Man Tunnels Into GameStop, Steals Games

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Tunnels Into GameStop, Steals Games

Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday January 17, 2011 @03:22AM from the digging-for-treasure dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Life imitates Minecraft: Computer game piracy is big business, but there are still those who prefer to get their games the old-fashioned way: by digging a tunnel into their local games shop and making off with as much stock as they can carry. At least, that's the slightly bizarre approach taken by a man from Greeneville, Tennessee, who was arrested late last week after being caught tunneling into his local GameStop store from an empty adjoining building." Note that the link is thin, and the sources are behind logins and subscription links, so please post better URLs if you can find them.

210 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Done before by TheL0ser · 2011-01-17 03:25 · Score: 2

Someone's been watching a few too many bank heist movies.
1. Re:Done before by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 03:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Ocean's 1.
2. Re:Done before by somersault · 2011-01-17 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Someone needs to learn about BitTorrent. If he's hoping to make money off of it, he could just burn games and movies onto DVDs and sell them to other people who are ignorant of BitTorrent.
  I don't approve of illegal downloads, but this is just stupid. Which is even worse than "slightly immoral".
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
3. Re:Done before by toastar · 2011-01-17 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  You can download Game Consoles now?
4. Re:Done before by jonbryce · 2011-01-17 03:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You get a lot more for a game in original packaging with unused serial number than you do for a CD-R labelled with a marker pen and crack instructions in a text file somewhere.
5. Re:Done before by Monkeedude1212 · 2011-01-17 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  I think the major problem with that is that you often don't have multiplayer for a lot of those BitTorrented games.
6. Re:Done before by somersault · 2011-01-17 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  In a manner of speaking
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
7. Re:Done before by somersault · 2011-01-17 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but you also have much more chance of getting caught if you physically break into a store.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
8. Re:Done before by russotto · 2011-01-17 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Felony burglarly: State offense, 2-12 years in state prison, plus a $5000 fine. Likely at least two counts because two buildings were involved, but I'd expect the sentences to be served concurrently. Quite likely to be plea-bargained, and parole is available.
  Criminal copyright infringement under the No Electronic Theft Act: 5 years imprisonment in pound-me-in-the-ass Federal Prison (plea bargain unlikely and parole unavailable), a fine of up to $250,000, plus civil penalties of up to $100,000 per work infringed.
  Neither is likely to be much fun, but it looks like criminal copyright infringement still carries higher penalties. Note that if this is a second offense it goes up to 10 years imprisonment in PMITA Federal Prison.
9. Re:Done before by somersault · 2011-01-17 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  I see.
  This story just reminded me of a friend ~2 years ago talking about buying dodgy DVDs. I didn't get why if she was going to being going the illegal route that she wouldn't just download them. She had a computer with a DVD burner and decent internet access. I suppose it does somewhat reduce the chance of the RIAA and their ilk catching up to you.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
10. Re:Done before by commodore64_love · 2011-01-17 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  (goes off to ebay to sell Commodore 64, Nintendo 64, PS2, Xbox, Cube).
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
11. Re:Done before by DurendalMac · 2011-01-17 04:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Maybe so, but the real questions is...
  
  Did they have Battletoads?
12. Re:Done before by tehcyder · 2011-01-17 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  this is just stupid. Which is even worse than "slightly immoral".
  You can't help being stupid; morality is a matter of choice.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
13. Re:Done before by tehcyder · 2011-01-17 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  I see.
  This story just reminded me of a friend ~2 years ago talking about buying dodgy DVDs. I didn't get why if she was going to being going the illegal route that she wouldn't just download them. She had a computer with a DVD burner and decent internet access. I suppose it does somewhat reduce the chance of the RIAA and their ilk catching up to you.
  I think you answered your own question.
  You're never realistically going to get caught buying dodgy DVDs.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
14. Re:Done before by g0bshiTe · 2011-01-17 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I blame the video games!
  
  It's obvious this sort of behavior was inspired by this persons addiction to Dig Dug. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
15. Re:Done before by icebraining · 2011-01-17 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  But lightscribing the DVDs and printing you own DVD covers with fake serial numbers is easier and safer than opening a hole to a shop.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
16. Re:Done before by somersault · 2011-01-17 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  morality is a matter of choice
  Unless you're stupid.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
17. Re:Done before by dougisfunny · 2011-01-17 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Strangely enough, Gamestop opens most of the games and breaks the seal on the original packaging.
  
  --
  This is not the funny you're looking for.
18. Re:Done before by eleuthero · 2011-01-17 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Especially since the merchandise is always sold (everywhere I've been anyway) as "authentic" - claiming ignorance and stating you've noted the quality of movies in general dropping in the last few years seems reasonable if there is ever an issue for buying from a bootleg vendor.
19. Re:Done before by thisnamestoolong · 2011-01-17 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  That is true, but it is much less awesome.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
20. Re:Done before by jaggeh · 2011-01-17 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  who would want to buy holes?
  
  --
  I would give everything i own for a little bit more.
21. Re:Done before by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Someone needs to learn about BitTorrent. If he's hoping to make money off of it, he could just burn games and movies onto DVDs and sell them to other people who are ignorant of BitTorrent.
  I don't approve of illegal downloads, but this is just stupid. Which is even worse than "slightly immoral".
  No, BitTorrent people need to learn about how to be more awesome in their means of getting free games. I mean, sure, convenience and not having to get up out of your chair to get your games and all, but this man dug a tunnel into a GameStop to do it. For sheer style points, I have to give this guy a hand.
  Okay, maybe it WAS just an empty neighboring building and not a huge long tunnel or whatnot, but still.
22. Re:Done before by eleuthero · 2011-01-17 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds to me like we need to seriously re-work criminal penalties. If committing an act that could lead to violence (either through application of the Castle law in your state or through the burglar freaking out and hurting / killing someone) has less penalty than one that only has economic impact, we have a problem in our system (and I am not arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about IP--though personally, I think there needs to be a change in how we look at this too).
23. Re:Done before by NevarMore · 2011-01-17 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  Castle Doctrine *IS* the enhanced risk/penalty for committing crimes in person.
24. Re:Done before by itsthebin · 2011-01-17 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  pound-me-in-the-ass Federal Prison
  do you do it for enjoyment or are you paid ?
  
  --
  ...I obey the laws of physics....
25. Re:Done before by Jeremy+Erwin · 2011-01-17 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't most bank heist movies incorporate a bloody third act? Frankly, the sandblaster scene in the Bank Job discouraged me from a life of crime.
26. Re:Done before by arisvega · 2011-01-17 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  It also looks that there is further evidence on another post;
  New Study Links Video Games and Mental Problems
  Maybe the defence strategy should be along the lines of 'mental illness'?
  
  --
  The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
27. Re:Done before by delinear · 2011-01-17 05:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Tell me about it. Game and Gamestation do the same thing over here, as well as a bunch of the other usual retailers - HMV, the superstores, etc. and it was the final nail in me just not buying from them any more. It's bad enough that I have to worry about the fact that they stick the disk in some crappy cardboard sleeve tossed in a drawer (they don't seem to take particular care handling these things and they're a pain to return disks for scratches so you basically have to micro-inspect the disk in the store before you take it away), or that they've forgot to include all the manuals, DLC codes, etc that are meant to be with the game, and that's without even considering the fact that a less ethical employee might be selling multiplayer serials and such online - they're meant to be sealed for a reason! There's only one of the big high street retailers I can buy from now without them pre-opening everything (Argos, in case you wondered).
28. Re:Done before by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps, but I do respect (as much as you can a criminal) that goes old school and plans something big and complex. This guy could have easily put on a mask and tazzered the lone employee at night and loaded up a duffle bag, but he choose to go the classic route. He will now have time in prison to reflect on his plan and see where he went wrong.
  I really love those museum art heist. The museum knows you are going to try and have planned security around this.
29. Re:Done before by nedlohs · 2011-01-17 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  But the risk of being caught for the first is much higher. So the average penalty per crime would be lower for the second.
30. Re:Done before by pthisis · 2011-01-17 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  Burglary of a residence (where the Castle law might apply) in TN is Aggravated Burglary and carries a higher penalty. If anyone is injured (whether in a residence or not) it immediately escalates to Epecially Aggravated Burglary.
  If committing an act that could lead to violence ...has less penalty than one that only has economic impact, we have a problem in our system
  As a general rule, to make that evaluation you have to determine the social damage of the violence vs. the economics. I'd definitely want Bernie Madoff punished more severely than someone who slapped a guy in the face at the bar.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
31. Re:Done before by blair1q · 2011-01-17 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  it looks like criminal copyright infringement still carries higher penalties
  No, it doesn't. The penalty for infringement is up to 3 years in jail. That's less than "2-12" years. I couldn't figure out the fines from the title; that's one effed-up piece of legislative writing, there.
  And to get that 3 years you have to infringe 10 times in 6 months. Up to 3 years for 10 charges? that's up to 3.6 months per crime, if they throw the book at you. 1 burglary can get you at least 2 years. Which is a lot harsher all the way around.
32. Re:Done before by lgw · 2011-01-17 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  If you do that, you'll have to get a new /. nick, Commodore64_Love.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
33. Re:Done before by russotto · 2011-01-17 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, it doesn't. The penalty for infringement is up to 3 years in jail. That's less than "2-12" years.
  
