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

If memory serves

[Broken scope]

Isn't he what they refer to as "fresh meat" in federal ass pounding prison?

Re:If memory serves

[Whatsitmatter]

Yes except all the people from the groups that've been convicted and gone to prison go to Minimum Security federal prison. In short they can walk off the prison property (in other words, not ass pounding prison) if they like but they automatically get 5 years tacked on to their sentence. That part I know for sure. I'd assume they then get moved up to a stricter prison if they do do that, but that I part I'm only speculating on.

Re:If memory serves

[Broken scope]

Well I was trying to make a really lame office space joke, but I guess i mangled it that badly.

Re:If memory serves

[Whatsitmatter]

Yah, I caught it. I was gonna toss a reference in as well but got too lazy. Honestly the only reason I replied was because I had a feeling a _lot_ of people don't realize just how lax the prison all these guys end up in are. Yes, you're restricted and spending months or years of your life somewhere you do not want to be and during that time not able to better your life in any real way. But with all the sentences all these guys got, the majority of them were not served in full and they had the ability to make outgoing calls, mail etc and a good deal more freedom than the traditional prison. It sucks to be in any prison, but if you had to be in any of them in the U.S. I'd say this type should rank as a top choice after house arrest..

Re:If memory serves

[dbIII]

Considering that these people are really no threat to society at all why waste their time and taxpayers money (in two countries in this case) locking them up in the first place? It really should be a civil matter - fines would still hurt even if you have no money and get it garnished out of future earnings.

Re:If memory serves

[thripper]

1. Find hacker give him a hefty fine and throw his ass in jail

2. $500.000 - 10 years worth of prison expenses

3. Profit

Re:If memory serves

[xquercus]

I agree. Prisons is an option that needs to be reserved for criminals who are a significant threat to society. I'm sick of seeing our hard earned tax money going to incarcerate non-violent offenders. Here in the US, in particular, we have gone absolutely overboard using prisons to deal with issues such as illicit drug use. There are other forms of punishment (community service, fines, restitution) and rehabilitation (counseling, education, medical treatment) that cost less, result in a productive punishment/rehabilitation, and can actually move to improve an individual's ability to function in society.

Re:If memory serves

[jackharrer]

You're absolutely right. If somebody committed a crime which wasn't violent, why the heck should we put him in a prison? Give him a fine so big he will never even think about doing anything stupid. Never. The same about drug USERS. Every time they catch them they should give them a fine. If they cannot/want to pay put them in a prison and do a cold turkey. That should get them time to think.

Re:If memory serves

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's a geek. They'll simply slit his throat and piss on his cooling corpse.

Re:If memory serves

[maop]

I can't tell what level of fines you meant in your post so let me caution that dispossessing them of all future earnings would probably have a worse effect on society than just sending them to prison for ten years. There is a large difference between a hefty fine and a fine that one could never possibly pay. We need to be careful not to fall into the same old trap of cruel punishment that doesn't help reform the criminal.

Re:If memory serves

[Aqua OS X]

No way. If he's with Wãrez he can get in with a tough Mexican East LA gang.

Re:If memory serves

[Anonymous Coward]

[Clippy] Do you mean $500,000? [/Clippy]. If you use "." that means you've stopped talking dollars and started talking cents. In this case, $500 instead of $500000 ($500,000)

Re:If memory serves

[jackharrer]

I would rather suggest fines that will take all earnings they made from criminal activity + little extra to pay over, let's say 1 year, so they will have time to think about it. And if they don't want to pay those installments - just jail them.
And if somebody has a record of dodging those fines, they can also put some financial supervision on them. I mean only on serial offenders, because to put it on everybody would cost too much.

Re:If memory serves

[name*censored*]

Ah, but the freedom applies to EVERY prisoner, including the ones who are bigger than you. I don't know about you, but with the sort of people you might find in a prison, I'd much rather be locked away safely in my cell then out in harms way...

Re:If memory serves

[xtracto]

I agree. Prisons is an option that needs to be reserved for criminals who are a significant threat to society

You know what I find sad about USA prisons? It is that the fact that you go to prison is that the government wants to Lock you up to punish you for your crime and let you rot and be raped and god knows what. I have just read a report (from a digg.com link no less) about the number of male to male rapes on USA prisons. Thinking about this case in particular (the DoD guy), today he is an intelligent man with computer knowledge and some pretty good understanding of technology (maybe even cracking). If the guy gets over the USA prison, he will be so fucked up (the USA system will destroy his life) that when he gets out (if he does it) he might be an addict, killer, and a bunch of other more nasty things.

That is quite sad. Just to put a bit of contrast, in my country, "prisons" are not called "prisons", and their main focus is not just on locking out "bad guys", a prision is usually called CERESO (social readaptation centre) or CEFERESO (social federal readaptation centre) which aim to re adapt the "bad guys" in order to make them *useful* to the society.

I think that is one of the reason why in USA the death penalty is liked, because for them, bad people must be punished, they do not like to see the root of the problem (if someone steals food from others it means he was HUNGRY... no the solution is not to lock the thief but to see WHY was he hungry, maybe more jobs?). But that is the *normal* thinking of the USA government, as they proceed similarly with Terrorism (instead of thinking WHY does the "terrorists" hate us?) they just want to bomb the fuck out of them. Blah!

Of course, you might argue that even my "happy happy" country with their "CERESOs"is not really happy... fuck no, we are very fucked up with corruption and all the same if not more violent crimes than USA (I am talking about your south neighbors), but hell, one of the things I have learnt is that the first step to fix ones problems is to acknowledge you have that problem and then to attack the ROOT. Not the symptoms.

I feel pity for this guy, as I felt pity for the British guy who hacked the CIA and was extradited to the USA. Heck, they should jail them *in* their country. And you people from the USA what the fuck, wake up!. It will be so cool to see in ten years, when half of the world is dead and the other is in USA "prisons" because of your stupid fears.

Re:If memory serves

[dbIII]

about the number of male to male rapes on USA prisons.

Australia goes one worse. We built privatised immigration centres that are run like prisons with one big difference - we threw the men and women in togther with the consequence of female prisoners still not being able to lock their doors after the first rape by a male prisoner - so the same women got raped by the same men.

Re:If memory serves

[Anonymous Coward]

In parts of Europe the "." is used to separate thousands and the "," is used as a decimal point.

Re:If memory serves

[shark72]

"Considering that these people are really no threat to society at all why waste their time and taxpayers money (in two countries in this case) locking them up in the first place?"

As a deterrent. You put it very well: prison will waste his time, and that's something that he has a finite amount of, no matter how much money he makes. And, it's a reality check for others in the scene: if you pirate enough software, you will. go. to. prison.

"It really should be a civil matter - fines would still hurt even if you have no money and get it garnished out of future earnings."

I can see your point from the POV of somebody who'd consider getting into the piracy scene. You put it well... with fines, the worse that can happen is that you'll declare bankruptcy and they'll garnish your wages. That's not so bad a punishment, so it would certainly be less risky to get into large-scale copyright infringement... I might even try it myself, if my set of moral values were a bit different. Reducing it to a civil matter might also have fringe benefits for all the people who benefit from the work of groups like DrinkOrDie... without the threat of prison scaring some people into getting into the business, there might be more warez faster for the rest of us.

But as you know, Title 17 is there to protect the rights of the people who write the software. The government wants to discourage, rather than encourage piracy, regardless of whatever fringe benefits there might be, or how sympathetic we are toward DrinkOrDie and other groups.

Re:If memory serves

[shark72]

"You're absolutely right. If somebody committed a crime which wasn't violent, why the heck should we put him in a prison? Give him a fine so big he will never even think about doing anything stupid. Never."

This would work out well for the defendant. If the fine were just $500K, all he'd need to do is put the word out, and so many people who appreciate DrinkOrDie's work would donate $5 or $10 via PayPal that the $500K fine would vanish within a couple of days, and he'd be back in business right quick.

I recall a few months ago that when one of the bigger torrent sites was shut down for a few days, they put a PayPal link on their site and got donations that averaged $1.6K per day... a lot more than the net profits of many software companies and even many indie record labels. Apparently fans of pirated stuff don't mind shelling out a little cash if it's for an important cause, like keeping the distribution points in business. If copyright infringement were just a civil matter, I'm sure the scene would take care of its own, so fines would not be much of a bother.

Re:If memory serves

[Whatsitmatter]

Honestly, did you read the post at all? .. The point in it being a MINIMUM security prison is that for the most part, bigger than you or smaller than you, they are not violent or threatening people. They're the people the government has said need to serve time, but pose no real risk to anybody. The word prison or jail isn't a synonym for rape and getting beatin.

Re:If memory serves

[GIL_Dude]

True, but then it would not be $, it would be something like 500.000 or £500.000. If it is going to be in US $, which makes sense for a US prison / crime thing, then it should use not just the $ sign, but the separator correctly too.

Re:If memory serves

[GIL_Dude]

I have a brother-in-law who spent a couple of years in a prison for transporting drugs across state lines. They might as well have dispossessed him of all future earnings as almost nobody will hire people who spent time in prison. He's really had a hard time getting any earnings in the 7 or so years since being out. He had no problem getting work before that. I've heard that others have similar trouble. It seems that whether they just attach all future earnings or lock you up to "do time", you lose most of your earnings potential either way.

Re:If memory serves

[smchris]

1. Find hacker give him a hefty fine and throw his ass in jail

2. $500.000 - 10 years worth of prison expenses

3. Profit

Quite literally if he is sent to one of the cheap-ass amateur _private_ prisons run for profit that have become the vogue. (All government is evil you know. Reagan said so.) The more prisoners, the more profit. Only a communist would argue against the logic of that business plan.

Re:If memory serves

[Anonymous Coward]

do do?

Re:If memory serves

[x_MeRLiN_x]

£500.000 is five hundred pounds. Don't correct (what you believe to be) people's ignorance with an example you know nothing about.

Re:If memory serves

[TheRaven64]

Presumably he has some kind of marketable skills. Rather than a lump-sum fine or prison, why not cap his income ant minimum wage for the duration of the sentence. If he has a job, anything above minimum wage is deducted at source. If not, make him work community service eight hours a day and pay him minimum wage. This would cost a lot less than prison, and would benefit the community.

Re:If memory serves

[TheRaven64]

I recall a few months ago that when one of the bigger torrent sites was shut down for a few days, they put a PayPal link on their site and got donations that averaged $1.6K per day. Do you have a source for this? If it's true, it sounds like good evidence that people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for access to an all-you-can-eat DRM-free media download service.

Re:If memory serves

[squarooticus]

And if a person can pay, by whatever means, the damages the courts say he caused, then why shouldn't he be let off? Isn't that the point of damages? To compensate the plantiff for the damages he or she suffered?

Re:If memory serves

[shark72]

"Do you have a source for this? If it's true, it sounds like good evidence that people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for access to an all-you-can-eat DRM-free media download service."

It was the most recent torrent site to go down for a few days... it was covered on Slashdot maybe a month or two ago, and the $1.6K is from a post that one of the operators made bragging about said fact.

Since that was just a burst over a few days, a better data point would be to try to estimate how much people donate to TPB or BitTorrent each year. I have no doubt that people would pay for such a service (people pay for DRMed versions, like Napster, Yahoo! Music and the other various all-you-can-eat services), but the question is whether you'd find enough people to license their content to such a service (I assume you were talking in terms of a legal service in which the content providers were compensated). I don't think many people reading this would be interested in paying for such a service, since the content released on such (being DRM-free, of course) would also become instantly available on the free trackers.

Re:If memory serves

[shark72]

"And if a person can pay, by whatever means, the damages the courts say he caused, then why shouldn't he be let off? Isn't that the point of damages? To compensate the plantiff for the damages he or she suffered?"

You're half right. There's the compensatory damaged that you've mentioned, and then there's punitive.

A compensatory, zero-sum system would have its benefits. For example, if you wanted a candy bar from a store and didn't have the money, then it would be an easy choice to just take it, since if you were caught, all you would owe is the cost of the candy bar. Same thing with a coffee maker or a car -- if you're caught, you just owe the cost of the product. Or, if you were a little more enterprising, you might try a little bank account phishing or a Nigerian-style scam operation. The upside is that you might be able to fleece tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if you were caught, all you'd have to do is pay it back, and you'd be back where you started, having lost only a little time.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the law also has an allowance for what's known as punitive damages. They are often awarded if there's malicious or deliberate intent, and its purpose is to punish the defendant and discourage the defendant from doing it again. For example, if I borrowed your bike and accidentally crashed it into a tree and you took me to court, the court might find for the cost of the bike, plus possibly a little extra as compensation for your lost use of the bike. But if I stole your bike and threw it off a cliff because I don't like you, and you took me to court, the court might make me pay some extra money as punishment. Going to court over a stolen bike is a somewhat silly example, but I hope you get the idea.

Another good reason why defendants shouldn't simply be "let off" is because it's often difficult to get the damages back to the injured parties. Let's take the example of the Nigerian scamster again... there's no doubt that he probably still has most of that $1MM left, and if he's already spent some of it, he can earn it back by just going back and scamming some more people. But if he got that $1MM by scamming 10,000 people, it might be difficult or impossible to find those people and ensure that they get back what they lost. That's why there would be punitive damages, or even jail time -- to encourage that particular scammer to not do it again, so a bunch of people's time isn't wasted again trying to apportion another $1MM back to another 10K victims.

I hope this helps.

Re:If memory serves

[jav1231]

The reason why is simple. Don't fuck with money. The same is true in Major League Baseball. Otis Nixon was caught using cocaine. No biggie. Didn't involve money. Pete Rose gambled. That involved money. He will pay a stiffer price, so to speak. This guy should have shot someone he'd be out sooner depending on the circumstances.

Re:If memory serves

[Anonymous Coward]

well, subjectively worse I suppose. since most prisoners are men, this probably alleviates some of the male rape, and perhaps from a utilitarian viewpoint - a smaller number of people would actually be raped.

Re:If memory serves

[Whatsitmatter]

7 hours and 20 minutes. I honestly expected this within 30 minutes flat. Thanks for not letting me down.

Re:If memory serves

[westlake]

Considering that these people are really no threat to society at all why waste their time and taxpayers money (in two countries in this case) locking them up in the first place?

How precious.

Prison for the hacker or the infringer is wrong.

But prison for other white collar criminals --- as the Geek defines them --- is right.

The Geek is ever the hanging judge when the Microsoft exec is in the dock. But never when it is one of his own.

Re:If memory serves

[Toby_Tyke]

You're absolutely right. If somebody committed a crime which wasn't violent, why the heck should we put him in a prison?

I fully expect to be modded into oblivion for saying this, but I can tell you why. To punish him.

The rights and wrongs of this particular case aside, I believe that if you commit a crime you should be punished. I live in the UK, and we are currently suffering from massive overcrowding in our prisons. Needless to say a lot of the ensuing debate has centred around whether we need to send people to prison at all, whether prison is really the best way to rehabilitate criminals.

That, to me, misses the point. Prison may not be the most effective rehabilitation, but it is a horrible punishment, and I want criminals punished. If we can rehabilitate them, great. But punish them first.

Re:If memory serves

[dbIII]

There are more than two people on this forum - please don't read in some extra baggage you have taken in from another poster - that's just silly, or maybe precioussss as said above.

I'll ask the question another way - do you want a large chunk of your taxes to be spent on shipping people from halfway around the world and locking them up for longer than a multiple rape offender over a civil matter or would you prefer it to be sorted out by copyright lawyers in a civil court? Law and order drives are cheap votes with expensive consequences - look at the ridiculously large US prison populations for an example and wonder who is going to get released early that is an actual danger to society to make space for a copyright violator.

