BitTorrent Pirate Loses His Last Appeal

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."

Comments

Copyright law is a farce..

[brxndxn]

How about the death penalty for downloading mp3s? Also, we should definitely kill the family members of people that download movies illegally.

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

[Opportunist]

And since we know how well the death penality worked as a determent for murder...

Seriously, it does not matter at all what's the threat when you get caught. Whether it's just a slap on the wrist and probation or death by hanging, the people committing this "crime" are not ghetto gang members who don't care about another sheet in their file. They're usually normal, law abiding people who have fairly normal jobs or, if younger, go to school or college, often rather good schools or colleges, and plan to have a normal life with a normal job.

When you criminalize those people, all you get is a criminal who wouldn't have been one. Because what's the next thing happening? He's got a file, he's on probation, he probably won't get a good job. What is he gonna do? Commit more crimes. And since he's a criminal already anyway, why not break a real law? Does it matter?

When you go to jail for longer for copyright infringment than for robbery, do you think people who already got jail time for copying would care about what's happening when they sap that old lady to get her purse? Hey, it's a lesser crime, he's getting better!

Folks, something's running REALLY wrong here. With laws like this, we create more criminals but not more faith in the laws.

Why do people usually not murder or steal, rob a bank or kick old nannies off the curb? Because you simply don't do that! Do you really think about the possible jail sentence when you decide NOT to roll your car over that asshole who just gave you the proverbial finger? No, you don't kill him because that's simply something you don't do.

Because, quite frankly, if the law's the only thing that keeps you from going on a killing spree, something's very wrong with you!

People usually abide to the law not because they fear jail, but because of their moral code. Why are there more people speeding than shoplifting? The sentence for either is about the same (for a first time violation) here, still, we have a ton of speeders and rather few shoplifters, compared to it. Why? Because one is negligance and the other is stealing.

And you simply don't steal.

The danger I see is that people get used to breaking the law. When you simply continue what you have been doing for years and suddenly it becomes a crime, will you stop or will you ignore the law? And when you ignore one law, how far is it to ignoring the law altogether and just relying on your code of morals?

Will your morals stay the same? Or will you question them as well? Will you start wondering whether not only the law but also the morals you have been brought up with are wrong?

Scary, if you ask me.

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

[Thexare Blademoon]

Ok, I've been wrong before, but I think he was being sarcastic...

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

[Rojo^]

When you go to jail for longer for copyright infringment than for robbery, do you think people who already got jail time for copying would care about what's happening when they sap that old lady to get her purse? Hey, it's a lesser crime, he's getting better!

It's not a lesser crime. It's just a crime with fewer corporate-funded lobbyists pushing for disproportionate punishment. Your sig is probably unintentionally but ironically relevant to this discussion.

In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Copyright infringement is a economic crime. So, the punishment should be of an economic nature --- a fine. No reason to put anything in his criminal record either. For downloading, I suggest 2*(price of movie at time)/(chance of discovery). For uploading, I'd suggest a very similar amount... the damagde to the "victim" is greater, yet his personal gain is less. So, same fine.

wtf

[wizardforce]

the punishment seems a bit extreme for one movie but where do they draw the line? what do you do when people simply dont intend to pay for something that took alot of cash to make to begin with- especially when every protection scheme fails horribly? make better movies? how exactly does that solve the problem of people in effect stealing movies? [if thats the case why are pirates getting the crappiest movies?]

Re:wtf

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Public domain does not allow you to pirate blockbuster movies the day they come out.

Re:wtf

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Linus releases the kernel free, he has given permission.

Re:wtf

[Turn-X Alphonse]

The story is about a guy in HONG KONG. Hiding behind the US Consitituion does you no favours in this debate.

Will Americans PLEASE get it into their heads that NATIONAL LAWS ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL.

Re:wtf

[Convergence]

The public domain is the natural state of things. You have it reversed.

Copyright is a right, granted by the government, to enter into my house or my business and forbid me from copying a work for a friend or creating a derivative work. Generally in american jurisprudence, we frown upon the government infringing into people's private homes and businesses unless the government has an overriding interest otherwise.

You are perfectly free to leave a piece of beautiful music unrecorded, but you won't convince me that the natural state of things includes the ability to, with the power of the government, coercively forbid me from transcribing that overheard music. Of course, copyright does give you the right to enter my private home or business to enforce your will, because public policy has judged that the public benefit --- the production of creative works --- justifies the infringement on personal liberties.

