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

Prohibition

[tepples]

We're talking about throwing away 10% of someone's life for what should be a civil offense. The United States still has a Prohibition regime that does the same thing, although the prohibition of alcohol was replaced with a prohibition of cannabis in the mid-1930s.

Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now

[Mr2001]

Who was talking about copyrights anyway? I was talking about stealing and breaking the law So, it was just a random non sequitur, a bit of written Tourette's? You saw a thread about copyright and thought it'd be a good time to write about stealing instead?

Please. You were equating copyright infringement with stealing, which anyone who's thought about the issue for more than five minutes can see is false.

not some hippie mentality that says I can copy because The Man has enough money. I guess this is another one of those random outbursts, since neither of us has expressed that mentality.

The reasons copying is acceptable have nothing to do with money, and everything to do with the fact that copying doesn't deprive anyone of the work being copied or restrict how they can use it.

Yes, yes you can. In fact, I encourage it. It will make it easier to spot you without trying to pick you out from the other mouthbreathers. In other words, "I haven't thought about the consequences of my 'want money = deserve money' philosophy. Here, let me try to distract you."

But kudos for bringing out the ad hominem so early, saving your readers the bother of trying to take you seriously.

Re:Cry me a river... please.

[timmarhy]

well i sure am glad we have people like you locking up such dangerous violent criminals who are as you said "hell bent" on releasing that next briteny spears single.

no doubt they will release a sex offender on probation to make room for this guy.

Re:Clinton?

[baboo_jackal]

A leader who fails to remove unjust laws isn't as guilt the one who allowed them to come into existence, but close, no?
Hey, it's close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and the press: Not signing the Kyoto Protocol, promoting offshoring, promoting the advancement of terrorist states, destroying Magnequench, etc. It's all Bush's fault, except for the fact that Clinton actually did it all.

But let's condemn the guy who inherited the mess because he hasn't fixed it, and then also condemn his methods for fixing the mess he inherited. That makes so much sense, and I'm so super serial about that.