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."

Comments

Well, okay then...

[Dirtside]

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.

Re:Well, okay then...

[conlaw]

While it's possible to bash Clinton for signing the NET Act in 1997, the blame should first be applied to President McKinley since there have been provisions for criminal copyright actions in the code since 1897. The violations were considered to be misdemeanors until 1982 (Reagan's presidency) when criminal penalties were changed to make it felony for profit-making infringements of motion pictures and sound recordings.

Re:Well, okay then...

[Dirtside]

You say "He took an intangible right" as if the owner was entirely deprived of it. This is incorrect. Here's a couple of ways in which real property rights are not analogous to the rights secured by copyright:

1. If I take your car and blow it up, your car is permanently gone, and there's no way to get it back. If I distribute copies of your copyrighted work, once you stop me from doing so, your rights have been fully restored.

2. If I take your car, you cannot use it while I have it. If I make unauthorized copies of your copyrighted work, you can continue making your own copies while I do so.

Now, because I can tell you're the kind of person who will think that the above means I think that copyright infringement is acceptable, I'm going to try to emphasize that THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I'm merely pointing out that copyright infringement is NOT theft (aka larceny), not by any legal definition and not by common usage. They are different beasts, which is why we have entirely separate bodies of law covering them.

Re:Well, okay then...

[bloodninja]

What they are being denied is the _exclusivity_ of the right to copy You're saying that the original copyright holder no longer holds the copyright? No, he is saying that the copyright holder has to compete with his own product. Think of it like someone coming to your house and fucking your wife occasionally. You can still fuck her, but you have to compete with this guy for pussy in your own home with your own wife.

Re:Well, okay then...

[Spy der Mann]

What they are being denied is the _exclusivity_ of the right to copy that copyright is supposed to actually have. So yes, copyright infringement *IS* theft.

I'd rather classify this particular case as unfair trading practice and trade secrets stealing. (You see, until they're released, the albums' content is supposed to be secret).

So partially you're right, regarding zero day warez and similar stuff. But after the albums are released, it's the same monopolistic crap we've had.

Cry me a river... please.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cry me a river... please.

[77Punker]

Jail time for this though? He's not a dangerous person (at least by the fact of this conviction). We're talking about throwing away 10% of someone's life for what should be a civil offense. Maybe the copyright holder should sue him into the ground, but he shouldn't be imprisoned. Imprisonment is not something that should be taken lightly.

Re:Criminal downloading

[th1nk]

25 years old is plenty old enough to realize that serving up unreleased music is a pretty stupid thing to do, no?

The key here was that he got paid for it

[stox]

That makes a world of difference. If he hadn't been paid, it would have been an entirely different matter before the court.

It's a trade secret

[tepples]

This guy "stole" imaginary property. He shared music online. No, he leaked unpublished music online. Even without any copyright whatsoever, this fellow might have been prosecuted under trade secret laws.

Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now

[Mr2001]

Or, you know, if you somehow were to break the law by stealing something that wasn't yours Copying isn't stealing because no one is deprived of the thing being copied. That's Copyright Debate 101, man.

or enjoying something without paying for it when the owner wants you to. So when I wear a funny T-shirt, can I demand money from everyone who laughs at it? I mean, I want that money, and according to copyright apologist logic, that means they owe it to me.

You know, silly things like that. No disagreement here.

Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now

[Anonymous Coward]

or enjoying something without paying for it when the owner wants you to

Like those fuckers who STOLE my camp fire last weekend. I put a lot of effort into making that fire, then these clowns come over when I'm not looking, put a stick in MY fire and STEAL it. I deserve money!

Re:Criminal downloading

[purpleraison]

well gosh, then I suppose the folks at Enron, and the many people involved in other multi-million and billion dollar embezzlement schemes should get at least 5 years too, huh?

But we ALL know that won't happen.

In my eyes, until the rich and politically powerful are held to the same laws that govern us little people -- jail time for something like this is insane.

You DO realize that there are cases where people have been murdered, which did not net as much jail time as we are talking about this?

Re: Slow down, Cowboy

[westlake]

Not quite sure how this ended as a posting from an AC.

Short and sweet:

Criminal misdemeanors have been part of american copyright law since 1897.
The reach of the criminal law was extended and harsher penalties made available as early as 1909.
In 1982 first-time offenders could be convicted on a felony charge.

As for the NET act of 1997:

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. Criminal Copyright Infringement

Re:Fsck the engieer! They do no work!!

[Dirtside]

Or are you saying that stealing engineering blueprints is OK because if you just photocopied it, gave the originals back and gave the finger to the contractor (not paid for work done), that is OK because it is only "infringement" not theft of their time and expertise? I'm guessing most slashdot would say yes, screw the engineer, based on current moderation.

Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? The GP pointed out that this was a case of copyright infringement, not larceny. He said nothing about whether it was okay to do so. The real problem is fools who think that it's a good idea to equate copyright infringement with larceny. They're not the same thing, and for good reason.