Slashdot Mirror


Seller of Counterfeit Video Games Gets 30 Months

wiredmikey writes "The FBI reported this week that Qiang 'Michael' Bi, of Powell, Ohio was sentenced to 30 months in prison for selling more than 35,000 illegally copied computer games over the Internet between 2005 and 2009. According to a statement of facts read during Bi's plea hearing, agents executed a search warrant at Bi's house and found multiple CD duplicators and more than 1,000 printed counterfeit CDs. Some of the CDs were still in the duplicator. During their investigation, agents learned that Bi would buy a single copy of a game, illegally duplicate it and sell the copies on eBay.com and Amazon.com. He also set up a website for customers to download the games they bought. Bi accepted payment through eBay and PayPal accounts in his name and in others' names."

165 comments

  1. What games? by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    What was he possibly selling in 2005 that had no reg code or drm???

    1. Re:What games? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh please, as if it was hard to remove DRM and generate serial numbers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What games? by Winckle · · Score: 1

      Console games.

    3. Re:What games? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What was he possibly selling in 2005 that had no reg code or drm???

      Emulators with bundled ROMs, possibly.

    4. Re:What games? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      You've obviously, never tried downloading torrents of popular games, most of which work with little or no trouble. Sometimes they need "cracks," sometimes not. The people that are stupid are ones that pay for unauthorized copies. Sharing something for no cost is one thing, but supporting a criminal enterprise is extremely irresponsible. I've played some of these games I've obtained from unauthorized copies, but usually end up paying for an authorized copy eventually if it's a good game.

  2. Amazing... by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It still blows my mind that people can be capable enough to run a little outfit like this, and yet be so amazingly dumb. You know you're going to get caught when you sell this stuff from the US, under your own name, on big name websites.

    1. Re:Amazing... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      But how much money did he make and move offshore? Maybe 30 months is trivial for him. Maybe 30 months is unusually large and it's normally fair to bet on a much lighter sentence.

    2. Re:Amazing... by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      FTFA: He was sentenced to six months each for the mail fraud and copyright infringement crimes and an additional 24 months for the aggravated identity theft.

      --
      windows media codec

    3. Re:Amazing... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So he gets 6 months for *selling* *35,000* games, but Jammie Thomas-Rasset gets 1.X Million for copying 24 songs?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    4. Re:Amazing... by PatPending · · Score: 2
      Dunno. However there's this:

      Bi also forfeited $367,669 in cash, representing the proceeds of the crimes, as well as his house, a 2006 Lexus SUV and computer and electronic equipment.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    5. Re:Amazing... by PatPending · · Score: 2
      And also this:

      He will also be required to make restitution to the companies who created the games. The amount of restitution is yet to be determined.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    6. Re:Amazing... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Somehow less than the penalty for "making available" 24 songs. The moral of the story: If you're going to commit a crime, commit the biggest crime you possibly can!

    7. Re:Amazing... by icebike · · Score: 1

      So he gets 6 months for *selling* *35,000* games, but Jammie Thomas-Rasset gets 1.X Million for copying 24 songs?

      Don't assume we know every part of the plea agreement.

      Who knows how many others he might have ratted out?

      Who knows how much money and off shore bank accounts were seized prior to trial, which just sort of become property of ICE?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:Amazing... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      $367,669 in cash and too cheap to rent a server in Tonga or Tuvalu to run his business from?

    9. Re:Amazing... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd like to, but I lack the money to open a bank.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Amazing... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thomas-Rasset got what she asked for. She was sharing a couple thousands songs in reality, although they only sued over 24 of them. They offered to settle for a few thousand dollars, which is a pretty fair price considering the number she was actually sharing. However, she decided to reject that and go to trial, even though she had not even a remote chance of winning (hell, she couldn't even hope for jury nullification, since it is a civil case and a nullification would just be overturned on appeal). The minimum statutory damage award is $750 per infringed work, or $18000 in this case. If, somehow, the court decided that she was an innocent infringer (basically someone who had no reason to believe they were infringing copyright), that can be cut down to $200 per work, or $4800 in this case. There's pretty much no chance of that, so realistically she was looking at a minimum of $18000.

      So, the best case she was looking at by going to trial was 3-4 times worse than settling, and that depending on the jury feeling sufficiently sympathetic to go as low as they could on the damages. And then she was pretty blatant about lying in court, she tried to blame her kids, and it came out that she tried to destroy evidence. So much for any chance of the jury being sympathetic...

    11. Re:Amazing... by PatPending · · Score: 1
      The amount of restitution is yet to be determined and could include:
      1. Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits
      2. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed
      3. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs

      So the sum total may exceed the penalty for "making available" 24 songs. We will just have to wait to find out.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    12. Re:Amazing... by PatPending · · Score: 1

      This would not have mattered because he did something really stupid: he sent a personal email to his work account.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    13. Re:Amazing... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Somehow less than the penalty for "making available" 24 songs. The moral of the story: If you're going to commit a crime, commit the biggest crime you possibly can!

      The problem is that the law ask for the number of copyrighted items that were copied, not for the value of those items, and not for the number of copies made. Psystar who was convicted for making about 750 illegal copies of MacOS X was convicted for copying _one_ copyrighted work, 1/24th of Jammi whatshername. The number of copies is only relevant if the copyright owner goes for actual damages. Let's say if a record company sold a million copies of a CD without having the copyright. So to compare the cases, you would have to find out how many different games this man copied. And then a song that I could download legally for $0.79 and a game that I could download legally for $49 are still treated the same.

    14. Re:Amazing... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      I thought the moral was thusly: Steal as much as you can. That way you can afford a better lawyer (and accountants to hide money offshore for when you get out of Club Fed in six months).

    15. Re:Amazing... by syousef · · Score: 1

      There's pretty much no chance of that, so realistically she was looking at a minimum of $18000.

      I'm not sure I agree with your logic, but I don't care to argue with you, so I'll concede everything you said and instead point this out: Even $18000 is arguably ridiculous, but do you think there'd be as much of an outcry if it was $18000 and not >$1M?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    16. Re:Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thomas-Rasset got what she asked for.

      When the 2nd Civil War starts, I'm coming looking for you. Anyone that thinks like you must be purged from my society. Jammie Thomas-Rasset's perjury is not the real issue, it's the un-Constitutional damages awarded to the plaintiff.

      Seriously, I hope you fucking die before you reproduce, because, honest to God, it's fuckwads like you that have and currently are destroying the United States of America.

    17. Re:Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The minimum statutory damage award is $750 per infringed work, or $18000 in this case.

      The point of the GP's post was that this is ridiculous. You apparently missed it.

    18. Re:Amazing... by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's the real trick, if you can get away with it long enough to grow your crimes, eventually you can commit crimes big enough that the government starts paying you.