Re:If memory serves

[triffid_98]

Fines have little effect on the destitute, they only hurt those who have money or plan to get it someday. A classic example of this is the 'McLibel' case in the UK. Unless you mean debtors prison, in which case we're adding yet one more reason to throw people in jail...On a related note, my neighbor's kid is in jail again after knocking up wife#2, his 4th baby so far. He has no education and no skills to speak of, fining someone like that is laughable.

Re:If memory serves

[aminorex]

It shouldn't be a problem for him to generate substantial earnings through clandestine sales of pharmaceuticals, however. So at least the state has left him with viable options for the future.

Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Carter313]

If not, I doubt he'll do much time if any at all. He will probably end up getting probation and a large fine.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Sorthum]

I'm more concerned that ONE COUNT of copyright infringement plus conspiracy to commit same can get you more time in prison than if you'd committed any number of violent crimes, up to and including some instances of first degree murder...

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[gaines]

No kidding. We've got one screwed up "justice" system (using the term loosely of course).

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Joebert]

Well, when you take into consideration that you're also more likely to be raped in prison than you would be had you murdered someone, then, uhhh, shit that sucks, that guy better kill someone fast.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Sorthum]

It almost seems like intellectual property is valued far more highly than human life. I don't think that's right, in a moral sense.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[fred911]

NO TIME??? Jeeze, he already spent 3 Years locked up in Australia without being convicted! Now he has to defend stateside. All for something where no profit was made and no one was physically injured. Armed robbery has less a penalty. Fucked up legal system here (stateside).

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[TeraCo]

What the hell are you talking about? First degree murder can get you up to life in prison. The fact that it doesn't is because the judges have discretion in sentencing.. just like like they do in this case. Reporters always give the maximum, because it would be stupid to say "He has been charged with second degree murder, which averages a 3.76 year sentence"

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Harmonious Botch]

It almost seems like intellectual property is valued far more highly than human life. I don't think that's right, in a moral sense. You either have some really crappy software, or a great bunch of friends.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[6th time lucky]

Its a legal system, not a "justice" system. Justice has nothing to do with the law.

i.e. Government can decide that we all should or shouldnt do something, but that doesnt make it right. --> insert example of your choice

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Sorthum]

Yes, it CAN get you life in prison. How often does it? Generally unless it's a second offense, or a police officer, or a severely screwed up crime, it doesn't...

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Copid]

Is there ever a case where copyright infringement should be punished more seriously than first degree murder? Sure, it's unlikely to happen, but even having the possibility for an overlap like that shows that we have some pretty screwed up priorities.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[TapeCutter]

"--> insert example of your choice"

eg: Australian David Hicks is a political prisoner, he gets to rot in gitmo for five years while people argue about Habeus Corpus [sic?], this guy gets a court date and is handed over.

My tinfoil hat is asking why was this guy handed over for prosecution in the US? - Australia already has US style copyright laws and our AG is very enthusistic about enforcing them?

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[TapeCutter]

"Fucked up legal system here (stateside)."

Ditto here on the other side of the Pacific.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[doomy]

Interestingly, one of the American soldier who gang raped a 14 year old girl, killed both her parents and sister, then shot her in the face, and set her on fire gets to get out prison in 10 years.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[maop]

I guess that justice is the unattainable goal that we strive for in our legal system. At least it is the goal for some of us.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Chineseyes]

Yes I get the joke and the point, but this is federal prisons this guy is facing the "pound me in the ass prisons" that you refer to are state prisons which are criminally negligent in terms of preventing prison rape.

Federal prison is no walk in the park but even criminals know fed prisons are a cakewalk compared to what they will see at a state prison. Many times if they are on the run from the police for a crime that will get them 10+ years they will go to multiple states and commit a similar offense in each state to increase the likelihood that they will land in a much cushier federal prison.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[secolactico]

He was sentenced to 100 years, but will be eligible for parole in 10 in exchange for his testimony against the other 3 soldiers charged.

I don't know if there were attenuating circumstances (can't think of one for rape and killing for cover up), but they should all be left to rot in jail.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Builder]

What ? I don't believe that at any time these people reduced the energy of the radiation beam.

Oh, you meant extenuating :)

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Shakrai]

but they should all be left to rot in jail.

Could they have convicted the other three without him rolling on them? Because that's the price you pay to get justice. Plea bargins don't seem to capture the public's fancy but without them the justice system would grind to a halt.

Besides, eligible for parole != automatic freedom.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Alchemar]

I am more concerned with the fact that he has already spent 3 years in a detention center for a crime that he is yet to be convicted of.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[OrangeTide]

Money and business has a history of getting preferential treatment in courts. And the structure of a representative democracy leaves little choice but to make tough laws for those with the most resources to lobby.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Zeinfeld]

I'm more concerned that ONE COUNT of copyright infringement plus conspiracy to commit same can get you more time in prison than if you'd committed any number of violent crimes, up to and including some instances of first degree murder...

Twaddle, you are comparing apocryphal reports of MINIMUM sentences with the MAXIMUM sentence.

First degree murder is a mandatory life sentence virtually everywhere, parole is not likely for first degree murder before 10 years at the very least.

Sentences for crimes are intended to act as a deterent. There is considerably more incentive to commit property crimes so maximum sentences are high. Even though the guy is not accused of piracy for profit he did a heck of a lot of Warez and five years would not be unreasonable.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Joe The Dragon]

He didn't just download software he ran the group.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Venik]

...up to and including some instances of first degree murder...

Therefore, next time I plan on infringing on someone's copyright, I will need to take care of the copyright holder first. Since the punishment is the same anyway...

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Anonymous Coward]

well i know what im doing this weekend....and it doesnt involve music or television anymore!

the great part is, i might be able to get off.....you know, if the body is still warm afterwards......if i blame it on gta

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[deviceb]

bah.. what do u do when you cant fix some issue with a pc.. you tear it down and rebuild it from scratch (sometimes)
This country is getting to be the same way. We are wrapped up in so much nonsense that nothing gets done correctly.. It's pathetic that rapists do less time than some burnout hippy caught with some Urbs. Or in this case somebody busted with ONE COUNT of copyright infringement. The greed is out of control & needs to be reined in. *blech reficere.. circuitionis.. reficio..

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[ultranova]

Is there ever a case where copyright infringement should be punished more seriously than first degree murder? Sure, it's unlikely to happen, but even having the possibility for an overlap like that shows that we have some pretty screwed up priorities.

"We" ? Do you decide on laws in your country ? No, of course you don't; the big corporations do - through the politicians they've bought fair and square - and their only priority is to make money. Since people are plentiful at this time - indeed, there is an overpopulation problem - the value of human life is lesser than the value of keeping a copyrighted work out of circulation outside of official channels. Supply and demand, the cornerstones of capitalist society, are working exactly as they're supposed to here.

If anything, the market values human lives too high, not too low, and all lives equally when in reality losing some lives means losing much more profits than some other lives. In a true free-market environment, the value of human life would be far lower on average and dependent on the market value of the human in question.

I think we can all agree that fixing this problem of overvalying human life would give American corporations a competitive advantage, as well as a whole new meaning to the term "hostile takeover" ;).

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but everyone has a life, not everyone has IP

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[saleenS281]

the attenuating circumstance in their own words were that there was only one male in that family so it would be an *easy target*.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome to america, where crazy screwed up teenagers can pump out future muggers and strippers whom society will have to pay for in more ways than one and no one says anything, but if you share some software and music, then by god, may you die in the lice-infested rat-hole we dump you in from now until your bones are bleached.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[couchslug]

High sentences for non-violent crimes fill our prisons with people who DISPLACE violent offenders back on to the street. Creating a revolving door justice system by overfill isn't the most brilliant crimefighting strategy.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[D'Sphitz]

according to wikipedia, his co-conspirator got 4 years. he could have been out of prison years ago if he sucked it up and took it like a man.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[IamTheRealMike]

By that definition all kinds of thugs would not be in jail. Drug dealers often don't directly "physically injure" people, they're just guys in suits with swanky apartments and shady connections. Financial fraudsters - like the guy who broke Barings bank - would walk despite wiping out millions of peoples savings. I know Slashdot is a haven of piracy-sympathisers, but why is jail suddenly reserved for those who physically injure people, just because now it's a warez guy?

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[animefanlee]

Us troops never raped or killed anybody its a liberal/socialist/muslim lie

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[russx2]

By that definition all kinds of thugs would not be in jail.

According to the dictionary, a thug is a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. Yep, (potentially) belong in jail.

Financial fraudsters - like the guy who broke Barings bank - would walk despite wiping out millions of peoples savings.

This is comparing (real) theft of millions of dollars to copying intellectual property. Yes, the DoD guy was potentially depriving the software industry of an undetermined amount of revenue but this is clearly not the same. By any stretch. The net result of distributing pirated software could be achieved by writing and giving away a competitive free version; less people buy the original product. He's effectively redirected potential customers attention by offering (for free) an alternative source. It's not right, but it's not worth ten years in jail.

I know Slashdot is a haven of piracy-sympathisers

It's not about sympathising with the act of software piracy. It's about the screwed up nature of the legal system where 10 years of a young man's life can be taken away for copying some software. Not murdering, not raping, not even stealing (in the dictionary sense). This is a civil matter. Fine the hell out of him. Don't put him in jail.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for amerika where violent crime is common praktise.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[TeraCo]

When first degree murder should be punished with a suspended sentance perhaps?

If the range for murder is 0 to life, and the range for copy infringement is 0-10, or even 0 to 1 month, you will have the risk of copyright infringers getting more time than convicted murderers. Is this bad? No, it's by design.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[TeraCo]

Exactly, because we give judges discretion when sentencing. I wouldn't expect this guy to get the full 10 years either. He might, but I'll save my outrage until after sentencing rather than flipping out because OMG PIRATES GET MORE TIME THAN MURDERERS.

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[westlake]

I'm more concerned that ONE COUNT of copyright infringement plus conspiracy to commit same can get you more time in prison than if you'd committed any number of violent crimes, up to and including some instances of first degree murder...

Then make the complaint to your state legislature.

--- because ordinary crimes of violence are almost never prosecuted under the federal system in the United States.

Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons [Last Updated: Saturday, 27 January 2007]

Inmate Population

Total 193,466
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 25,330 (14.2 %)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,539 (3.1 %)
Sex Offenses: 4,161 (2.3 %)

There are 42 federal inmates on death row. In the state of Texas alone, 389. Offenders on Death Row

Not that the violent offender in the federal system gets off lightly. To be sentenced in a federal court is pretty much a guarantee that you will be doing hard time:

Sentence Inposed

5--10 years: 52,869 (29.6 %)
10-15 years: 33,871 (19.0 %)
15-20 years: 15,515 (8.7 %)
More than 20 years: 17,020 (9.5 %)
Life: 5,611 (3.1 %)

Re:Is it a mandatory minimum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Us troops never raped or killed anybody

Not according to US Military courts. G.I. Gets 100 Years for Rape, Murder

MAFIAA gets their way

[User 956]

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.

Meanwhile, a drunk driver who kills someone can get off scott free, with no jail time at all. Sweet.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Crunchie Frog]

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.

Meanwhile, a drunk driver who kills someone can get off scott free, with no jail time at all. Sweet. Ah you've made the oft repeated mistake of assuming laws are created to protect people, rather than protect profits.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst in no way conding assholes who get behind the whell whilst pissed.
And in no way condoning assholes who's business model is a protection racket.
I think you'll find the leagal reasoning for the drunk driver getting off lightly is because there is a difference of intent between negligent behaviour (the drunk) and wilful criminal intent (as the law sees it on the behalf of our warez boy).

Obligitory IANAL disclaimer.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Or compare to average sentences for violent crimes such as rape and kidnapping.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[ResidntGeek]

You're assuming uniform malice when stupidity usually suffices. Copyright law is obviously mostly malicious, but I don't think you can make that claim for drunk driving laws (to use the two examples here). DWI is definitely harmful to society and to individuals, and I think most people who have all the information available to lawmakers would support bans and strict punishments on it. If you want to put a cynical spin on it, which I most certainly do, they're protecting their lives, not profits.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[purify0583]

There is no way he would get 10 years for this. Given the fact that his motive was simply to distribute content freely to people without personal gain, and that the crime didnt involve any violence or harm other than perhaps monetary damages in lost sales for the software companies, depending on his past record (which is probably pretty clean) he would get near the minimum. With 3 years time served already I would guess he would get at most fines and probation.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[JohnnyGTO]

I here the best way to kill a spouse is to run em over while drunk.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[fred911]

The feds aren't going to give him credit for time spent in another country fighting extradition. The other DoD leaders got 46 mos. Looks like the short side of 7 years. Complete and utter bullshit.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[anagama]

There was a Quincy episode with that same plot line many ages ago. Quincy figured it out though so don't rely on that plan too much.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Hoi Polloi]

Unfortunately the kin of murder victims don't have lobbyists working for them.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Speed Pour]

Ok, sucks to say, but I have to partially defend the logic here.

Imagine for a second, that some guy (or group) decided to shut off the power to everything during the superbowl...He just cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damages (lost ad revenue, contracts, the stadium, tv network, etc). In this example, nobody was "harmed" (except the players, but they signed up for it). In a similar vein, the software companies argue that they didn't get to make money because piracy groups are making the software available for free and preventing sales from taking place. Obviously that's not a PERFECT comparison...failing to air the superbowl can be measured pretty precisely in terms of loss, which isn't possible with pirated software. If you base it on the SPA, they say all software pirated is money lost. If you base the estimates on probability to buy, less than 10% of all software pirated would have been purchased even if wasn't available to pirate (read: Photoshop, AutoCAD, MS Office). I'd go so far as to say windows wouldn't even see a huge rise in sales, which also makes it likely that Microsoft wouldn't hold nearly as much market share since many people would opt to pick up linux rather than spend money on windows.

I agree, he's not going to get the max penalty, and he's also not likely to go to anything above minimum security. While I defend the logic (but nothing else) of the of the software companies, and I am a programmer myself, I still want to see this guy somehow get out of it and make a dash for a non-extradition country.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[sshore]

You're comparing maximum sentence to an actual sentence. The accused probably won't get anywhere near 10 years in jail or $500,000 fine.

Also, though it's light, 10 years probation is not scot free. The infotainment blurb linked doesn't cover the circumstances around the accident nor the mitigating factors that led to the sentence.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me: Can anyone tell me what the English word is for the concept of German law called "Verhältnismäßigkeit"?

It means something like "the proper relationship [between that which the law tries to change, the means to reach this change and the result of this change in contrast to which is wanted be reached, also seen in context with other laws and especially the constitution]", which is used, among other things, as something like a yardstick to decide whether the ends justify the means.

I don't know of an appropriate word - though I am excused for English is not my first language, but one suspects that no government knows even the concept.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you're right, because someone else didn't get enough punishment, they shouldn't punish this guy.

Come on, he's getting what he deserves. Break the law, go to jail, at least this court might get it right.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[senatorpjt]

A better comparison would be imprisoning people who watched the Super Bowl, saw the ad for Ford, and didn't buy a car.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[maop]

A better analogy would be if someone jammed the airwaves in a town of about 50,000 people during the Super Bowl but the other 99.9999% of the populous in the world saw the Super Bowl. Would you sentence this guy to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine?

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[alzoron]

A direct translation would be proportionateness or commensurateness, but in a legal context a more appropriate word would probably be relevance.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

proportionateness and commensurateness
noun

The relation of corresponding in degree or size or amount.

relevance
noun

Pertinence to the matter at hand.
Applicability to social issues: a governmental policy lacking relevance.
Computer Science The capability of a search engine or function to retrieve data appropriate to a user's needs.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[shawn(at)fsu]

Yep thats good cherry pick one case to make your point. Cause we all no that no one has ever been convicted for DUI resulting in a death and everyone that has ever committed software piracy has served jail time. Even in the article you chose it's not the governments fault it's the fault of the jury.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[indifferent children]

Ah you've made the oft repeated mistake of assuming laws are created to protect people, rather than protect profits.

