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

They are coming for the virtual priates now

[pembo13]

Soon, they will come for you if you happen to do something that doens't make some big corp. money.

Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now

[Mr2001]

Wouldn't you be pissed at people sneaking in under the canvas without paying, or copying the T-shirt for their friends?

Sneaking in is trespassing. It deprives me of the exclusive use of my property, because people take up space inside the tent.

Copying the T-shirt for their friends, however, is fine. To stop someone from doing that, I'd have to either prevent him from describing his personal experiences to a friend ("this is what I saw"), or from putting some ink that he owns onto a shirt that he owns.

What right do I have to interfere with either of those? Why should I get to stifle his speech or tell him what to do with his own property? If the only way a person can think of to make money depends on taking rights away from everyone else, he's not thinking hard enough.

You're conveniently leaving out part of the debate; people may not be deprived of the physical thing, but they are being deprived of income they rightfully hoped to make with it. Rightfully, because they are not just showing their works to everyone and them demand payment, like in your analogy; they try and keep a careful control of the works they paid to have produced, and charge a fee to enjoy that work.

They do show the works to everyone when they broadcast them on TV or radio. Making them available to paying customers effectively means making them available to everyone, because you can't expect to control what those customers do or say once they leave the theater: they have the right to describe what they saw to anyone who wants to listen.

Semantically you may be right, but insisting that copyright is not stealing is usually nothing more than a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue, and the fact that it is [i]wrong[/i] to copy an intellectual work without permission. Or perhaps you would argue that it isn't wrong... in that case I expect better arguments than "Hey, it's not stealing...".

I do argue that it isn't wrong, because sharing information is a fundamental human right. If you want to restrict the kinds of information I'm allowed to share, it'd better be because sharing it would harm someone.

Copying a song or a video doesn't cause anyone harm, though. You might argue that losing potential revenue is a kind of harm, but then you'd have to agree that a respected reviewer who says "this sucks, here's why, don't buy it" could easily cause much more loss of revenue. And yet we all recognize his right to share with his readers, even when it affects someone else's bottom line.

Those who pay to have music and movies produced, have the right to ask a price to enjoy those works and set conditions for using them.

I disagree. That "right" is only needed if you're intent on treating music and movies like a widget, something manufactured on an assembly line and sold in discrete units.

But recording a song isn't like soldering parts together: you don't have to do it again every time someone wants a copy. You record it once, and then it's available to everyone who wants it (unless you sue them). Why, then, should you get paid again every time someone gets a copy?

If you want to get paid for the time you spend writing a song, then find someone who'll pay you to write it. Or a whole bunch of someones... sellaband.com is on the right track.

Fair use and sensible consumer protection should apply, but for the rest, if you don't agree with the price or the conditions attached, your only moral option is to not obtain the music or movies, and spend your money elsewhere.

Perhaps you could explain why obtaining them without paying is immoral.

Asking for a copy of a movie is morally equivalent to asking someone to tell you about it in excruciating detail. They're relating facts. It's a fact that Star Wars has light sabers and takes place in a galaxy far, far away; it's a fact that Darth Vader wears a black helmet; it's a fact a certain string of bits makes a JPEG image of th

Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now

[Mr2001]

It's also a fact that a small piece of paper made in a certain way is a banknote. Are you implying there's nothing wrong in printing your own money? If you spend a counterfeit note, you're defrauding whoever you give it to: they value that note because they believe it was printed by the treasury, when in fact it wasn't, and you use that deception to get something of value.

The same applies to trademarks, by the way. If you build a car in your back yard and then try to sell it as a "Honda Civic", that's fraud. Your customers reasonably expect that a car known as a "Honda Civic" will have been made by a certain company, using certain designs and materials, meeting certain quality standards and so on; but yours isn't, and you take advantage of that deception to make a profit.

Re:17 USC 506 -- why it's criminal

[Libertarian001]

Yup, they were originallyintended to target the big fish, but the last several years have shown the targeted fish becoming smaller and smaller.

Normally I'd be wary of the slippery slope logical fallacy. In this case, I think there's a proven track record that that's exactly what's happening.

jail cam

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:17 USC 506 -- why it's criminal

[IgnoramusMaximus]

total value over $1,000,

Which of course makes all copyright infringement into criminal infringement as no copyright holder is ever going to claim less then hundreds of thousands to millions in "losses" per piece of data shared. You see, 1000 million bazillion downloads could have occurred (yes, yes every man, woman and child and their pet parrot could have purchased the thing many times - and soon that will be the only option with "pay-to-read"!) thus depriving the poor copyright holder of a veritable mountains of cash.