    19. Re:Amazing... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I tell you what, if the entitlement crowd, a group of people distinguished by the fact that they refuse to do any work but want rewards anyway, manages to get up off their asses and actually start a revolution, I'll join in sheer amazement. I suspect, however, that it might be a little too difficult and you'll all just call for the rest of us to do it for you while you try to benefit for free.

    20. Re:Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you're going to get caught when you sell this stuff from the US, under your own name, on big name websites.

      According to another article, that isn't even what got him caught. Instead, it was that he emailed a spreadsheet containing the details of his criminal enterprise to his work email for his day job.

    21. Re:Amazing... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2

      Agreed. The sense of entitlement to ownership of ideas and their expressions, especially when most of the work going into every example of either is the result of millennia of cultural and technological development, is laughable.

      "It's mine I thought of it first!" is intellectually dishonest and pathetic beyond kindergarten.

    22. Re:Amazing... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      On another note, cancel the bank, I'll make a religion. Much easier to start and all you need is some gullible idiots. Even given the competition in the market for gullible fools, there's certainly still a vast unharvested field.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Amazing... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Thomas-Rasset got what she asked for.

      Like you say, the deck is wildly stacked against her when it goes to court and she's pretty much been on her worst behavior inside and outside of court. But even if you came into court accused of theft and said "If I want something I just take it so fuck you all" and gave the jury the finger there'd be limits. Thomas-Rasset has shown that for copyright infringement there's practically no limit, they can just pick a penalty far beyond the life earnings of most people for being a minor non-commercial file sharer and being an ass about it. It's as if jaywalking carried a penalty of $20 - life, depending on what the jury feels like. So no, even if she's been asking for it I would say she got far, far more than any sane justice system should deal out.

      I also think it's fairly obvious that the civil system is here clearly being used as a private penal system, where the damanges can not in any way be justified as actual or statutory damages. Statutory damages are supposed to be an alternative if actual damages are hard to estimate, not as a way to punish people much, much harder than any actual harm. Granted there's a long history of awarding up to triple damages - or more if the base is extremely small which $750 is not - which is which is why the one judge felt 3x$18,000 = $54,000 was the constitutional maximum. The remaining million and change can really only be considered to be a fine - payable to the music companies. It's a great end run around much of the legal system, it's a way to punish people without giving them all the benefits of the criminal justice system. As long as corporations and government are good buddies, you can consider it a form government kickbacks that just goes directly from your wallet instead of through the government.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    24. Re:Amazing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, punishment fitting the crime means something - and sharing songs should not mean millions of dollars in settlement and lawyer costs combined [IMO].

    25. Re:Amazing... by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Thomas-Rasset case show more how ridiculous your copyright law is over there, when you can get fined a minimum of $750 for sharing one track (although I understand a judge later suggested that one album could count as a single work, rather than each track).

      Compare this with a recent case in Germany where a judge ruled on €15 per song (assuming each was uploaded 100 times - personally I'm not sure how many seeders get *that* high a ratio, but anyway). If that isn't low enough, there's also the advice offered to a lawyer who was "mass-threatening" people for file-sharing in the UK, in which the advisor (an expert on these matters) suggested that in trial the claimant might be able to prove a single upload per song (so that works out as €0.15 per track) if they were lucky enough to be awarded any damages at all.

      Finally, even if settling leads to a lesser punishment than a full trial, that does not mean one should automatically settle. Far too many cases are settled (or in these file-sharing cases, too many people just pay up as soon as they are threatened) when - in most jurisdictions at least - there is barely any case against them.

    26. Re:Amazing... by brkello · · Score: 1

      Ugh. You people with your entitlement labeling garbage. There are some people out there that exploit the system. This is not the majority. Hell, I bet you are friends with people in the entitlement crowd and don't even know it since they are good people and work hard. But you imagine it must be awesome living on a few hundred dollars a month...ahh the sweet life.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  3. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you put any thought into how easy it would be to catch someone running a business out of their house. Compared to catching anonymous drug runners ?

    Seriously, think about what you just said.

  4. Bi by PatPending · · Score: 0

    In prison, being Bi will definitely be an asset.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Bi by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough "bi" (sounds like "bee") is Mandarin Chinese for a particular part of female reproductive anatomy, which is frequently used as a pejorative. In fact, following an adjective like "sha" (stupid), "zhuang" (pretentious) or "ma" (mother's) it is the bread and butter the Chinese swearing vocabulary. “Qiang Bi" would translate to “tough c---", which would be an asset in prison.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    2. Re:Bi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When spoken with a different tone it's also the word for a pen. My mandarin teacher used to freak out if we used the wrong tone. When asked why he couldn't explain without letting the cat out of the bag. Luckily the exchange student filled is in. Man, there was no learning to be had that day.

    3. Re:Bi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you almost sound like Ducky from NCIS

  5. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since terrorists were given the Club Gitmo treatment & allowed to lawyer-up, we decided not to catch 'em anymore--now we simply blow them up. Hooyah!

  6. Misplaced focus by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this guy gets 30 months for physically duplicating AND SELLING stuff, while Jammie Thomas et al get smacked with million-dollar fines for downloading a few handfuls of unpaid tunes for their own personal enjoyment? Maybe THIS guy should be the one getting smacked with million-dollar fines, considering he might have made millions from what he was doing.

    1. Re:Misplaced focus by PatPending · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not just 30 months; there's also this:

      Bi also forfeited $367,669 in cash, representing the proceeds of the crimes, as well as his house, a 2006 Lexus SUV and computer and electronic equipment.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Misplaced focus by PatPending · · Score: 2
      And there is also this:

      He will also be required to make restitution to the companies who created the games. The amount of restitution is yet to be determined.

      Assuming it's the retail price, 35,000 games @ $20 amounts to $700,000

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    3. Re:Misplaced focus by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2

      So this guy gets 30 months for physically duplicating AND SELLING stuff, while Jammie Thomas et al get smacked with million-dollar fines for downloading a few handfuls of unpaid tunes for their own personal enjoyment? Maybe THIS guy should be the one getting smacked with million-dollar fines, considering he might have made millions from what he was doing.

      Thomas has had multiple opportunities to settle for much less, some as low as around a couple thousand dollars (which would have been a pretty fair amount, considering that had in fact downloaded and was sharing a couple thousand songs, not a mere "few handfuls"). She had such opportunities before the first trial, and after each trial.

      Thomas also lied under oath, tried to frame her children, and was caught trying to destroy evidence. Those things make the jury unsympathetic, and such damages are determined by the jury she got hit with big damages.