Let's compromise: Laws are created to protect rich people.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

what bullshit. Talk about picking your comparisons. I guess if this guy was done for enron style fraud, you'd have the same "it's not really a bad crime" attitude would you?
What if you had worked at enron and lost your job?
Your just a typical slashdotter, thinking theft is fine, as long as its geeks doing the stealing.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...

Any particular Super Bowl?

In the particular example of the most recent one... I think the appropriate sentence is some kind of gold medal. That game sucked bad.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[shawn(at)fsu]

It's a shame you posted AC I would have put you on my friends list. My thoughts exactly.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

...Ah you've made the oft repeated mistake of assuming laws are created to protect people, rather than protect profits.

You cant possibly be this stupid can you? Oh yeah, your a 14 year old child. Seriously this is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Sancho]

Meanwhile, a drunk driver who kills someone can get off scott free, with no jail time at all. Sweet.

10 years of probation isn't 'scott free' (or did you believe the Digg sensationalist rhetoric a little too much?) Also, we don't know the terms of his probation: he's probably going to be living a very restrictive life for the next 10 years. And since probation isn't considered 'punishment', you can have all sorts of normally unconstitutional strings attached to it. If he doesn't like them, he's always free to go to prison.

I'm not trying to defend the sentence or anything, but the point is that we don't know all of the parameters of this situation.

Then there's the fact that jurors differ. Every jury is a different entity with different emotions and ability to interpret the facts and impose the sentences. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant, and to suggest that there is any reasonable way to have a jury impose sentence in a fair way is, as well.

And lastly (though tightly coupled with the juror point) is the fact that people have different definitions of what sentencing is for. Some people believe it should be punitive--you did something wrong, and you're going to be punished for it. Some people believe that it should be rehabilitative--there's something wrong with you, and you need to learn what it is. If this man was genuinely sorry--if he felt absolutely terrible about what he did, it's quite possible that justice has been served. The copyright infringer (who was the leader of the group, not just someone downloading every once in awhile) intentionally committed and induced others to commit copyright infringement. He did it over and over again, showing no remorse or justification. Compared to a guy who makes a terrible, fatal mistake one time, I'm honestly not sure which way this should go. It feels weird almost arguing that the guy who killed someone should serve less time than the guy who was the ringleader for a copyright infringement gang, but there it is. If you look at intent, the drunk driver is considerably more innocent than this guy.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[ultranova]

If this man [the drunk driver -ultranova] was genuinely sorry--if he felt absolutely terrible about what he did, it's quite possible that justice has been served. The copyright infringer (who was the leader of the group, not just someone downloading every once in awhile) intentionally committed and induced others to commit copyright infringement. He did it over and over again, showing no remorse or justification. Compared to a guy who makes a terrible, fatal mistake one time, I'm honestly not sure which way this should go. It feels weird almost arguing that the guy who killed someone should serve less time than the guy who was the ringleader for a copyright infringement gang, but there it is. If you look at intent, the drunk driver is considerably more innocent than this guy.

Suppose I'm playing Russian roulette with random people on the street. I've removed all the bullets except one from a revolver, and pull it on passersby, and pull the trigger, rerolling the barrel after every encounter. When the revolver finally goes off and someone dies, is it sufficient punishment that I feel "terrible" ?

That's what the drunk driver did. He knowingly and willingly engaged in action that endangered the lives of everyone else. He did not make a "mistake" any more than any other murderer did; he simply didn't care who got hurt as long as he got his thrills. If he feels terrible, tought; he should have thought of that before doing the equivalent of pulling his revolver and playing Russian roulette with random people.

Drunk drivers belong behind bars for playing with other people's lives, and they sure as hell don't deserve anyone's pity when they do get there.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[umeboshi]

And since probation isn't considered 'punishment', you can have all sorts of normally unconstitutional strings attached to it. If he doesn't like them, he's always free to go to prison. Holy Cow! Have people actually fooled into believing that probation isn't considered punishment?

Also, the practice of administering unusual punishment by having the punished 'volunteer' not to be more strictly punished is a form of coercion.

Hey, these aren't the robots you're looking for. :)

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Sancho]

The drunk driver did not knowingly kill someone. In your example, the person playing Russian Roulette knew someone would die.

The drunk driver never thought it would happen. He didn't set out to kill anyone, and he probably never thought it would happen.

There are huge differences between your hypothetical and what happens in most drunk driving cases.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Maxo-Texas]

And then there is the lady on my last jury.

Her: "But they didn't PROVE he was innocent so he's guilty"

Us: "Mam, in the U.S. they have to prove he's guilty."

Her: "But they didn't PROVE he was innocent so he's guilty"

(repeat several times before i think really she was more browbeat than educated).

We found him innocent. The guy testifying against him admitted to a felony as part of his testimony! (Convicted felon- he supposedly threatend the other guy with a gun to scare him off-- er sir, you are not allowed to have fire arms). In addition his testimony was clearly impossible so it was clear he was lying or seriously deluded.

Afterwards the attorney said they all knew the guy was probably innocent and that he has been in jail 11 months because he was too poor to make bail and that the witness was known to have it in for the defendent from some prior dispute.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Sancho]

Yeah, it scares me that people like that exist in this country.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[AshtangiMan]

IANAL, but the legal yardstick is if the result is foreseealbe. The DD knows (or should and ignorance is not an excuse) that by DD it is possible to kill someone through negligence. Just like if I drop bricks off a tall building. I am not setting out to kill someone, I just want to drop a brick onto the sidewalk 100 feet below. Just because I don't bother to reason hard enough to think that I might end up killing someone does not mean that in a court of law I should not be tried as if I were acting in a way that any reasonable person would assume could result in someone dying. That is, not a first degree murder, but certainly reckless endangerment, agrivated homicide, or even second degree murder. If you drive drunk, you might as well be setting out to accidentally kill someone through gross incompetence.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, where are we getting these truly stupid trolls today?

Yes, dumbass, laws ARE made to protect profits, not people.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[DarkVader]

Yeah, well, here's the thing...

This guy didn't break the law.

He's Australian. He's not American. He never committed any crime in the US, because he HAS NEVER BEEN HERE.

The fact that he's here now is an example of the utter failure of the Australian government, as the only appropriate response for them should have been "You want us to send one of our citizens to you, when he's never left the country? Um, no. Get stuffed."

The only positive outcome this could possibly have is the fall of an Australian government that is clearly out of touch with its responsibilities to Australia's citizens.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Marcos Eliziario]

Remember to code a file-system before.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[ultranova]

The drunk driver did not knowingly kill someone. In your example, the person playing Russian Roulette knew someone would die.

Wrong. The person playing Russian Roulette engaged in behavior that a reasonable person - in fact anyone but a complete moron - should had known had a very high chance of getting someone killed. The drunk driver did the exact same think.

After all, the Russian Roulette player didn't set out to kill anyone either. He simply figured the risk of that happening was worth it.

The drunk driver never thought it would happen. He didn't set out to kill anyone, and he probably never thought it would happen.

To properly control a car, one needs sound judgement, keen observational capacity, and good motor control. This is common knowledge and obvious to anyone who's ever driven a car. Alcohol interferes negatively and significantly with your senses, judgement, and motor control. This is common knowledge and obvious to anyone who's ever been drunk or seen anyone else drunk. Given this, the claim that a drunk driver didn't know he was running a high risk of killing someone is ridiculous.

There are huge differences between your hypothetical and what happens in most drunk driving cases.

No there isn't. They are both examples of recklessly and knowingly endangering others.

Re:MAFIAA gets their way

[Speed Pour]

I like that somebody modded this down...superbowl fan, or just a pirate who doesn't like being told their hero isn't a hero to everybody.

RUN from the MAFIAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Run everyone! They'll come for you no matter which country you're trying to live in... totally disregarding the sovereignty of your own countries laws.

Re:RUN from the MAFIAA!

[ScentCone]

otally disregarding the sovereignty of your own countries laws.

Since you can't tell the difference between:

countries
country's
countries'

I won't expect you to understand the difference between countries that do, and do not, have extradition treaties with each other. If someone in the U.S. were shown to be indictable over some bit of fraud or similar activity victimizing someone in Australia, an Australian prosecutor could proceed with the same sort of approach going the other direction. Australia defends its sovereign rights by entering into those treaties that it finds useful to it. If, in its own interest, Australia wants to have the option of extradicting a criminal into Australia for trial there, they have to have it both ways. If they don't like the notion that one of their citizens breaking another country's laws might subject that person to extradition, then they also cannot expect the same ability when the tables are turned. It couldn't be simpler. Obviously, Australia chose to leave its options open, and after a lengthy proceeding there, came to the same conclusion: the guy should stand trial for he was doing to his U.S. targets.

Re:RUN from the MAFIAA!

[TheDugong]

"Australia defends its sovereign rights by entering into those treaties that it finds useful to it."

As an Australian, I strongly disagee. Australia is entered into those treaties that enable it's current leader to press his lips near to the anus of the current leader of the US in the hopes that he can play with the big boys and be in there gang.

Re:RUN from the MAFIAA!

[cHALiTO]

Also, such treaties usually come in the form of broader 'treaties' usually speaking of things like "free trade" and lots of stuff that look very nice on paper but usually end up fucking up the other party. Also, the 'agreement' to sign such treaties often go like "look, if you sign this, the IMF and friends might consider not blowing your economy to pieces for a few years".

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?

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

USA: "lolz @ international law!!1!"

Re:Why the US

[datafr0g]

Team America: World Police!

America! Fuck YEAH! Comin' again, to save the motherfuckin day yeah!

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US wants to extradite someone in another country, they waltz over and get them. If another country wants to extradite someone from the US, it never happens. This double standard has got to stop.

Re:Why the US

[jeevesbond]

Wow, I'm sorry. I forgot about them!

Can picture it now: the Australian court were just about to decide *not* to extradite him, when Team America flew in. They blow up half of Sydney, launch a missile into the Opera House, grab the 'suspect' (innocent until proven guilty of course) and fly back home.

The USA: Justice starts--and ends--here!

Re:Why the US

[powerspike]

that's what has gotten me confused as well. Also at the time, it was stated in the media here (in australia) that the "crimes" where legal in australia.

Re:Why the US

[purify0583]

If you steal something belonging to a US business (espically 50 million dollars worth of software FTFA)... The the US law definatly has an interest in the case. The law exists to protect its citizens. If someone from another country stole 50 million dollars from me, I sure as hell epxect my government to track his punk ass down and put him in a US prison no matter where he lived. I wouldnt care if he was British and living in Austrailia or German living in Mexico or whatever. If he commits crimes in the US or against US citizens, the US has the right, moreover, the *obligation* to act to protect its citizens.

Re:Why the US

[Max Littlemore]

The law exists to protect its citizens. If someone from another country stole 50 million dollars from me, I sure as hell epxect my government to track his punk ass down and put him in a US prison no matter where he lived.

Does that mean you support the US sending CIA agents to Europe to face trial for kidnapping? How enlightened.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all your base are belong to U.S.

Re:Why the US

[Americano]

For the same reason that, if you come to the US, kill someone, and then flee to Australia, the United States will attempt to extradite you to face charges of murder. Yes, I know it's not "the same thing" -- software piracy & murder are vastly different. But the legal processes involved are exactly the same. You violate a US law in some way, if the US tracks you down in Australia, it will ask the Australian police to arrest you, and then extradite you to the US to face charges.

FTFA, the initial arrest by Australian agents was coordinated as part of "Operation Buccaneer", in which police in the US, Britain, Australia, and several other countries served warrants & arrested people as part of the same investigation.

I'll leave it to better legal minds than mine to decide whether the guy deserves to spend 10 years in jail, or pay a $500,000 fine.

Re:Why the US

[Kris_J]

The argument is that he didn't commit crimes in the US, he never entered the US and wasn't committing any crime in the country in which he resided.

If this precedent sticks, almost every individual in Australia can be dragged to the US to face, ironically, the kangaroo court funded by the [RI/MP]AA.

Should, therefore, US women who dare to show some skin in magazines that are exported to the Middle East be dragged to some backward Islamic court to be stoned to death?

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Should, therefore, US women who dare to show some skin in magazines that are exported to the Middle East be dragged to some backward Islamic court to be stoned to death?

Yes, at least until the US stops extraditing Aussie w4r3z d00dz.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

if you come to the US, kill someone, and then flee to Australia

This guy was never in the US, though.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I'm assuming your view on such matters would change quite dramatically in some very similar situations.

Let's say you write some very negative things about the current government of the People's Republic of China, and in the process you break a number of Chinese laws.

Now, how would you feel if China tried to extradite you?

Re:Why the US

[Sam Ritchie]

Fascinating - a typical Slashdot troll's exhortation to perform fellatio would be almost on-topic here.

Re:Why the US

[miskatonic alumnus]

Yes, I know it's not "the same thing" -- software piracy & murder are vastly different.

Give it time. Many already refer to copyright infringement as theft.

Re:Why the US

[Peter Cooper]

Americo-Australianian relations are at an all-time low. As I'm sure you remember, in the late 1980s the US experienced a short-lived infatuation with Australian culture. For some bizarre reason, the Aussies thought this would be a permanent thing. Of course, it wasn't. Anyway, the Down Under fad fizzled and the diplomatic climate turned absolutely frosty.

Anyway, Australia wanted to put him in stern for 5 years, but the diplomats had another option. They said the US would drop the charges if he made a public apology in the US.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia, England, and just about every other country has an agreement to honor copyrights. It's a two-way street. Australia wants to protect the copyrights of its citizens. If Australia finds copyright violators in the US, they can ask to have these criminals arrested, charged, extradited, and prosecuted.
 
To all you communists out there that think copyrights are foolish... what would you do if your father or mother earned a living writing books, and everyone stole the material, gave it away, or re-sold on the street corner for $1.00 or $2.00. How would your parents put food on the table? How would they make a house payment, or the rent payment? Medicine? Clothing? Do you expect a welfare state to pop up and provide for your family? What would you say if your family lost their home because of piracy? You'd be angry. You'd want criminals to be prosecuted, ordered to pay restitution, and/or put in jail.
 
But when you're some rich teenage punk without a job, and you have mommy and daddy to live off of, it's easy to spout some leftist agenda. You don't have to pay taxes. You don't have to put food on the table for a family. You don't have to buy clothing, medicine, or pay for insurance.

You blame the rich. Yet 1% of the world is rich. The other 99% are middle class, or they are poor. The middle class are hurt by piracy FAR more than the wealthy. The wealthy will remain wealthy. The poor and the middle class are hurt by piracy more than anything. They don't have the ability to fight piracy. Government doesn't care about the middle class or the poor. Oh sure, the democrats like to pay lip service to the poor, but it's a token effort. Ask Hillary what she's done for the poor. Ask John Kerry, Harry Reid what they've done for the poor. They give out welfare exactly like they did 40 years ago. Nothing more, nothing less. Giving out money is insulting. It keeps them down, it doesn't help the poor. Democrats are more interested in class warfare than anything else. They don't have a solution, they just want to point fingers and stay in power.

So keep spouting your anti-copyright rhetoric. Keep believing that you're hurting no one when you steal. Make yourself feel better when you say, "Everyone is doing it." Everyone is NOT doing it. There are honest people who are NOT greedy and do NOT have any need to steal 20,000 MP3's, thousands of videos, and hundreds of console games. Respecting people for their work, rewarding them for their work is the right thing to do. Most of you chose to live in a free country. You have the opportunity to go out and create something and be rewarded for it. How would you like it if someone stole your work and laughed at you? And then when someone responded, you cried about the mafia? Or the big bad government? And you complain about short sentences for rapists and killers? You people keep electing liberal judges and politicians. Bill Clinton pardoned hundreds of criminals. Murderers, rapists, gang members. Yet you complain about soft stances on crime.

