Slashdot Mirror


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."

66 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. MAFIAA gets their way by User+956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:MAFIAA gets their way by Crunchie+Frog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
      --
      --- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
    2. Re:MAFIAA gets their way by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  2. RUN from the MAFIAA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Why the US by jeevesbond · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    1. Re:Why the US by datafr0g · · Score: 4, Funny

      Team America: World Police!

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

      --
      "Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
    2. Re:Why the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Why the US by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:Why the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because all your base are belong to U.S.

    5. Re:Why the US by Kris_J · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    6. Re:Why the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      This guy was never in the US, though.

    7. Re:Why the US by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    8. Re:Why the US by pryonic · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    9. Re:Why the US by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).
    10. Re:Why the US by erroneous · · Score: 2, Funny

      > 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.

      --
      erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
    11. Re:Why the US by giminy · · Score: 5, Funny

      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

      --
      The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  4. The fundamental question: by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  5. It strikes me as unfair... by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    +Raider of the lost BBS
  6. Funny by ThoreauHD · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  7. They Never Profited .. by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  8. Re:If memory serves by Whatsitmatter · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  9. Jury nullification. by n17ikh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Hard work pays off tomorrow, but procrastination pays off NOW!
  10. i'm sure it is the "principal" of the thing by atarione · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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???

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  11. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by Sorthum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  12. Italy by DreamerFi · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Right?

  13. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  14. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by Sorthum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:If memory serves by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Unless by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    --
    Read Pynchon.
  17. What annoys me the most about this... by Frogbert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  18. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by fred911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  19. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  20. Its interesting to think about this... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Its interesting to think about this... by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Its interesting to think about this... by grantsellis · · Score: 3, Informative
      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. :)
  21. the CIA doesn't Extradite by fred911 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It "rendites"

      Rendition:-)

        Laugh.. it's funny...

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  22. Re:GOOD by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  23. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  24. Think of the undertakers... by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Think of the undertakers... by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 4, Funny

      By how many dB does it attentuate the circumstances?

      --
      Squirrel!
  25. mod parent overrated, off topic by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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???

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:mod parent overrated, off topic by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  26. Re:If memory serves by xquercus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. Irony by KoldKompress · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  28. Re:Proportionate punishment? by Copid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  29. Re:If memory serves by jackharrer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
  30. Re:What can we do to give back? by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  31. Re: DoD on Wikipedia by senatorpjt · · Score: 2, Informative

    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...

  32. Re:If memory serves by maop · · Score: 2

    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.

  33. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by doomy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    ...free your source and the rest would follow...
  34. COPYRIGHT MUST BE REFORMED by MilesNaismith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  35. Does he get credit for the 3 years? Time served? by mrnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
  36. Remember Free Kevin Mitnick? by andr0meda · · Score: 2, Insightful


    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.

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
  37. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  38. Re:If memory serves by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  39. Misinterpretation by pilotfactory · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.)

  40. From the US to the world by Mad-cat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  41. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by secolactico · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    No sig
  42. Re:Proportionate punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  43. Re:If memory serves by GIL_Dude · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  44. Re:I for one... (not what you think) by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  45. He should've got the death penalty. by babbling · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:He should've got the death penalty. by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      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

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  46. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  47. Re:Is it a mandatory minimum? by deviceb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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..

    --
    Kill your TV
  48. Hmmm by deesine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    damaged by dogma