  Up to 5 years for a first offense, up to 10 years for a second or subsequent offense, for willful copyright violation for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Burning torrents to DVDs and selling them would come under this categorization.
  The fines are hard to find, they're actually hidden in 18 USC 3571.
34. Re:Done before by blair1q · 2011-01-17 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  To get the (up to) 5 years it's 10 instances or more with total value of $2500, which for games would take a few dozen instances and for songs would take hundreds. Do that many burglaries and the upper limit is centuries.
35. Re:Done before by Imrik · 2011-01-17 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  However, for copyright infringement it would likely be treated as one instance per game while for burglary it would be one instance per break in.
36. Re:Done before by mygodineedausername · 2011-01-17 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, you can download the iso's and burn to disk for the consoles. Heck, you don't even need mod chips any more for xbox 360 or wii's just soft mod the firmware. With the wii you can even load all the iso's to a usb harddrive and play all the games off that. Or thats what i herd.... never done it my self....
  
  --
  blarg?
37. Re:Done before by blair1q · 2011-01-17 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Here the law explicitly aggregates both muliple copies and multiple works into one count. Do a total of 10 or more in a 6-month period and it's one count.
  Which brings up the obvious legal questions of is it 2 counts if you do 11? 20? 10 per 6 months for 1 year?
  For burglary it's 1 count per act, which comes with other charges. Break into an empty store, that's 1 B&E. Break into the store next door through the wall, that's a second B&E. Take stuff away with you, that's 1 Burglary, which may obviate 1 or both of the B&Es. And with the damages, there may be additional charges or aggravated versions of these charges.
  It takes more instances of copyright infringement, and more $ cost, to get as big a sentence as you can get from one dinky burglary, much less the multiple-break-in, multiple-damages-to-property burglary we have here. This guy, if he's caught, is looking at a few decades (consecutive or concurrent) of sentences.
  So the idea that copyright infringement is treated more harshly by the law is "Myth Busted".
38. Re:Done before by tycoex · 2011-01-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ehh, While I usually just buy used games at Gamestop, the few times when I've bought new ones they always grabbed a sealed copy from the back when I brought up the empty box. The empty boxes at the Gamestops where I live are just for display, they scan the barcode off of them and grab a sealed copy for the customer when the game is new.
39. Re:Done before by DissociativeBehavior · 2011-01-17 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually a similar story happened for real in France in 1976. It is known as the Spaggiari affair Spaggiari and his gang dug a tunnel from the sewers to a bank vault. After two months of work, they reached the vault and stole 60 million francs worth of money.
40. Re:Done before by aquila.solo · 2011-01-17 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Something like "Nesticle_Love?"
41. Re:Done before by ArundelCastle · 2011-01-17 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  ...freaking out and hurting / killing someone) has less penalty than one that only has economic impact, we have a problem in our system (and I am not arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about IP--though personally, I think there needs to be a change in how we look at this too).
  Your point has certainly been considered and challenged before the courts, I can assure you. On paper (where laws do most of their work) however, it is not simply a matter of higher danger = higher penalty.
  The simple fact is, our society has outgrown the logic of eye-for-an-eye. Crimes that are easier to commit (in this case downloading a torrent versus buying a shovel and digging for a few days) now need to have higher deterrents, because it is far less likely to get a conviction. Meanwhile, how many tunneling burglars do you hear about being on the loose? The penalty is almost guaranteed, and people are stupid to try.
  If the penalty for stealing something is less than the value the thief gains, there is no reason not to steal. If you were fined 49 cents for every MP3 you were caught torrenting, it doesn't take a minute to realize that you'd be losing money buying things legitimately off iTunes. When there is absolutely no risk involved to anyone, the only two deterrents that work are A) morality, and B) fear of being caught and punished. Go ask a kid in a candy store which one he or she is more concerned about.
42. Re:Done before by walshy007 · 2011-01-17 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Crimes that are easier to commit (in this case downloading a torrent versus buying a shovel and digging for a few days) now need to have higher deterrents, because it is far less likely to get a conviction.
  It is this kind of thinking that leads to blokes pissing on a tree becoming listed as 'sex offenders'
  Isn't the law system meant to be about 'justice' whatever happened to that idea?
  We may aswell imprison people for life for jaywalking because it is so damn easy to do.
43. Re:Done before by JWSmythe · 2011-01-17 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  You don't sell them, you fool. You rent them out. How exactly did this conversation drift to prostitution?
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
44. Re:Done before by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-17 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  You're never realistically going to get caught buying dodgy DVDs.
  Yeah, but if you aren't an idiot, you realistically won't get caught downloading copyrighted material, either.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
45. Re:Done before by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-17 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  On paper (where laws do most of their work) however, it is not simply a matter of higher danger = higher penalty.
  It should be, for the most part. Right now it's just cruel and unusual punishment that people will likely never be able to shake off.
  
  Crimes that are easier to commit (in this case downloading a torrent versus buying a shovel and digging for a few days) now need to have higher deterrents, because it is far less likely to get a conviction.
  Because attempting to deter people from committing the act of copyright infringement has worked like a charm, right?
  
  If you were fined 49 cents for every MP3 you were caught torrenting
  I don't believe anyone suggested that you should only be charged based on how much damage you do. I believe that they suggested that the current penalties are absolutely ridiculous when you consider the crime.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
46. Re:Done before by PincushionMan · 2011-01-17 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Nesticle_Love's fast running, arcade stomping big brother, Callus_Love. He loved those Capcom games, back in the day. We should also have some consideration for Callus' cousin, Retrocade_Love. She was easy on the eyes - too bad she stopped running when Windows became an eXPerience instead of a year. She's really let herself go.
47. Re:Done before by MichaelSmith · 2011-01-17 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  and stole 60 million francs worth of money.
  How did they convert the francs into money?
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
48. Re:Done before by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-18 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Just FYI, gamestop keeps some unopened copies of new games in the back, you can specifically ask for one and they'll generally give you one, your stores might do the same.
49. Re:Done before by eleuthero · 2011-01-20 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Just now saw this... if I were fined a dollar for downloading MP3s via torrent (I don't, but that's not important), and if that fine went to the company selling the mp3s, that would be ideal. Crimes of this sort don't really need to have a big fine attached to them... just sort out what the actual cost was (.99 / mp3 I would assume) and then bill them an hour for processing time (say, $50 total all mp3s included). The fine doesn't have to be huge before people stop... in fact, piracy of the non-sneakernet sort would probably stop fairly quickly if everyone had a situation like this happen... if all the people who illegally downloaded the latest Miley Cyrus songs (hopefully not many here but wildly popular among the teens I mentor) were charged 5.95 plus $ 50 for processing / data entry, the record companies would make a ridiculous sum of money and it would be hard to protest that they had an unfair advantage (they would be recouping losses for reasonable expenses).
  
  Alternatively, they could just stop selling CDs and continue encoding user information into mp3s and we wouldn't have to worry about Cindy the 10-year old pirate but only John from Nigeria who started the whole thing.
Game Over, Man! by LeenusT · 2011-01-17 03:25 · Score: 1

Can you dig it?
obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 03:25 · Score: 0

they need to employ more Fygars
Jeez by TheVidiot · 2011-01-17 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Note that the link is thin, and the sources are behind logins and subscription links, so please post better URLs if you can find them.

Isn't that your job?
1. Re:Jeez by dreamchaser · 2011-01-17 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Note that the link is thin, and the sources are behind logins and subscription links, so please post better URLs if you can find them.
  Isn't that your job?
  You must be new here if you think Taco and his so called 'editors' do anything other than sit around playing video games and collecting paychecks while posting a link once in awhile.
2. Re:Jeez by Tr3vin · 2011-01-17 03:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They don't collect paychecks. They have to tunnel into GameStops to get their games. Why do you think there are no good links provided?
3. Re:Jeez by snookiex · 2011-01-17 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  In the other hand, what else do you want to be posted about this? It's a just a Ripley's little story in a small town related to a man who is for sure barely known by anyone beyond his own backyard.
  
  --
  Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
4. Re:Jeez by chad_r · 2011-01-17 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that nearly every story? This is just a moment of rare honesty.
5. Re:Jeez by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Note that the link is thin, and the sources are behind logins and subscription links, so please post better URLs if you can find them.
  Isn't that your job?
  You must be new here if you think Taco and his so called 'editors' do anything other than sit around playing video games and collecting paychecks while posting a link once in awhile.
  Funny, I'd always figured there was copious amounts of wanking as well. /edit - how appropriate that the captcha for this came up with "abusing"
6. Re:Jeez by stealth_finger · 2011-01-17 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  You must be new here if you think Taco and his so called 'editors' do anything other than sit around playing video games and collecting paychecks while posting a link once in awhile.
  Where do I apply?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Eh? by ledow · 2011-01-17 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Note that the link is thin, and the sources are behind logins and subscription links, so please post better URLs if you can find them."
Er, no? That's what I expect a story-poster to do for me? Or the editors? You know, those *paid* people?
Might as well say "Vague story happens but you can only read about it on other sites - help us do our job and find other people's coverage so we can post the link here!"
Seriously, as the days go buy, there's less and less reason to come to this site, and less and less reason to pay for a subscription.
1. Re:Eh? by neumayr · 2011-01-17 03:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To be fair, there aren't many sources for that story. It's some regional news with only coincidental relevance for some fringe group of society after all..
  http://news.google.de/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Greeneville,+Tennessee&ncl=dm5qbkfTcoN9UCMSJMUI6rFVH6iCM&channel=suggest
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
2. Re:Eh? by Pharmboy · 2011-01-17 03:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It would appear that Slashdot is open sourcing its editing, and is now in perpetual Beta.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
3. Re:Eh? by leuk_he · 2011-01-17 03:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here... a video of the heist.
4. Re:Eh? by neumayr · 2011-01-17 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, he was doing quite well then. Played a lot of MGS I suppose.
  Also, targeting GameStop earns him some sympathy.. Shame he was in it for reselling.
  
