DoD Warez Leader Faces 10 Years in Jail

An anonymous reader writes "After spending nearly 3 years in a detention center fighting his extradition from Australia, a leader of notorious warez group 'DrinkorDie' was yesterday arraigned before a U.S. District Court to face charges of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of actual criminal copyright infringement. If found guilty he faces 10 years in jail & a $500,000 fine."

Comments

Why the US

[jeevesbond]

Why is this person being tried in the US? He's a British citizen living in Australia, what does this have to do with the US?

It strikes me as unfair...

[Virtual_Raider]

IMHO this kind of crimes shouldn't be punishable by imprisonment... but I guess indenture isn't such a hot alternative either. Anyway, 10 years for replicating electrical signals in a magnetic medium (nit pickers go away!)... basically he "stole" an idea, hot air. He *should* be punished for breaking the law, but wasn't there something against disproportionate punishment in western codes?

Jury nullification.

[n17ikh]

To me, there is only one outcome of this case that would truly serve justice. The defendant is most likely guilty of filesharing as charged and can be proven as such. However, this does not mean that because the law says this man should go to jail (U.S. law vs. Australian sovereignty notwithstanding, that's the next episode of Stupid Governments) that the law is right.

It seems obvious, then, that the jury trying this case should use one of the rarely-used options available to them: Jury nullification.
In this case, it seems that the jury would have to consider the case as a whole - not merely the facts presented by the prosecution, not merely the letter of the law. They must consider this man's motives, and the motives of the government that is bringing about this case. Is the government being driven by a corporation known for its bullying thuggishness and its lawsuit-happy executives? Is copyright law fundamentally wrong? I look forward to this jury's answer to these questions and I hope that it is the answer I expect from conscionable human beings.

Re:Unless

[caitsith01]

but because the end result _is_ the same I take your overall point, but I strongly disagree that the end result is the same. Copyright infringement and other IP 'crimes' arguably destroy the incentive to create new works by removing the economic incentive to innovate/create. However, in this context a copyright infringer merely makes the overall environment a tiny, tiny fraction less conducive to innovation for the hypothetical individual who is considering whether to pursue the development of new works (which I would argue is a fundamentally flawed connection to draw, but that's another argument).

You also liken it to 'stealing' or vandalism, but I don't think that's right. Those crimes have victims who suffer directly, and more importantly, are deprived of the enjoyment of their property in respect of any possible use of it, whether in relation to the person committing the offence or any other person. If I smash your shop window, your shop is closed to me and to anyone else who might have come in that day. Copyright infringement is fundamentally different in that it deprives the copyright holder only of enjoyment of their property insofar as the infringement leads someone who would have paid to use the copyright to use an infringing copy free of charge. But it does not prevent the copyright holder from selling licenses to other potential users of their work. In other words, the effect of the 'crime' is heavily diluted, and there is no direct deprivation of enjoyment.

Society has a way of dealing with these types of 'crimes', in which an individual's behaviour is detrimental but only in a very diluted way. Parking fines come to mind. Speeding fines. Fines for failing to pay car registration. Civil offences, in other words.

I prefer to think of copyright as a mandatory, many-to-one contractual arrangement. If I create something original and subject to copyright, you and the rest of the world has an automatic contract not to exploit it in certain ways without my consent, and that contract expires after a certain amount of time (about 20000 years thanks to Disney and co). If you breach the contract, I think I should be able to pursue you on a civil law basis, but I do not think the cops should be throwing you in prison.

What annoys me the most about this...

[Frogbert]

What annoys me the most about this is that Australia has perfectly good laws under which to charge him. Why aren't they good enough?

Its interesting to think about this...

[zappepcs]

Issues of copyright in regard to software infringe on the issues of free speech. Yes, I said that. If someone were to decry the evils of BMW, or publish how to make them more gas efficient there would be no foul. When it comes to copyright, there seems to be no justice.

Even if a person is guilty of helping people download movies for free, they should not be punished for the following reasons:

1 - you cannot help someone break the law if the act is committed without your presence.
2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.
3 - Even if you send them the file sharing program, you did not commit the act.
4 - If you complain to the police that someone stole your paper bag of money containing $50,000 dollars that you left on some street corner, they will laugh at you and tell you that you are stupid.
5 - Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues. There is no proof that any 'illegal' activity caused known damage to revenues in a quantitative way.
6 - Current legislation doesn't provide protection or compensation for all copyright holders, only the very few and very rich corporations with copyrights. The law is not being applied equally.
7 - The reasonable doubt that 'fair use' implies means that most copyright litigation is of questionable nature to start with.
8 - There is NO proof that pirated copyright materials deprive the artist of what they would have received anyway.
9 - The US entertainment industry is not the lawmaking body for ALL of the world. Resist now.
10 - Punishing hackers does not protect the children, nor does it stop terrorism.
11 - Copyright infringement is not theft, but copyright infringement for profit is. See number 5.
12 - Australia is not a US state, nor is any other sovereign country. Any country that gives up sovereignty to the US over copyrights is seriously sucking ass...

13 - you make up your own for this one

mod parent overrated, off topic

[Travoltus]

A) He was in Australia, where what he did wasn't a crime at the time. How can you be tried for an act that isn't a crime in the country you reside?

B) Unless you suppose that US law should apply to the whole world. Exactly when did the US conquer all of Earth, pray tell?

Your argument is utterly off topic because it presumes to judge this situation based on US law when US law has no legitimate standing here at all. There was no reason to extradite this guy - he committed no crime. For what he did to be a crime it would have to be a violation of the law of the land he lived in. Is any of this, like, getting through to you???