Slashdot Mirror
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."
How about the death penalty for downloading mp3s? Also, we should definitely kill the family members of people that download movies illegally.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
aXXo is that u?
Please tell me your ok!
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.
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.
It means committing a crime in Hong Kong is now illegal.
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.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
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.
I like muppets.
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.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.