  --
  Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
5. Re:Eh? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-01-17 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  Devil's Advocate: /. is a news aggregator: They don't have journalists or reporters, just folks who sift through the cruft posted by regular users. If they can find links, they may well do. Help out and mod down stories which suck on the Firehose.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
6. Re:Eh? by Pharmboy · 2011-01-17 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  Devil's Advocate: /. is a news aggregator: They don't have journalists or reporters, just folks who sift through the cruft posted by regular users. If they can find links, they may well do. Help out and mod down stories which suck on the Firehose.
  Google is a news aggregator, and all decisions are primarily based on code, not by humans. Slashdot is a technology news portal where the submissions are selected by, and then EDITED by the EDITORS, to filter out the debris and only allow the best to hit the front page. This would including adding or removing some of the links (presumably after a reasonable amount of checking and verifying the validity and relevance of the link), or sometimes combining two different submissions to provide a broader point of view. This is the theory, at least. Because speed is more important than accuracy, a large amount of leeway is given for the editing process to be a bit sloppy. Often, the story is neither timely or properly edited is the issue. It makes one wonder if the editors are having to clean windows and empty trashcans for the whole company, and just edit with the time they have left.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
7. Re:Eh? by blair1q · 2011-01-17 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  /. automated the process a long time ago. The "editors" now just select what bubbles up to the top of the +/- ratings on the "recent stories" list (aka "the firehose"), make up a snarky department-of-taglines-department-tagline for the box on the form, then go back to pwning each other in MOH:AA. That Taco took the time to click on the links and realize it's probably link-spam actually puts him in the running for their annual "works too fscking hard" award.
8. Re:Eh? by noidentity · 2011-01-17 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, I just read another story about something else really interesting. Sorry, I can't be bothered to name the specifics, so you should look them up yourself. Try googling this and you'll see that it's really interesting!
9. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  It would appear that Slashdot is open sourcing its editing, and is now in perpetual Beta.
  Sounds like they're trying to get bought by Google.
10. Re:Eh? by Fireshadow · 2011-01-17 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Nice find. More informative than the original article. He swiped 4 consoles in addition to the games. So not everything could have been downloaded. Setting aside law and morality - the guy pulled the job about a month late. WoW Catacylsm was released last month. If he'd gone to work last month, he could have gotten a lot more cash from the register.
  
  --
  "It's one thing to talk about the poetry of machines. Quite another to listen to it for yourself."
11. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  What I find most hilarious about the video is how he's crouched down trying to look sneaky.
  THE CAMERA IS STILL ON.
  It's like watching a cat try to sneak away while in plain sight. Only sadder.
12. Re:Eh? by magus_melchior · 2011-01-17 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  That would imply that there are article editing resources available to commenters (even a subset of them, like the highest-rated mods). As far as I know, that doesn't exist, so a better word would be outsourcing.
  
  --
  "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Perhaps done by the Red-Headed League? by dkleinsc · 2011-01-17 03:31 · Score: 1

It's no use, John Clay

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:Perhaps done by the Red-Headed League? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  This suggests that somewhere in Greeneville, TN, someone was paid good money to copy a large swatch of Wikipedia in longhand.
Don't be so hard on him.. by n1hilist · 2011-01-17 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

He was just playing Dig Dug ;)
1. Re:Don't be so hard on him.. by DiEx-15 · 2011-01-18 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  What was his High Score?
Another URL by CloneRanger · 2011-01-17 03:33 · Score: 0

http://www.greenevillesun.com/story/312924
1. Re:Another URL by tepples · 2011-01-17 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  From your link:
  
  Read The Greeneville Sun for the complete version of this story.
  Six-day-per-week subscribers may also read the full story online
  with our e-Edition at Greenevillesun.com/e-Edition. Click here to view the e-Edition.
2. Re:Another URL by Jessified · 2011-01-17 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  Even from the free summary of the above article it doesn't look like he "tunneled" at all. He broke through a wall from an adjacent and empty shop. The press just chose the word "tunnel."
  Much less impressive.
3. Re:Another URL by blair1q · 2011-01-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  When I saw the headline, I was sure it was an IPv4/IPv6 hack. And I'm not sure it still isn't...
4. Re:Another URL by schroedinbug · 2011-01-17 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hello from the network admin of the Greeneville Sun.
  We now have the full story posted on our website.
  You can view it here: http://www.greenevillesun.com/story/312924
5. Re:Another URL by nschubach · 2011-01-17 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  The detective said the Walmart video showed Archer in an "unusual vehicle," a GMC "Jimmy" SUV painted "passion purple,"
  And here I thought Purple Jimmy was a euphemism. I didn't know someone actually made them.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Video games at fault by east+coast · 2011-01-17 03:34 · Score: 5, Funny

The boy just played far too much Minecraft.

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
1. Re:Video games at fault by Higaran · 2011-01-17 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  No it sounds more like too much Dig Dug to me.
2. Re:Video games at fault by swanzilla · 2011-01-17 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  I must have missed the bit about the robber using an air pump to inflate-kill monsters during the heist.
  
  --
  0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
3. Re:Video games at fault by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Very original joke! You lifted it straight from the article summary for fuck's sakes. Or do people not read anything more than the TITLE now?
4. Re:Video games at fault by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, think of Dig Dug first. Why no love for Mr. Do?
  Oh, right... he's a clown, and fuck clowns. That's why.
5. Re:Video games at fault by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-01-17 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  The guy didn't appear to be old enough to have played Dig-Dug...
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
6. Re:Video games at fault by Stavr0 · 2011-01-17 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  He would be in the hospital with a fractured wrist.
  Because he was punching the store's concrete walls with his bare hands.
7. Re:Video games at fault by Abstrackt · 2011-01-17 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's Lemmings. He was the miner and any minute now there will be about a hundred more of him coming through that hole.
  
  --
  They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Presumably for profit? by RogueyWon · 2011-01-17 03:36 · Score: 2

I'm guessing he did this with the intention of selling the games on and profiting. It certainly can't have been for his own enjoyment.
Unless, of course, there's some strange pleasure that he gets from owning 500 used copies of Madden and 500 used copies of Black Ops (plus maybe, if he's really lucky, a single new copy of Madden as well).
1. Re:Presumably for profit? by NevarMore · 2011-01-17 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm imagining a 20-something in a hoodie with a room piled full of video games swimming around like Scrooge McDuck.
  Perhaps Caesar from History of the World Part One, "TREASURE BATH!!!!".
2. Re:Presumably for profit? by Migraineman · 2011-01-17 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  My father imparted a pearl of wisdom unto me many years ago:
  
  TheDad: You've heard the saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure," right?
  Me: Yeah.
  TheDad: How do you make the distinction?
  Me: I dunno.
  TheDad: "Treasure" is desired by someone in addition to just yourself.
  
  See, I *was* actually paying attention in my yout.
3. Re:Presumably for profit? by Stavr0 · 2011-01-17 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  See, I *was* actually paying attention in my yout.
  In your what, mister Gambini?
4. Re:Presumably for profit? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  but no longer pay attention to your typing?
5. Re:Presumably for profit? by Migraineman · 2011-01-17 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies for the southern drawl ... "in my yoot, sir".
6. Re:Presumably for profit? by rts008 · 2011-01-17 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Very well done, sir!
  LOL!
  I also noticed that, but just getting used to this new keyboard...well, I decided to STFU while I was ahead. :-)
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Not an SSH tunnel ! by mbone · 2011-01-17 03:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

I had to read the post twice to get that the OP was referring to a real, not a virtual, tunnel.
1. Re:Not an SSH tunnel ! by xded · 2011-01-17 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who thought of quantum physics?
2. Re:Not an SSH tunnel ! by one+cup+of+coffee · 2011-01-17 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  When I heard the words Video games, tunnels and crime, my first thoughts were that someone had physically entered the internet via a series of tubes. That, and also I think there might have been some Tron thrown in there.
Re:Oh, the game references! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 03:41 · Score: 0

"Did you know that the original name for Pac-Man was Puck-Man?"
No way game over by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 03:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

If he had been caught "pirating" those games, then it would be game over. He would be in debt forever with the multimillion dollar fine. But after this little burglary he will soon be out of jail and all out of debt, ready to enjoy life again.
1. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-17 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Once you eliminate any physical damage, and the price that retailer bought the physical box, all that's left is a single lost sale. With piracy, the number lost sales are limited only by the "100% of demand" mark. Piracy is, potentially, considerably more financially damaging than physical theft.
  That doesn't, however, mean that I think the penalties for piracy aren't ludicrous these days.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
2. Re:No way game over by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  you mean you don't believe we should be CRACKING DOWN on criminals? What kind of bleeding heart liberal are you who wants to let those filthy criminals go free?
3. Re:No way game over by need4mospd · 2011-01-17 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  Piracy? This man doesn't dig it. YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
4. Re:No way game over by blair1q · 2011-01-17 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  The penalty for any crime is likely to be orders of magnitude worse than the cost of the crime.
  But that's the point.
5. Re:No way game over by Lumpy · 2011-01-17 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  And that is why nobody makes games or music anymore.
  Oh wait... they do.... And the piracy loss claims are simply made up to scam insurance and make it look scary.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:No way game over by ArundelCastle · 2011-01-17 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  ... he will soon be out of jail and all out of debt, ready to enjoy life again.
  I have never been in jail, and from your comment I can only assume you haven't either.
  I do however know several police and corrections officers. People (innocent or guilty) that spend more than a year in real jail aren't in any condition to go about enjoying life soon afterward.
7. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-17 13:35 · Score: 2
  