    4. Re:Misplaced focus by metacell · · Score: 1

      Good point, but it's still grossly out of proportion, considering 35'000 games cost a lot more than 24 songs.

    5. Re:Misplaced focus by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Assuming the average few millions per copied song, I hope he has a country like, say, Australia willing to donate their GDP for a few years so he can pay the fine.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Misplaced focus by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how much is not being locked up in prison for 30 months worth to you and being a convicted felon worth to you?

    7. Re:Misplaced focus by macraig · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess... a million or so dollars?

    8. Re:Misplaced focus by macraig · · Score: 1

      grossly out of proportion == misplaced focus, then?

    9. Re:Misplaced focus by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Look at the opportunity costs:
      Whatever one could have made at a full time job, and possibly a second job.
      Unable to visit family and friend.
      Spending a couple of years worth of special events alone.
      If one has a child or children, one will miss 30 months of life. If the child is a baby, the child may not even know one after release.
      Then, there is the social and psychological effects of being in prison

      Really, think it through. Do you think Thomas would trade her million dollar judgement for 30 months in prison?

    10. Re:Misplaced focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pretty good precedent. 30 months is 21,915 hours, or 37.2 minutes per copy. So Jammie Thomas could in theory serve a bit under 15 hours in jail and call it done.

    11. Re:Misplaced focus by macraig · · Score: 1

      She might, knowing her wages wouldn't be garnished for the rest of her life, her posthumous estate held hostage, and her heirs stuck on the hook... all because she downloaded two dozen songs.

    12. Re:Misplaced focus by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Good point, but it's still grossly out of proportion, considering 35'000 games cost a lot more than 24 songs.

      Yea, but remember, when someone pirates something that doesn't mean they would have bought it had it not been available to download....oh wait, I just proved your point even more....

      People who are SELLING counterfeit copies of games should be fined as it IS theft. The buyers actually traded dollars for the games (albeit at lower prices). Why the justice system wants to punish little old ladies for downloading Metalica is beyond me. It is simply another example of how our government and judicial system has gotten out of control.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    13. Re:Misplaced focus by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Come off it. She did a lot more than that, and she compounded her actions with additional stupidity. She's a piss-poor candidate to make a sympathy case for anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

    14. Re:Misplaced focus by snakeplissken · · Score: 1

      She's a piss-poor candidate to make a sympathy case for anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

      indeed she is a 'poor' candidate for sympathy, which is why it is important to show why the damages awarded against her are so egregious, win that moral argument in her case and it's basically won for all related cases - that's not to say legal forces will go along with moral ones of course!

      snake

    15. Re:Misplaced focus by metacell · · Score: 1

      I suspect they're reasoning that the chance of getting caught is so low, they need to make the punishment draconic instead to get people to follow the law.

      I.e, the punishment is not in proportion to the individual's guilt, but in proportion to society's need to quell file sharing (as perceived by the lobbyists and politicians).

      Even if didn't think file sharing was harmless, I would find that reasoning dubious from a justice point of view.

    16. Re:Misplaced focus by metacell · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    17. Re:Misplaced focus by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      So, Let the punishment fit the crime? Used to be that way in America, but now a CEO can illegally obtain a million dollars and get a 100,000 fine. Sounds like crime does pay, *IF* it is the right crime. In order to make crime worthwhile in the US, you must make sure to steal a LARGE sum of actual cash.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  7. Counterfeit, or merely infringing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Was he claiming that these were genuine products, or was he advertising them as unauthorized copies? The difference is that the first defrauds the buyer. The fact that mail fraud is mentioned suggests that he was claiming these were genuine products from the copyright holders, but the distinction is important.

    counterfeit (tr. v.) 1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge.

    1. Re:Counterfeit, or merely infringing? by icebike · · Score: 1

      counterfeit (tr. v.) 1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud

      He defrauded the copyright holder for certain.
      He may also have defrauded the buyer who may have thought they were buying legitimate goods.

      Duplicating copyrighted material is both counterfeiting and infringing. So I'm at a loss to see your distinction here.

      BTW:
      Have you ever seen anyone advertise something as unauthorized copies?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Counterfeit, or merely infringing? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      He defrauded the copyright holder for certain.

      Fraud involves deception. He didn't even contact the copyright holders, so how could he have deceived them?

      Duplicating copyrighted material is both counterfeiting and infringing.

      A counterfeit is something made to fool people into believing it's the real thing. If his sales showed pictures of DVD-Rs with Sharpie writing on them, for example, it would be clear that they were not the originals, and thus they would not be counterfeits. If, on the other hand, he printed the CDs to look like the originals, and printed up cases/boxes, and described then on his auction page as the real thing, then they would be counterfeit. It's all about whether the buyer knows that they are not official.

    3. Re:Counterfeit, or merely infringing? by icebike · · Score: 1

      He committed fraud upon the customers, who thought they were getting the real thing.

      Have you actually read TFA? (Of course not, what was I thinking!?!).

      He was convicted of fraud. In a court of law. By a Judge and Lawyers that actually HAVE law degrees. Stop arguing about fraud. He pleaded guilty. He is guilty. That ship has sailed.

      Quote TFA:

      According to a statement of facts read during Bi’s plea hearing, agents executed a search warrant at Bi’s house and found multiple CD duplicators and more than 1,000 PRINTED counterfeit CDs.

      He represented these as real, there is no evidence he showed sharpie disks. You made that up.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  8. Ratted out by company email software by PatPending · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to the story in TFS,

    Agents and officers with the FBI Cybercrime Task Force, and U.S. Postal Inspectors are credited with the success of the case.

    Er, no--credit monitoring software at the company he worked for!:

    New monitoring software at Nationwide Insurance spelled the beginning of the end for an employee who had been counterfeiting and selling computer games for five years. The software alerted Nationwide officials to a spreadsheet that Qiang "Michael" Bi had sent from his personal e-mail account to his Nationwide e-mail account. The spreadsheet listed eBay accounts, credit-card numbers and false identity information that Bi used in a lucrative counterfeiting scheme.

    The spreadsheet listed more than 50 eBay and PayPal accounts, all with different names. Bi told investigators he used other people's information on the accounts because eBay and PayPal had suspended his accounts and do not allow a new account with the same name and address as a suspended account.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  9. Counterfeit? by srussia · · Score: 1

    From TFA: He was sentenced to six months each for the mail fraud and copyright infringement crimes and an additional 24 months for the aggravated identity theft.

    No trademark infringement? I doubt he was passing these off as the real thing, i.e., counterfeiting.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Counterfeit? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CRIME.

      Wow, that's disgusting. Crime? Really? Crime? A crime is if you steal my car and chop-shop it. Or if you rape someone. Or if you break into my house. Making a copy of a disc and selling it online is shitty and is copyright infringement and you should be held accountable to the copyright holder, financially. But a CRIME? It should go on your criminal record and you should be in prison with violent criminals who have committed actual crimes that actually physically impact people?!