Most of you ass hats on /. are teenage hypocrites without a clue. Go out on the street and try to earn a living without the help of mommy and daddy.

Re:Why the US

[KDR_11k]

US law has an interest but no jurisdiction. It's nonsense to try someone for an action when that someone hasn't committed it in an area where it's actually a crime just as it's nonsense to try someone for an action that wasn't against the law when it was performed but is now. Do the people that work as executioners for death row inmates get arrested for serial murder once they leave the US?

Re:Why the US

[tftp]

IANAL, but the word "theft" probably has a very well defined legal meaning, and so the prosecution would be asked to present the $500,000,000 worth of loot confiscated from the accused, along with the police reports from the scene of theft. Can't do that with a moderate stack of DVD-Rs for which the accused has a store receipt (and who had never been at the "scene of the crime".)

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

they can ask

But they'll never receive.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't quite tell. Are you Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?

Re:Why the US

[howlingmadhowie]

the trouble is, technology has advanced to a stage that makes tradiional ideas of ownership of digitally copyable media no more valid. you can say 'please continue to play the copyright game like it developed in the 20th century', but it isn't going to happen. it is the case, that hollywood as an industry must consider new ways of gathering revenue if it wishes to continue to make films for 250million dollars. DVD sales (and home copies of films have only existed since the mid to late 80s) as a source of money will slowly dry up and at some stage be regarded as a short term blip while the technology was good enough to play the media, but not to record it. (i can certainly understand people who copy or download things like tv series. why should i pay 50 dollars for a seaon of star trek, when i could record it straight from the tv?)

one of two things will happen, either:

• the music and film industry will have to change greatly to survive, or
• we will have to give up large amounts of freedom to protect the old business model

I would have thought, that anything that makes this clear to the average american (and having somebody deported from another sovereign country to face 10 years imprisonment for violating copyrights is absurd) is a good thing.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they should, fucking women and their equal rights, what about the rights of my camel, stupid bitches.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please.

I'm not going to pay for programs like AutoCAD and MATLAB. I'm a student, I'm not making a profit from using them. When I work for a company or have my own business, they'll get paid their fair share.

Please go cry in a corner about your sweeping hate for democrats.

Re:Why the US

[senatorpjt]

what would you do if your father or mother earned a living writing books, and everyone stole the material, gave it away, or re-sold on the street corner for $1.00 or $2.00.

I'd tell them to look for another line of work. Just because people don't pay to watch me jack off doesn't mean I have a right to earn a living off it.

Re:Why the US

[senatorpjt]

Yeah, it's not the same thing. It's like if you lived in Australia, bought a Cuban cigar, and got extradited to the US to face trial.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

deja vu. Did you copy the first part of this comment from somewhere?

Re:Why the US

[BiggerIsBetter]

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Firstly, it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

Secondly, keep your wannabe-emotive Mom and Pop analogies for a more gullible audience, because going hungry because the crap you write isn't worth more the $1 or $2 to the punters is a far cry from what's happening here. You'll be aware of the AUSFTA treaty of 2004/2005, yet this investigation was carried out in 2000/2001... well before the treaty allowing this situation, with agreed copyright standards. Given that Griffiths has been fighting this for just under 3 years, it seems clear that he wasn't apprehended until after the treaty was hammered out, yet the US suspect was already convicted by 2002 - and was sentenced to only 46 months! I've no doubt the lawyers have gotten into this point, but I've also no doubt that the US Attorney has more legal resources than Griffiths has.

Perhaps instead of getting the courts involved in these issues, you should call a whaaambulance instead - 10 years in a foreign prison for this is bullshit, and that'll be top of he's already had 3 in an Aussie detention centre.

Regards,
BiggerIsBetter

P.S. Asshat is one word.

Re:Why the US

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Instead of pirating Matlab, you might want to take a look at Octave. It's Open Source, it's good, and the support is amazing. Disclaimer: I've never tried the visiulation addon to Octave, so I've no idea how that works. However, if you want a powerful matrix-manipulation program, Octave is very good. Be sure to get 2.9.9... that's the good one. And the interface is matlab compatible, so no learning curve for you.

No idea about an AutoCAD, never done CAD in my life.

Re:Why the US

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I tend to agree about committing "crimes" where they are not crimes. In this case the guy isn't even a resident of the country where the action is criminal. Hopefully there is more to this is it appears, otherwise it is truly twisted.

Canada now has laws that make it a crime for a Canadian to go to another country and engage in activities that are perfectly legal in that country but illegal if they were performed in Canada. It essentially makes you the property of the state since they have taken the right to control your behaviour even when you are not in the country. Unfortunately the crime they chose to start out on is sex with children - paedophiles going on sex vacations in third world countries - and nobody is going to be seen to do anything that might support that, so there is not going to be any public outcry against the law even though it makes citizens into chattel and will undoubtedly be expanded to other types of crimes... like copyright infringement.

Re:Why the US

[pryonic]

I couldn't agree more. I'm a Brit and our Government has recently ratified an extradition treaty with the USA. It's meant to be a mutual two way thing to help prevent everyone's favourite buzzword terrorism. Except the USA didn't ratify the bill, it's still pending. The USA has extradited a number of UK citizens (including a computer hacker)using the UK ratified treaty, but we can't extradite the USA citizens who we suspect of supporting the IRA (who commited terrorist acts on the British mainland) who SHOULD stand trial.

The hypocrasy and general one sided "we're the best, do as we say not as we do" attitude of the US Government stinks to high heaven, and the UK Government really needs to grow a pair and stand up to the one sided "special relationship" we supposeldly have with the USA.

Re:Why the US

[shutdown -p now]

You blame the rich. Yet 1% of the world is rich. The other 99% are middle class, or they are poor. The middle class are hurt by piracy FAR more than the wealthy. The wealthy will remain wealthy. The poor and the middle class are hurt by piracy more than anything. They don't have the ability to fight piracy.

I belong to the middle class in my country. What more, I work for a company writing shrinkwrapped software for a living. As such, I feel fully entitled to tell you to stop spreading bullshit in my name and fuck off. Present-day copyright laws hurt me more than piracy does (and I break them with no feeling of guilt whatsoever).

Re:Why the US

[OakLEE]

Double standard. Hardly, countries such as Mexico regularly refuse to extradite persons to the US if that persons faces the death penalty. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. The Wikipedia article also points out that many European countries regularly refuse to extradite their own citizens. The most famous case is that of Roman Polansky, whom France refused to extradite to the US after he fled the country following a conviction on the charge of child rape.

As for you assertion that the US disproportionately denies extradition requests, I would like to see some data to back it up. The only data I could find was published by the Australian government, the country from which the accused was extradited, for the 2004-05 year. Source. According to the document, they did not have a single request denied by the U.S.

Also, just for clarification, the US did not go in and "take" him. The summary clearly points out that the US spend three years in proceedings before the order was finally given to extradite. The following article also clarifies that the accused with in Australia during the entire ordeal. Source. I hardly call that "waltzing over."

Re:Why the US

[erroneous]

> As I'm sure you remember, in the late 1980s the US experienced a short-lived infatuation with Australian culture.

Crocodile Dundee 1 and 2.

> Anyway, the Down Under fad fizzled

Crocodile Dundee 3.

Re:Why the US

[giminy]

Should, therefore, US women who dare to show some skin in magazines that are exported to the Middle East be dragged to some backward Islamic court to be stoned to death?

Allow me to suggest a double-standard.

In the case of Britney Spears: yes.
In the case of Natalie Portman: no.

Reid

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont advertise your ignorance.. Showing 'some skin' is not according to Islamic Law grounds for stoning to death...Get your facts correct before you show off your prejudice please.
In addition Islamic Courts are not backward, at least not in comparison to those in the rest of the so called civilised world...
A person would also need to be a Muslim by CHOICE and VOLUNTARILY submit to Islamic Law in order to be judged by it. During the period of Islam's birth non - believers were judged by the laws of their OWN religions by Muslims.

Its uneducated comments like this that contribute to the incorrect views of Islam in the west.

Re:Why the US

[mrchaotica]

Too bad it's ridiculously hard to install in OSX.

Re:Why the US

[Dunbal]

a typical Slashdot troll's exhortation to perform fellatio would be almost on-topic here.


      Are you offering?

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Bart vs. Australia - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0778446/

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

an excellent post, Agreed 100%. I'm sick of the self-justifying warez-kiddies always ready to rush to the defence of ANYONE regardless what they did, if it means they get to carry on taking stuff for free.
Apparently theft isn't theft if its done by geeks.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the fark out of Northern Ireland, and you can stop worrying about the IRA. To be honest, terrorism is terrorism, whether it's Arab, Israeli, Irish, or American. At the same time, England needs to let loose of its last desperate attempt at colonialism, and give Ireland her freedom back.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

A person would also need to be a Muslim by CHOICE and VOLUNTARILY submit to Islamic Law in order to be judged by it

So a woman who is stoned to death for adultery has voluntarily submitted herself to Islamic Law knowing she would be subjected to this punishment? That is bullshit. Apologists for Islamic barbarism like you make me sick.

Re:Why the US

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US wants to extradite someone in another country, they waltz over and get them. If another country wants to extradite someone from the US, it never happens. This double standard has got to stop.

Why? We are the baddest mutha fuckers because we have the most nukes. Not only that but we are the only ones that have PROVEN to the world that we are not afraid to use them. Iraq should also show you that we don't even need reasons.

Plus, God is on our side.

Re:Why the US

[pryonic]

You know I'd normally agree with you, but the issue isn't quite as clear cut as "Britain holds onto Ireland". A large quantity of people who live in NI want to remain British, while another large quantity don't. If everyone in NI wanted to be Irish we'd solve the problem tomorrow, but the Government won't turn it's back on the 1000s of NI citizens who wish to remain British and that's a good thing - the right to self determination is A Good Thing.

And to be frank, what the IRA stands for was nothing to do with my OP. Violent terrorism is wrong in ALL cases (and yes, I know most countries have been guilty of it too, just look at our illegal invasion of Iraq). England has given up the vast vast majority of its former colonies and the general feeling is that that is a good thing. I'm more for us putting our political weight and power into the EU than forcibly taking over other countries. If only America was thinking along the same lines instead of creating a group of vassal states in the middle east? Oh and last time Puerto Rico was a US colon^H^H^H^H^H protectorate.

Re:Why the US

[danpsmith]

The hypocrasy and general one sided "we're the best, do as we say not as we do" attitude of the US Government stinks to high heaven, and the UK Government really needs to grow a pair and stand up to the one sided "special relationship" we supposeldly have with the USA.

You have a "special relationship" alright, the same type of "special relationship" a lot of kids had with their priests and weird uncles.

Re:Why the US

[Americano]

Apparently, Australia has copyright laws, too. Given that, and the even-more-recent Australia-US Free Trade Agreement of 2004, the guy could have easily seen this coming. If you engage in activities that are illegal, and you are caught doing so, why is it a surprise that you'd be arrested? And if your actions primarily, substantially, harmed American software companies, why is it any surprise that the US would request that Australia extradite you, so that you can face charges in the US for harming those American companies?

Extradition treaties are nothing new. Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:

Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:
- The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.
- There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought.
- The event in question qualifies as a crime in both countries.
- The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the recipient country.
- The likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime.

So, that's "why the US", even though "this guy was never in the US." You can argue that it's not fair, and that his crimes don't fit the requirements for extradition, but this is absolutely nothing surprising under current laws and treaties.

Re:Why the US

[Americano]

You're very wrong, for a very simple reason -- it's not a crime in both countries. The Australian police would have no cause to arrest you. Nor would the US be able to argue that some harm was caused to parties in the US by your actions.

I'll post this again, because people seem to be having trouble with the typical standards governing extradition. "Generally, an extradition treaty requires that a country seeking extradition be able to show that:"

• The relevant crime is sufficiently serious.
• There exists a prima facie case against the individual sought.
• The event in question qualifies as a crime in both countries.
• The extradited person can reasonably expect a fair trial in the recipient country.
• The likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime.

You can argue that the penalty for this guy's alleged copyright infringement is disproportionate, or completely unfair, but to say there's something fishy about the guy being extradited flies in the face of existing extradition treaties & the copyright laws of both Australia & US.

Re:Why the US

[IdolizingStewie]

Oh and last time Puerto Rico was a US colon^H^H^H^H^H protectorate.

They get to vote on their status every so often. Last time, I believe they had the options of being the 51st state, staying as they are, and being totally free. They picked none of the above, so what exactly were we supposed to do?

Re:Why the US

[drinkypoo]

Does that mean you support the US sending CIA agents to Europe to face trial for kidnapping? How enlightened.

I certainly would support such a thing. I think that most Americans (like myself) are offended that there is a branch of the government that runs around doing dirty things behind their backs.

Of course, most Americans also think that such a thing is necessary at times, not realizing that violence begets violence.

Also most of them probably don't really believe that the CIA assassinates people, helps run drugs, etc etc.

Re:Why the US

[senatorpjt]

Well, what if (assuming it's also illegal in Australia), the guy distills whiskey in his home. The constitutional basis for all the drug laws in the US is interstate commerce - their argument is that even if you make your own drugs, you're affecting interstate commerce by altering the demand for drugs produced out of state (I'll admit, I think that's a pretty weak argument, but the supreme court bought it). So, likewise, manufacturing your own liquor affects the US, because maybe the guy would have bought US-made liquor instead of making it himself. Would he be extradited?

Even a more direct case - if an Australian tourist gets mugged by an American, the mugger isn't extradited to Australia. The victim may have been Australian, but the crime was committed in the US by a US citizen.

Furthermore, the software companies are probably multinational corporations - and probably have some sort of presence in Australia. That means that this was a crime committed by an Australian, in Australia, with an Australian victim.

Re:Why the US

[purify0583]

I would support sending US citizens to to europe if they committed kidnapping of course. But when a person is acting as an agent of the government the law discriminates. If anyone should be extradited it should be officers in charge who ordered the detention (and this would likely go to the top levels of the pentagon and white house), not the individuals who are simply doing their jobs. And then it becomes a matter of diplomacy when the crime in question is a matter of government policy, not individual acts of crime. Unless they were acting outside their orders, then by all means the blame is on the individuals. But the issue in question here was that a private citizen committed a crime independant of any government oversight. Apples and oranges. Yeah I know its a double standard. Governments can pick and choose which laws they want to obey. But thats how human society has been for a long time now isnt it?

Re:Why the US

[ultranova]

To all you communists out there that think copyrights are foolish... what would you do if your father or mother earned a living writing books, and everyone stole the material, gave it away, or re-sold on the street corner for $1.00 or $2.00. How would your parents put food on the table?

Well, since they'd clearly be madly popular authors, I'd look into getting a serial column in a magazine(s), as well as entering into pocket book industry - you know, those books which are sold so cheap it just isn't worth it to pirate them, since it costs more to print them out yourself. I might also look into making promotional deals with bookstores, where the author would personally sign every book sold there. Branching into writing theatrical or radio scripts might also be worthwile.

Giving out money is insulting. It keeps them down, it doesn't help the poor.

Well, it does help them get enough food to avoid starvation. I think that's more important than ideological purity.

Re:Why the US

[Kjella]

Well, blame the stupid UK politicans for making a stupid bill. If they had any sense, they would have put in a clause that it would not go into effect until the mutual agreement has been ratified as well. Imagine if this was any other sort of agreement, you wouldn't start shipping goods before you had an agreement saying the other side would pay would you?