  And that is why nobody makes games or music anymore.
  Oh wait... they do....
  That's a false dichotomy. If I have to explain why, then you're probably not worth my time.
  Also, piracy has far from reached its potential. People still currently feel some semblance of a moral obligation to pay for what they use, so enough people are currently paying enough of the time only to make piracy a little painful Big Media, and a lot painful for smaller indie players.
  But, as we've seen many times before, we also currently have an extremely tenuous hold on this moral obligation. Every time a game company announces whatever new DRM scheme, the first port of call is piracy, rather than a refusal to buy the game. It's gets worse too; remember when Modern Warfare 2 came out, sporting the news that it would not have a dedicated server? I recall the number of angry people who decided that it was only right that they pirate the game. After all, Infinity Ward screwed them good! I've also heard the price of new release CDs cited as the reason for piracy, and other similar blaming of others for their own behaviour.
  From the some of the posts I see here, many people have already given up looking for specific acts to "cause" them to pirate, but now just blame everything on the companies. As you can see, the moral obligation to pay for what you use can trivially be corrupted, especially in the face of such a convenient way to break it.
  Let's face it: having unlimited access to culture is pretty fucking amazing. A few moral concessions here and there to have a taste from this firehose of culture and entertainment seems like more than a fair trade. I used to do it all the time, but I stopped once I realised how addictive it can be.
  Anyway, the point is, this tenuous moral obligation to pay for what you use, is currently the primary reason why anybody actually pays for music and games, and is thus the primary reason why anyone still make games or music professionally. I personally do not trust it to stick around in the face of an endless stream of free entertainment. So, that's why I am concerned about piracy.
  
  And the piracy loss claims are simply made up to scam insurance and make it look scary.
  No argument there.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
8. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-17 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Once you eliminate any physical damage, and the price that retailer bought the physical box, all that's left is a single lost sale. With piracy, the number lost sales are limited only by the "100% of demand" mark. Piracy is, potentially, considerably more financially damaging than physical theft.
  On the other hand, stealing a physical object actually causes someone to lose something that they really had (an object of value).
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
9. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-18 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but as per my point, the value of physical object is potentially less than the damage of the act of pirating.
  I mean, would you prefer your phone to be stolen, or would you prefer having your bank account drained to 0? Most people wouldn't choose the phone, even though it's the only physical object in this scenario. Even though the bank account is just a number stored by a bunch of bits, most people attribute more value to it than just its physical presence.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
10. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-18 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, would you prefer your phone to be stolen, or would you prefer having your bank account drained to 0?
  Well, since the money in my bank account is something that I actually have currently, I'd prefer to have my phone be stolen (depending on how much money is in my bank account, of course). It's not just about something being a "bunch of bits," it's about things that you currently own.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
11. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-19 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean, you "actually have" the bits storing your bank account? Describe to me what it feels like to hold it. Can you manually change the bits? How come I don't see too many bank bits in the windows of pawn shops?
  The bits represent a promise by the bank to reimburse you with actual cash. You can't actually possess these bits, and they have no intrinsic value, in that without people treating them like they're valuable, they have no use (beyond the long-term storage of a number to finite precision). Their value comes from the laws that back them up. Should the bank treat them like all the other bits on their hard drives, and set them to whatever they like, they risk some, er, tangible punishment.
  Compare this to copyright. When selling art, the natural tendency is for the identical free version to be more enticing on average than the non-free version (Whodathunkit?), causing the artist to make less money. Copyright counters this effect, and goes a long way to help the market operate as it does in other markets; i.e. where sales actually reflect demand. If an artist creates a popular work, then he will, in theory, obtain considerably more money with copyright than without, because everyone who wants a copy and who is prepared to pay the price on offer, will actually buy a copy. If people start taking and distributing free copies, they undermine this effect. Any chance that they, or the people who they gave copies to, will buy a copy is effectively completely out the window. The law says that the artist is entitled to this not happening to them, and punishes any such undermining.
  This is a lot like the bank, if you think about it. Copyright is an agreement between the people and artists, much like the relevant law in banking (whatever it's called) is an agreement between the banks and the people. In both cases, if one party dishonours the agreement (without necessarily pointing fingers here), the other party is worse off. The objects we're dealing with in both cases are completely intangible, and have no value or use other than what can be derived from the corresponding law. Granted, I'd much rather lose a few sales of a copyrighted work than lose my life savings, but the relative proportion of the wrongdoing is not the point.
  If you're still not convinced about the bank example, I can come up with other long-accepted examples of "artificial" value attributed to intangible objects.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
12. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-19 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean, you "actually have" the bits storing your bank account?
  I don't know what you're talking about. All of the data on my computer is mine. I own it. The bank says those bits are mine, and therefore I have them. If they are deleted, I have less. Of course I'm going to choose the bits (which, in this current society, are apparently worth as much as money) if I have a considerable amount of them. Whether or not I can hold them is irrelevant. Just like the data on my computer, I currently own them. I also never said that digital data is worthless (not anymore so than physical money).
  
  If an artist creates a popular work, then he will, in theory, obtain considerably more money with copyright than without, because everyone who wants a copy and who is prepared to pay the price on offer, will actually buy a copy.
  From a businesses or artists point of view, I'm sure that's nice.
  
  taking
  Doesn't happen.
  
  they undermine this effect.
  Maybe. It really depends on if the people who received the free copies were able to (especially this) and were going to buy the product in the first place.
  
  The law says that the artist is entitled to this not happening to them, and punishes any such undermining.
  Yes. I suppose it currently does. Due to the existence of artificial currency and no fault of the copyright infringers, stripping away copyright law and leaving the rest of society like it is now would merely shift the suffering to the artists. A drastic change would be needed to fix all of these problems that things such as copyright are only able to patch up at best.
  
  and have no value or use other than what can be derived from the corresponding law.
  Not really. My data is worth as much as I say it is (how much value I place in it). It doesn't have to mean anything to the rest of society.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
13. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-19 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what you're talking about. All of the data on my computer is mine.
  Well, I agree that all the data storage on your computer is yours, but whether the data itself is all yours, well, that's a different debate. However, the bits I'm referring to are actually stored on the bank's computers. You know, the ones that store your bank balance. You don't "actually have" them, the bank does. They only give you very limited ability to influence the value stored by these bits, specifically, you can only increase the amount by paying money, and decrease the amount by receiving money. If they were bits you "actually had", there would be no way of stopping you giving yourself an extra million dollars. You would be able to simply add a million to the value stored.
  But you can't. You don't "actually have" your bank balance. It is an intangible object, valuable only because of the law enforces people to treat it in a certain way. Sort of like a copyright.
  
  taking
  Doesn't happen.
  Don't be thick. You know what I meant.
  
  Maybe. It really depends on if the people who received the free copies were able to (especially this) and were going to buy the product in the first place.
  Maybe is enough. Since we can't really judge whether we really would never buy something or not, given the possibility of unforeseen circumstances, price cuts, or other ways to sweeten the deal, there is a significant opportunity cost incurred. More than enough to justify the law's existence.
  On top of that, there's the extremely significant possibility that people will pirate, even if they know that they could buy it. I know of examples where this is obviously true. My brother was planning to buy a game called Victoria on Steam, but after it failing to buy (from some temporary situation), he contacted a friend, who offered to give him a copy for free, which he was willing to take. Fortunately, it didn't take much to convince him that it was wrong. That's one example that I can verify myself. There was a strong possibility that he was going to buy this game, but he would still have pirated anyway. I'm certain he is not the only one.
  
  Yes. I suppose it currently does. Due to the existence of artificial currency and no fault of the copyright infringers, stripping away copyright law and leaving the rest of society like it is now would merely shift the suffering to the artists. A drastic change would be needed to fix all of these problems that things such as copyright are only able to patch up at best.
  What suffering? Do you mean the suffering of pirates being forced underground by their choices in life? Or the suffering of everyone under the **AA's loose legal practices and lobbying? If it's the former, then to the pirates, I suggest that they end their suffering and simply stop pirating. If it's the latter, then it's not really a problem with copyright, it's a problem with the legal system, not copyright, and even if we destroy the **AA by destroying copyright, this doesn't fix the fundamental problem with the legal system. Also, a market solution would be better suited to getting rid of the bathwater while keeping the baby. Frankly, I cannot see how one law could be blamed so much for the choices of others.
  
  Not really. My data is worth as much as I say it is (how much value I place in it). It doesn't have to mean anything to the rest of society.
  Like I said, it's not your data that I'm talking about.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
14. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-19 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  You don't "actually have" them, the bank does.
  The same could be said if the bank merely stored your physical money. Whether or not it's physical is irrelevant. It isn't potential money. It is money that you currently, according to the bank, have.
  
  More than enough to justify the law's existence.
  Actually, I merely meant to imply that maybe it is true that they would have less of a chance of making money that they don't currently have, not that that equates to harm.
  
  What suffering?
  I was speaking of the suffering of the artists if copyright law was merely removed and the rest of the system was left in place due to the existence of currency that everyone must have to participate in this society. Pirates aren't actually suffering (other than when they are treated as thieves and such), as far as I'm aware.
  
  Frankly, I cannot see how one law could be blamed so much for the choices of others.
  That one law isn't being blamed. The entire system is to blame. All copyright law does is patch the problem through the use of artificial scarcity.
  