    2. Re:Counterfeit? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't trademark infringement be a civil matter?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Counterfeit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The enforcement of one's trademarks is provided for in common law as well as statute through the federal Lanham Act.

    4. Re:Counterfeit? by icebike · · Score: 1

      But seeking damages is the responsibility of the copyright holder. The Government does not go out and seek damages for you.

      Having this conviction on the books, the copyright holders should be able to sue the guy and get. .. ... Nothing!

      Because ICE already confiscated everything.

      Seeing as how he was ripping off dozens of titles, it probably made more sense than 50 or 60 court cases each seeking the same pile of money.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Counterfeit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crime? Really?

      It is whatever those with money tell corrupt politicians they want it to be. Don't try to apply logic, morals or common sense. Corruption beats them all.

    6. Re:Counterfeit? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Agreed, infringement a crime is ridiculous, but if this guy sold counterfeit goods, I'm more apt to call it a crime, since he was defrauding everyone he sold to. If this is the case, then they thought they were getting a legal copy of the program, with whatever support the publisher provides, but then ended up with an illegitimate copy that they couldn't even resell legally.

    7. Re:Counterfeit? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      If the law now sees infringement as a crime, I don't understand why plagiarism isn't a crime? And why can't I have someone imprisoned for breaching or breaking a contract, which is essentially what this is.

    8. Re:Counterfeit? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Really? Copyright is a legally granted right to control the copying of a work for a limited time. You don't think it should be a crime? What other legally granted rights do you think it should not be a crime to violate? How about keeping someone from voting? How about refusing to serve someone because of their race, creed, etc? All of them except the ones you don't like?

      Please, O arbiter of what should be considered a crime, please enlighten us as to what legally granted rights should be protected under threat of criminal prosecution and which shouldn't.

      While you are at it, why not answer the same question for white collar crimes, such as embezzlement, and insider trading? And, you can answer for not paying a hooker, or having sex with a minor too. Oh, and let us not forget desertion and espionage.

    9. Re:Counterfeit? by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      It's just a false flag issue to get people on side with ACTA. Now everytime you see a big bust they wont use the word piracy, they'll use counterfeiting. Yeah we caught this guy counterfeiting 1000's of songs on the internets clogging up the tubes.

      I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a plant by the MAFIAA or something.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    10. Re:Counterfeit? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Wow. You do not understand the word crime. Look it up.

      How in hell would the copier be 'held accountable' if no crime is committed? Goody two-shoes feelings? No, that's why he ripped off the authors in the first place, no goody feelings. He must be forced.

      It should go on his record? Yep, he did the crime. Jail time? Note to you: all crimes do not result in jail time.

  10. ICE This Week by westlake · · Score: 0

    but, they are able to catch 'copyright thieves'.
    all the difference in between these, is that the latter hasnt gone mafia and started placing/bribing people in government.
    way to go, united states of hypocritica.

    News Releases December 30, 2010 Washington, DC ICE's top 5 news stories for the week ending Dec. 30, 2010

    Dec. 29, 2010 - ICE deputy director {in the] United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the inaugural Border Control, Airport and Seaport Security (BCASS) exposition.

    Dec. 29, 2010 - ICE teams with CBP, USPIS to intercept counterfeit NHL Winter Classic sportswear...ICE Homeland Security...conducted a Pittsburgh-based operation that netted $100,000 in fake trademarked NHL and NFL items.

    Dec. 29, 2010 - ICE arrests 3, seizes 28,000 rounds of ammunition in Tucson. Alejandro Ruiz-Escalante and Christian Gallegos-Arizmendi, both citizens of Mexico, were arrested on federal weapons smuggling charges after a traffic stop. Another individual was arrested at a Tucson residence in connection with the same weapons smuggling operation. All three individuals possessed thousands of rounds of ammunition, as well as several firearms.

    Dec. 28, 2010 - Drug swallower arrested with 49 pellets of heroin in his stomach. ICE HSI agents took a 27-year-old U.S. citizen into custody after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers discovered he was carrying 49 pellets of heroin, with an approximate weight of 1.54 pounds, in his digestive tract.

    Dec. 27, 2010 - Feds find cache of cocaine concealed inside phony candy Easter eggs. Esteban Galtes tried to smuggle more than 14 pounds of cocaine, much of it camouflaged as pastel-colored, egg-shaped candies, through Los Angeles International Airport. ICE HSI agents arrested him after CBP officers found the drugs in his suitcase. ICE's top 5 news stories for the week ending Dec. 30, 2010


    In the American federal system, copyright is a federally defined and constitutionally protected property right.

    Economic and property crimes with an interstate or international dimension are - broadly speaking - a federal responsibility.

    It never ceases to amaze the geek that the government actually gives a damn about the $200 to $300 million dollar investment in a major theatrical film - and the billion dollar return it may generate in domestic and export sales.

    There has to be a conspiracy.

    Governments multi-task - a concept that also seems strangely foreign to the geek.

    ICE Homeland Security Investigations [HSI] investigates immigration crime, human rights violations and human smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial crimes, cybercrime and export enforcement issues. ICE special agents conduct investigations aimed at protecting critical infrastructure industries that are vulnerable to sabotage, attack or exploitation.


    In addition to ICE criminal investigations, HSI oversees the agency's international affairs operations and intelligence functions. HSI consists of more than 10,000 employees, consisting of 6,700 special agents, who are assigned to more than 200 cities throughout the U.S. and 46 countries around the world.
    ICE Homeland Security Investigations

     

    1. Re:ICE This Week by unity100 · · Score: 1, Informative

      are you aware that, what you sample above, is not even a tiny dot on a fly that lands on a huge pile of bullcrap, compared to what is happening in usa-mexico drug lane ? are you aware that, the drug cartels just next to your mexican border, are now equipped with SO expensive weapons that, their average equipment level is more than the average equipment of an u.s. army front line soldier ? do you think that is possible with just running a few hidden stashes of drugs to and fro from the border ?

    2. Re:ICE This Week by icebike · · Score: 1

      Governments multi-task - a concept that also seems strangely foreign to the geek.

      Well said.

      Why is it anything accomplished by government is always a waste of time and money just because something else (speakers pet project) is not accomplished first?

      Its a hell of a lot easier and less expensive to take down a disk duplicator when the aggrieved copyright holder calls you up and tells you exactly where the disks are coming from and files an official complaint, than it is to invade yet another country to get Osama.

