Slashdot Mirror
First Guilty Verdict In Criminal Copyright Case
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A Brooklyn man has been found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement by a federal jury in Virginia. He now faces up to five years in prison, a quarter-million-dollar fine, and three years of parole, not to mention the 'full restitution' he has to make to the RIAA. The charges against him stem from his role as 'Dextro,' the administrator of one of the Apocalypse Production Crew's file servers — APC being one of the release groups that specialize in pre-release music. While he's the 15th member of APC to be charged under the US DOJ's Operation Fastlink, he's the first to be convicted. He will be sentenced on August 8th. For those wondering when infringement became a criminal matter, you can thank the NET Act, which was signed into law in 1997 by Bill Clinton."
Thanks, Bill Clinton!
...no, wait, what I meant was, fuck you for siging that legislation, and fuck all the politicians and legislators who are fooled by the media companies into thinking we need draconian copyright laws. Copyright should have forever remained a civil matter, never criminal.
Further proof that even politicians you like (I voted for Clinton in 1996, the first presidential election I was old enough to vote for) can do foolish things.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Soon, they will come for you if you happen to do something that doens't make some big corp. money.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
It seems like the overriding issue in this case was the fact that this music was pirated prior to its street date release. The wired article even makes mention of the fact that, if you pirate a song here and there, you're not likely going to be in trouble. The fact that it's related to copyright doesn't have that much to do with sharing, in other words.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
I'm not condoning the business these folks were in (and it sounds like a business because he was paid) but the guy is just 25 years old. A five year sentence is a big chunk of his young life.
I hate RIAA's tactics against the common man as much as anyone here, but this is one of the few cases where I have a hard time criticizing them or the legislation being used.
This group are hell-bent on obtaining pre-released music (that the companies have not yet had a chance to recoup their investment on) and making it available for free.
Whether you believe copyright terms should be 99 years or 7 years is immaterial here. Whether you believe an individual should be able to rip their CDs is immaterial here. Whether you believe in teh doctrine of first sale for copyrighted materials is immaterial here. Put aside your hatred of the RIAA for a second and see this for what it really is - one of the few occasions where they have a point.
Let's say he gets off parole and jets to Europe or whatever. Can they make him pay?
There are some standards defined for what makes any particular act of copyright violation to be a criminal act. These are clearly defined in 17 USC 506. But to summarize, it requires willful infringement, plus one of either 1) financial gain, 2) total value over $1,000, or 3) pre-release of material in preparation. Criminal infringement does not apply to the casual downloader. There are still valid questions as to whether the punishment matches the crime, but these criminal laws are targeting the big fish.
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation!
...but, but, but I wanted to bash Bush!
/sarcasm
That makes a world of difference. If he hadn't been paid, it would have been an entirely different matter before the court.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
What this case says to me is that in fact the RIAA know that they will have trouble winning their civil cases in court. They have, in fact, clearly held off on bringing a suit against him until they had a guilty verdict, so they could use the verdict as a lever in the probable civil trial.
Their first legal harassment technique, suing filesharers randomly, appeared to have run out of steam and then backfired on them so they got the government to invoke a little-known, eleven year old statute to crack him open. The only saving grace is that the Justice department is not about to start bringing cases against every 12-20 year old in the country who owns a computer, when there are so many terrorists and child pornographers out there that they can feel good about busting.
nuff said
as some of that music was rap it should be an interesting jail sentence
rip and swap all you want but don't be obsessed with destroying what value is left in recorded music
I'm glad we have this dangerous criminal off the streets. I will sleep soundly tonight knowing I am safe. Thank you RIAA.
Not being Usanian, I wonder what other crimes have
this kind of punishment.
5 years in jain == kicking a puppy with malicious intent?
robbery? hitting people with baseball bats? spilling milk
over cops? Displaying a nipple on national TV?
This law was nothing of Bill Clinton's doing, except that he signed it instead of vetoing it (which would have been pointless because... In 1996, Republicans grabbed majority control of both Houses, with veto override power. This bill was introduced as part of their "Contract ON America", where they proceeded to run roughshod over the Constitution and most Americans for the sake of Big Business, which paid their real salaries until sex and greed finally loosened their grip in 2006. HR2265 was sponsored by Representative Goodlatte (Republican-Virginia).