Re:Why the US

[Americano]

All of your counterexamples conveniently overlook the first bullet point: That a crime be "sufficiently serious" to warrant extradition. Distilling whiskey in your own home for your own consumption, or even a mugging, are not typically "serious" enough to warrant extradition.

You can parse this any way you like, but I'm guessing you're not a lawyer, and neither am I -- this guy has been appealing extradition for 3 years, so it's not like he was whisked away out of his home in the middle of the night to be brought to the US to stand trial. He's had the chance to make all these arguments, and probably many more, and the Australian court system found that none of them outweighed the evidence presented with the request for extradition.

This case is simply NOT out of the ordinary, or evidence of some sinister dark cabal controlling the governments of Australia and the US.

Re:Why the US

[EsbenMoseHansen]

No apt equivalent for Mac? I'm sorry for you. I'd suggest you try Kubuntu or maybe even Debian, and see your software woes disappear. Well,except for games, but from what I hear Mac are just as overlooked as Linux by the publishers :/ (Not trying to evangelize here, use what you find best, it's just friendly suggestions :) )

Re:Why the US

[mrchaotica]

First of all, I switched to the Mac from Linux (and now -- although I hate to admit it -- I've sort of switched to Windows, but that's only because I'm using a Tablet PC). Anyway, I know all about using package managers, and yes, I do lament the fact that that's not the "normal" way to install software in Mac OS.

Second, 3rd-party package managers do exist for the Mac, namely Fink (which uses apt) and DarwinPorts (which uses the BSD port system). However, neither of those seemed to be able to install a copy of Octave that actually worked properly, and especially not one that had a GUI.

Re:Why the US

[Jonny Ringo]

We should at the least, make photo copies of trade marked Hall Mark cards and mail to him while he's stuck in prison.

Fuck yeah. :)

Re:Why the US

[MMInterface]

I work for a software company who's products are pirated extensively. Some of my work is in those products. I'm the type of so called victim you are describing, yet I don't feel victimized because I get paid well and am pretty comfortable. Asking for anymore would be greedy. People steal our work all the time and call us all kinds of names. I don't care, in fact I support many if them. They create a balance for companies that already have too much power especially the clowns of the RIAA who are no different then gangsters. For my company copyright law is nothing but a tool to be manipulated. Its not what we preach but its definately what we practice. In the end the money is still being distributed, to hardware, even software loaded on to machines, blank media, online services and broad band connections.

Re:Why the US

[alexo]

I would support sending US citizens to to europe if they committed kidnapping of course. But when a person is acting as an agent of the government the law discriminates. If anyone should be extradited it should be officers in charge who ordered the detention (and this would likely go to the top levels of the pentagon and white house), not the individuals who are simply doing their jobs. And then it becomes a matter of diplomacy when the crime in question is a matter of government policy, not individual acts of crime. Unless they were acting outside their orders, then by all means the blame is on the individuals. But the issue in question here was that a private citizen committed a crime independant of any government oversight. Apples and oranges. Yeah I know its a double standard. Governments can pick and choose which laws they want to obey. But thats how human society has been for a long time now isnt it?

Nah, doesn't work that way.

Re:Why the US

[KudyardRipling]

For the immediate case, I can think of one reason for the asymmetry:+1 NPA Erra-Erra-Erra Hick-Swerve-Crash-Splash. The NPA should be easy to guess.

The fundamental question:

[caitsith01]

Is a man's freedom itself really only of equivalent value to the artificially created rights in a creative work?

It's time that copyright infringement, and all intellectual property offences, returned to the purely civil arena. Pecuniary penalties are one thing: bankrupt them with fines and damages, by all means. To do so is consistent with the justifications for having intellectual property rights in the first place, which are either related to innovation, commerce, or artistic integrity depending on where you come from historically.

But no-one should be imprisoned for copying information.

Re:The fundamental question:

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Seriously though, let me know when you run for office.

Re:The fundamental question:

[bataras]

"a man's freedom" exists in time. So when you ask whether "a man's freedom" is worth something else, you have to indicate time. Is one day of a man's freedom worth leading a huge piracy operation? Perhaps.

Re:The fundamental question:

[caitsith01]

I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I sincerely hope this becomes the next great ./ meme, I have noticed it appearing with increasing frequency and hilarity.

As for running for office, not likely. But you're welcome to come and feel marginalised and unrepresented with me on my blog.

Re:The fundamental question:

[caitsith01]

"a man's freedom" exists in time. So when you ask whether "a man's freedom" is worth something else, you have to indicate time. Is one day of a man's freedom worth leading a huge piracy operation? Perhaps. Interesting point. I would agree if prison amounted to nothing more than a temporary deprivation of liberty.

But do you think that you would feel like that the day after you'd been in prison? A period of incarceration of any length at all has a huge, and permanent, effect on your ability to do many things, both in an institutionalised sense and in an informal, socially driven sense. And that is without adding in a demonstrably large chance of exposing you to rape, violence, other dehumanising experiences, drugs and disease.

Re:The fundamental question:

[Yev000]

No, you don't understand, he ASKED to go to prison to save on rent to pay off that fine within his lifetime.

Re:The fundamental question:

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. It's pretty clear that reducing the sentences for such crimes are hardly going to encourage people to obey the law, copyright infringement is rampant as it is, and this guy was hardly an innocent kid who accidentally shared a few MP3s.
I say good riddance to him, I hope he gets the very maximum penalty, and has a seriously horrific time behind bars.
Its no worse than scheming little thieves like him deserve.

Re:The fundamental question:

[weierstrass]

you must be new here

Re:The fundamental question:

[Paradise Pete]

It's pretty clear that reducing the sentences for such crimes are hardly going to encourage people to obey the law

That depends on what your goal is. If the guy does a small amount of time and then gets out, the chances of him being a contributing member of society are still pretty good. If the guy does 20 years, when he gets out chances are he won't be able to make a good contribution to society. So if your goal is to rehabilitate, less time is better. If you goal is to stop the total number of crimes, then by all means, lock him up forever.

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?

Re:It strikes me as unfair...

[ady1]

basically he distributed an implementation of an idea without permission. Ideas cannot be stolen. They can only be copied with or without permission.

Re:It strikes me as unfair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he be punished for breaking US law when at the time he was in Australia and not a US citizen, and in Australia the action was legal at the time?
Like someone here asked, should american women be punished for breaking the Sharia law and not wearing a veil?

Same issue here. USA has no jurisdiction over Britons living in Australian who are not US citizens, FYI.

I think the Australian government and their sovereignity has been seriously compromised when they let this kind of things happen to their citizens.

Re:It strikes me as unfair...

[Silentknyght]

He *should* be punished for breaking the law, but wasn't there something against disproportionate punishment in western codes? Yes. Fortunately, the media in all cases overhypes the listed punishment to make a bigger headline. If the line read "DoD hacker to get 10 years, but will likely only serve 18 months and be out on good behavior," then it's less catchy & less controversial. Additionally, IANAL but I am virtually certain that, in addition to the law that protects against disproportionate punishments, there is a law that allows the judge/jury to actually set a disproportionate punishment if they feel the usual precedent is insufficient for the particular individual.

Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahah i remember this poor dude.... house raided by the fbi at 2 am.... ouch

Funny

[ThoreauHD]

If he killed somebody he'd have been out already.

Re:Funny

[tftp]

I wonder if Hans Reiser shares your belief.

They Never Profited ..

[Pavan_Gupta]

However, its is worth noting that it has never been proven that any member of DoD profited financially from their activities. Indeed, at the trial of other DoD members in the UK in May 2005, Bruce Houlder QC, prosecuting, said he acknowledged that the defendants were not involved in the software piracy scene to make money but rather they saw themselves as latter-day Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

For many in the warez scene and beyond, this is how DoD will be remembered. Yes, I know this doesn't absolve them of their sins... well, I could envision someone making a reasonable argument about how the world isn't on a level playing field and these guys were helping to level things for those that couldn't afford to be recognized... but I digress. I just thought it was worth recognizing that there is something to be said about these characters that isn't completely negative.

Re:They Never Profited ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Latter-day Robin Hoods" and "were not involved in the software piracy scene to make money" Don't make me laugh. They participated in piracy because they would get access to software, music, movies, e-books and more in exchange for their participation. Sure they supposedly didn't make any money by selling anything, however they still got "paid" with access to topsites.

Department of Defense?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"DrinkorDie" isn't exactly a mouthful. There's no need to abbreviate it with "DoD", which most Slashdotters will at first glance think means "Department of Defense".

Re:Department of Defense?!

[Asztal_]

I was thinking Day of Defeat.

Re:Department of Defense?!

[0zzy]

golly ... I thought it was Day of Defeat... MMMMmmmm Counterstrike ....

Re:Department of Defense?!

[An ominous Cow art]

The stereotypical Slashdot reader would obviously interpret 'DoD' as 'Dungeons or Dragons'. :-)

What can we do to give back?

[Anonymous Coward]

I particularly enjoyed their starcraft release. Is there nothing we can do for this guy?

Re:What can we do to give back?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an honorary citizenship and asylum in Sealand?

Re:What can we do to give back?

[senatorpjt]

If everyone who got warez from DoD gave $1 for every $1000 "worth" of warez they downloaded, he could probably afford every lawyer that anyone's ever heard of.

Antique Crimes

[Archon-X]

As I recall, the DoD bust happened almost 8 years ago. (I remember friends throwing harddrives in rivers..)
Other people from this bust, and from the relating 'fallout' busts have been nabbed, tried and sentances served by now.

As a cynic, you have to ask: Will he be tried in accordance to the precedents of the others [in a world minus DMCA and 'terroristm', MPAA fury etc], or is a large public justification required for what was by account a deep investment by the US government?

I'm not sympatheic, I'm just curious.

Re:Antique Crimes

[DreadSpoon]

"(I remember friends throwing harddrives in rivers..)"

Personally, I think that should be punishable by 10 years in prison, more than any copying of data should be.

Re:Antique Crimes

[Whatsitmatter]

Your memory is off by about 3 years. It was December 11 of 01, so more like 5 years 2 months. And most of them had served all their time except one of them which actually only finished serving his time last month. And if I read your comment right, DMCA and all that was in effect at that time.

Re:Antique Crimes

[Archon-X]

Correct, I was assuming the date as 8 years ago when the DCMA wasn't in full swing, so I guess it makes sense then :)

Re:Antique Crimes

[Legion303]

More importantly, is he being charged under Title 17 or Title 18? The former has a statute of limitations of 3 years, while the latter is 5 years. If he's being charged under Title 17 his lawyer might have a quick case to look forward to. Even if it's Title 18, the government will have to show that he committed the crimes he's being indicted for subsequent to 1999-2000 or so.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/ usam/title9/crm01860.htm

Another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

To hate the yank fucking judicial system

I hope one day that some sorta 24 scenario happens in Yankland and "Y'all" die (cept the cool Yanks of which , on the internet at least, are few and far between)

Then the world could get on with being a normal community

Re:Another reason

[ThePlaydoh]

If all of us Yanks died, there would be relatively little content to download. Thus DoD would of had no reason to exist.

Re:Another reason

[stewbacca]

Spoken like a true anonymous coward. If all of us yanks died, that would only leave U.S. Southerners...Then y'all (yanks don't say y'all, btw)would be legit in your stereotypes of close-minded gun-lovin' over-eatin' big truck drivin' Americans. Yes, my post is nearly as stupid as yours.

Re:Another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that europeans use "yank" as slang for all US americans (though "merkin" is taking off a lot, it also means a pubic wig (i.e. fake genital hair).

Europan "yank" is related to, but distinct from, the intra-USA usage of "yankee".

Re:Another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

In a thread about Australia, I smell kiwi..

Casphar, is that you?

-Dam

Re:Another reason

[sethstorm]

I believe Stephen King has covered this one already in The Stand.

DoD Warez Leader Faces 10 Years in Jail

[Pugzilla]

last I heard that was the mandatory minimum for patching VISTAS WPA

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:Jury nullification.

[LordLucless]

Unfortunately, juries are often not informed of their rights to nullification. The presiding judge rarely tells them it's an option.

Re:Jury nullification.

[senatorpjt]

Not only that, judges generally tell juries that it is not an option. In fact, letting a judge know that you're aware of the concept is a good way to get out of jury duty.

Re:Jury nullification.

[Anonymous Coward]

The defendant is most likely guilty of filesharing

Please stop using "filesharing" as a synonym for copyright infringement. There are plenty of legal forms of filesharing. This is an important distinction; if you confuse the two you end up thinking things like BitTorrent are illegal.

I've noticed that the big media companies are masters of language manipulation. They've successfully convinced a lot of people (even including some government officials) to refer to copyright infringement as stealing, and they are trying to do the same with "filesharing". This misleads the public into thinking that copyright is property and filesharing is wrong. Once the public is mostly convinced, they'll be able to get the governments to enact laws that actually make this the case. Do you want to lose your freedoms in this way?

i'm sure it is the "principal" of the thing

[atarione]

but from TFA... his cohorts were sentenced to 46 and 33 months respectively ...... he has apparently spent 3yrs in a detention facility (36mos) and now could get up to 10yrs...(in theory).

one might think that it would have been better to just waive extradition and come fight his case here....3yrs ago...cause he'd be about out by now... even if he was convicted. =p (based on the other sentences)

I'm glad for my part that I don't like people enough to be a "robinhood" cause I'm not going to jail for a bunch of poor bastards that can't buy software...but can mysteriously afford shinny new PCs to run softwarzes on???

Re:i'm sure it is the "principal" of the thing

[xantho]

Well, being able to afford software and bring able to afford a computer is not an either/or situation. You have to have the computer to run the software. So if someone can only afford to spend money on the computer, but not on the software, it's not like they made the wrong choice about which one to buy. I mean, what if the computer was a gift or a prize from a contest or something. What then?

I'm not saying that piracy is the right thing to do compared to the ideals as defined by the state, but saying that someone who only has enough monsy for the computer but no software, or the computer and some of the software that they need (that's a pesky word, eh) isn't really being fair.

Unless

[KKlaus]

You believe that copyright fulfills it's premise, namely bettering society by encouraging creative works. I'm not going to voice my opinion on that, but if you do, then you would regard him as a destructive force, and harmful to society. Not much different than locking up a vandal. Or a thief. Not because the crime is overly similar (don't lecture me on it I already know), but because the end result _is_ the same. Economics are important. Remember that the only reason you have that nice computer to post from is because you were lucky enough to be born in a place with a great economy. Not so for your average Ethiopian, for instance.

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.

Re:Unless

[Herkum01]

There is a flaw in your argument,

Copyright infringement and other IP 'crimes' arguably destroy the incentive to create new works by removing the economic incentive to innovate/create.

There is this association that there NEEDS to an economic incentive in order to create. The fact of the matter is that patents and copyrights are a relatively new concept that have only been around 200-250 years.

Yet, somehow before that time, civilization managed to keep going forward.

Re:Unless

[shark72]

"The fact of the matter is that patents and copyrights are a relatively new concept that have only been around 200-250 years."

FWIW, modern copyright law celebrates its 300th anniversary in a couple of years.

Re:Unless

[ScrewMaster]

More to the point, copyright and patent law (at least here in the U.S. and apparently the EU and anyone else foolishly interested in "harmonization") are no longer about supplying economic incentive to encourage the creation of new works. They are now about protecting the new and existing works of a select few forever. In that light, punishing this individual so severely is even less rational: he violated laws that were already deliberately broken and no longer serve the interests of the population (creator or consumer) after being turned into extreme protectionist measures.

This all comes down to balance ... when the law disrepects the people, people tend to disrespect the law. Unless, of course, a given population has been successfully brainwashed into a sheep-like mentality, as has happened here in the United States.

