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 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.
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!
25 years old is plenty old enough to realize that serving up unreleased music is a pretty stupid thing to do, no?
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. "
Clearly, a more fitting crime for this liberal commie-terrorist (who kicks kittens) would be 5 years per kilobyte.
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.
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?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
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]
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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