Copyright infringement, as the term so aptly suggests, is not theft. How the RIAA and MPAA who's members comprise foreign corporations managed to convince your politicians it should carry harsher penalties than rape is beyond reasoning. No person in his/her right mind can justify this even in a country where corporate campaign contributions are the norm.
I am a foreigner, how does that compare to, for example, an homicide crime? I understand the points made that the music was prereleased, but this still makes no sense for me. I think the law has better things to do than wasting time on this issues. And five years is a lot of time.
And we wonder why we have so many people in prison...
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
He was a siteop, not a supplier. Are you retarded? I doubt mp3 was the only section on this site anyhow. Additionally, it is "aPC" not "APC".
The funniest part is the fact that this group has been practically dead since around 2002 or so.
This guy was fully aware that he was breaking the law, and what the potential outcome was. Now I am not saying I agree with the law, but he was fully informed. I don't think pot should be illegal but I think people who use it are idiots.
This whole issue, remarkably comes down to entertainment products anyway. Absolutely silly. Music and movies ? Who cares ? Amazing that expensive software isn't the item for which this guy is getting nailed.
From the Copyright Corner:
Criminal misdemeanor penalties have been a part of the copyright law since 1897.
In the 1909 Copyright Act, criminal copyright infringement was expanded to cover all types of works and all types of activities. It continued to be a misdemeanor offense with both willfulness and a financial motive required; the penalties included imprisonment.
The 1976 Act revamped the criminal provisions by changing the "for profit" requirement to infringement conducted "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." This lowered the standard from requiring that the defendant profit from the infringement merely to an intent to profit or gain from the activity. The Act retained the one-year in federal prison term but increased the fine from $1,000 in fines to up to $10,000 generally, and to $50,000 if the work infringed was a sound recording or motion picture.
In 1982 the criminal infringement provisions were amended to make certain types of first-time infringement punishable as felonies.
The most recent amendment to criminal copyright infringement was the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 (NetAct) which made it a felony to reproduce or distribute copies of copyrighted works electronically regardless of whether the defendant had a profit motive. Thus, it changed the 100-year standard regarding profit motive but retained the element of willfulness. The ease of infringement on the Internet was the primary reason for criminalizing noncommercial infringement as well as recognition of other motivations a nonprofit defendant might have such as anti-copyright or anti-corporate sentiment, trying to make a name in the Internet world and wanting to be a cyber renegade. So, the infringement must be either: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain or (2) involve the reproduction or distribution of one or more copies of a work or works within a 180-day period with a total retail value of $1,000. Commercial infringers are subject to higher penalties.
CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT [2004}
Connecticut Man Sentenced To 30 Months in Prison For Criminal Copyright Infringement - Forty Defendants Convicted In Operation Copycat To Date {April 29, 2008]
Gotta quote myself here.
I'm just trolling, what's your excuse? =)Just still wondering the answer. Or are you too busy spouting off about people who use Austin Powers jokes while you can recycle catchy phrases like "strawman", "ad hominem", and the other classics without trying to let a little originality seep into your membranes?
The more you learn about the RIAA, the more sense a simple FU makes.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
We all know that the US is actually governed by its corporations.
> it requires willful infringement, plus one of either 1) financial gain
Just to be fair, the NET Act also redefines "financial gain" to include a laundry list of things. One of those things that laundry list covers is receiving other copyrighted works in return.
Yes, that's right. In theory, joining a torrent could be "financial gain" so long as the contents were valuable enough.
In practice, we don't have full-fledged copyright cops (yet), so they don't bother with small fry. But that WILL change if they can get the PRO-IP Act through congress. My sincere hope is that it never gets that far.
I don't have such a problem because I refuse to judge the situation we face by just one case. When I think of all the people the RIAA harasses and gets loads of money from regarding alleged non-commercial infringement (consider the many informative stories promoted here by NewYorkCountryLawyer), I became convinced that the RIAA was a proponent and beneficiary of going too far, and I was also convinced that the NET Act is another step of metaphorically swatting flies with sledgehammers.
