Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BitTorrent Pirate Loses His Last Appeal

Posted by Zonk on from the no-more-second-chances dept.

Vix666 writes with a link to a ZDNet article on the final chapter of a story we've discussed before: the first user convicted of piracy for using BitTorrent to download a movie has really, finally, lost his case. Chan Nai-ming was sentenced in November of 2005, lost an appeal in December of last year, and appears to have once again failed to convince a judge to let him out. "The Hong Kong government welcomed the judgment, saying it clarified the law regarding Internet piracy. 'This judgment has confirmed that it commits a crime and violates copyright laws for the act of using (BitTorrent) software to upload and distribute,' said customs official Tam Yiu-keung in a written statement. He added the judgment would have a deterrent effect, a view endorsed by industry watchdogs such as the Hong Kong branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry."

4 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In the net balance... by sycomonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

    Your last sentence seems to confuse "intellectual property", which isn't property at all so much as an artificial monopoly on an idea or set of data, and actual, physical property. Last month someone stole my car stereo. That car stereo was mine, I owned it, it was my property, and a thief stole it. Now, if the thief had instead copied my stereo, I would not be the least bit upset. When he stole my stereo, he got a stereo he did not pay for, and I no longer have a stereo. When someone downloads copyrighted music without permission, the person get music he did not pay for, but nobody who already bought the music is suddenly without. This is the key difference and something the RIAA and MIAA still doesn't' seem to understand. Saying that copying data is theft is inherently ludicrous. Copyright infringement, maybe, but not theft.

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
  2. Re:wtf by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nobody is entitled to someone else's hard work for free.
    1. They were not forced to work.
    2. Yes we are ALL entitled to the results of such work for free.
      It's called the public domain.
  3. Re:In the net balance... by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Troll

    What if your wide/mom/sister had a vagina, and people could have an endless supply of orgasms with no more work than sliding a penis into her mouth, ass, or vagina. Would you not be acting immorally to restrict access by everyone?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  4. Re:wtf by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 0, Troll

    OK, so how were those movies in the public domain? You know that phrase - PUBLIC DOMAIN - has a SPECIFIC legal meaning. And your attempt to make up your own definition doesn't cut it. What movies? The post I was responding to said "hard work" to which I qualified as being the "results of that hard work" -- eventually all such results enter the public domain. Thus we are all entitled to them.