      Who would want a government capable of solving all problems simultaneously and in the right sequence to satisfy every citizens priorities.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Alejandro Ruiz-Escalante and Christian Gallegos-Arizmendi, both citizens of Mexico, were arrested on federal weapons smuggling charges after a traffic stop. "

      Would they also have been stopped, if they had dyed their hair blond?

    4. Re:ICE This Week by NickFortune · · Score: 2

      It never ceases to amaze the geek that the government actually gives a damn about the $200 to $300 million dollar investment in a major theatrical film

      Ah, good old westlake. Taking millions of slashdotters, rolling them into one ponderous abstraction and then putting words in their mouth ... that just never grows old for you, does it?

      At least you've stopped capitalising the words, as if The Geek was some improbably enhanced superhero, and you his kid sidekick. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    5. Re:ICE This Week by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that, for every copyright imprisonment, hundreds of dealers and smugglers are arrested? Are you aware that you're full of shit when it comes to the "equipment" of the cartels?

      Ok, those were rhetorical questions: I'm sure that you are aware - you're just intentionally ignoring any facts which are inconvenient to the "OMG DA FEDS SUCK" "argument".

    6. Re:ICE This Week by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who would want a government capable of solving all problems simultaneously and in the right sequence to satisfy every citizens priorities.

      Apparently "god" does it in "heaven". Which is one of the reasons I don't accept such stories; I find it difficult to believe that even an omnipotent being would simultaneously be able to please a group of democrats and a group of republicans. Needless to say, I expect even less from a human government.

    7. Re:ICE This Week by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      tl;dr, but from the first couple sentences you seem like a complete lunatic, and from the lack of capitalization and the poor punctuation it seems unlikely that you're capable of making an intelligent point. Sorry to have bothered you.

    8. Re:ICE This Week by unity100 · · Score: 0

      what happened ? dumbstruck when faced with the fact that even cia has been running and aiding drug operations ? so you fall back to 'punctuation' and decide my 'lunacy' based on 'first couple of sentences' ?

      basically, you are saying that you didnt know shit about these, and i have won the argument.

    9. Re:ICE This Week by PFI_Optix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you really implying that copyright law shouldn't be enforced because there are worse things going on in the world?

      There are serial killers out there, but I sincerely hope the police make some sort of effort at catching the guys who stole $4,000 worth of tools from my father-in-law last week.

      Whatever your opinion on copyright law, you've got to admit that copying another person's work and SELLING IT without them getting a cut is a dick move and shouldn't be tolerated.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    10. Re:ICE This Week by unity100 · · Score: 0

      i am not implying, stating that the government agencies tasked with their duties are not doing their duties despite there are FAR worse problems on the planet that they are tasked with countering in their own country, but instead they are going after whatever particular private interests want.

      i dont think you are able to perceive the scale of this issue. drug trafficking basically is something that causes WARS. or propagates and fuels them. it is that big a problem.

      yet you see the agencies tasked with preventing it, doing a few hundred arrests per year for show, but, as you have seen the referenced information, supporting the drug trafficking instead.

    11. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I have the sweetest tinfoil hat to sell you. Guaranteed to protect you from CIA mind control and alien brain scans or your money back.

    12. Re:ICE This Week by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whatever your opinion on copyright law, you've got to admit that copying another person's work and SELLING IT without them getting a cut is a dick move and shouldn't be tolerated.

      It is a dick move only because Western European society in the early modern era starting seeing it as a dick move. In Ancient Rome, an audience member would transcribe a poet's recital, have dozens of copies made by amanuenses, and then sold in the marketplace with no money going back to the poet. There's not a single instance of anyone complaining. Martial lampooned a guy who would put his own name on these copies, but plagiarism is distinct from mere copying. There continue to be cultures all over the world to this day where people don't understand copyright at all. Try explaining it to them, and they'll think you're a lunatic. If successive generations see increasingly less value in copyright, we're only returning to a state before what would see a freakish aberration of several hundred years.

      Yes, various cultures have also believed it was noble to own slaves or perform human sacrifice. But I think that the nature of this issue, whether respecting copyright is objectively moral or a mere government fiat with the hope of encouraging production*, ought to be carefully examined instead of simply assuming without question that copyright must exist.

      (This, incidentally, was the view of the American Founding Fathers. They had an acute sense of natural rights -- endowed by the Creator and only recognized by the government -- but did not consider copyright among them.)

    13. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you need to shut up, you're making yourself look like a fucking idiot.
      A) Everyone's known about the CIA/Noriega ties for 20 fucking years, stop touting it like it's breaking news.
      B) The argument that we should enforce laws against crime X because crime Y is worse is possibly the dumbest argument ever made. Both are crimes, violators need to be punished. If you want to argue one shouldn't be a crime, that's fine, but that's a very different argument.
      C) "A few hundred arrests per year"? The DEA alone makes about 30,000 arrests per year. State and local authorities make a few hundred thousand more.

    14. Re:ICE This Week by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Taking millions of slashdotters, rolling them into one ponderous abstraction and then putting words in their mouth ... that just never grows old for you, does it?

      Slashdot provides the stories its audience wants. The site does survive on ad revenue, after all; you want to keep telling people what they hear. The continual stream of positive stories about filesharing that Slashdot has posted over my decade on the site suggest that a large enough percentage of readers enjoy trading music, films and ebooks that a generalization like "You Slashdotters..." is understandable.

    15. Re:ICE This Week by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      As if you would know what goes on at the U.S./Mexico border, troll.

    16. Re:ICE This Week by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      The continual stream of positive stories about filesharing that Slashdot has posted over my decade on the site suggest that a large enough percentage of readers enjoy trading music, films and ebooks that a generalization like "You Slashdotters..." is understandable.

      Well, if we discount the prominent and vocal pro-rightsholder contingent, maybe. But yeah, it's understandable, if just a little lazy, and I'm sure we all do it from time to time.

      In westlake's case though, it's not enough to project his straw man arguments onto merely the whole of Slashdot; he has to rewrite the opinions of "The Geek", as though every technically minded, mildly obsessive individual from petrolheads to stamp collectors must unarguably hold those exact opinions needed to make westlake's rant of the moment seem justified.

      I wouldn't mind so much, but it's always struck me that there's something of the geek in the compulsive way he returns to those same stilted patterns of argument. Which would make him guilty of the very sins he decries on this board, at least to the extent that his logic holds up in the first place.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    17. Re:ICE This Week by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I think you underestimate the amount and value of the equipment carried by your average US soldier.

    18. Re:ICE This Week by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      When you banish anyone who thinks about not liking the way you do things it should be reasonably easy to please everyone who is left.