  On top of that, there's the extremely significant possibility that people will pirate, even if they know that they could buy it.
  I'm aware of this.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
15. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-20 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The same could be said if the bank merely stored your physical money. Whether or not it's physical is irrelevant. It isn't potential money. It is money that you currently, according to the bank, have.
  Potential money is exactly what it is. There is actually a distinction between having money, and the bank being forced to give you the money they store. Try using the money if the bank goes under! No, you truly do not "actually have" the money. It's simply some law which forces the bank to act like you do.
  Obviously, the banking laws have been around long enough that we don't generally even think in terms of not "actually having" our money anymore. With the commonplace electronic transferring of funds, the line is starting to blur. Sure, there's still a physical distinction, but its relevance is rapidly decreasing. We place a hell of a lot of value in these little exchanges of bits, just like we always have with physical notes, or gold bars, etc. Many artists and publishers know already the value of potential sales, because without them, they would have nothing.
  Face it: intangible potential can have significant value. Just because we can't predict to 100% certainty exactly how much will pay out from such potential, does not mean that it isn't valuable. Many investments have some kind of risks involved, but that doesn't mean that nobody ever partakes, right?
  
  Actually, I merely meant to imply that maybe it is true that they would have less of a chance of making money that they don't currently have, not that that equates to harm.
  How is it not harm? If person A pirates the works of person B, they are stripping person B of their legally-granted rights, causing a worse situation for person B, and more often than not, a better situation for person A. You see that piracy causes artists to be worse off financially, due to the (illegal) choices of others. I simply can't understand how you could possibly find pirates blameless in this situation.
  
  I was speaking of the suffering of the artists if copyright law was merely removed and the rest of the system was left in place due to the existence of currency that everyone must have to participate in this society.
  I don't quite understand. Are you disagreeing with society's use of money? Well, if so, I certainly admire your ambition!
  
  That one law isn't being blamed. The entire system is to blame. All copyright law does is patch the problem through the use of artificial scarcity.
  So, what exactly is the problem with copyright? You say "patched", I would say "fixed". What problems with copyright are you referring to? What exactly does artificial scarcity not solve?
  (Actually, I'm a little confused over what your contention is, generally.)
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
16. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-20 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Try using the money if the bank goes under!
  I'm fairly certain there's at least a few laws in place that protects up to around $100,000 for you if the bank that stores your money actually does go under.
  
  No, you truly do not "actually have" the money.
  According to society and the bank you do. It doesn't exist in the future. It exists now.
  
  because without them, they would have nothing.
  You're right. But they never had the money in the first place, so they remain unchanged.
  
  If person A pirates the works of person B, they are stripping person B of their legally-granted rights, causing a worse situation for person B, and more often than not, a better situation for person A.
  The better situation for person A is irrelevant because they don't actually remove anything from person B to be in that better situation. Person B isn't in a worse situation because they have everything they had previously. They lost nothing.
  
  Are you disagreeing with society's use of money?
  Yes.
  
  So, what exactly is the problem with copyright? You say "patched", I would say "fixed". What problems with copyright are you referring to? What exactly does artificial scarcity not solve?
  Artificial scarcity is unnecessary and prevents people from obtaining things (in some cases, educative resources) that they would otherwise have. While that doesn't harm them, they'd certainly be better of if they had them (at no one else's expense). Instead of reforming society to get rid of its capitalistic practices, they employed copyright to patch the problem. It's probably nice for artists now, and I don't blame them, but to leave such a gaping flaw wide open only hurts all of society (and there are more culprits than just artificial scarcity). Scarcity in general is an atrocious way to run society.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
17. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-20 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fairly certain there's at least a few laws in place that protects up to around $100,000 for you if the bank that stores your money actually does go under.
  OK, but what if you had more than $100,000? Can you access the money immediately? What would it take to prove to you that you don't "actually have" the money you've given to the bank?
  
  According to society and the bank you do. It doesn't exist in the future. It exists now.
  According to society, artists are entitled to their potential sales. My point is that this is not based on anything concrete; it's a law that says this. Without such a law, putting money into a bank would become a pointlessly risky venture, and would definitely not be like "actually having" your money.
  Also, I'd like to know what you mean by the money "existing now". Yes, the notes are somewhere, perhaps stored by the bank, or more probably in the hands of someone else in the form of a loan or other investment. When you ask for your money back, it's not the same notes anyway, so the issue of individual notes is not actually so important. What is important is your balance, which the bank stores. Anything that could be described as "your cash", cash being the physical representation of money, does not exist. It's only when you withdraw money that it becomes your cash. Your money stored at the bank is only potentially your cash.
  I guess for an artist, their money also exists right now, but it may be currently in the hands of someone else. That's why stealing electronic funds (Ha! How ludicrous is it to call changing a few bits "stealing"?) is a bit like piracy. Both deprive people of potential money that they may "actually have" in the future.
  I happen to notice that you're not sounding particularly convinced with the bank example. How about another example? I touched on this before, but investments is another good analogue. With investments, it's very possible that the investment may crash and burn a couple of weeks in, perhaps before they pay any dividends. On the other hand, it's very possible that they could be massively lucrative for people who stick with it long enough. One way to look at it would be, the investors never really had any dividends to start off with, so by destroying the investment, the situation would "remain unchanged". Another far more meaningful way of looking at this is to acknowledge that you have destroyed something of value, not because of what was guaranteed to put out, but because of what it could have put out, taking into account the likelihood of what it could have put out. Society tends to look at it from the latter perspective, since this actually gels with people's perception of value. It doesn't matter if it's not a sure thing, just if there is some significant chance of significant gain.
  That's why the argument that "But they never had the money in the first place, so they remain unchanged" seems so fatuous to me. It makes no account of what actually happens in real life, or what actually runs through people's minds when they make an investment, like releasing a copyrighted work commercially. The fact is, despite the many places that such fatuous arguments could be applied, copyright is the only topic with which such arguments are taken at all seriously by anybody. Society, by and large, recognises the value of potential, and so robbing people of that potential is an act of harm.
  
  The better situation for person A is irrelevant because they don't actually remove anything from person B to be in that better situation. Person B isn't in a worse situation because they have everything they had previously. They lost nothing.
  Well, yes, I actually agree that the better situation for person A is not relevant, but I included it anyway as a rhetorical device (some people find benefit at the expense of others misfortunes more distasteful than the others misfortunes by themselves). What is relevant is that p
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
18. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-20 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  What would it take to prove to you that you don't "actually have" the money you've given to the bank?
  You can't. According to society, it is mine. Losing it would therefore harm me. If I had over $100,000, then that is a shame. I would be harmed because I had the money.
  
  According to society, artists are entitled to their potential sales.
  Yes, and this is what I'm debating. Almost, anyway. I don't want to merely take this away. I would rather the rest of society change with it.
  
  It's only when you withdraw money that it becomes your cash.
  Do I or do I not have money that is mine (even though it is represented by data) that is being stored by the bank? They exchange this for real money, and therefore it carries as much value as real money. If the bank were to lose this data, its value that it carries would also be lost. This sense of loss is immediate, and it is something that I actually possessed (even if it wasn't being held in my hands).
  
  I guess for an artist, their money also exists right now
  'Their' money only potentially exists in the future. They do not have it now. Not even in digital data.
  
  Society, by and large, recognises the value of potential, and so robbing people of that potential is an act of harm.
  Unless they have something already, no harm was done.
  
  What person B has or doesn't have currently is irrelevant! It has long been recognised that material loss is not the only way to experience loss.
  By whom? Not by me. I believe that in order to be harmed (by 'theft'), you must have the object in the first place. Otherwise, you are left exactly as you were before in terms of physical (or perhaps digital) possessions. The only thing that might change is your state of mind.
  
  There's no guarantee whatsoever that a given work would exist without copyright, since artificial scarcity is a major influence in these works being made.
  There's no guarantee of anything. But, you're correct. That's why I believe that merely removing copyright and leaving the rest of society unchanged would be a poor decision.
  
  I stole your wallet? Oh, it certainly would be better for you if you had it, but it's not like I "harmed" you.
  The sense of loss in this scenario is immediate. My wallet is something that I had previously, and you stole it from me. My state of mind is not the only thing that changed. The number of possessions that I owned decreased due to the fact that you stole something that I previously had. That is actual harm.
  
  Well, all I "deprived" you of was potential years of living, but you never "actually had" any of it (I mean, you could have been hit by a bus on the way home!), so by depriving you of potential years of living, you weren't at all harmed, were you?
  The harm you inflicted upon my body was immediate.
  
  No offence, but you may well be one of 50 or so people who view the inherent problems with selling art as a death knell for the entire capitalist system.
  You're incorrect. This is not the only reason that I despise capitalism.
  It breeds corruption among the government (as people who are raised in a greedy society are unlikely to not be greedy themselves). It breeds theft due to the existence of people who society failed (and that is a guarantee when you live in a society that utilizes currency). It also separates people into different classes (people with more money will likely have more power, and those that have less money will likely be treated with contempt). It is also often responsible for numerous damages to living beings and the environment. If it is profitable to do something, it will likely be done, even if it hurts the planet or living beings (chemical dumping, planned obsolescence, irresponsible waste disposal,
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
19. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-21 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Do I or do I not have money that is mine (even though it is represented by data) that is being stored by the bank? They exchange this for real money, and therefore it carries as much value as real money. If the bank were to lose this data, its value that it carries would also be lost. This sense of loss is immediate, and it is something that I actually possessed (even if it wasn't being held in my hands).
  OK, now we're talking! I would say that we do not have the money that is stored in the bank. We do not have unfettered access to it, as we are still limited to the many ways we get access to it (e.g. withdrawing from an ATM or in person, credit/debit cards, electronic transfers, etc). If you meet a guy in the street, you want to buy his watch, you have 0 cash on you at that moment, but more than enough in the bank, then you're going to meet some difficulty buying that watch. Like I said, it's not that accessing it is hard, it's just that you don't actually have it.
  I agree that the sense of loss follows immediately from discovering that you've lost money. However, I would actually say that this is more from the loss of potential, i.e. the loss of all the possible things that that money could buy. That is what we truly miss when we lose money, in the bank or not in the bank. So, in fact, loss of money, whether in the bank or not, is a loss of potential in itself. It is in that potential that money has any value whatsoever. Anyway, I'm digressing slightly, but I wanted to point out that money can be a sticky situation.
  
