16. Re:Great punishment. by westlake · · Score: 3, Interesting
    He probably made cash, only has to pay $3k and gets a five month vacation out of his parent's basement.

    it seems appropriate to insert a small reminder here that a federal criminal record can have long term consequences.

  17. Correct me if I'm wrong... by Skudd · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...but isn't this what other torrent sites fought in the past?

    They don't actually host the illegal material; just a reference to it. If they're going to arrest admins for that, then why are search engines still indexing crack/serial/warez sites?

    If you want to get technical about it, the users submitting the torrents are the ones at fault, here. Granted, if the admin is the submitter, then he has every right to be imprisoned for his doings. 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.

    I, personally, don't know how that site operated. If I were running such a site, then I would implement a moderation system. But depending upon the popularity and traffic involved in such a site, that could easily become a daunting task.

    I see it in the same light as arresting automobile manufacturers for the hit-and-run death of an innocent pedestrian. Sure, the car was used as the lethal weapon of choice, and it was productive in doing its task, but it's not Chevrolet's fault that their Silverado 1500 was used to kill someone. 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!

    That's just my two copper pieces.

  18. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. I wouldn't bet on it. by rodgster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  20. Re:Here we go again... by The+Cydonian · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But if someone dares violate the GPL, those same Slashdotters rise up and demand the heads of everyone involved on a silver platter.

    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.

  21. Re:Oh no! by clymere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    open source != non-profit

    --
    once you go slack, you never go back
  22. Re:Oh no! by werewolf1031 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Does everyone on Slashdot have zero respect for intellectual property or just a few moderators?
    You seem to be missing the point. The problem is not "zero respect for intellectual property", it's zero respect for punishment that is wildly disproportionate to the crime in question. Yes, a crime in which no one was harmed nor ever intended to be harmed should carry a lesser penalty. (And yes, intent does matter in a courtroom.)

    Suggesting this guy should get a lighter sentence because no one is hurt is like suggesting a car thief should get off easy because no one got hurt. [...] Frankly, this guy is getting off easy.
    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.
  23. Not that clean by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I see it in the same light as arresting automobile manufacturers for the hit-and-run death of an innocent pedestrian. Sure, the car was used as the lethal weapon of choice, and it was productive in doing its task, but it's not Chevrolet's fault that their Silverado 1500 was used to kill someone.

    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
  24. USSR by Ilmarin77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Funny, back in USSR people used to be put to jail for distributing "political information"
    Now, in USA person gets into jail for distributing music. I guess this is the real Democracy for you :)

  25. A better way to make your point by KKlaus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not a question of greater or lesser penalty, even though it comes off that way because all of us slashdotters would rather sell our houses than go to jail. Sending people to jail was never intended to be just a punishment (altough it is a pretty good one), it was intended to remove people from society that posed a significant enough threat to justify the expense of locking them up until they can behave better. Murderers, people who commit assault, etc obviously fit the bill.

    I hope we haven't reached the point were copyright infringement is considered a "menace to society."

    --
    Relax I just want some peanuts.
  26. Re:Good question by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Good question, but considering that he's already going to jail for what essentially amounts to thoughtcrime"

    Conspiracy is not a thought crime. Conspiracy consists of planning and usualy preparation, most often involving several individuals. It's one thing for you to think "I want to kill George Bush", it's quite another if you go up to your friends and say "hey guys, I bought this here rifle...who wants to be my spotter when I go assassinate the president?".

    At this point, the government can put you in jail for pretty much anything. And with the death of habeas corpus on October 18 2006, they don't even have to give you a trial.

    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!

  27. I had a chat with a record company guy.. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  28. Re:Good question by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  29. You forgot #5 by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. The account of a former prisoner by BeeBeard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is according to a friend of mine who was sent to prison for 18 months for his actions during what was supposed to be a peaceful protest, and was also sent to county for a similar offense but the sentence was shorter:

    Prisoners are not nearly as rape-happy as they're made out to be in popular culture. There are fights, drug deals, and a lot of angst and widespread hopelessness. But the few outright rapists in the general population are stigmatized and not well-respected. Keeping to yourself and minding your own business go a long way in lockup.

    In comparing federal to county: You are better supervised in federal prison, which means there are actually far fewer assaults, sexual or otherwise. Federal prisons have more controls in place for dealing with problems.

    And that's about all he was willing to share on the subject. Thankfully, I have managed to stay out of prison myself, so what I am imparting to you is second-hand information. :)

  31. Re:Good question by dirk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  32. Re:Good question by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  33. Re:Good question by diersing · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Last I checked, there is no rebellion or invasion going on in America. I'm sure your point was focused on 'public safety' and taking the whole 1984 reference a bit further comrade, deep down in your heart of hearts don't you feel the itch that the Ministry of Truth are writing their own history and quoting their own 'facts' to better suite their own needs?

    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.

  34. Re:A relevant quote . . . by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Funny

    When the trolls posted a worn out quote, I remained silent,
    after all I don't feed the trolls.
    When the moderators modded my post -1 flamebait I did not post a reply to my own thread,
    after all it would get modded down also.
    When a guy got thrown in jail for running a website I did not speak out,
    after all he knew it was illegal and he doesn't live in Sweden or Russia.
    When I posted an unfunny In Soviet Russia joke, nobody gave me a +1 funny.

      Afrosheen

  35. Re:Good question by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But I do agree that we need to handle terrorism and terrorists very seriously and very sternly. It *is* a war. Iraq is a total f*ck job, but we need to focus intelligence, law enforcement, special forces and full military operations on killing every Bin-*, Abu-*, and Al-* that wants to do us harm.

    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.

  36. Re:Good question by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We should give farm subsidies to Afghanies to make it cost effective for them to grow, say, corn, instead of opium poppies. Etc.

    I recall reading one right-wing think tank that said the west should buy up the entire yearly opium output from Afghanistan, refine it into morphine and give it to the third world's hospitals. This would be cheaper than the 'war on drugs' and would provide the third world with a drug that they have great trouble obtaining.

  37. Re:Drug users are angels? by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.