Re:wtf

[QuantumG]

It's a false dichotomy. People make this argument ("You are not entitled to anyone's hard work without cost to you.") and invite you to argue the opposite. The problem is not a question of entitlement.. the problem is a question of control. By making this argument, people are trying to make the argument that they should be able to control the actions of everyone to protect their hard work. They are demanding that everyone be their agent in defending their work because it is impossible for them to defend it themselves. Not surprisingly, it seems the only people willing to do this are the people who are in the same boat.

In any case, this argument is easily seen as false.. just go out in public. You will find plenty of people doing hard work and not getting paid for it. You'll even find plenty of musicians.. playing a whole lot of music.. doing this supposed "hard work" that most people who make this argument are suggesting must be paid for. Do you feel you should give them money? Or do you just feel they are begging. How about those assholes at the lights who clean your windshield with a dirty squiggy? Do you feel you should give them money because they did a service for you.. even though you didn't ask them to? Even though it was useful because your windshield was dirty?

No. People who do work for hire without first securing someone to hire them are just confused.. or deliberately trying to invoke an obligation in others when none should exist.

Re:wtf

[rook2pawn]

Lets not forget the spirit of copyright. It is actually a beautiful instrument as the earlier poster had mentioned : "Copyright and other intellectual property mechanisms exist to promote the sharing of novel and other valuable works". According to Wikipedias History of Copyright Law, England's Statute of Anne (1710) promotes the author not distributor. The RIAA says it lobbies for the artist, but "The recording industry is able to pay exploitatively low percentages as all the record companies pay artists very similar amounts. Therefore if an artist wants to release their music there is no viable alternative other than to sign away their music to these organisations. This might eventually change in the future with the advent of web based music sales. Services may evolve to allow musicians to sell their music via the web without the need for a record company in its present form and consequently reap a fairer share of the profits from their music." (quote from the Record Industry wiki) Clearly this means the RIAA lobbies for the distributor, hence, this practice is in direct violation of the spirit of copyright, which on that alone, discredits any moral authority from the RIAA (aside from their already heinous behavior). There is no reason why we should not jail the RIAA. The RIAA is an active participant in corporate bought law, which comes down to bribery, a violation of United States Code, Title 18 (Criminal), Chapter 11, Section 201. Mitch Bainwol should be able to get sentenced from anywhere from 0-12 months, unfortunately, but its not in the realm of impossiblity. There is also a stautory maximum fine of $10k or $20k. Right from RIAA's About Us is the quote "The Washington Post has called Bainwol a "Top D.C. Lobbyist and Man in Demand."".

Oh no!

[BalaClavaChord]

aXXo is that u?

Please tell me your ok!

Uploading copyrighted works without permission

[Anonymous Coward]

the first user convicted of piracy for using BitTorrent to download a movie has really, finally, lost his case.

No, he could have used any other protocol. He was not convicted for using Bittorrent to do anything. He was convicted for uploading a movie without having a license to do so.

Scapegoats to the slaughter

[BillGatesLoveChild]

This comes a week after Australia extradited to the US an Australian Citizen who never stepped foot in the US for a similar offense. Australia's excuse is it's sycophantic Prime Minister it'll do anything the US Government tells it to. What's China's Excuse?

(Sadly) this isn't the Chinese government kissing American butt. They've got some "bad" publicity last week, so this poor sap is being made an example of.

Meanwhile the RIAA and MPAA continue to lie, cheat and steal with politicans at their bidding (that's the DMCA Congressman).

Re:come on out trolls

[gujo-odori]

Well, first of all, he's 38. Even if "30 is the new 20" he hardly qualifies as a kid. When I was 38 (but hey, 40 is the new 30, so I can be 38 again ina a few years ), I knew at least a few things. I knew the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, smart and stupid. In the latter category comes the idea that "If my definition of right and wrong differs from the law's definition, I should not do about enacting my definition in a public and noticeable way, lest I get busted." Clearly, he didn't get the difference between smart and stupid.

Secondly, he wasn't imprisoned for copying a file (funny how we expect copyright to be followed when bringing companies to task for violating the GPL but not when some individual violates copyright; the GPL is founded on copyright law, after all, not contract law), he was sentenced for *distributing* the copyrighted content that he copied. That's a far greater transgression under copyright law.

Finally, don't look now, but the only troll in this picture is you.

Re:BitTorrent illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It means committing a crime in Hong Kong is now illegal.

Re:come on out trolls

[Locklin]

There's a reason geeks get up at arms over GPL violations, and it's not because of a double standard.

It's because the GPL (and simmilar) was created to sidestep the problems of copyright. If you think current copyright law is a farse, than you release your work as GPL, not public domain. If you release it public domain, people can use it in copyrighted works, thus (indirectly) copyrighting your work.

The GPL uses copyright law to make sure your work never becomes part of the farse of copyright.