The length of copyright is hardly "immaterial" because that's another mechanism by which the organizations that paid for the NET Act withhold contributing to the public domain in exchange for their monopoly power; another way they ripoff the public. The DMCA end-run around expiring copyright is another tool by which they can contribute to culture only on their terms (remember that the while the work published on a home recording may be in the public domain, a copy prevention scheme which prevents full access to that work never expires). Exceptions are few in number, need to be applied for, hard to apply for, and eventually expire. That we all can leverage these powers doesn't begin to make up for the loss to cultural enrichment and observance of a bargain that copyright is supposed to represent. And as to enforcement: How many of our freedoms will we end up giving up so that they can enforce these new laws? I'm guessing the stories about this haven't reached the mainstream media enough to be pointed to by /. yet.
When I consider the severe imbalance of benefit and punishment, I find it hard to agree with your conclusions that the RIAA (and their corporate clientele) has a point here. When the corporate copyright holders violate law they face no real punishment. Wasn't Microsoft found guilty of copyright infringement (commercial, at that) in France some years back? I don't recall a big deal being made of this in the US (the same country that is currently being shamed by the fruits of EU's antitrust actions against Microsoft). Some years ago in the New York Times I recall reading a story involving the "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" movie soundtrack which had apparently been commercially produced and distributed without finding one of the people owed royalties resulting, initially, in unjust enrichment for the publishers (later the publishers chanced to find him and paid him). I have a hard time believing those publishers would get anywhere near the same punishment "Dextro" got (and you can't imprison a corporation for they have no bodies to incarcerate and no souls to save, as a wise man pointed out). UMG, an RIAA member, was recently discussed on /. when "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" wrote about how UMG "had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs, they [UMG] thought that being ordered to pay ten times the actual damages in Bridgeport v. Justin Combs was just too much". NewYorkCountryLawyer calculated "the Jammie Thomas award bore a ratio to actual damages of 26,428:1".
Digital Citizen
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
How can music that hasn't ever been sold to anyone have any kind of value? At least with a CD that has sold millions of copies a reasonable argument can be made that the songs on the CD are worth some particular amount of money. But just the expectation that it will sell? WTF.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I'm glad we have such a great economy... so great that we can eat ourselves alive like this. Dumb shit like this is so meaningless.
Our country is dieing senators...
Mr President...
Anyone doing anything? Anyone really care? I didnt think so. But i figure i should ask. Someone should.
"What are you in for?"
"I got five years for raping and torturing a crippled nun, slashing her throat, then raping her some more. You?"
"I let people download some albums. But it was a LOT of albums."
On a sidenote that year the entertainment founds where $1,048,341 to democrats and $1,140,021 to repubblicans, maybe this is not counting the money given directly as founding for Hillary's governor campain, which I think was around 2000.
Politically correct note: Mr Barak Obama Hussein has taken for sure less money given the lesser time he's runnin in politics
Just a note: What's up with this guy anyway? Could'nt democrats find a candidate with a less intimidating name? This one has a mix of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein . I can't imagine even in a movie a character with this name
Useless stunt: What about a new terrorist threat under the name Basak? I mean don't tell me 2 out of three is a coincidence, this is obviously a marketing plot laid to subliminally promote this candidate.
'cos without that, it wasn't commercial gain.
And when are the GPL infringers going to jail for 5 years? What about Sony profiting from the copyrighted code in LAME?
So maybe there's a REASON for disregarding this law: it's used one-sided
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"APC being one of the piracy groups that specialize in violating the law as it exists."
Jeffrey Gerard Levy was actually the first person convicted of felony copyright infringement without profit motive under the 1997 NET Act. The University of Oregon threw him to the wolves when he was 22 years old. He was given two years probation.
Others have already pointed out that criminal copyright infringement in the US is far older than Bill Clinton, but that does not excuse him for the 1997 NET Act. Before that act, imprisonment for sharing without profit motive was not an option. I'd say America has enough prisoners already. America claims 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the the world's imprisoned population.