  Unless they have something already, no harm was done.
  You keep saying that, but you provide no arguments in favour of such a ludicrous view. I've already given multiple examples where society says that it's false. If, every time you/your wife gets pregnant, I kill the unborn child, does that harm you? I guess not; the unborn children were pretty much all pure "potential". I mean, you never "actually had" the child, so really you didn't lose anything, right?
  
  By whom? Not by me. I believe that in order to be harmed (by 'theft'), you must have the object in the first place. Otherwise, you are left exactly as you were before in terms of physical (or perhaps digital) possessions. The only thing that might change is your state of mind.
  You sound like the kind of person who would trade his friends and family for [insert cheap material thrill]. Surely there must be something in your life that you value more than your things?
  
  The harm you inflicted upon my body was immediate.
  Say what? Isn't that now just a circular argument? I'm trying to divine your definition of harm, and you simply answer by saying there was harm! Why is there harm? What have I deprived you of? Say I killed you literally instantly, and you never saw what was coming. Then there is no "sense of immediate loss", as there was in other cases. Perhaps I have deprived you of life, but why does losing life count, but losing potential does not? I can't see why financial potential is being singled out as the one thing that you can't be deprived of!
  Oh, and since we're on the subject of the recurring theme of "immediate sense of loss", exactly how important is that to your definition of harm? What if an artist feels an immediate sense of loss (for the potential sale) when someone pirates their work? If I skim the interest of your bank account in a way that you never notice, have I harmed you?
  Also, I would appreciate it if you would respond to the rest of the scenarios I posed. It would really help me figure out exactly what "harm" means to you. For example, me destroying your reputation. Would that be harmful for you? Is your reputation something you can be deprived of? Or is it simply a loss of your potential? What about investments? The value of most things have contributing factors from both their immediate use and their potential use, but investmen
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
20. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-21 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  We do not have unfettered access to it, as we are still limited to the many ways we get access to it (e.g. withdrawing from an ATM or in person, credit/debit cards, electronic transfers, etc).
  The money is still there, is ours, and it exists now. This is absolutely not potential loss.
  
  You keep saying that, but you provide no arguments in favour of such a ludicrous view.
  Other than what I've already said? The only change is in your state of mind, and in many cases, even that isn't guaranteed. You have lost nothing that you already had (data or otherwise).
  
  I guess not; the unborn children were pretty much all pure "potential".
  You're inflicting actual, physical harm upon something that exists now. You are damaging a living being right now. Why is this so difficult to understand?
  
  You sound like the kind of person who would trade his friends and family for [insert cheap material thrill]. Surely there must be something in your life that you value more than your things?
  My health and the well being of others?
  
  Isn't that now just a circular argument?
  No. As you can imagine, it is difficult to put into words. Harm is not something that occurs in the future, it is something that occurs now. If you stab me with a knife, you've hurt me now. Not later, now. You deprived me of my health. Something that I had previously. Again, it isn't that difficult to grasp what I was attempting to say.
  
  What if an artist feels an immediate sense of loss (for the potential sale) when someone pirates their work?
  It isn't merely an opinion in my belief. That's like saying, "what if artists feel a sense of harm when someone decides not to buy their product?" You'd likely say that is absurd and the person who decided not to buy the product shouldn't be prosecuted. Likewise, my definition of harm is factual, not opinionated.
  
  If I skim the interest of your bank account in a way that you never notice, have I harmed you?
  If I lose something that I had previously, then yes.
  
  Is your reputation something you can be deprived of?
  Harm through speech? Is such a thing even possible? I'd say that people need to stop being imbeciles by listening to whatever unproven gossip comes their way.
  To answer your question: maybe. You do 'have' a reputation, correct? I'm not completely certain about this. However, since I am an advocate of complete free speech, I'd say this is fine.
  
  Surely you can't ignore their value?
  Actually, I can. They go completely against my definition of harm, if that's what you mean. If you're asking if they are a good business opportunity, then possibly. The only 'harm' comes from voluntarily losing whatever money or property you invested in the first place, not from losing out on the investment (which is just a loss of potential, and not something you actually had).
  
  Would you accept that most people, if not you personally, would prefer to invest, rather than not?
  Yes. It sounds like a good opportunity to make money.
  
  Have I harmed the people who invested?
  Did they ever have the money? If not, then no, you haven't harmed them.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
21. Re:No way game over by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-01-24 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the late reply. I've been a little busy lately. I thought I might do this a little differently to the classic string of rebuttals, since a lot of the strands run together, and a lot of them are, in my opinion, irrelevant. If there's anything specifically you want me to respond to, point it out next time.
  Essentially, my problem here is that I do not know your definition of harm. Most of my efforts have been to spur you into telling me exactly what you mean by the word "harm". Explain it to me like a dictionary would. If you make some mistakes/omissions, that's fine, but I would like to see some kind of outline. At least then we could have something to work with, and I could actually evaluate both our arguments. To kick off, allow me to provide you with a definition of harm that I agree with:
  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harm
  I hope you can see how piracy fits the definition of harm I've provided.
  Until you provide me with a complete definition of harm, I'd like to ask some more about your most illuminating position on investments:
  
  Did they ever have the money? If not, then no, you haven't harmed them.
  What if the chance was bumped up to 100%? Yes, if you invested, you were 100% guaranteed to get a million dollars at the end of tomorrow. If I sabotaged it, would I still not be harming you? I mean, the money technically isn't yours yet, but it is guaranteed.
  As another scenario, let's suppose that the probability of gaining $1,000,000,000 is 99.999999% or something else ridiculously close to 100%. Let's also suppose that you live in a smallish town, where everyone invests, and everyone manages to get a $1,000,000,000. Everyone, that is, except you, because I sabotaged your investment. Then, due to the suddenly rich neighbourhood, people renovate their houses, buy more expensive food, clothing, and other essentials. In fact, no store catering to the middle or lower classes can even remain competitive, and all change to something more up-market, or pack up shop and move somewhere else. As the only person without $1,000,000,000, you can no longer survive in this town, and are forced to move just so you have access to a grocery store and hold down a job. Finding a place is difficult, takes time, and you can only find a crappy little apartment that is a 10th of the size of your old place. Essentially, you're suffering. Have I harmed you? By sabotaging your investment, I have indirectly lost you your house and way of life, and these are only future losses, so that might factor into your decision as well.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
22. Re:No way game over by cheekyjohnson · 2011-01-24 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Explain it to me like a dictionary would.
  To deprive (or damage) someone of something that they had or owned previously. That could be health or property.
  
  What if the chance was bumped up to 100%?
  You still never had the money in the first place, so no.
  
  Have I harmed you?
  Aside from cheating the process (which didn't harm you anyway), no. It does sound like economics was the one of the causes of your misfortunes, though.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Security by HeckRuler · 2011-01-17 03:44 · Score: 1

Well GameStop should really invest in some quality security. I hear that lava walls and gravel walls are moderately secure. Of course they're by-passable with time, but they're far more efficient then creating a mob generator.
1. Re:Security by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-01-17 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Lava walls and mob generators... ha! Talk about being so 1.1. We now have the "Dispenser!" Fill a dispenser or 100 with arrows. For nice eye candy place these dispensers behind a lava wall for flaming dispense.
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
"Life imitates Minecraft" by gstoddart · 2011-01-17 03:46 · Score: 1

Or, maybe Minecraft imitated life to begin with. It's not like the concept of sappers and tunneling was invented by Minecraft.
Now, that doesn't mean that tunneling into a video game store isn't just plain bizarre.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:"Life imitates Minecraft" by PseudonymousBraveguy · 2011-01-17 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  At the current state of copyright law, it's probably better to be caught tunneling into a game shop and stealing physical copies than downloading the same amount of copies on bittorrent.
2. Re:"Life imitates Minecraft" by gstoddart · 2011-01-17 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  At the current state of copyright law, it's probably better to be caught tunneling into a game shop and stealing physical copies than downloading the same amount of copies on bittorrent.
  Sadly, you are probably correct.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Dig Dig Dig by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:00 · Score: 0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Digger_%28video_game%29_%28IBM_PC_Version_-_CGA%29_gameplay.gif
Through a wall... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:04 · Score: 0

He only tunneled through a wall. Which could also be called "broke through a wall" which is way less sensational than TFA makes it sound.
they are to cheap to sell out for that by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-01-17 04:04 · Score: 1

they are to cheap to sell out for that why not have a security guard mini wage BYOG.
1. Re:they are to cheap to sell out for that by NevarMore · 2011-01-17 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The same reason you generally don't pay staff minimum wage. Minimum wage = minimum work and minimum trust.
2. Re:they are to cheap to sell out for that by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-01-17 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot, Minimum wage = Maximum theft.
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Stealing... by Burpmaster · 2011-01-17 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pay attention people: This is what actual theft looks like.
1. Re:Stealing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  You can say that again. At least he wasn't a filthy copyright-infringer.
2. Re:Stealing... by tompaulco · 2011-01-17 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  And ironically, although the police consider this a crime, the game companies feel that he owns legitimate copies of all of those games.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
3. Re:Stealing... by Frangible · 2011-01-17 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  Theft: it looks a lot like MGS4.
Holy crap, he's getting even more lazy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:05 · Score: 1