That has been the standard "reasoning" in all copyright infringement cases and is unlikely to change. In fact that is the very reason why the clause of "value over $1000" was put in as the writers of the law set it to make sure that every single case qualified. Welcome to lobbyist law writing 101.

"Total retail value" comes closer to $0.99/track

[tepples]

And what is the RIAA claiming the value of a single track is these days? RIAA's claims are based on the statutory damages of section 504. But section 506 states that the criminal threshold is based specifically on "total retail value", which would come much closer to the $0.99 per track that iTunes Store charges.

Re:17 USC 506 -- why it's criminal

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Also, I forgot to add, that the "value over $1000" has another insidious purpose: to exclude copyright infringement by corporations on Creative Commons or FOSS work. The idea is for the corporate lawyers (who in effect wrote the law) to claim that the "nerdy bearded weirdo" in that basement gave the stuff away for free, thus it was only natural for a respectable, upstanding corporation to take his stuff and put it to "good use" for profit. This is in essence the same argument that was used by colonialists everywhere, that the natives were "not using properly" (i.e. up to the invaders' standards) their land, oil and what not.

Re:Cry me a river... please.

[brianosaurus]

They may well have a point, but pre-existing copyright laws already made this act a civil offense. They could have gone after him. They didn't need a law that allows them to lock people away with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.

This guy "stole" imaginary property. He shared music online. Music that the RIAA effectively stole from the artists who created it (but that's another topic completely).

My issue in this case is not with the RIAA, but with the US government being hijacked by corporations for the benefit of a few. Sony has plenty of money, and continues to make plenty of money even with the "rampant piracy" that happens today. Sure, their aging business model is starting to have diminshing returns, but that's life. Progress happens. Technology improves and outdated methods go the way of the horse and buggy.

This law is a clear demonstration of the government being in the pockets of the corporations. It gives way too much power, and eliminates virtually all of the real benefits of copyright (aside from the single purpose of diverting money from the people into the hands of a few corporations).

America is so screwed.

I started boycotting RIAA music when the DMCA was first passed. And I truly boycott the crap. I don't buy it. I don't download it. I don't go to concerts of artists on the RIAA (yes, screw those artists, too, for enabling the corrupt system). I guess this verdict gives me even more reason to not touch the RIAA's poison.

CC "nc" licenses; copyleft/$$$ dual licensing

[tepples]

Also, I forgot to add, that the "value over $1000" has another insidious purpose: to exclude copyright infringement by corporations on Creative Commons or FOSS work. That's true of permissive licenses. But some Creative Commons licenses have a non-commercial use clause, which makes a work non-free so as to allow for a "retail value" that only the author can charge for the work. And some works, such as Qt and LZO libraries, are dual-licensed under copyleft and proprietary commercial licensing, where the right to restrict redistribution of derivative works requires payment. These have a "retail value": the price of a commercial license.

...instead of forcing a roll-call vote

[tepples]

This law was nothing of Bill Clinton's doing, except that he signed it instead of vetoing it (which would have been pointless True, a presidential veto of the NET Act, the Bono Act, or the DMCA would have been pointless in terms of keeping the bills from becoming law. Each of the bills passed through a voice vote, meaning that the yeas and nays of each member never became public record. Under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, it takes four-fifths percent of both houses to push a voice vote through (section 5) but only 67 percent of both houses to override a veto (section 7). Still, a President has power to create bad press for the supporters of a bill because a veto forces a roll-call vote (section 7).

Re:signed into law in 1997 by Bill Clinton...

[marxmarv]

Goodlatte? You mean the one who makes a point of ignoring anyone from outside of his district? Who's the big IP holder in his neck of the woods?

Re:Prohibition

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States still has a Prohibition regime that does the same thing, although the prohibition of alcohol [wikipedia.org] was replaced with a prohibition of cannabis [wikipedia.org] in the mid-1930s.

Ahhh, but you forget about "The New Prohibition". It's known that you can't legislate it directly, but the president of MADD (a male, this time) has publicly said, "We don't want to do away with drinking and driving -- we want to do away with drinking altogether." (Google it.) Note also that the woman who was the original president of MADD was also picked up on a DUI -- heh, heh.