    19. Re:ICE This Week by tixxit · · Score: 2

      Copyright is a societal construction. It doesn't matter what other societies do. We, as a group of people, in this society have all decided to agree that copying other people's work without their permission is a dick move. That people in China don't feel that way is immaterial to me. I don't want to live in China. Now, you may say that those other countries have saner laws. But I know that the vast majority of those countries have nowhere near the entertainment industry that we do.

    20. Re:ICE This Week by houghi · · Score: 1

      Whatever your opinion on copyright law, you've got to admit that copying another person's work and SELLING IT without them getting a cut is a dick move and shouldn't be tolerated.

      I write GNU software. People sell it all the time and I do not see anything. AND I LIKE IT.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re:ICE This Week by houghi · · Score: 1

      Is that actual value or the price they paid to buy it?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:ICE This Week by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      What do you do for a living?

    23. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you make a living from it?

    24. Re:ICE This Week by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      They had an acute sense of natural rights -- endowed by the Creator and only recognized by the government -- but did not consider copyright among them.

      But they did consider not being ripped off by your government or your fellow citizens to be a right (they were most eloquent about the rights to one's property and works - just read the mountains of papers, letters, and other supporting documents produced by those wise fellows). What they didn't like was having to operate a press under the authority of the crown.

      instead of simply assuming without question that copyright must exist

      It's one of the most examined topics in the last couple hundred years. It's been the subject of endless academic hand-waving, court proceedings, legislation, contest, findings, and journalistic scrutiny. The rationale is well established and tested, and the basic ethics and good sense of it are plain as day, even if you don't feel like doing the paperwork.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really implying that copyright law shouldn't be enforced because there are worse things going on in the world?

      I don't know if they are, but I would. Copyright is so broken it does more damage than good.

    26. Re:ICE This Week by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      (This, incidentally, was the view of the American Founding Fathers. They had an acute sense of natural rights -- endowed by the Creator and only recognized by the government -- but did not consider copyright among them.)

      This is an outright falsification, sir. They very well did believe in copyright because they put it in Article I of the Constitution:

      "...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      They didn't believe in the longer terms of copyright that we now employed, but they certainly recognized both the right to and the value of copyright itself.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    27. Re:ICE This Week by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I think GP means that the Founding Fathers did not consider copyright to be a natural right. Hence why that particular phrase that you've cited is worded the way it is - note that it is not the statement of fact, but is given a rationale as to why it is there ("to promote the progress"). So it's not a fundamental right of the author, but rather a (supposedly) mutually beneficial arrangement to promote the interests of society as a whole.

    28. Re:ICE This Week by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I find it difficult to believe that even an omnipotent being would simultaneously be able to please a group of democrats and a group of republicans.

      There's also libertarians.

      But, well, that's why it's a Trinity!

    29. Re:ICE This Week by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Arguably, Slashdot provides stories that generate most page views (and therefore ad views). And the best way to do so is to bring up subjects on which there is no universal agreement in the audience, but rather two or more opposing sides that are nigh impossible to reconcile. That way you get a massive flamewar in the comments (especially when TFS has flamebaiting clues already, though in practice you can always rely on Slashdotters for some decent flamebaits even in the absence of any invitation), and that means people writing lots of comments, and then opening the story again to read replies to those comments, etc. For those who use email notification for replies, it's the emails themselves which have ads.

      The usual assortment of divisive topics is: US politics (just mention "Left" or "Right" in the summary, and bingo), religion (and associated: creationism etc), and, yes, copyright & piracy. Those are the fundamental ones that remain the same for years; others are circumstantial (e.g. Wikileaks is a good flamebait recently, but probably won't last for long).

    30. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your use of "we" is somewhat liberal...

    31. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a member of society in the U.S., I did not agree that it was OK for people to have an idea, patent it, and thereby prevent everyone else in the U.S. from having a similar idea and using their idea in a product. I did not agree that artists should be paid for their work for 70 years AFTER THEIR DEATH. When we start paying teachers for 70 years AFTER THEIR DEATH (say 1% of the income of everyone they taught goes to the teacher's estate) then I'll consider paying artists after their death.

      I guess my point is, when was the vote when we 'all decided to agree that copying other people's work...' since I must have been sick that day and missed it. More importantly, when's the next vote cause I wanna be sure not to miss that one.

    32. Re:ICE This Week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess my point is, when was the vote when we 'all decided to agree that copying other people's work...' since I must have been sick that day and missed it. More importantly, when's the next vote cause I wanna be sure not to miss that one.

      Copyright protection is in the US Constitution and before that has a long history in the UK, you stupid kid.

      Slashdot is so full of idiots these days.

    33. Re:ICE This Week by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Information wants to be free.

      Rent wants to be paid.

      (Incidentally I'm British and an atheist, not that that should matter)

    34. Re:ICE This Week by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      You agreed to it at the same time and in the same way as you agreed to every other law on your society's statute books - when you didn't move to a different society.

      Like it or not, your continued membership of that society is implicit approval.

    35. Re:ICE This Week by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Apparently "god" does it in "heaven". Which is one of the reasons I don't accept such stories; I find it difficult to believe that even an omnipotent being would simultaneously be able to please a group of democrats and a group of republicans.

      You seem to assume democrats and/or republicans go to heaven. There's an easier explaination...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:ICE This Week by brkello · · Score: 1

      So what's your point? Other societies handle this differently? Great. We are in this society and a logical argument can be made why this should be illegal. It is illegal. Therefore the guy was punished. "But it's ok in other societies" doesn't really hold up all that well in court. If you want to argue that it should be legal to do this, fine. But then we wouldn't get to have a lot of the nice stuff we get because people wouldn't want to put effort in to something they couldn't make a living doing.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  11. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by Jarnin · · Score: 1

    Drug runners? What is this, the 1970's? Pot/Meth is grown/cooked in houses/trailers. In other words, someones house. I read about meth and grow houses getting busted all the time. The only reason this is news is because it's a copy-write bust. These are rare, at least in the States.

  12. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a better choice anyway. KABOOM!

  13. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by ls671 · · Score: 2

    I think that "they" would catch anybody advertising on eBay and Amazon just as easily without regards for their field of criminal activities.

    I heard several stories like this one before. One took place in the area where live. The guy they caught was advertising just about everywhere and he had a very similar thing going on in its home.

    I think that he is the only guy ever charged with counterfeiting CDs around here. I have even heard cops saying on the news that they did not have the resources to start investigating every garage sale and such to verify the integrity of every CD sold and its provenance.

    So I think that the guy just had as many chances of getting caught as any of the other criminals you mentioned given the level of precautions he was taking to run his business.

    In cases like this ones, the police just have to take action whatever the infraction is. The infraction is too obvious and closing the case involves a pretty low budget compared to what a long term and more sophisticated investigation would require.