Perhaps his next modification to this horrible website code will be automatic, unattended story submissions.
1. Re:Holy crap, he's getting even more lazy by tehcyder · 2011-01-17 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps his next modification to this horrible website code will be automatic, unattended story submissions.
  How would anyone spot the difference?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
2. Re:Holy crap, he's getting even more lazy by TheRaven64 · 2011-01-17 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Check the Slashcode commit logs. He did this about 12 years ago. Each of the 'editors' is a very small Perl script. They keep adding new ones periodically because the existing ones are buggy as hell (some more than others, for example kdawson).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:Holy crap, he's getting even more lazy by bensode · 2011-01-17 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered about the source(s) for that t-shirt from ThinkGeek ... :)
  http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/frustrations/374d/
  "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script"
  
  --
  "Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
4. Re:Holy crap, he's getting even more lazy by GrumblyStuff · 2011-01-17 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  We might get better stories (and better edited, at that)?
I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by Lashat · 2011-01-17 04:05 · Score: 2

You still can't download game consoles. The article pokes fun at the thief's stone-age method used to steal games. OK, but I would imagine that he would be after the highest ticket items in the store - consoles of every flavor. Seems like he had access to a shared, perhaps basement, wall and basically tired to knock a hole in it. Hardly a tunnel. When I think of a tunnel I think border crossing feats of rogue engineering like this.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/07/14/bc-pot-tunnel.html

--
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
1. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by delinear · 2011-01-17 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention with items like Microsoft gamer points or Farmville credits or whatever, many game stores are as good as storing cash on the premises - easy to move, have the appearance of being anonymous (I don't know if they scan these before taking them from stock so they can trace them/cancel them, so I'm guessing the average thief doesn't know either, which must make them a tempting target).
2. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by petermgreen · 2011-01-17 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Afaict most gift cards in shops at least in the UK are only assigned their value when the purchaser checks out, the ones sitting on the shelves are worthless. I wonder if they do the same for game cards.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
3. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by blair1q · 2011-01-17 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a PC you shouldn't need a game console.
4. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by Firehed · 2011-01-17 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  OK, but I would imagine that he would be after the highest ticket items in the store - consoles of every flavor.
  That just seems foolish to me, after thinking about it for five seconds. Sure, the consoles are going to bring the most value per item, so it makes sense at face value. It would also be harder to move stolen consoles without raising suspicion. It really makes sense to go for games and accessories. Nobody is going to question a bunch of new games being sold, especially this time of year ("I got them for Christmas but they didn't interest me"), and a small handful of games - five or so - is going to easily meet or exceed the value of a console, and you can stuff a hell of a lot more games in a bag than you can consoles.
  Of course, if you're going to attempt a stunt pulled from any number of Jason Statham movies, then at least watch one of them and go for somewhere that has gold, cash, or jewelry.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
5. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by Lumpy · 2011-01-17 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I can.
  I downloaded a SNES a Nintendo 64, a PS1, and a Sega Genesis.
  Honestly, some of the newer consoles emulators are coming along as well. I saw news of a Wii emulator being worked on.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by Lashat · 2011-01-17 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Rats! You are of course correct and win the semantical arguement.
  Let me amend my previous statement. You cannot download DS, Wii, PS3, or Xbox 360. The consoles most likely to be stolen are those STILL being manufactured.
  
  --
  For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
7. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by TaggartAleslayer · 2011-01-17 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  They do the same for game and gift cards. Nobody leaves stacks of easy-to-pocket cash laying around on the store floor. It's all just bits of plastic and paper until scanned and activated at the register.
8. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by Lumpy · 2011-01-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Wii emulator - http://www.dolphin-emulator.com/
  DS emulator - http://desmume.org/
  The PS3 and Xbox360 emulators are not functional yet and I can only find loose framework of groups talking about how to approach it. Give it a year and they will exist.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by N0Man74 · 2011-01-17 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  OK, but I would imagine that he would be after the highest ticket items in the store - consoles of every flavor.
  
  I'm not thief... but this seems like a poor idea.
  Sure, the consoles are more valuable per item, but they are also bulkier and a little heavier. If consoles are in the $200 to $300 range, and new games frequently go for $40 to $60, 4 or 5 games take up a lot less space and weigh less than 1 console. Also, unlike consoles, game discs don't have serial numbers on them. Additionally, GameStop keeps their higher ticket items in yet another locked cage inside the store. Games are locked in cabinets that would theoretically be a lot easier to get into quickly (and have a greater chance of sometimes maybe even being forgotten unlocked by employees).
  Then again... if he were smart, he wouldn't have been doing this in the first place.
10. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by Lashat · 2011-01-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a thief either, but I spend plenty of time at flea markets, swap meets, and off downtown urban areas. The black market for game discs are really not for originals.
  Games are pretty easy to rent and then burn a copy. They sell for dirt cheap. It's nearly easier than downloading an image off your favorite torrent.
  As far as console serial numbers go...meh. Everything has a serial number. The effort for law enforcement to trace is herculean. Even with the assistance of the internet and say Microsoft's Xbox live.
  Bulky consoles? Locked cabinets? Well this guy had plenty of time on his hands to make a few trips. I mean he picked axed a hole in a wall. I'm not a track star, but I think I could empty the average Game Stop of every console in under 20 minutes.
  In the end. I think we all agree. This guy is not brain trust.
  
  --
  For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
11. Re:I was hoping someone pointed this out already. by BobMcD · 2011-01-18 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, if you're going to attempt a stunt pulled from any number of Jason Statham movies, then at least watch one of them and go for somewhere that has gold, cash, or jewelry.
  Ah, but if you had watched that movie, the ACTUAL job was for the photos. It could be the same case here. Maybe the employee files were the actual target? Hard to imagine, but I'd suggest that the stuff the store sells may not have been the actual target.
Found link... by alyawn · 2011-01-17 04:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Found a link to the local paper. Not that hard to find. But light on the details.
1. Re:Found link... by Tokah · 2011-01-17 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  He left all the digging tools behind??? He couldn't have at least packed them into his ridiculously noticeable passion purple SUV?
2. Re:Found link... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Light on the details but at least accurate rather than all the sensationalizing from that places that linked to the original story.
  No tunneling, no pick axe, no digging. He merely cut a hole thru the drywall of the adjacent store... ok I guess a 8" long "tunnel". Duh.
Piracy != Theft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh wait.
1. Re:Piracy != Theft by Dunbal · 2011-01-17 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, whoever tagged this as piracy is a dumbass, since this particular case really *IS* theft but it's NOT piracy. Unless of course boats, parrots and wooden legs were involved.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Piracy != Theft by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Arrrrg, shiver me timbers, you forgot one-eyed patches and bottles of rum.
3. Re:Piracy != Theft by cskrat · 2011-01-17 06:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Eye patches are just for pirates that don't know how to treat a parrot.
  
  --
  My God! It's full of eval()'s.
4. Re:Piracy != Theft by Roman+Coder · 2011-01-18 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  And here I thought an eye patch was there to protect the pirate from the parrot.
  Haven't you noticed how the eye patch is always on the same side as the parrot, who is sitting on the pirate's shoulder?
  
  --
  "The future can only affect the present if there is room to write its influence off as a mistake." - Yakir Aharonov
Re:Oh, the game references! by Chrisq · 2011-01-17 04:08 · Score: 1

"Did you know that the original name for Pac-Man was Puck-Man?"
Better than phuck man I suppose
Seriously it was the other way round. Puck-Man was used when the arcade games were first imported into the UK, out of fear that it would offend the Pakis. Later common sense prevailed and when games for home computers were imported the original name was used.
DMCA at fault by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:42 · Score: 0

I blame the DMCA. Someone should tally up the fines and prison terms he could expect if he had "pirated" what he tried to haul out, and then use the difference as a basis for defending people from the DMCA.
1. Re:DMCA at fault by tompaulco · 2011-01-17 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it turns out the DMCA was behind the heist. Since congress wouldn't make secondhand sale illegal, DMCA had to take the law into their own hands.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Full story now online by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:44 · Score: 0

Full story now online.
FAIL by JustinKSU · 2011-01-17 04:44 · Score: 1

Do you mean a serial number that could be tracked back to the store? A lot of games force online registering which would be a great way to track the thief to the incident! Or am I being naive to think that game companies track serials to that level of distribution?
1. Re:FAIL by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Gamestop is my part-time gig and can confirm that Gamestop does indeed keep track of serial numbers and is able to report those that are missing/stolen.
2. Re:FAIL by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  I imagine the problem isn't so much disabling the copy but that the person affected probably isn't the person that actually stole the physical copy of the game. The thief is probably selling the games to people that won't necessarily know that the game won't work when they try to register it. Depending how the thief is selling the stolen items, they may be able to track the sales back to them.
  