As John Mayer's "Waitin' for the World to Change" pointed out, "When you trust your television, what you get is what you got, 'cause when they own the information, they can bend it all they want." It's pretty bent now, all right.

Proportionate punishment?

[Nesgar]

One of the functions of imprisonment is to be a deterrent for others. Since the crime is so hard to police, and convictions extremely rare in proportion to its occurrence, the punishment must be relatively harsh to outweigh the small chance of being caught. Not saying that it's just (the relative penalties for murder etc do seem absurdly light by comparison), but there _is_ an argument for imprisonment. Civil litigation and possible bankruptcy is not a significant deterrent for many.

Re:Proportionate punishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that punishment-based justice relies on terror to deter the population from committing 'criminal' acts? Oh, wait..

Re:Proportionate punishment?

[Copid]

Civil litigation and possible bankruptcy is not a significant deterrent for many.

They would be if there was a higher probability of being caught. It seems like the appropriate way of handling this problem is not to crush a few individuals beyond all rational justification but to spend some time increasing the likelihood of catching the perpetrators. Seriously, if going completely bankrupt isn't enough of a deterrent to prevent people from copying software for fun, they clearly think that their probability of getting caught is zero. These are mostly "invincible" teens and twenty-somethings. It can't happen to them! For people like that, no penalty is going to act as a deterrent. We just end up with some unnecessarily ruined lives, the extra cost of keeping people who clearly aren't dangerous in prison, and effectively zero deterrent effect.

I make my living writing software, and I'm definitely against copyright infringement. I am, however, pragmatic: these guys weren't costing the economy nearly what the BSA claims they were, and the policies we have in place to prevent these crimes are clearly unreasonable and ineffective. We might as well burn their families at the stake while we're at it--just for some extra pointless theatrics. While we're in the business of hurting people just for the sake of ineffective public spectacle, why not go hog wild?

Re:Proportionate punishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you are in essence saying, since it's not caught much, penalties should be harsher? Speeding is also very hard to police, requires a lot of setup, and isn't that effective, only a minute fraction get caught. Would death penalty be the correct punishment then? A lot more people are speeding, compared to the amount of people cracking software, site opping or trading.

Re:If memory serves - not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. I remember reading about someone from another warez group (or maybe it was a hacker?) who got busted years ago (~4-5 years?) and he wrote about his ordeal at the isonews forums (if I recall correctly).

He started out in minimum security (and said that he helped the prison staff with their computer problems and advised them on how to get free warez !haha!). This was all good and ok. Then he was moved to a higher security prison because of some lame reason outside his control... I think it might have been a prison official with a score to settle (it wasn't a case of misbehavior).

I recall him writing about sharing a cell with someone locked up for drugs, and this cell mate was making his own alcohol in the cell from food scraps.

Maybe someone else can link to this story if you remember what I'm referring to.

Either way, with the amount of people in prison within the USA for all sorts of trivial matters, it is no wonder prisons are overcrowded. There is no guarantee he won't be put in a high security federal prison (especially seeing as this is a federal crime) for any number of reasons... such as prison overcrowding, an official being paid out by the MAFIAA, bad luck, whatever.

Italy

[DreamerFi]

I'm sure the US is more than happy to extend the same courtesy to Italy, right?

Right?

Re:Italy

[kamapuaa]

In point of fact, the US does extradite criminals to other nations. Duane Chapman is a recent high-profile example, looking at a long term in a Mexican jail (ouch). Italy is not requesting extradition in this case. It's a messy enough case as it is, and I wouldn't place a bet that Italian intelligence operatives will recieve any punishment for actions they took in Italy.

Europe also doesn't always extradite criminals to the US, for instance in cases where capital punishment is a possibility, or in cases of a middle aged celebrity who visited the US, loaded a thirteen year old girl up on alcohol and quaaludes, and then raped her in the ass.

Re:Italy

[Anonymous Coward]

loaded a thirteen year old girl up on alcohol and quaaludes, and then raped her in the ass.

      I ask you, is there any other way to rape a 13 year old girl?

Re:Italy

[xtracto]

looking at a long term in a Mexican jail (ouch).

You make it sound as if "Mexican jail" was some kind of nut-cracking factory. For your information (yes I am Mexican) due to the nature of Mexican corruption, lots of people in "Mexican Jails" live a really good life. Of course, I might think that your *fear* for the "Mexican Jail" comes from your knowledge of the unfair treatment of USAnians to Mexicans, and that given the circumstances of the prisoner, he might be object of physical aggression due to revenge.

Re:Italy

[Creepy Crawler]

Well, what you said does have a point about what the citizens see corruption in the US government and those around us.

However, I remind myself about a story what my Spanish professor said about Mexico...

We were talking about the blue plate specials and came up was a description of the roads. If you had a 4 lane road (2 each direction) and public opinion wanted 6 lanes, they would remove the paint for the 4 lanes, and then apply paint for six lanes. They would not resize the road or any type of major work. Of course, "public opinion" was the people who paid the most to the local government.

Another thing I am reminded of is how Mexico encourages their citizens to break US laws by coming here and working. It is really interesting in that it's a felony in Mexico for: 1. to gain employment if one is not a citizen and 2. for an employer to hire a non-citizen. Quite the double standard.

Re:If memory serves - not true

[Whatsitmatter]

Cute. You said I was wrong and then took it back all in one line. He started out where? .. Minimum security. Then he did what? .. Comitted another crime. Then was moved to higher security. I'm not bright, but if I'm in prison for comitting a crime, I like to believe I'm not gonna intentionally go and commit the same, or close the same crime that got me there. Especially if I'm in minimum security. All said and done, I promise you they served it in minimum security unless they did something dumb after being put in. You can safely assume I didn't just "hear" this from your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

GOOD

[I'm Don Giovanni]

LOL
I like how neary every post (up to this point) is trying to defend this criminal or belittle his crimes. This is just one more example of slashdotters trying to have it both ways: On the one hand, they decry DRM, then on the other they defend/condone/excuse piracy. Those who want to get rid of DRM should be the same that want to get rid of piracy, as that would remove the excuse/reason for the industry to have DRM.

And the elitism of slashdotters is on display, as they defend white collar crime as lesser than "blue collar crime" (pose that to the Enron investors that were taken to the cleaners to the tune of billions of dollars). White collar crime can be just as destructive as "blue collar", and normally affects a larger number of people.

Under US law, if you limit your piracy to less than $1000 worth of works over 180 days, then it's only a civil violation. This guy went way over that (with most slashdotters cheering him on like he's Martin Luther King or Gandhi, fighting for civil rights, when he's nothing more than a facilitator for freeloaders).

Next time any one of you spouts off about Microsoft being a "convicted criminal", despite having never been charged with a "crime", look at yourself in the mirror and remember that you defended a real "criminal", who committed real "crimes" (not just civil offenses).

Re:GOOD

[freedom_india]

I agree with you on the crime he has committed and the punishment he has recieved.

But explain to me how and why corporates like Sony, BMI, etc., who distributed Root Kits, compromised thousands of computers' security, and illegally hacked into my property (my computer is my property) can be let off with just a free coupon and a "sincere" apology?
Should their board, CEO, etc, not be jailed under hacking laws?

If you can explain to me why RIAA member companies can always get off, while the giga-uploader gets "bubba" in jail for SAME crimes, i can explain why slashdot thinks this way?

Until then, Ciao

Re:GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this guy was part of a piracy group. big deal. Piracy can help artists/software developers. One example is to gain free publicity and spread knowledge of the artist across the world. The other is Microsoft building it's empire with the help of piracy. It's profits and market share are enough evidence. How many pictures do you and your family download off the internet everyday onto your computers as wallpapers and cached? The fact is you are a hypocrite and don't give a shit about piracy of lesser known forms and engage in it yourself. Let me ask you something. What is worse..your wife got raped and the perpetrator got 10 years, or someone cracked a software release of your company and spread it around? Exactly. Now shut the fuck up some and have some decency to respect what the man faces. He did not rape anyone, he did not take anyone's life. The software companies are incredibly successful and still in business.

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?

Re:What annoys me the most about this...

[QuantumG]

Do you seriously not know?

The supposed victim, the copyright holder, in this victimless crime is located in the US. What are you going to do? Tell the victim that they need to come here to Australia to have a trial? Or are you suggesting that it should be ok to convict people for crimes when the victim can't even be bothered coming to the court room?

Of course, the fact that the laws where the victim lives are much harsher than the laws in Australia.. ah, that's just a co-incidence.. it has nothing to do with the lobbying the supposed victim has done over years and years.

Re:What annoys me the most about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The supposed victim, the copyright holder, in this victimless crime is located in the US. What are you going to do? Tell the victim that they need to come here to Australia to have a trial? Or are you suggesting that it should be ok to convict people for crimes when the victim can't even be bothered coming to the court room?

THAT is exactly the treatment that USA is right now giving to everyone else on this planet. Just try and bring american to justice somewhere else when he is in USA.

Hahaha -- 1 --- count of copyright infringement!

[Adeptus_Luminati]

"face charges of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement"

ok first of all, since when is it a crime to think about doing something bad? Surely you've all thought at some point in your lives of killing at least one of your parents ... even if only for a few brief seconds. Has the thought-police arrived?!

"... and one count of actual criminal copyright infringement"

1 count? 1 count ?????? We're talking about the freggin leader of DoD. The warez group that's been around forever and ever since the early BBS days... They easily push Gigs & Gigs each day of 0-day warez...and the leader is being acused of 1 count of copyright infringment? That's *ucked up right there. I mean what's the strategy here... acuse him only of copying 1 software so he doesn't get credit (from his peer warez buddies)for the MILLIONS he has actually highly likely copied?

Anyway dude, all I can say dude, is thanks for all the warez, and hope they take it easy on you!

Billy Gates should be bailing you out, because you did millions of $ in free marketing on his behalf.

Adeptus

I for one... (not what you think)

[Pikoro]

would just love to see a program that I wrote appear on warez sites. Means that people actually find it usefull. Besides, there is usually only a black market for an item that is popular in the first place.

Having my sofware released in the warez scene would be a compliment to me...

Re:I for one... (not what you think)

[cliffski]

Then unlike 99% of software developers, you must be living off daddy's trust fund.
If that's the case, release it as freeware. If you need to pay for the tools of your trade, plus eat and pay rent, you will find that its preferable if people pay for what you produce.
Besides, just because *you* claim to want to see your hard work hacked doesn't mean this attitude applies to anyone else. You can't take someone else's software for free on the basis of "if I were him, I wouldn't mind". The fact is you are NOT him.

This isn't some innocent kid downloading an MP3 he already owned a CD of, This is a member of a warez group. hardly an innocent bystander.

Re:I for one... (not what you think)

[shark72]

"would just love to see a program that I wrote appear on warez sites. Means that people actually find it usefull. Besides, there is usually only a black market for an item that is popular in the first place. Having my sofware released in the warez scene would be a compliment to me..."

You've encapsulated the reason why many people (particularly young people) don't see the harm in piracy... the thought process is "If I had created something that was in high demand, I would give it away for free."

If you're genuine, I suggest that you look into donating time into helping develop open source software. The FOSS industry needs more people like you who are willing to invest significant effort into creating work that's highly useful for many people, and who only want the "compliment" of seeing their work distributed, rather than financial compensation.

I should point out that several OSS luminaries (Larry Wall comes to mind) have asked that the motivations behind FOSS not be used to justify piracy... ie. that we don't use the thought process that just because our financial situation and free time allow us to work for free, we have the moral right to acquire others' work for free.

Re:I for one... (not what you think)

[karnal]

I had a similar situation with a roomate once. I bought a house and was able to buy all sorts of gadgets and stuff for my house.

It got to the point that we provided this person with a computer; but he continually decided to use mine because it was faster. One day I put a bios password on it - and this upset him. He made the statement "If I had a fast computer, I'd share it with you...."

Falling in line to your point, my roomate didn't see that there's a value to my computer being mine to use (and ultimately, mine to maintain if it breaks.) He didn't see what the extra cost was in "sharing" a computer, and took up the notion that I was just being a selfish ass. Maybe I was being a selfish ass, but the point is this: I'm not going to share my computer with ANYONE because I want it to just work for me; I don't need to play doctor to my own machine unless I'm the one screwing it up....

Re:I for one... (not what you think)

[Paradise Pete]

What if you could have made a copy of your computer for him to use? That's the only way the comparison is at all apt.

Re:I for one... (not what you think)

[karnal]

If I could have made a copy for him, I wouldn't have brought the story up in the first place, because he would have had his own to tend with and I wouldn't have to take care of it.

Cruel and Unusual.

[plasmacutter]

I don't know about you, but when manslaughter is 8 years, I have to question weather the cruel and unusual punishment clause holds any weight what soever.

Re:Cruel and Unusual.

[Dunbal]

manslaughter is 8 years

      Look at it this way - every time you make a copy, a little piece of the author dies (and God kills a kitten). So really, if you've killed the author 10,000 times, the sentence should me more than manslaughter... /sarcasm

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

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[senatorpjt]

Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues.

Well, obviously if you pirated it, you needed it, and you would have bought it if you couldn't have pirated it.

For instance, I use a program at work that costs $30,000 a copy. I made $20K last year. Obviously, if I couldn't have pirated it, I would have eaten garbage, lived in an alley, and sold all my plasma to buy it.

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you bring your own paper and pencils too?

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that post a joke?

1 - you cannot help someone break the law if the act is committed without your presence.

your kidding right? So if I tell a henchmen to go burn down your house. I was at home when it happened, I'm innocent?

2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.

total horse shit. You never heard of "incitement to race hatred". also see 1)

3 - Even if you send them the file sharing program, you did not commit the act.

if I send you a machinegun and a picture of the target, I'm innocent right?

I'm bored dissecting the rest of your drivel. Seriously, grow up. the guy was a thief and he got caught. Only on slashdot to people who steal software, movies, games, get treated like heroes. He isn't a hero, just an immature little thief.

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[Dunbal]

we gave up sovereignty to the US for a handful of silver

      Wait, soon you'll find out that the handful if silver is actually tin... like everyone else who signs a "Free Trade" agreement with the US does. That country has a reputation of holding others to the terms of the agreement while doing whatever the heck they want, including ignoring their own treaties.

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[grantsellis]

IANAL, just a law student, but this is just retarded.

1 - you cannot help someone break the law if the act is committed without your presence.

Cough. Accomplice? Aiding and abetting? Cough.

2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.

Um, yes, it can be. There are limitations on first amendment rights. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (words causing immediate breach of peace illegal), for instance.

3 - Even if you send them the file sharing program, you did not commit the act.

Sounding like a broken record, I know, but this could be aiding and abetting (see above for definition).

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.

Oh, brilliant . You know what the equivalent of locking up movie files is, right? You just made the argument for DRM.

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.

Looking at the news article tells you he's charged with Criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy , not theft.

The rest of the list has similar flaws, but my patience is at an end. :)

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[curecollector]

13 - you make up your own for this one

Gladly.

13 - Please disregard the above. I'm clearly drunk.

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try something that actually makes some sense instead for #13, shall we?