I just did a quick look-up on Thomas. The Bill originated in the House:
On the Senate side, the following Senators voiced support in the Congressional Daily Record:
I found no obvious dissent, and there were many other House members who did not speak, but were mentioned as supporting the Bill
The Bill was passed by unanimous consent on a voice vote in both the House and The Senate, indicating that if there was any opposition, it was very weak, and they did not even consider it important enough to order a roll call vote (any legislator can call for a roll-call on any vote)
The legislative branch makes the laws. The President can veto, but given the evidence I found from a skimming search, even if Clinton had been opposed (which I doubt), the veto would have easily been overridden in the legislature. The President usually does not waste his power pissing off legislators in a veto battle he has no hope of winning.
The Slasdot author took a gratuitous baseless shot at Clinton, who hasn't even been in office for over 7 years now, when the congressman who introduced the bill and 5 of the 6 sponsors are still house members, as are 3 of the 4 Senators I listed.
The arrogant naivete of American voters is astounding and obscene. I wasn't a big Clinton fan; in fact anyone who would lie under oath about a consensual blow job has an exceedingly low valuation of his own personal honour. Still the fact remains, that after 7 1/2 years of the Bush tyranny; a president's lies about a blow-job, cum-stained dresses, and exotically aromatic tobacco products is fucking minor league when compared to lies about the causes for War Upon Iraq; the lies about al Qaida licking its wounds in Pakistan, the theft of habeas corpus, the governmental imprimatur upon acts of human torture, and the blood-stained Iraqi sands.
The Democratic Party is The Lamer of Two Evils, and the Republican Party has yet to even begin to feel the level of pain necessary for it to purge its resident evil.
Which is a bigger lie?
Thus Speaks The Rectaltude of Contemporary Conservatives.
But, look out behind you! It's The Penis of The President Past...
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
So, basically, there was a misdemeanor law way back in 1897, but it would never have applied to a case like this.
They had to loosen it up a lot (as they did under the NET Act) to actually prosecute this as a criminal matter, though the change from misdemeanor to felony was pretty bad, too.
That said, I guess they actually used the conspiracy laws to get him, which would've required felonious copyright infringement. And I'm not sure they could've proven that without the NET Act...
So we're back to "Thank you, Bill Clinton"?
Man there are a lot of crazies running around. What's it like to live in a world where you don't actually create anything, so you have no idea what it's like to have what you've created stolen. That's kinda like saying that doctors and insurance companies are crooks, so stealing babies is ok because then we're sticking it to the man. I'm sure you can find some holes in that analogy because apparently wearing a shirt and the plot of Star Wars seem to be more inteligent ones, but thank god a lot of us live in the US, because we don't execute crazies until they cause organ damage, and we couldn't possibly consider it stealing unless we're greater than the average college kid and lesser than Enron.
And there, methinks, you've found your answer. If murder results in less cost (i.e. prison time) than copyright infringement, then we have a clear economic imbalance in terms of costs and incentives, which most perversely incentivizes murder (in relative terms, for course).
Amidst such absurd circumstances, it comes as zero surprise that American society is increasingly screwed up.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Oh canada, my future native land....
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Please don't misunderstand. I don't support Bush or the Republican party in the slightest. While it was inaccurate to call this a first, I don't think this could have been prosecuted without the NET Act, which Bill Clinton signed with lots of support from Republicans.
That said, I don't think that we can look at this as a partisan problem. There are corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans, with only a few good ones in between (who are mostly Democrats, from those I can remember, BTW).
So it may have been a mistake on my part to inject politics into this, but it's still not irrelevant. I've read Hillary's positions and she would certainly continue Bill's work in terms of copyright restrictions. McCain would, too, for that matter.
Obama is the best of the lot among those likely to be elected, but it's not saying a lot. He at least acknowledges patent reform and net neutrality, though I have serious questions about his copyright policies. But, like I said, the others are FAR worse, especially with McCain supporting telecom immunity (he voted for immunity) and Hillary not wanting to touch the issue (she abstained, while Obama voted against immunity).
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property