In furtherance of this aim, they got the .08% BAC legislation enacted. Not directly, for they're a spineless bunch of bastards. Instead, they bought sufficient Congress-castrati to wield the hammer of "no federal highway funds" to impose their will on states not adopting "the new standard". By the way, there's no solid medical evidence that any level below .16% really impairs driving ability.

In one case, a woman had one glass of wine with dinner and got red-lighted when she left the brightly-lit parking lot without her headlights on. She explained to the "officer of the law" that it was only because her sister had borrowed her car and had mistakenly turned off the auto headlights. The cop asked if she had had anything to drink with dinner. She replied that she had had one glass of wine earlier in the evening. So the rampant son of a bitch DUIed her, declaring, "We have a zero tolerance policy here."

Cocksucking, swaggering, power-mad bastard -- I'll bet he felt like a real stallion with the wifey when he got home that night. I'll bet her pussy and asshole are still sore.

Re:another nonviolent offender behind bars...

[westlake]

And we wonder why we have so many people in prison...

In the American system almost all violent offenders are prosecuted at the state level. The federal system has more than enough room for the Enron exec who thinks that economic and property crimes harm no one.
In other societies the white-collar criminal has been known to face the hangman's noose or the firing squad.
An extreme remedy, perhaps. But it does tend to very efficiently strip away the technocrat's assumption that his brains and his skills make him answerable to no one.

Re:Well, okay then...

[schon]

What they are being denied is the _exclusivity_ of the right to copy Really?

You're saying that the original copyright holder no longer holds the copyright?

That sounds pretty far-fetched. Can you point me to the legal statute that backs up your claim that a third party engaging in copyright infringement voids your copyright, because I have a very hard time believing that.

Re:Cry me a river... please.

[Waffle Iron]

And, as in Enron's case, it can be as devastating or even more so than some pimp or drug dealer.

I agree. Therefore, these pirates should receive punishments that are proportional to those of Enron executives, based on total economic damages.

In the case of Enron, a few $billion in mayhem is worth maybe 30 years of prison time. These pirates probably served up a few $million worth of of CDs. That would make the applicable prison sentence about 1/1000 of an Enron: let's say a week or two.

Re:Cry me a river... please.

[mpe]

My issue in this case is not with the RIAA, but with the US government being hijacked by corporations for the benefit of a few.

Not just the US government, many of the same corporations are trying (with varying degrees of sucess) to get these kind of laws everywhere on the entire planet.
The other problem is that these laws are often useless against large corporations themselves. (Criminal law especially, corporations can be sued, but they can't be jailed). Otherwise something drastic would have happened to Sony when they put a "rootkit" on what were allegedly music CDs.

Sony has plenty of money, and continues to make plenty of money even with the "rampant piracy" that happens today.

Also in a time where many businesses are finding their costs increasing due to economic factors outside of their control, such as the rising price of oil and the resulting increase in the price of all oil derived products.

Sure, their aging business model is starting to have diminshing returns, but that's life. Progress happens. Technology improves and outdated methods go the way of the horse and buggy.

A sensible company in such a situation either looks to change their business model or ceases trading. In both cases whilst they are still "in credit".

This law is a clear demonstration of the government being in the pockets of the corporations. It gives way too much power, and eliminates virtually all of the real benefits of copyright (aside from the single purpose of diverting money from the people into the hands of a few corporations).

In many cases these same corporations have zero respect for the copyright of anyone outside their own group. There even appear to be cases, such as the "mainstream media", where copyright infringment is almost routine. As well as soliciting material from readers and viewers, then hiding somewhere in the terms and conditions that by doing so you are transfering copyright to them, even if they don't broadcast/print it. As opposed to somthing like, "We won't pass it to any third party, it we use it we will credit it as yours and pay you X amount of money. Unless you wish to apply different terms and conditions to our using your work, if we don't agree with them then we won't publish your work."

Re:Well, okay then...

[schon]

No, he is saying that the copyright holder has to compete with his own product. Besides being a huge stretch to interpret the poster's comment to mean that, this is a moot point - the copyright holder *already* has to compete with their own product in the form of used merchandise, rental market and borrowing (libraries, between friends, etc.)

Unless you're also going to say that borrowing a book or DVD from your library is also stealing?

Buying from a used bookseller or DVD shop? That would also be stealing then wouldn't it?

Taken to it's logical conclusion, if I buy something, but only buy one copy, that must be stealing as well, because it means that I won't purchase a second one!