13. Property rights!

There is no such thing as a right to free speech. It all boils down to property rights. As each person is their own property, they have full (legal) control over themselves, and may say what they choose. Indeed they may do anything they choose, as long as it does not infringe on someone else's property. This is the fundamental basis of all "personal freedoms"; my rights regarding myself are no different than my rights regarding my car, my cash, or my cows. (if I had any cows ;-)
Hence there can be no such thing as a "right to work", a "right to non-discrimination", or any of the other rights people like to invent. All these are not rights, but privileges which some governments grant their citizens by restricting the natural property rights of other people over themselves and their money.
As copying a DVD which one owns is not infringing on someone else's property ("intellectual property" is merely a term to represent several government-granted privileges, not a true form of property), it is one's natural right to do so. The only way this can be a crime is through a governmental restriction of rights in order to grant privileges to the copyright holder.
Of course, if one receives the DVD only upon entering into a contract with the DVD's author, and if that contract specifies that the DVD is not to be shared/copied/otherwise pirated, then one has entered a voluntary restriction of one's rights in exchange for the acquisition of the DVD, and any breach of this restriction is a matter to be settled in civil, not criminal, court.
Most people, I hope, would agree that such a government restriction/privilege is inherently unjust, as an involuntary seizure of rights by the government. Likewise, they would agree that a contract as described is inherently just, being a voluntary agreement. After all, if you are not willing to give up those rights, then don't sign the contract! Any voluntary agreement must be viewed as favorable by both parties, or one of them (who considers it unfavorable) would not have agreed.
These ideas, as I see it, are the clearest and most straightforward set involving freedom and inherent rights, and thus the best basis for reasoning. They are far simpler than the usual separation of "personal rights" and "property rights", while still yielding the effects of the basic "personal rights". There is, of course, an entirely different system holding the state/ruler to hold all rights, and grants subjects such rights as they see fit. No rights are guaranteed, as all is a gift from the state, and may be revoked at any time for any reason. This is also a simple and straightforward view, usually accompanied in practice by the presumption that the state seeks "the greatest good for the greatest number" or some such goal.
Examine your own political philosophy. Trim away the excess, and see which you really agree with. In the end, once you remove all logical inconsistencies, I think you will find yourself either on the libertarian side (property rights) or on the statist side (granted freedoms).
If you are a libertarian, you will find such laws repugnant and such governments as pass them unjust. If you are a statist, it all boils down to a values judgement by thos in authority, and as such is not arguable in absolute terms. Take your pick, but I'm a libertarian, and I approved this message.

If you would like to read more about this, check out http://www.vonmises.org/.

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[AK Marc]

2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.
Um, yes, it can be. There are limitations on first amendment rights. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (words causing immediate breach of peace illegal), for instance.

Telling someone how they could break the law and how they should break the law are not related to each other. You used one to imply something about the other. That is fallicious. I can tell someone how to break the law all day long (like in Hollywood movies) and I won't be charged with a crime. I may get sued, but only in civil court.

Re:Its interesting to think about this...

[David Rolfe]

"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."

Oh, brilliant . You know what the equivalent of locking up movie files is, right? You just made the argument for DRM. Think about this a little more critically... Consider if you left your impenetrably-locked-briefcase containing $50,000 cash on some random street corner and then complained to the police that it was stolen. Would they treat you any differently? Thankfully, picking locks is illegal, so as soon as someone gets into that briefcase and gets all that delicious money the police can nab them for something!!

It would seem that being in the business of giving away locked briefcases full of money was ... retarded. And yet, some businesses insist this model is viable. (Despite shipping the briefcases with keys and lobbying the government to make lockpicking evermore illegal-er, sheesh.)

the CIA doesn't Extradite

[fred911]

It "rendites"

  Rendition:-)

    Laugh.. it's funny...

They've been here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conspiracy to commit X has been going on for ages now. The idea is that for the most part, people who talk about doing illegal things are going to do them. In reality, that's hardly true (are the writers of CSI guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, home invasion.. et cetera? Of course not.) - but, it adds another nice little thing that a person can be charged with, giving more ammo to the prosecutor when working out the plea bargain.

As for the one count, let's face it - copyright infringement in this case is a hard thing to prove. It actually makes more sense to go with a stupidly low number than a stupidly high number. People are getting sick of grannies being charged for fifty billion counts of whatever when they don't even have computers. :P And - you've guessed it, they've got a conspiracy charge to fall back on.

The charge actually convicted for doesn't matter so much as the fact that a conviction occurs. That's pretty much the thinking in our legal system today.

Re:They've been here.

[Whatsitmatter]

Let me say from the start that I hesitated in posting this cause I don't know one way or the other about the details to the conspiracy charge, however .. I take the conspiracy charge to be there not so much as something to fall back on but somewhat in support of. Two things, first off the conspiracy charge could be construed that since he has already disseminated copyrighted works that he had plans to disseminate more, hence conspiracy. Or you can take it as the fact that they may not be able to prove anybody actually used the copyrighted works he helped to distribute however in helping run the ftp servers he did and providing the warez that people did download he entered into a conspiracy with the others to commit the infringement. "Yah judge we don't know for sure that anybody installed it, but Mr. Griffiths here did everything in his power to make people able to do it." No flames, I don't know law that well.

Re:They've been here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conspiracy to commit a crime can be explained as this:

If a person says "I'm going to steal X" and then he does it, he gets put in jail for both doing it, and planning how to do it.

If a person happens to find X on the sidewalk and he takes it, he just gets put in jail for taking it.

It's a pre-meditated crime instead of one that somebody does because they thought it was the right thing to do at the time. It helps weed out people who killed somebody on purpose from those who did it on accident. If somebody drove a car into somebody else, and it turns out that they had thought about it beforehand and how to best do it, there's no way it can be an accident and it helps to simplify things. Of course, this is a simplified version of things, I'm no legal expert. Don't make fun of me over it, whichever self-righteous Slashdotter(s) was(were) planning on it.

Off topic: So Anonymous doesn't know about America's judicial system, then Anonymous decides that Americans are dumb because they don't know about any other countries. This, in my opinion, is the epitome of hypocracy. I'm not necessarily ragging on just the Anonymous that asked about the Conspiracy thing, I'm ragging on ALL Slashdotters across the pond. Meh, enjoy your metric kool-aide.

Re:They've been here.

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Hi, I'm not anonymous, I'm Adeptus :P

I'm not that ignorant of the judicial system, I just think it's a bit silly to consider a malicious thought to be punishable by law. If you know anything about meditation and what thoughts actually are and specifically where they come from, then you would know that thousands of unintentional thoughts pass through your mind each day - many malicious in content. Some carried out, most not. This is true of 99.9999% of the population. Humans actually have very few INTENTIONAL thoughts... and even if those are malicious they are still not acts carried out.

There should be no punishable difference between taking something from the sidewalk without forethought or intent, and pre-mediatated thought & wilful intent to take something from the sidewalk (or store or whatever). The end action is the same. What happens before is irrelivent and goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal. Man is gifted with mind, man is also gifted with choice. Mind is extremely rarely under man's control... but few men can ignore that they do not have choice of action.

To my understanding one is supposed to go to jail or be fined because of one's malicious ACTS, not thoughts... if it was based on thoughts, only Jesus and Budha would be standing outside the jail cell with the rest of the world behind bars. LOL

What a funny world we live in, indeed a Divine Comedy!

Adeptus

PAYPAL link to help free the DoD leader

[Anonymous Coward]

So where's the Paypal (or similar system) to have the warez community leechers give a little BACK to the few that have taken the fall after countless years of days and sleepless nights of self-less service?

I'd donate a few semi-anonymous dollars to the cause myself if there were such a link. I can see it raising more than the ~$1 Million that Wikipedia was able to raise... cuz, come on, this is DoD people! Just think of the message this would send back to government if millions were raised to help the DoD leader get better lawyers & be freed of this fucked up US system that puts "replicators" (not thieves) in jail longer than rapists & murderers.

I'd do it (setup the link) but I don't know how.

thanks

Re:PAYPAL link to help free the DoD leader

[Vskye]

Parent has a point. Mod up.

Re:PAYPAL link to help free the DoD leader

[jjohnson]

The essential point of the crime is the problem: being arrested for servicing a community of people who don't want to pay in the first place means that when *you* need money, the legal defense fund will be anemic at best.

Re:PAYPAL link to help free the DoD leader

[Caetel]

So you'd donate to the people releasing cracked software, but won't pay for the software itself? Please explain how that makes sense...

Can't be serious

[zoftie]

I mean if anyone steals the software from me, esp Warez kids I won't care really, because they extend my market share. If my company is public however, I would be stuck between rock and a hard place.Liability to investors for not attempting to get maximum profits is like that. They don't care who, what or at what cost the profit was earned. This sort of logic would hurt small companies, that make limited use small bits of software. But I guess it comes with territory. Instead of software, if you think its too dangerous, maybe you can become a lawyer, pharmacist or start company related to either of the two or many other possiblities. Software business is fantastic, because your distribution costs are zero, marketing is cheap and plentiful, unless you really want to build solid brand, then its gonna cost you some more, but by far it isn't as hard as it used to be.

People who get jail time for copying software, are just of sorts like galileo, were they really aren't stealing anything because they copy it not for actual profit but for hobby. Of course businesses won't care to cater to hobbyists that would need autocad to build their widget, so a shortcut can be taken.

However if you make money with the product it just isn't nice to not pay to the creator, you still want them to be around selling features that you want in your program right?

In bettween the two of the cases there is chasm of pleasureware, music players, games, image touch up software that comes free with 50$ printers etc. These people can't stop people who pirate that ware, so they have to have some value added stuff in the box. In general there is a balance though. Many people if they download pleasure warez , they would invest if its worth it. The first game I have purchased was half-life2 , it was so awesome, that not buying it was out of the question.Plus you go the box with hot CG girl on it. Notwithstanding forum admin asshats it was wonderful value.

I don't think anyone should be jailed as if they have robbed a bank for process of copying. And enven distributing. Real piracy happens in china and here as well, when people buy boxed software that was immaculately reproduced in some factory in guangdong, china.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Think of the undertakers...

[flyingfsck]

Of course. We have a God given right to make a profit. Salaries are paid from profits. Think of all the little children who went hungry because this jackass disrupted our profits.

Now think of the drunken driver incident. The undertakers have to make a profit too. The drunken driver facilitated undertaker profits and that is an attenuating circumstance.

Re:Think of the undertakers...

[Dan Ost]

No, profits are what you have left over after paying expenses like salaries.

Arguably, bonuses can be paid out of profits (depending on how things are accounted for).

Re:Think of the undertakers...

[Anonymous Coward]

undertakers should just be patient, people will die eventually.

Lennie - not logged in

Re:Think of the undertakers...

[Tired and Emotional]

By how many dB does it attentuate the circumstances?

Re:Think of the undertakers...

[ScrewMaster]

I take it that dB, in this case, means "dollar Bill"?

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???

Re:mod parent overrated, off topic

[hack slash]

"Exactly when did the US conquer all of Earth, pray tell?"

On the day Coca-Cola, McDonalds & obesity were exported.

Re:mod parent overrated, off topic

[aminorex]

A) The preferences of the U.S. government pre-empt the laws of other nations.

B) 1991

You live or die at the whim of POTUS. He has killed about a million so far, this POTUS.

DoD on Wikipedia

[Adeptus_Luminati]

The informative Karmawhore Wikipedia Link on DoD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DrinkOrDie
For actual links in the text below, go to Wikipedia above.

===================
DrinkOrDie (DoD) was an underground software cracking and warez trading network during the 1990s, shut down by a major raid in 2001.

DrinkOrDie was founded in 1993 in Moscow by a Russian with the handle "deviator" and a friend who went by the code name "CyberAngel." By 1995, the group was global. One of its earliest major accomplishments was the Internet release of Windows 95 two weeks before Microsoft released the official version. It is also known for its DoD DVD Speed Ripper released in 1999 shortly before DeCSS. The activity of the DoD group diminished after 1996, and they were not considered major players in the warez scene by 2000. The DrinkOrDie network is considered criminal for copyright infringement. As a rule, they made no financial profit from their activities.

The DoD network primarily consisted of university undergraduates, but was supported by software company employees, who would leak copies of software and other digital media. DoD also received such files indirectly, from other networks.

[edit] Member raids
In 2001 the group was busted in an FBI operation called Operation Buccaneer. At the time, DrinkOrDie had two leaders, one in the United States and another in Australia.

The Australian leader Hew Raymond Griffiths 40 (from Bateau Bay on the Central Coast), known by his screenname "Bandido", has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of criminal copyright infringement, and has been involved in legal action in Australia. As of March 2005, Griffiths has lost an appeal against extradition to the United States, to face charges under US copyright laws.

The American leader John Sankus Jr. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, known by his screename "eriFlleH" (HellFire spelled backwards), was convicted and sentenced to 46 months. Sankus was also a member of the group HARM at the time of his arrest.

The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit in the UK also arrested eight members residing in Britain. Two of those arrested were charged and convicted for Conspiracy to Defraud, Alex Bell of Grays, Essex and Steven Dowd of Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside.

The raids were initiated after information was given to United States Customs by longtime member and co-leader James Cudney, known as Bcrea8tiv; Blah-. Once turned informant, Cudney spent 18 months working undercover for US Customs, logging conversations in chat rooms and channels visited on IRC. Through an arrangement with US Customs, Cudney was paid $104 an hour.

Also charged and convicted were:

Christopher Tresco age 23, of Boston, Massachusetts, who used the screename "bigrar", pled guilty May 28, 2002 to conspiracy to violate the criminal copyright laws, and was sentenced to 33 months of jail time. Tresco was also a member of Rise in Superior Couriering (RiSC). Tresco at the time of his arrest was the Systems Administrator for the MIT Economics department.
Barry Erickson age 35, of Eugene, Oregon, who used the screename "radsl", pled guilty on May 2, 2002 to one felony count charging conspiracy to violate the criminal copyright laws, and was sentenced to a term of 33 months, with three years of probation to follow. Erickson was a systems engineer at Symantec Corporation and provided prerelease software to DoD and RiSCiSO. He was also a founding member of Parents On 'Puterz (POPZ) a warez group that specialized in the release of children's learning software and games.
David Grimes age 25, of Arlington, Texas, who used the screename "chevelle", pled guilty on March 4, 2002 to one felony count charging conspiracy to violate the criminal copyright laws. Grimes was a computer engineer at Check Point Software. Grimes supplied Check Point firewall software to DrinkOrDie on at least two occasions, and he operated an FTP site

Re: DoD on Wikipedia

[senatorpjt]

The DoD network primarily consisted of university undergraduates, but was supported by software company employees, who would leak copies of software and other digital media. DoD also received such files indirectly, from other networks.

That line kind of caught me off guard, considering how I always hear them whining about how piracy is stealing the bread out of the mouths of their starving children...

Re: DoD on Wikipedia

[confused one]

I'll assume you've never been to college and explain it too you.

It's very common for companies to either give software (and hardware) to students for free or offer it at a STEEP discount.

I was given free copies of the Borland developer suite, the Microsoft Basic and Fortran compilers, CAD software, etc. I also picked up a $3500 software package for $149 through the university bookstore. A friend of mine was an Apple hardware beta tester.

The idea behind this is that once a student enters the job market, he/she will take with them the experience and generally a positive opinion of using the product. (Hey, they gave me freebies!). As a result, it is more likely they will either recommend or purchase that product.

It's a marketing system that has been proven to work.

Re: DoD on Wikipedia

[Obsidian Dagger]

You reply missed a point. Several members of DoD where employees of the software companys adirectly leaked the software to DoD. The software was not simply given to college students that leaked it.

Or even worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

... be elligible for parole in 10 years for raping a 14-year old girl and killing her and her family.

Irony

[KoldKompress]

Anyone else find it funny that a criminal is being extradited from Australia? Didn't we send those Darn convicts there in the first place?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

ahaha..ha.......ha..........

Maybe he'll enjoy all the States after all? He can rub shoulders with the millions of drug addicted murderers there.

People in glass houses..and all that.

Don't forget, the US was built upon slavery, was founded by religious whack-jobs and is now the home of the crack-pipe and the Glock.

Personally I'd take Oz any day.

only 500,000 fine?

[blanks]

I wonder how many millions of dollars have all ready been spent simply catching,detaining,transporting, legal fees and so on have all ready been spent to get this awful criminal to pay for his crime.

Watch out for the Techno-Gang!