    Usually, it is only a matter of one person reporting him to the police.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  14. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by wmbetts · · Score: 0

    The patriot act pushed meth manufacturing mostly into Mexico.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
  15. He should be glad that he wasn't in China. by crovira · · Score: 1

    He'd be an involuntary "organ donor". You don't even have to sign a donor consent form...

    Two soldiers take an arm each, stand there, and a third soldier blasts one shot from a Kalashnikov to the back of the head.

    Then, they move onto the next, uh, donor, while the army medics harvest your organs.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:He should be glad that he wasn't in China. by PatPending · · Score: 1

      And then the Chi Comms would send a bill to the man's family for the cost of the bullet.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:He should be glad that he wasn't in China. by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      Funnily enough, the Chinese military has been accused of running facilities for massive duplication of the bootleg CDs and DVDs you find all over China. If they'd kill this guy, it could only be because they don't like competition.

    3. Re:He should be glad that he wasn't in China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to tell a colourful story that has little relation to reality, it helps if you get the small details correct (suspension of belief and all that): The weapon model you are looking for is "Type 56": this AK-copy is no longer used by PLA but still probably the most common assault rifle in the world.

  16. Good! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    I can live another day knowing that less potential profit is being stolen (which is totally possible even though it doesn't even exist in the hands of the copyright holder anyway). It's really nice to see that petty things that should be up to the copyright holder to attempt to stop are being handled by the police (who don't have anything better to do).

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    1. Re:Good! by PatPending · · Score: 1

      The police don't have jurisdiction for mail fraud and copyright infringement crimes. (And I'm not sure about aggravated identity theft. Anyone?)

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Good! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The FBI, then. Or at least, they were involved.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  17. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

    That and the fact he was ratted out by his employer for using company email addresses to move his secret lists of accounts.

    Lets face it, the cops were handed this case on a silver platter.

    Go here.
    Arrest him.
    Confiscate 300K in ill-gotten funds.
    Have a beer.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  18. Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Come on. Any of the settlements offered to Thomas-Rasset are outrageous, at different levels of outrageous.

    They are all so far from fair that I just can't imagine that you genuinely believe that "a few thousand dollars" be "a pretty fair price". I must assume that you are a RIAA shill.

    1. Re:Are you serious? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's at the level of the minimum damages when found guilty, and since guilt* was pretty damn clear that's a good deal.

      * Sure the law is stupid, but it is what it is.

    2. Re:Are you serious? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      Come on. Any of the settlements offered to Thomas-Rasset are outrageous, at different levels of outrageous.

      They are all so far from fair that I just can't imagine that you genuinely believe that "a few thousand dollars" be "a pretty fair price". I must assume that you are a RIAA shill.

      She was sharing nearly 2000 tracks. If she had bought instead of pirating, that would have been nearly $2k at the usual $1/track price, just to have the songs for her personal use. In addition she had them shared. I think that makes another couple of bucks per track reasonable. That brings us to about what the settlement offer was before the trial.

      What would you consider to be a fair settlement for nearly 2000 songs? Remember to take into account that they weren't just downloaded for personal use--they were also made available to others.

  19. wasted resources by Odinlake · · Score: 2

    Setting aside the possible sleaziness of this particular guy; seen from another perspective it's pretty fantastic how much resources and time we waste on seeking out and punishing people for reorganizing a tiny bunch of molecules on worthless pieces of plastic.

    1. Re:wasted resources by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it's a waste of time to prevent the theft of potential profit (it's theft even though the copyright holder never had the money in their possession anyway). I just hope they ban competition, the act of a consumer to choose not to buy something, and negative user reviews soon. That way, potential future gain could no longer be stolen!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:wasted resources by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

      Nihilism at its best?

    3. Re:wasted resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-organizing molecules can be applied to anything from speeding to murder. "But your Honor, I only reorganized some molecules on his face with my fist."

    4. Re:wasted resources by Odinlake · · Score: 1

      so I guess the phrase "worthless piece of plastic" added something to the sentence, but way to demonstrate how to attack pieces out of context. Thanks for playing.

    5. Re:wasted resources by Odinlake · · Score: 1

      (it's theft even though the copyright holder never had the money in their possession anyway)

      you assert this boldly, but it's really an ongoing debate. I didn't want to start this argument though, so let me apologize for using the word "waste" and say that I would rather have written "extend". My meaning was to say that when I take a few steps back and look at it all, it seems kind of weird. With most other crimes there are quite straightforward justifications for what we have the justice system occupied with doing, but with copyright it becomes a bit of an ant hive. Just a feeling, I'm not saying I have the answers.

    6. Re:wasted resources by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      but it's really an ongoing debate

      Well, I suppose it is a little bit difficult to steal something that doesn't even exist...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:wasted resources by Odinlake · · Score: 1

      Nihilism at its best?

      I think, therefore I am. Beyond that it all quickly becomes a blur of assumptions and prejudices.

    8. Re:wasted resources by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

      (it's theft even though the copyright holder never had the money in their possession anyway).

      When a thief takes goods from a store, the store also never has the thief's money in its possession.

    9. Re:wasted resources by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      When a thief takes a good from the store, the good is no longer there. I could understand people who don't understand what the act of copyright infringement actually involves not knowing the difference, but someone browsing this website (multiple people, no less)? Come on. It's simply not the same thing. The thief is accused of taking the good, not money that never existed in the first place.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:wasted resources by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Would you say the same thing about staining worthless pieces of paper with dye in particular patterns?

    11. Re:wasted resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, its ridiculous. Like how we prosecute people who take simple chemically-propelled metal cyllinders ejected from long, thin tubes and lodge them inside complex organic compound structures called "homo sapiens." I mean, it's all just molecules!

      Sigh.

      Broken down to its constituent parts, everything we do will look ridiculous.

  20. why modded down by unity100 · · Score: 0

    huh ? it was too much learning that cia had been drug trafficking ?

    1. Re:why modded down by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      It is because you are a paranoid, sociopathic troll.

    2. Re:why modded down by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      How is linking to Wikipedia sociopathical ? The CIA does drug trafficking or at least it did, were is the trolling in that statement, flamebait maybe but trol, no way !

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    3. Re:why modded down by unity100 · · Score: 1

      its simply they cant handle the truth. doesnt matter how solid it is.

    4. Re:why modded down by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      While I have sympathy towards your view points (well, some of them, anyway), you should try conveying them in a language that is more polite, or at least less aggressive and insulting. Regardless of the substance of the message, it will be seen as trolling if the tone is like that.

    5. Re:why modded down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows this because the news is 20 years old, you idiot. And no, I am not American. What does this have to do with Americans enforcing their copyright laws? Nothing. So honestly, shut up, you make Europeans look bad with this stupidity.

