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."

14 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. 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 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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,
  3. 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.
  4. 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...

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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

  9. 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.