[Ace905]

Hahaha, "John Sankus and his techno-gang ..."

Watch out for the techno-gang! At least he didn't use the word 'thugs' to legitimize their ridiculous waste of money on sort-of slowing down the completely victimless crime the 'gang' was committing. Would anybody cheer if they arrested Coca-Cola shareholders for competing with Pepsi? Because this is essentially major tax money going to 'protect' the rights of very very big business, and nothing else.

Do you think the FBI would start a case on somebody pirating Forest Blog ? Because that's what they should be doing. If it's about rights and freedom's being protected, make a point of protecting the little guy for once. Just once. After all, they're the ones paying your salaries. You think Microsoft is paying 50% of it's income to taxes?

---
Fight piracy, link to this site

COPYRIGHT MUST BE REFORMED

[MilesNaismith]

Copyright is now all about protecting the interests of Sony and other mega-corporations. It has ZERO to do with "the public interest" which is NOT served by 95-year copyright terms. Do the corporate-whores go to jail when they steal from us and the authors? No they do not.

NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[plasmacutter]

Debts can be and are inherited.

This means by instituting pecuniary penalties you are punishing the defendants children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for something they had no control over.

I'd rather go to prison than pass on a debt of 400 million dollars.

Re:NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[weierstrass]

Debts can't be inherited.

Re:NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[gasmasher]

Are you suggesting that if my parents die with a million in debt I am liable to pay those debts? That is ridiculous. The debtor's estate is responsible for debts, not their children. A debt is not passed on to someone who was not part of the initial debt.

Re:NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[JazzLad]

IANAL, let alone an International lawyer, but I believe debt can be inherited in some countries.

I'm at work & too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall it at least used to be the case in the UK - any Brits care to comment?

Re:NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[plasmacutter]

My stepfather recently passed away, leaving a considerable debt to my mother.

I'm interested in what an attourney in the field would have to say about this.

Re:NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[paeanblack]

Debts can't be inherited.

All debts are inherited.

What do you think happens when someone dies in debt? That burden is spread among future borrowers. While the offspring of the borrowing class may not be handed a bill for their own parents debts directly, they are paying for all their peers' parents' defaults.

If your ancestors were members of the borrowing class and you are a member of the borrowing class, you inherit their debts.

Re:NO.. pecuniary is actually worse.

[fishbowl]

>Debts can't be inherited.

Might want to run that past a probate lawyer.

Does he get credit for the 3 years? Time served?

[mrnick]

He has been in detention for 3 years? If convicted would he get credit for the time he has already spent in an Australia detention center? If so, do the same rules apply for fines as they do here in the US? For those that don't know you get credit for ~50 per day while incarcerated. If so, then he has already earned over $50,000 towards his fine. If they do take in account the time served in Australia I wouldn't be surprised if sentenced, even the maximum amount, that he would not get off for time served.

If I were him I would discuss this with my lawyer and then in turn with the district attorney to negotiate a Plea bargain to enter a plea of nolo contendere, saving the court the time and expense of a lengthy trial, in return for a sentence of time served and a few years of unadjudicated probation.

I have seen people get less for worse. I don't see why the taxpayers should have to pay to hold someone like this when they obviously present no danger to society.

Nick Powers

David Hicks?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Aus is harbouring those wanted by the US for 3 years in a detainment camp... the US has David Hicks for 3 years in their detainment camp yet aren't giving him back...

Remember Free Kevin Mitnick?

[andr0meda]

DoD is part of the internet legacy, and DoD served a cause that is one of the large reasons why FSF and OSS have been able to find breathing space in the minds of many. I don't say that many of the actions were not illegal, but I do say that these actions have contributed to a better educated and most of all much more justified software/service ecosystem.

I think the fines and the punishments are seriously out of touch with what real crime is, where people get hurt or violated.

Subject

[Legion303]

"What are you in for?"
"I raped my grandmother, bludgeoned her to death and ate the corpse. You?"
"I gave some software away."

Misinterpretation

[pilotfactory]

When reading the headline the first time, I thought the Department of Defense had a warez server. (For playing Age of Empires during boring Pentagon meetings or something.)

Re:Misinterpretation

[Scooter's_dad]

For playing Age of Empires during boring Pentagon meetings or something.

A boring Pentagon meeting is ALREADY a game of Age of Empires, but for real.

Some info

[PsychosisC]

• The logic behind his extradition is that because he "controlled access to the so-called drop site, located on a computer network at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology", jurisdiction is in the US. Got this from an article about Hew Raymond Griffiths
• There was an old slashdot interview with one of the DoD Leaders caught in the MIT raid.

The whole "jurisdiction is wherever your computer is" deal doesn't sit easy with me. Quite honestly, I don't know where most of the servers I use are physically located.

Uhhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

"The middle class are hurt by piracy FAR more than the wealthy."

bullshit

If we're making up shit here on slashdot, do we all get to play? Or are you the only one?

Throw his ass in a cell

[Anonymous Coward]

As a software developer who has seen his hard work cracked, I say throw this son of a bitch in a cell and let him rot.
Scum like him deserve to be behind bars.

Re:Throw his ass in a cell

[Anonymous Coward]

Scum like you deserve to be lined up and shot.

Re:Throw his ass in a cell

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say some corporate software engineering manager decided to incorporate GPL'ed code
into a comercial product, without releasing the source to the whole work.
Wouldn't you and lots of other /.'ers say "throw him in jail and let him rot?"

So enforcing GPL based on copyright is good. Enforcing closed source software
distribution based no copyright is bad.

I think the underlying principal on /. is "I want to be able to do exactly what I want."
If software and music publishers don't license their products exactly as I want,
then I am justified in copying it and distributing it to as many people on the internet
as I want.

What if a company that violated GPL did so in an Austrailian subsidiary to avoid U.S. law?
I'm sure they would argue against extradition to the U.S. too.

Lamb

[oDDmON oUT]

Sacrificed on the Altar of Commerce, to appease the great Gawhd Greed.

/Shakes head and rolls eyes as he walks away

Re:Hahaha -- 1 --- count of copyright infringement

[db32]

Typically conspiracy to commit isn't "I thought about doing a crime and went to jail". There is a legal definition of conspiracy and I believe it involves 2-3 or more people. Beyond that, you can still 'talk' about committing a crime, but that is where the line starts to get fuzzy and the lawyers show up. Conspiracy to commit typically involves proving you and your cohorts went through at least some ammount of planning and were serious about pursuing the crime, not just talking it up.

[continued...]

[A beautiful mind]

"Okay buddy, you can have the top bunk, whatever, just leave me alone! I only killed my grandma so clearly you're the meaner!"

From the US to the world

[Mad-cat]

From the US to the world: OBEY.

I'll never understand how "theft" of non-physical property with no proveable financial loss can be a crime.
Civil, sure. Crime? No.

Okay - but remember Noriega

[vic-traill]

I suspect the OakLEE is substantively correct in his assertions. The parent post suffer from an excess of rhetoric and a dearth of supporting evidence.

A problem is that the strange case of Manuel Noriega gives credibility to assertions of waltzing over, 'cause the US sure did go to Panama and just 'take' him. Recall that U.S. forces invaded Panama in Operation Just Cause, eventually securing Noriega's surrender after he had been holed up in the Vatican's diplomatic mission in Panama City. He was taken to the States where he was tried and convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasio n_of_Panama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

I think the Noriega case informs international perceptions of US behaviour WRT extradition - 'hell, they'll even invade your country if they really want you'.

That being said, it is a perception, not the case in any particular circumstance, including this one.

N.B. I am not a Noriega supporter. I understand that he was a dictatorial scumbag. I'm not trying to get in a flamefest over the rights and wrongs of Noriega's regime. I am simply using this case as an illustration of where a particular perception comes from.

Relative Value

[nurb432]

I'm glad that the world is now safe from terrorists and we can go after 'criminals' such as this.

What a waste of resources.

Re:Relative Value

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because we can only do one thing at a time.

BTW: If it's such a big deal to you why aren't you out chasing the terrorists?

In other words: Put up or shut up. You can either change the law, obey the law or except that there are consequences for breaking the law.

Re:Relative Value

[Anonymous Coward]

Retarded argument. Having x number of cops covering the terrorism front doesn't mean we are doing as good of a job as we should be. If we had x + the number of cops who are currently tracking down copyright violations, then we would be more effectively fighting terrorism.

The second point is also retarded. Not everybody is suited to be a cop, but in a society, each person has a functional role to play and depends on others taking on certain roles that they might not be able to do themselves. I'm sure a cop wants someone to hold his money (bankers) or process his checks (payroll employees) but that is not what his skills are suited to do.

The third one doesn't even make sense. What does he have to "put up"? He isn't making some sort of bargain. In a democracy, changing laws begins with having discussions about it. A single person can't change the laws.

People like you are so stupid.

Re:Relative Value

[nurb432]

The governmental agency i work for happens to be 'chasing terrorists' as you put it. So thanks for asking.

And what have YOU done for this country today?

This is how to steal music

[houghi]

Go into a music store with a rifle. Shoot everybody in there. Grab all the music you can carry and hide it. After two years you can enjoy the albums after you have done your time. Oh and you have money from selling them on the black market. As they aren't copies, nobody realy gives a damn.

Australia defends its sovereign rights..

[weierstrass]

Clearly, you've never heard of Gough Whitlam. He was sacked from his position as democratically elected leader of the Australian govt. by the local representative of the British empire, at the request of various American military/security/goverment interests? Why? Because he wanted Australia to pull out of certain international treaties and become neutral vis-a-vis the cold war.

And you talk about 'sovereign rights'. Haha. Good troll.

Re:Does he get credit for the 3 years? Time served

[smchris]

Considering we'll snatch people off the streets of Europe and jet them somewhere else to get tortured, I rather doubt the prosecution gives a care for the laws of Australia. If _they_ want to give him $50,000, that's their business.

Department of Defense?

[tenco]

..uh.. no. DrinkOrDie. Heh.

He should've got the death penalty.

[babbling]

I'd like to remind you that we're dealing with a *pirate*, here. These are the same people who fire their weapons on our ships at sea, kill our children, rape our women, and in this particular case, they were forcing people to either "drink or die".

Remember, kids: There is no crime more serious than copyright infringement. When you infringe copyright, you are possibly stealing from some of the richest organisations in the world. By definition, nothing could be more immoral.

Re:He should've got the death penalty.

[networkBoy]

But it's already been established that a reduction in pirates causes global warming. Getting rid of this guy will only server to further melt the ice caps. Are you sure you want to do that?
-nB

Re:He should've got the death penalty.

[game kid]

Getting rid of this guy will only server to further melt the ice caps

Everytime you run a server on an ice cap, Al Gore kills a White House puppy.

Please, networkBoy, think of Barney!

there once was a barbaric time

[circletimessquare]

not long ago, when you could be sent to debtors prison

luckily, we recognize the folly of that today

and likewise, a century or two from now, they'll look at the idea of sending people to prison for copyright violation as equally barbaric as we look at debtor's prison today

take all of the arguments for debtor's prison, and you see they are not that different than the idea of jailing someone for copyright violation

so if we as a society can see the wisdom of rejecting the arguments for debtor's prison, why the f*** can't we see the same wisdom of for rejecting the gung ho attitude we have torwards copyright violation prosecution

change is slow and takes time, but on this issue, the glacial pace of change is infuriariting

Warez Is Dying

[Anonymous Coward]

I think coders are finding it more challenging to make open source competition for expensive programs rather than crack their security systems.

Well, I would like to think that, but truthfully coding an application and cracking it are really two different skillsets.

OB Arlo Guthrie quote

[rueger]

... and they all moved away from me on the bench......

so long and thanks for the all the opportunities

[Anonymous Coward]

So long and thanks for all the opportunities to learn 3D modeling and animation...

Thanks for letting me tool around in 3D Studio 4, then 3DSMAX 1 & 2, Lightwave, SoftImage 3.7 in my parent's basement while other highschoolers chased footballs and tail.

Now they're living hand to mouth and wallet to wife whereas I'm while away the hours playing with the gear and software I can finally afford.

So long and thanks for all the warez...

Maximizing profits

[tinkerghost]

Actually, you can make decisions to not squeaze every penny out of a product through persuing lawsuits etc.
Lawsuits are not cheap on several fronts. First there is the actual cost - from additional document retention right up through the actual cost of the lawyers themselves. The other cost is goodwill. It's a lot less tangible, but ask SCO how it feels to sue your customers. Or perhaps ask people their opinion of the MPAA & RIAA. There should be no board of directors in the world that will look at a case of an individual trading a few copies of their songs & going after them for copyright infringment. The loss of goodwill and the legal fees would far outway any possible positive result from the suit. The RIAA & MPAA however insulate the actual board of directors for their respective cartels. Because they do not have to cope with the loss of goodwill, the total cost of suing the consumers of their product is reduced to a level that they find acceptable. The key factor in showing it to be a scare campain is that they are not likewise trumpeting their successes in catching pirate copies of pressed CDs.

Hmmm

[deesine]

Let's consider two hypothetical scenarios:

1) A mugger snatches a purse from a women. In the process she is knocked down and her wrist is broken.

2) A Micheal Ley type is convicted of funneling off for himself, the pensions of 5,000 people.

You would put the first in jail, while letting the second off with only a fine, even though the largest harm to society is obviously from number 2. Jail violent criminals, yes. But I don't see the justification for making jails exclusively for them. White collar crimes can, and often do, surpass the amount of damage caused by more visceral crimes.

In the cases above, and given only one space/bed left in prison, I would argue giving it to #2.

They JUST got caught?!?!

[dave562]

Seeing DoD just tripped me out. I haven't seriously swapped warez since the days of the 28.8, but I couriered more than my fair share of DoD stuff. They sure had a LOOOONG run at things if they're only just now getting busted.

Double standards

[bogd]

The US has quite a history of double standards - protecting its own citizens (even when they break other countries' laws), while aggressively pursuing extradition and punishment for foreign citizens.

Here is another example.. Allow me to quote:

"a heavy sport-utility vehicle driven by a US marine, who heads the embassy security detail in Bucharest, smashed early Saturday into a taxi cab carrying 50-year-old Romanian rock musician and producer Teo Peter [...] [The marine] refused to allow Romanian authorities to take a blood test, and the embassy immediately spirited him out of the country to one of the US military bases in Europe"

As opposed to an earlier (and quite similar) case, this time involving an US victim:

"a 1997 fatal car crash in downtown Washington, in which a drunk Georgian diplomat, Gueogui Makharadze, rear-ended another car waiting at an intersection, killing a 16-year-old girl. At that time, the State Department applied heavy pressure on then Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, forcing him to reverse an earlier decision to move Makharadze out of the country and persuading him to lift the diplomat's immunity. As a result, Makharadze was compelled to stand trial and serve jail time in the United States."

BAWAHAHAHHAHAHAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's true, it sounds like good evidence that people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for access to an all-you-can-eat DRM-free media download service.

AHAHAHA, "willing to pay," that is a good one! The only reason they paid and supported such a site is because they do NOT want to pay anything for their ill-gotten gains, and they hate the companies who go after greedy freeloaders like them.

Could someone please put up a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it got slashdotted - is there anyway I can see the original article somehow?
Is there a mirror available....

Five years, not three.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hicks has a case to answer, but the situation regarding his five year incarceration without trial in Guantanamo (and the impotency of the Australian government in 'demanding' the US hurry it up) is overshadowing Hicks' original crimes, whatever they may be.
This is becoming serious enough that the 10-year encumbent government realises it may turn this year's federal election against them.

rappers

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget rapping about murder and drug trafficing, i am rapping about bootlegin DVDs!
Now thats being gangsta.

you steal you go to jail, why is this news?

[ccgr]

not another free Kevin campaign I hope