    6. Re:why modded down by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows this because the news is 20 years old, you idiot. And no, I am not American.

      maybe because of the bold part, that you still do not know that there are bazillions of americans that do not know that 20 year old news.

  21. yeah tinfoil by unity100 · · Score: 1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

    i take it you didnt dare read the linked article.

    In 1989, the United States invaded Panama as part of Operation Just Cause, which involved 25,000 American troops. Gen. Manuel Noriega, head of government of Panama, had been giving military assistance to Contra groups in Nicaragua at the request of the U.S.—which, in exchange, allowed him to continue his drug-trafficking activities—which they had known about since the 1960s.[12][13] When the DEA tried to indict Noriega in 1971, the CIA prevented them from doing so.[12] The CIA, which was then directed by future president George H. W. Bush, provided Noriega with hundreds of thousands of dollars per year as payment for his work in Latin America.[12] However, when CIA pilot Eugene Hasenfus was shot down over Nicaragua by the Sandinistas, documents aboard the plane revealed many of the CIA's activities in Latin America, and the CIA's connections with Noriega became a public relations "liability" for the U.S. government, which finally allowed the DEA to indict him for drug trafficking, after decades of allowing his drug operations to proceed unchecked.[12] Operation Just Cause, whose ostensible purpose was to capture Noriega, killed numerous Panamanian civilians, but was successful in removing Noriega. The operation pushed Noriega back into the town asylum along with Papal Nuncio where he surrendered to U.S. authorities. His trial took place in Miami, where he was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

  22. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    The patriot act pushed meth manufacturing mostly into Mexico.

    Hahaha, you'd like to think that, wouldn't you? There's so much meth being produced in California you'd think it was our primary export. I live in a town where a lot of it is produced. They expend absolutely zero effort on tracking them down and busting them because it's easier and cheaper to catch pot growers and there is less risk of being shot at; even the Mexican gang members tend to just fade away into the woods.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Dont feel too bad for this guy by Satanboy · · Score: 3

    He made over $700,000 on these counterfeited games.

    He actually turned in over $360,000 IN CASH after being caught.

    He was not a petty guy just making some copies for his friends etc.
    So yeah, seriously, don't try and compare this guy to any fair use idea whatsoever, it's just going to hurt the whole fair use argument if you use him as an example.

    It's guys like this that make it hard for the rest of us who just want to backup a game or install on another PC.

    1. Re:Dont feel too bad for this guy by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      This also should go a long way for those caught by the MPAA or the RIAA, surely selling something for profit that is copy righted is worse than giving it away for free right? Seriously you are talking about someone that made nearly $1 million from pirated copies and all he got was 30 months, probably half of which will be suspended.

      Yet someone caught trading songs has their life utterly destroyed to the tune of $30k per song shared.

      Seems a bit lopsided to me.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    2. Re:Dont feel too bad for this guy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      surely selling something for profit that is copy righted is worse than giving it away for free right

      Well it depends. The argument often used on /. to justify piracy is that it's just natural for information to be copied etc, and it's a basic human right to do so, and authors should seek other revenue models and so on. In which case it really shouldn't be any different regardless of whether he made money on it or not. So long as he didn't claim to be the author of the works he copied, and didn't defraud his customers by claiming that the copies are legal, the "information wants to be free" argument should be perfectly applicable here. You can think of it as a fee for the service of copying physical media.

      If that sounds somehow wrong when compared to torrents of pirated stuff, then you have to look at the original premise.

  24. Counterfeit? by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit puzzled at the Editor's choice of a word - I'm sure that if I bought and played the game, it would work in the same way as the 'real' one - and the game was ~copied~, not 'created to resemble' as the word counterfeit implies. Yet I do understand that many are tiring of the word 'pirate'...

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
  25. no by unity100 · · Score: 1

    its because you american right wingers are bigoted psychopaths who cant face truth. when you check my comments, moron, you will notice that all of them had been chain downmodded even if they were giving out FACTUAL information with links and references of information to the wrongdoings of united states, from united states government ITSELF.

    bottom line is, you morons cant face the truth. its too much. here, again :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

    CIA DOES DRUG TRAFFICKING AND SUPPORTS PETTY DICTATORS WITH DRUG MONEY.

    1. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your downmods come from your childish namecalling and bigotry, not from your political stance or the information you posted. And you know it.

  26. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

    A buddy of mine who currently lives in Sacramento told me about a nature walk he took while in in elementary school in California:

    These trees have been here for hundreds of years... and that's a meth shack, over there... if you look to your left, you can see a stream that runs off from a nearby natural spring... and there's another meth shack...

  27. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    That's pretty much the story of Cobb mountain, except the PG&E guy estimates that 3 out of 5 houses are growing weed, and only 1 out of 5 is producing meth. The remaining house is vacant.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    hahahaha... oh man, that's a good one right there... I'll have to pass it along to my buddy! ;D

  29. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    Never been to Spokane, WA, have you?

  30. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by wmbetts · · Score: 0

    and you've never apparently been out of it.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
  31. Counterfeit seems like the wrong word! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    If the program isn't modified in any way, it's not counterfeit. The problem that someone wasn't compensated for the copy isn't counterfeting.

    A counterfeit coin or paper bill actually has no value (unless the copy is so perfect, that nobody can tell!)

    A pirated program has value, because it runs.

    1. Re:Counterfeit seems like the wrong word! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Counterfeit, n: made to look like the original of something, usually for dishonest or illegal purposes.

      Sounds like the right word to me.

  32. ehhh by unity100 · · Score: 1

    unfortunately it doesnt matter how you convey it. regardless of your language, you will see that if anything you put forth is not compatible with any certain radical party's views (regardless of what the party is), you get trollmodded or reacted in harsh words. out of the blue. this has been such in my experience in the last 1 to 1.5 months. i tried varying approaches to tone and manner, substance and language, yet result is the same.

    no surprise though. it is no different in real life. regardless of how politely, nicely, smoothly you put any fact that contradicts a certain biased group's views, there is a certain break point at which they will go medieval. what the tone changes is just the time that that breakpoint comes. in addition, there are some trigger subjects that instantly tick their breakpoint, regardless of what you say.

    1. Re:ehhh by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, you often blame "right-wingers", but it's not like they are the only ones who have mod points on Slashdot. Not even the most numerous.

    2. Re:ehhh by unity100 · · Score: 1

      i blame them because i see the pattern on stuff that relate to issues they are 'sensitive' (actually bigoted) about. i mean, even with other zealot types, if you provide enough facts, they do not go medieval. but with these, there is no evading that.

  33. Re:They dont catch any terrorists, or drug smuggle by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    I am out of it, and I'm damned happy about it. It's just one sad example of many, but a pretty damned big one.