  Mij
Re:Oh, the game references! by Half-pint+HAL · 2011-01-17 05:08 · Score: 2

Nope, it was a Japanese game and was named after a hockey puck. The Americans were worried about kids making the P an F, so changed the name on import. The UK cabinets marked "Puck-man" didn't come via America.
It's a downright disgrace that they still call hockey pucks "pucks" because someone might call them "fucks". They don't, but they might. And that's disgraceful.
HAL.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
actual footage of the hiest by one+cup+of+coffee · 2011-01-17 05:19 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJROk4Q08Tw
You mean... by denzacar · 2011-01-17 05:19 · Score: 1

This doesn't make him a hacker?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
NOT a Tunnel! by markass530 · 2011-01-17 05:28 · Score: 5, Informative

The dude just busted a hole in the wall. In my world, a tunnel goes underground, and I think the reason the story seemed so good is that was inferred.
1. Re:NOT a Tunnel! by Killjoy_NL · 2011-01-17 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  The hole in the wall is just a really really really short tunnel :)
  
  --
  This is the sig that says NI (again)
They should be happy - And he to! by aliquis · 2011-01-17 05:29 · Score: 1

They should be happy, and so should he!
Now only the value of said game titles where lost.
But if instead he had pirated the games just imagine all the damage along the lines with all the additional copies he helped to create would had been!
Steal Starcraft II at $ 29.95 for a total of $ 29.95 damage.
Pirate Starcraft II for free, create $ 29,950 damage!
This way if he get caught he should only have to pay for the titles he stole. If he had pirated them? Millions! .. ;D
proof by Shiftymcgrif · 2011-01-17 05:43 · Score: 1

The folks responsible for the new study that links video games and mental problems now have validation
Place is local to me by digitalhermit · 2011-01-17 05:43 · Score: 2

Just last week in that vacant store front there used to be a chapter of the "Red Headed League". They organized events for the fiery headed, like myself. Shame that it has come to this.
And I woulda got away with it, too, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 05:51 · Score: 0

If it weren't for you meddling nerds!
Ya all come back now, ya hear? by n_djinn · 2011-01-17 06:02 · Score: 1

Why am I not surprised this happened in Tenneessee? (having lived in a place called Mar-vel, spelled Maryville)

--
I do not play in the middle of the road
I think you just toasted the Minecraft site by PJ6 · 2011-01-17 06:04 · Score: 1

I was like, ooh, never heard of Minecraft, then I watched the youtube video and was all, ooh I want to play. And I bet 1K others are all doing the same thing right now 'cuz the site's on its knees.
1. Re:I think you just toasted the Minecraft site by lgw · 2011-01-17 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that Minecraft was the most popular indie game of 2010, with well over a milion copies sold? A few slashdotters probaly aren't the problem. "Dorf fortress with graphics" might even be a new genre, much like "MUD with pictures" was.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
2. Re:I think you just toasted the Minecraft site by PJ6 · 2011-01-17 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Guess I'm out of the loop, but this site is so abysmally slow that "most popular indie game of 2010" didn't exactly come to mind when I saw it.
3. Re:I think you just toasted the Minecraft site by nschubach · 2011-01-17 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, if Minecraft were half the game DF is, I'm afraid that 2012 might be caused by people never leaving home. ( I play around with both [MC alpha owner!], but Minecraft has a way to go to become DF caliber. )
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
4. Re:I think you just toasted the Minecraft site by PJ6 · 2011-01-20 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh god, I wish I'd never discovered Minecraft. I haven't had an accidental all-nighter since I was 22 - I'm not happy to re-discover that waking up with 2 hours of sleep does indeed still feel like being hit by a bus.
According to TFA: by Peter+Simpson · 2011-01-17 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative

It wasn't so much "tunneling", as it was "breaking through the drywall from the adjacent store", which he'd forcibly entered by prying a door open. Pretty sloppy job.
1. Re:According to TFA: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it really sucked for the guy who popped up through the floor an hour later only to find everything gone.
2. Re:According to TFA: by tompaulco · 2011-01-17 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  And how was that more efficient than prying open Gamestops door? Well, I suppose Gamestop probably has an active alarm system, but most people would assume it also had a motion sensor. Unless of course, one was an ex-employee or friend of an employee who happens to know that their was no motion sensor on their alarm system.
  Smells like inside job to me.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
3. Re:According to TFA: by adolf · 2011-01-17 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like someone who has never played with common motion sensors. They're not all that hard to fool.
  Move slow, keep a slim profile, and avoid moving anything big and flat (like doors) and you'll have reasonable freedom of movement for as long as you can stay patient and calm. Keeping your distance from them also helps.
  Try it sometime. They're not magic.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
4. Re:According to TFA: by xenobyte · 2011-01-17 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  My favorite DVD store had a break-in a few years back where the thief 'tunneled' through a brick wall (quite a bit harder than drywall) and quite literally emptied the store. Empty covers were left but everything else was taken. They did not touch the money in the register, nor did they take computers etc. - just the DVDs, but all of them. An obvious made-to-order crime.
  It was estimated that making the hole in the wall took about 3-4 hours as no power tools were used. The building has residential tenants just over the shop so machine noise from a closed and darkened shop would have been very suspicious and sure to raise suspicion.
  Once in, the thieves did their deed in less than 16 minutes as that was the response time of the alarm company. They found the shop empty and no sign of the thieves. Kinda amazing as that shop recently closed down and all the mechandise had to be packed for shipment to the primary store, and just packing took a full day for two people. The thieves had to get their loot out a small hole, up almost a floor (it's a basement shop) into their getaway vehicle and get away before the time was up. Pretty amazing actually. If only such people put their talents to good use instead of crime...
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
5. Re:According to TFA: by MichaelSmith · 2011-01-17 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  I reckon manually breaking through a brick wall would be noisier than using power tools. And the best place to hide the loot would be in the apartments where "nobody heard anything".
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Battletoads? by digital_rich · 2011-01-17 06:45 · Score: 0

Had he called first, he would have found out that they do not stock it.
DS & Wii are here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 06:48 · Score: 0

DeSmuME
Dolphin - GC & Wii.
Cxbx - xbox emulator that doesn't quite work yet.
YRO?? WTF? by CCarrot · 2011-01-17 07:07 · Score: 1

I can't see any reason why this was posted under YRO instead of, say Idle...whose online rights were threatened / supported / affected here? The thief? The store owner? The potential purchasers of the physical game copies?

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Security Lesson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 07:15 · Score: 0

My mom runs a Stamp, Coin and Jewelry shop in a strip mall. A few years back, someone broke in by climbing the building and sawing a hole in the ceiling. He must have cased the place first, because where he entered was directly over a safe he could stand on to enter easier, and in one of the few places in the building that didn't have motion sensor or camera coverage.
He didn't get away with much though. The idiot though he could bust into the safe by taking the hinges off - which doesn't work due to the heavy interlocks in the door mechanism. In the end, we caught just 2 minutes of him on video running out of the back room. and out the back door.
Lesson learned - protect all parts of the building, not just entry/exit.
Tunnelling by halcyon1234 · 2011-01-17 07:43 · Score: 1

He could have alleviated suspicion from his actions if he'd just had some red-headed gentlemen in the empty building, copying out the Encyclopædia Britannica all day long.

Of course, the penalty for copyright infringement on the Encyclopedia would be orders of magnitude worse than simply stealing, so perhaps that isn't such a great cover anymore.

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Re:YRO?? WTF? by nschubach · 2011-01-17 08:07 · Score: 1

The store could have an Internet connection!

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Ha ha by Chicken_Kickers · 2011-01-17 08:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

I had a conversation with an avowed American "patriot" railing against the draconian laws of countries like Iran where infidelity can get you stoned to death. My counter was similar to this example. You Westerners have even more draconian laws that don't even make sense. In the Western world, copying and idea will get you thrown into prison and bankrupted. And in a capitalistic society, being bankrupted is equivalent to an amputation of the limbs or even death. It seems, copyright infringements is the equivalent of religious heresy in secular capitalist countries.
1. Re:Ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Tu Quoque isn't much of a counter.
2. Re:Ha ha by RajivSLK · 2011-01-17 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  And in a capitalistic society, being bankrupted is equivalent to an amputation of the limbs or even death.
  I'm sorry but are you and everyone who modded this up insane in the mind?
  I don't think there is anybody in this capitalist society who would even pause for thought if given the choice between being bankrupted, amputated or killed.
3. Re:Ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, shut up.
  Ask an amputee sometime about bankruptcy, better yet, ask a corpse.
  Fucking douche-dick.
4. Re:Ha ha by Max_W · 2011-01-17 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Is it only women who could be executed for an infidelity? Or men too?
5. Re:Ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 21:14 · Score: 0
  
  So stoning a woman because she was raped makes more sense than patent or copyright laws, nice try, Osama.
6. Re:Ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-18 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  It seems, copyright infringements is the equivalent of religious heresy in secular capitalist countries.
  Stoning someone to death is the same as going to jail (in the US) and being fined? To be clear, one involves cable TV privileges, gym equipment, and three squares a day, while the other involves a rock smashing through your skull and bleeding out under the sun.
  I'll certainly agree that our copyright laws have become absurd, but the two are hardly equivalent.
Lamer by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 09:23 · Score: 0

If you're going to break into a store to steal "as much as you can carry" at least pick a store that has the highest value per size (like a jewellery store). Stealing games just seems incredibly stupid.
1. Re:Lamer by Phroggy · 2011-01-17 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to break into a store to steal "as much as you can carry" at least pick a store that has the highest value per size (like a jewellery store). Stealing games just seems incredibly stupid.
  Jewelry stores are prepared for that. The stuff you see locked up in glass display cases during the day is removed when the store closes, and locked up in a vault at night. They also have much better alarm systems, because they expect people to try to steal jewelry.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Common physical security bypass method by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-17 14:21 · Score: 0

Thieves often break through the drywall of an adjacent, sometimes vacant, shop in strip centers. Or, if it has a drop tile ceiling, they'll go in through there, sometimes hitting multiple shops that way or coming back for repeat visits. Bypass all the alarms. Bypass the locks. I read about this in a book published in the 1970s, so it's surprising how common this still is.
Re:YRO?? WTF? by CCarrot · 2011-01-18 06:36 · Score: 1

The store could have an Internet connection!
Good point, and I suppose the break-in could have interrupted the stock boy's regular whack time in the back room...

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant