X-Men Origins Pirate Draws a 1-Year Sentence

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from geek.com: "In 2009, a copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine found its way on to Megaupload a month before it was due to appear in movie theaters. The so-called 'workprint' copy was unfinished — so unfinished in fact, anyone viewing this copy saw green screens and wires attached to actors used to help with the more acrobatic movements during action scenes. Hugh Jackman even commented on the leak, describing it as like getting a 'Ferrari without a paint job.' The person who decided to share the movie illegally was tracked down, however. He is a 49-year-old New Yorker by the name of Gilberto Sanchez, and he's just been prosecuted." The New York Times' 2010 interview with Sanchez is a good read, too.

Comments

Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

The appropriate place for all pirates..

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[zill]

Except, of course, those convicted of sodomy charges. There's the Federal no-ass-pounding prison for that.

Jokes aside, it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[sed quid in infernos]

it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.

There are criminal offenses defined under trademark law, too.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[gstoddart]

Jokes aside, it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.

And are policed by the FBI and ICE and Homeland Security ... pretty sweet deal, make the government responsible for policing your profits, and at their expense.

The police (and the government) now officially work for the corporations. It's amazing the laws you can buy.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Also corporations (which in US are persons? - I'm from Europe) can't be sent to prison.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Jokes aside, it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.

This is not an accurate statement. Selling counterfeit goods (ie Trademark Infringement) is criminal in most countries, including the US:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01715.htm

Patent infringement is not criminal in the US, but there's been discussion of making it criminal in the UK. It is currently criminal in China:
http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/direrdcusarticle/directions/criminal/rdclpfaq/200706/235031_1.html

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

See, there's the trick. In the US, a human has responsibilities, but very few actual rights remaining, and a corporation has rights, but no actual responsibilities except to make profit for their shareholders and file their tax dodges.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

ICE is a branch of homeland security.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[zill]

Thank you, I did not know that before.

There are actually quite a few exceptions to my claim. France and Austria have criminal penalties for wanton patent infringement for example.

But I think my point still stands: out of all the criminal prosecutions for intellectual property infringements, the vast majority of them are copyright infringements.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[geoffaus]

I can just imagine his first conversations with fellow prisoners - so what are you in here for? Convict 1) I killed 3 people. Convict 2) I raped some kids. Sanchez) I uploaded a movie to a filesharing site. He is definitely going to be someone's bitch!

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[zill]

Please see my response here

Even though lot of exceptions exist, I think my point is still valid. The number of copyright infringement cases in criminal courts dwarfs the number of all other intellectual property violation cases in criminal courts.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[jimmerz28]

Except that Gilberto Sanchez wasn't selling anything.

Not sure how anyone can claim the copy uploaded was "'identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from' the genuine trademark.' Even the braindead Wolverine could see that via his horrid car simile.

So the OP is still correct in pointing out the disconnect.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is really where it gets funny.

His source came from some korean guy selling DVDs. If he'd known the guy's name, or had an address to point the FBI to, they probably would have let him off the hook as an informant.

His first mistake (after, of course, uploading the movie) was in not demanding a lawyer present for all interrogations. His second was in not being able to identify by face/name one of the thousand or so Koreans/Chinese who are running around Manhattan selling bootleg crap every day.

And of course, the bigger problem for us is that copyright has ceased to be meaningful. This guy made no profit, but is going to jail for a year. The guy who leaked the source that the korean had? Never been found. The koreans/chinese themselves hawking knockoffs and bootleg DVDs? Fat chance the FBI ever goes after them - they make money, but chances are some precinct head or FBI local branch head is on the take from them.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[sconeu]

And they all moved away from him over on the Group W bench....

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[91degrees]

A corporation doesn't commit a crime. It has no guilty intent or intent at all. The one who commits a crime is the executive who makes the decision, and they certainly can be sent to prison.

And this is the way it should be. A company can easily behave if those without ethics are removed from the board.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't always. One of the things the patriot act did was absorb multiple existing agencies into 'homeland security', so that supposedly it would streamline things like information gathering/sharing.

Now, you may look at the ICE wiki page and say 'Bullshit, it was formed March 1st 2003, it was always part of homeland security.'

Look at the homeland security wiki page:

"On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the Immigration and Naturalization Service and assumed its duties. In doing so, it divided the enforcement and services functions into two separate and new agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services."

One of the convenient things about absorbing multiple agencies into one large conglomerate is that when someone inside gets caught doing something illegal (warrantless wiretapping, kidnapping and abducting people domestically and internationally, etc), it is easy to pass the buck around into a mire that no one single agency or person can be brought to justice.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[91degrees]

They don't throw all the federal prisoners in together. He's going to go to a minimum security prison, which looks more like a college campus. The other prisoners are going to have been convicted of fraud or money laundering.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[PortHaven]

Thank it's not a person, and shouldn't have the rights of one.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[tixxit]

I think the difference is that copyright infringement is mostly perpetrated by individuals, patent and trade mark is left to businesses. To intimidate a person, you threaten them with jail. To intimidate a business, you threaten them with a lawsuit.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[gorzek]

That would stand to reason since copyright infringement is the most common type of IP crime.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[dpilot]

>The one who commits a crime is the executive who makes the
> decision, and they certainly can be sent to prison.

I was under the impression that at least part of the basic reason for a corporation was to shield people from liability. To be reasonable, I'm guessing that it was meant as financial, not criminal liability.

But then we get to a thing I call, "blame diffusion," where you spread a bad, even criminal decision around many people. At this point while something truly bad may happen, something that would clearly be criminal had one individual done it, each person in the chain of command has done only something minor or "mildly negligent," and at no single point does it rise to the level of being criminal. IMHO corporate processes can be designed to make things happen this way, and very possibly are, for this exact reason.

> A company can easily behave if those without ethics are
> removed from the board.

That presumes you can find someone else "at that level" who does have some ethics. Given that executives seem to be a rather exclusive club these days, finding a member of that club with good ethics and ready to fill your position may be very difficult indeed.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

Exactly what 'rights' (that do not extend from the individual rights of the owners) do you think a corporation has?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably taxes are the payment for the continued protection of the state, however recent news has shown that not all corporations actually pay the taxes they should...

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[cayenne8]

And they all moved away from him over on the Group W bench....

You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant...(exceptin' Alice)...

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think my point still stands: out of all the criminal prosecutions for intellectual property infringements, the vast majority of them are copyright infringements.

Strike two!

This report:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2008/appd/p254-285.pdf
says otherwise.

In 2008 (for example) there were more counterfeiting (trademark) cases than copyright cases. That "vast majority" just turned into a minority.

People make mistakes, but seriously, after your first made-up claim made it to +5, couldn't you take your winnings and run?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[gorzek]

That is certainly the theory, but in practice a diffusion of responsibility results also in a diffusion (and eventually lack) of accountability. It becomes possible for a corporation to do illegal or unethical things without the actual decisionmakers in the corporation necessarily being aware that the company is doing anything illegal or unethical. A corporate culture of criminality or at least reckless disregard for the law can develop, and the government is not going to step in and jail hundreds of thousands of people when this happens. There might be one or two token trials, and maybe somebody will get a year or two in prison and a fine.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! Next...

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] make the government responsible for policing their profits, and at your expense.

there, fixed it for ya

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[essjaytee]

Equal Protection.
Speech.
Corporate spending on political campaigns.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Simon80]

See Citizens United v. FEC for the First Amendment right the Supreme court recently ruled that corporations have.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[zill]

Here's a link to the latest copy of that report.

I stand corrected. My apologies for making a gross overgeneralize without checking the facts first.

People make mistakes, but seriously, after your first made-up claim made it to +5, couldn't you take your winnings and run?

I care about knowing the facts and being right, not some integer counter on /.'s server. If I didn't reply then I wouldn't have been enlightened to the truth, now would I?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

Right from the article you linked:

Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Emphasis mine. 'Corporations' don't have a right of free speech, PEOPLE have a right of free speech, even when those people form an association known as a 'corporation'.

So again I ask, exactly what rights (that do not extend from the individual rights of the owners) do you think a corporation has?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

Each one of those supposed 'corporate rights' comes from the fact that a corporation is nothing more than an association of people, and people do not forfeit any of their rights just because they associate. Those same corporate rights apply to unions, the FSF, the EFF, the KKK, and any other group of people you come up with. So again, what special rights does a corporation have that do not extend from the individuals making up the corporation?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[CohibaVancouver]

His first mistake (after, of course, uploading the movie) was in not demanding a lawyer present for all interrogations

This is a common misunderstanding.

A lawyer is necessary when you've been charged with a crime and you're going in front of a judge.

You don't need one when you're being interrogated (i.e. before you've been charged). All you need to do is BE SILENT. Do not talk to anyone. Don't say anything.

"Did you upload this movie?" silence.
"Is this your computer?" silence
"If you cooperate we'll make it easier on you." silence

If you do have a lawyer during an interrogation, all he will do is tell you to keep silent.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

And they all moved away from him over on the Group W bench....

..and gave him the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till he
said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook his hand,
and had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing,
father raping, all kinds of groovy things that they was talking about on the
bench...

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

The reason for a corporation is to shield the shareholders from any more liability than their stake in the corporation. By law, individual shareholders do not have any say in the operation of the corporation (except for voting for the board), and they do not have any information about the operation of the corporation which is not available to the general public.

As for 'blame diffusion', I don't know what you are talking about. Either a crime has been committed or it hasn't. If it has been committed, someone did it. There is no such thing as a bunch of little non-criminal things adding up to a crime, unless there is a conspiracy involved. And if there is a conspiracy, then all parties share culpability.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[sexconker]

Each one of those supposed 'corporate rights' comes from the fact that a corporation is nothing more than an association of people, and people do not forfeit any of their rights just because they associate. Those same corporate rights apply to unions, the FSF, the EFF, the KKK, and any other group of people you come up with. So again, what special rights does a corporation have that do not extend from the individuals making up the corporation?

The right to kill people with no threat of imprisonment or death?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

Uh, yeah. You'll have to show me the law that allows that. In addition, I would like to hear of an actual case, or even a plausible scenario, where a corporation could kill a person in such a manner that the corporation escapes the punishment that would be meted out to an individual that has done the same thing.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Right from the article you linked:

Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Emphasis mine. 'Corporations' don't have a right of free speech, PEOPLE have a right of free speech, even when those people form an association known as a 'corporation'.

So again I ask, exactly what rights (that do not extend from the individual rights of the owners) do you think a corporation has?

The problem with that is that only a few people of the "association of citizens" is exercising their own personal speech using the money from all of the "association." I also find it difficult to call a corporation an "association of citizens," when clearly there is not a peer relationship between these citizens. In fact, many of the "owners" of a corporation hold just a few stocks in it and have little to no voting power what-so-ever. It seems disingenuous to conflate "association of citizens" with Corporation, but then I suppose that was the original point of why they made that conflagration in the first place.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

So if 'only a few' people have their rights violated that is OK?

If you don't like the way a corporation is representing you via it's political speech (or any other way), divest the shares.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Jonner]

Most copyright infringement is not criminal and I'm having a hard time imagining how this was since the "perpetrator" made no money from it.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

I care about knowing the facts and being right, not some integer counter on /.'s server. If I didn't reply then I wouldn't have been enlightened to the truth, now would I?

Perhaps if you spent more time seeking answers instead of just writing things you pull out of your ass, you'd be even more enlightened by now. That you feel no remorse about contributing to the misinformation and ignorance from which you, yourself suffer is appalling.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[sexconker]

Uh, yeah. You'll have to show me the law that allows that. In addition, I would like to hear of an actual case, or even a plausible scenario, where a corporation could kill a person in such a manner that the corporation escapes the punishment that would be meted out to an individual that has done the same thing.

You don't need a specific law to grant you rights. That's not how rights work.
Plenty of corporations have killed people through greed/negligence/malice - see automobiles, drugs, food, tobacco, etc.

Whereas an individual would be charged with murder/manslaughter, corporations are charged with... nothing. They issue a recall / pay some fines and keep doing it.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Artifakt]

Your basic premise is simply wrong. If corporations (C corps) were nothing more than associations of people, then they would not be subject to separate taxation. Since any corporation can do away with that taxation just by dissolving itself, and the people who formed it can them reconstitute as one or more sole proprietorships, "S-corps', partnerships, variant LLCs (as allowed by some states) and other such pass through entities, and still do business, we either have to believe that all those smart people pay extra taxes as part of their association for absolutely no advantages (maybe they just want to give the government an extra 36% and this is their way of being anonymous charitable donors, right?), or they get advantages for their association (such as higher overall profits than they themselves think they could make as Partnerships, S-Corps, or other pass-throughs). Every for profit C-corp has judged, and continues to judge every quarter, that they DO GET EXTRA RIGHTS from association. You're arguing for William Jefferson Gates, Warren Buffett, and a host of others going back beyond Howard Hughes, Edison, Westinghouse and Ford being the biggest idiots on the planet, constantly conned into giving the rest of us free money and too blind to ever figure it out. Guess what, they weren't and aren't, but I'm not so sure about you.
          As a hint of where you have gone off the beam, the standard C-Corp is also often called a limited liability corporation. Why is that do you suppose? It's not like there's anything special about limited liability, is there. Can't anyone, as an individual person, simply declare their liability in the event of an auto accident is limited to the value of their vehicle, and then drive a battered old beater and not have to insure it? No? They cannot? Then you might want to learn just what limited liability means, because you, as a living entity with rights, sure as hell don't enjoy that one.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

What complete bullshit. You're just making stuff up. You can't even come up with a single case where a corporation caused a death that would have resulted in an individual being charged with murder or manslaughter. In fact, you appear to not even know what 'murder' is.

There are thousands and thousands of deaths from auto accidents each year. Almost none of them result in criminal charges. The only way criminal charges are brought (and it is never a murder charge) is if a law has been broken (such as DWI). What laws are being broken by corporations that directly result in deaths?

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[bws111]

Holy crap. You suggest that I should learn what limited liability means? You apparently haven't got a clue.

Limited liability refers to the liability of the shareholders (individuals) not the corporation itself. Because, by law, shareholders are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the corporation, make no decisions about the corporation, and have no more information about the corporation, their liability is limited to only their financial stake in the company. It has nothing to do with what liability the company itself has. The company can lose all of it's assets and be forced to liquidate for it's actions, just like an individual.

Or perhaps you think that if you happen to own stock in XYZ corp (say in your 401K), and XYZ gets sued for some reason, it is entirely reasonable for you to lose not only that part of your 401K, but also your house, the rest of your 401K, etc.

The rest of your argument makes no sense either? "If companies were nothing more than people they would not be subject to separate taxation"? Says who.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Bhopal disaster in which Union Carbide was responsible for resulted in a fine, and the CEO evading any justice due to the US not extraditing him to India.

Yet the US will get their panties in a bunch to extradite someone for far lesser crimes. Hypocrites. Anyone who has any respect for US law after seeing shit like this needs to give their head a shake.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a lawyer, the authorities could hold you for up to 48 hours for questioning. But a lawyer will generally force them to release you sooner than that.

Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

[CohibaVancouver]

Are you a lawyer? Because that's generally an urban legend. As long as the police are acting lawfully (e.g. no torture), a lawyer can't 'force' the police to do anything. Where it sometimes works is if the lawyer tells you to be silent and you are - The police may eventually release you once they realize they're not getting anything out of you.

lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[alen]

not like he was ripping DVD's to play on his ipod or iphone because the digital copy thing for blu ray is a scam. not like he only watched the stolen copy in his home. he uploaded it so it could be downloaded by others

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think the punishment here is perhaps disproportionate, but I agree with the sentiment. It's far better to go after the people who knowingly share things with widespread audiences than anyone else in the infringement set-up.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is the law. It doesn't matter if he watched it at home or uploaded. If he broke the law, it's only logical that some form of repercussion be administered. Not saying I agree with it necessarily, but in any event, he broke the law. Almost all of us have. Period.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[SJHillman]

So the question becomes... why does a guy that intentionally uploaded this for others, a month before the movie comes out (where I would expect the studio to make a huge chunk of its profit on the movie) only get a year in prison when someone who accidentally shares a few crappy songs gets a financial punishment that makes a year in prison look quite tame?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[DaveV1.0]

You do know that he can still be sued by the studios for copyright infringement, right? This was a criminal action. The studio can still take civil action against him if it so desires.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[girlintraining]

So the question becomes... why does a guy that intentionally uploaded this for others, a month before the movie comes out (where I would expect the studio to make a huge chunk of its profit on the movie) only get a year in prison when someone who accidentally shares a few crappy songs gets a financial punishment that makes a year in prison look quite tame?

Judges often don't have leeway in sentencing; Whether it's a "crappy" song or a pre-release of a highly-anticipated motion picture, the law says the punishment is the same. Don't blame the judges for the seemingly random or harsh sentencing... blame the politicians. I mean, I can come over to your house and beat the snot out of you on the way in to work with my bare hands and get less time than this guy did for posting some crappy "work print" movie. Which crime do you think is worse? Worse, downloading that same crappy movie can cause civil penalties far in excess of what I would get if I broke into your house and did something horrible to you (use your imagination)...

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

But is this the right place to draw the line? Assuming the uploader was telling the truth and he got the copy from a street vendor, you're basically excusing poor internal controls and substituting it with the legal system. I'm not saying they should go after the Korean DVD vendor either, but this is like plugging a hole in a dam with your finger and wondering why the leaks aren't stopping.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[trdrstv]

I think the punishment here is perhaps disproportionate, but I agree with the sentiment.

It could of been worse. He could of been forced to watch the movie repeatedly through his 1 year sentence; thankfully the 8th amendment prevents that.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jimbolauski]

But is this the right place to draw the line? Assuming the uploader was telling the truth and he got the copy from a street vendor, you're basically excusing poor internal controls and substituting it with the legal system. I'm not saying they should go after the Korean DVD vendor either, but this is like plugging a hole in a dam with your finger and wondering why the leaks aren't stopping.

By the same logic it's my fault if someone breaks into my house and steals my belongings because all I had was a lock and not a security system. Continuing this logic the burglar shouldn't be prosecuted for the crime because burglaries are so prevalent that going after one is just putting your finger in the dam.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jedidiah]

> Whether it's a "crappy" song or a pre-release of a highly-anticipated motion picture, the law says the punishment is the same.

No. Usually not. The law and judges actually have a wide degree of leeway. They have it because typically no two sets of facts are quite alike and they can be often quite different.

The judge could have suspended the sentence entirely.

The judge isn't just an automaton despite the fact that some people like to pretend that they are or should be.

The ability to adapt to different circumstances is actually a good thing.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Ravon Rodriguez]

There's a precedent for this in the computer security world, as well; it's not an uncommon practice for software vendors to prosecute or threaten to prosecute people who discover security holes in their products, instead of simply fixing said security hole. The problem is that in a lot of cases the flaws don't get fixed until they're out in the open; the thinking of the big software firms is that if nobody knows about it, then it's not worth the cost to fix it. This may seem like a legitimate action on the surface, but eventually somebody of a less savory character will rediscover the security flaw (especially if it's made known that a particular type of flaw is out there), and that's when legitimate users get burned.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[chronoglass]

i think the logic would be more akin to the guy who bought your stereo from the guy who bought your stereo, from the guy who bought your stolen stereo from the guy who broke into your house and took your stereo, shouldn't be held responsible for breaking into your house.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Mitreya]

lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies ... he uploaded it so it could be downloaded by others

There is one more lesson we have learned. The world is full of assholes who seem to agree with this punishment!
So you do think that 1 year in federal prison after being hunted by FBI is an appropriate punishment for buying a bootleg movie and uploading it? Really? If he at least stole the copy during his employment - there would be a breach of trust/contract violation (why, yes, I read TFA). But he bought and uploaded a bootleg movie.
Only in a cruel asshole world is 1 year in prison plus another year of limited computer access an appropriate punishment for uploading/sharing a movie he didn't even steal. We can argue about some fines (he's not right or anything), but the punishment is very clearly out of proportion. And those cheering it on are part of the problem!

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Ravon Rodriguez]

If that's true, then it's one of the biggest perversions of justice I've seen in a long time; I'm not a lawyer, and I realize double jeopardy laws may not cross over from civil to criminal cases, but it's ridiculous to be able to send somebody to jail for stealing your imaginary property, and then be able to sue in another court for the same reason.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is the law. It doesn't matter if he watched it at home or uploaded. If he broke the law, it's only logical that some form of repercussion be administered. Not saying I agree with it necessarily, but in any event, he broke the law. Almost all of us have. Period.

If you don't agree with this law, why don't discuss what you don't like about it? "The law is the law", that's freaking bullshit if you don't agree with it and still say that. Were you brainwashed when you were young? Darnit, we're here on /. to discuss and all you have to say is "The law is the law, nothing to see here move along" ?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[YrWrstNtmr]

It could of been worse. He could of been forced to watch the movie repeatedly through his 1 year sentence; thankfully the 8th amendment prevents that.

Similarly, he could have been forced to read your tortured sentence structure repeatedly.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tnk1]

In this case, the movie was not completed, so no one could even buy it. I don't even know why someone would think it wasn't stolen property. It's not like it was a copy that was made after someone paid for it fair and square, or who received it without some sort of NDA and who decided sharing it because they felt they "owned" the DVD or whatever.

Sharing movies can have all sorts of shades of grey in terms of ownership rights, but I'd say that obtaining an unfinished work print is probably going to qualify as passing stolen property and the initial sharing is evidence of knowingly being in possession of said stolen property. There's really no defense for that sort of thing.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[popeye44]

Thanks for making me read it twice. yeesh.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[gstoddart]

i think the logic would be more akin to the guy who bought your stereo from the guy who bought your stereo, from the guy who bought your stolen stereo from the guy who broke into your house and took your stereo, shouldn't be held responsible for breaking into your house.

Except in this case, he still received stolen goods, which is illegal. He's not responsible for the break-in, but it doesn't make it legal for him to have your stereo.

Not sure that helps your analogy or not. :-P

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jd2112]

Just one year? The studios lost TRILLIONS of dollars due this guy. If he hadn't released the unfinished film they would have been able to finish the film properly and would have been the greatest and most successful film of ALL TIME! Instead they had to cut their losses and release a half-assed attempt of a movie. It's all HIS fault!!!

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

They can get his 1990 Honda Civic for $500,000 in lawyer fees.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Hadlock]

In most cases I would agree that a DVD of a movie that already came out is imaginary property, but here, you were actively paying various studios and partners to develop CGI effects and finish editing a product you'd just paid megabucks for actors to star in, a film crew to build sets, a film crew to place cameras, set off explosive charges, pay insurance premiums, pay the caterers and a thousand other line items.
 
They weren't stealing a finished product that had done it's rounds in the theaters and was revving up for round two as a director's cut DVD release. This was an active production, he had fueled up an unpainted 747 at the factory in the dead of night, taxied to the runway and taken off, got halfway over the pacific and then parachuted out in mid-flight, watching the plane slowly arc in to the ocean.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright isn't any more imaginary than the value of currency is... it is a legally recognized property deemed to have worth in the eyes of the law that does not necessarily reflect its physical value (it costs approximately 15 cents to print a dollar bill, for instance). The only significant difference between copyright and currency in terms of value is that the precise value is much more subjective in matters of copyright.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Hatta]

Lesson learned, upload movies from behind 7 proxies.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Moryath]

Actually, going after the Korean DVD vendor would be a better place to start. He's actually making a profit from criminal activity.

Going after the warehouse that's making the DVDs the Korean is selling is an even BETTER proposal. Hell, we have DVD Sniffing Dogs to check cargo containers for undeclared shipments of bootleg DVDs that come from overseas (china, mostly).

Meanwhile, go to Hong Kong or most places in South America (Brazil's particularly bad for it) and you won't find a single legitimate console or game in stores. What you will find is a shop where they sell you a modchipped console, then you bring a box to the guy at the counter who nods, goes into the back, and comes back 5 minutes later with a burned copy of whatever disc you indicated; if it's a PC disc, there'll probably be a no-cd crack included on the disc. When the local government shuts these guys down, you can be sure that it's not because they broke the law, but because they didn't make their bribery payments to the right guy on time.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

There were also laws in the books prohibiting alcohol, interracial marriages, and homosexuality. Not every illegal action is unethical, and not every unethical act is illegal.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Except purchasing said stolen goods would result in the confiscation of said stolen goods, NOT imprisonment and NOT the police ignoring the vender who sold it to you and NOT the police ignoring the burglar who stole it in the first place and NOT excusing the original owner of said stolen goods who left his front door wide open because he was too cheap to replace a long rusted away lock.

I don't know where the line should be drawn, but this is pathetic. By your logic, we should be able to throw children in jail because a drug dealer gave them some "candy" to share with their friends.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[PortHaven]

The law was that people could own people. The law is soon on it's way that people can own people's minds.

Laws are meaningless. Morals are all that matter. A law does not make wrong or right. It makes legal or illegal.

All immoral laws should be broken. And questionably laws should be stood against. And seeing as how mega-corporations are paying to have the laws made for them, even ones that violate the Constitution. One must be left to ask one's self, does society have any reason to recognize those laws?

I say no...

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[cpt kangarooski]

It is true. The two OJ trials are a well known example. It makes sense because punishing criminals is about some combination of protecting society, rehabilitation, and retribution. It isn't about trying to cure harm caused to the actual victim; whether the victim wants to try that, and whether he'll succeed is up to him, and occurs in a civil trial, and those are all about curing harms (usually via money, for lack of better alternatives).

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a -1 Pedantic Twit option. Sure, Off-topic covers it, but it's not sufficiently derisive.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Say I had a Ferrari, with or without a paint job, and this guy stole it and destroyed it. He would be on the hook for the criminal charge of car theft, but I, or most likely my insurance, could sue him to recoup the loss of the Ferrari. Is that really a perversion of justice?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[mooingyak]

The question wasn't where to start, but where to end. This guy isn't the big fish in the chain, but he's not innocent. The bigger problem IMHO is that what he did doesn't deserve a year in jail.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly like Hostel Part 3 that don't release until December 27th is already here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=L7QM6ED3 you'd think people would learn from their mistakes.. oh well

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno why you makin such a big deal outta his grammer. Dis da internets ok?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[gstoddart]

By your logic, we should be able to throw children in jail because a drug dealer gave them some "candy" to share with their friends.

No, I merely pointed out that the analogy for the stolen radio didn't work in such a way as to absolve the recipient of any wrong-doing, which may or may not have been the point of the poster I replied to.

I didn't specifically advocate anything, but as an AC, I don't expect your reading comprehension to be complete. Certainly the logical fallacy you attribute to me isn't based on anything I said.

But, hey, don't let any of that get in the way of the random assertions you felt like making.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[ArsonSmith]

It could of been worse. He could of been forced you to read it three times.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Schmorgluck]

Oh, it's not often that I read something sensible on the role of criminal justice on the Internet. Granted, I see by your sig that you're a lawyer. Myself, I'm just a layman interested in the matter. Who keeps telling himself he should finally get around to read Beccaria.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[chronoglass]

once you get into the realm of confiscation the whole things falls apart.. maybe a "you aren't allowed on the intarwebs" type ruling.. though today that would be pretty much un-enforcable.

Of course in this case.. it's also not like the guy didn't KNOW it was stolen goods. He freely admitted it. Down side there is you either have copyright laws.. or corporate espionage to deal with. he didn't steal it, but he received with the intent to distribute. But you have to look at the culture you're fighting with these laws. Sadly, the internet culture doesn't seem to care about people "being made example of" which is why we have escalated to crap like SOAP and the ip act.

if it's between those, and some uploader getting a year in jail.. for the love of the spaghetti monster give the guy a year!

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Darktan]

I must have missed the part of the story where the whole movie was ruined and they had to throw out the footage and start again from scratch. Or are you claiming that the unauthorized upload ruined the movie, causing it to be really bad? That actually makes more sense. X-Men: Origins was terrible.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[bluefoxlucid]

Purchasing stolen goods would result in confiscation. Knowing the goods were stolen when you bought them would result in jail time.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Nikker]

Personally I believe the whole thing should be handled in civil court. The guy did something wrong but no one was hurt, nothing physically stolen and he didn't profit off of anything. If the FBI were really on top of their game they would have tried to procecute the handful of people working in production who actually stole the material in the first place not the guy who found the spoils on the street. It like someone stole trade secrets and started sending copies out to random people just to charge one of the recipients with the actual crime. Maybe this will set presidence and come back to bite them but from either pirate/anti-piracy viewpoint the wrong person went to jail.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Nikker]

But where is the guy who stole it from his employer and started to give it out to random people to begin with?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with his sentence structure - but his grammar could use some work. And your sentence would be better constructed if it looked like this: "Similarly, he could have been forced to repeatedly read your tortured sentence."

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's an appreciate punishment. I'm sorry but I can't defend someone for doing this. Uploading an unfinished movie is a dick movie. He knew the risks, he got busted and now, he's going to jail.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unfortunate that sentence structures don't receive 8th amendment protections.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Score Whore]

I'm curious as to when the scenario you've described has ever happened. So far, if wikipedia is to be believed, there have been a whole two people who went to court. Neither of them were accidental.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[drb226]

However, every illegal action is punishable by law. Whether or not it's ethical, it's generally wise to avoid illegal actions if you don't want to be punished by the law.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, he could have been forced to read your tortured sentence structure repeatedly.

They might give him internet access in prison, which amounts to the same thing these days.

Some people are even ridiculously belligerent about maintaining their poor literacy (see a number comments above).

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

he had fueled up an unpainted 747 at the factory in the dead of night, taxied to the runway and taken off, got halfway over the pacific and then parachuted out in mid-flight, watching the plane slowly arc in to the ocean.

... while an identical copy of the plane stayed in the factory for finishing. Hyperbole much?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Ameryll]

He did *know* it was stolen.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tnk1]

I mean, I hear you and all, but this guy doesn't even qualify as an example of corporate overlordship or whatever. He received what was obviously stolen property and then decided to increase the potential damage a few times over AND implicate himself by spreading it. I mean, I don't know if what he did deserves a year in jail, but I'll chalk that up to the judge throwing him in jail to punish him for being a moron.

Using these type of people as a platform for moral law enforcement is just not going to fly with anyone who has even the slightest doubt about the principle in question. This guy IS a criminal, albeit of a lesser sort.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tnk1]

I think the point is that there needs to be some line where a studio can expect to make money fair and square through distribution. Since they hadn't even sold a copy to anyone yet, obtaining the movie is both theft and it also decreases the potential value of the movie before they even have a chance to collect on it.

Let's face it. If I download the movie after it is out, at least the studio had a chance to get me to see it in a theatre. They also had a chance to finish it so that the reviews it gets are based on the finished product and not a work print. I know at least one reviewer actually wrote a review of the workprint (and was fired, but still).

More to the point, the morality or ethics of sharing this stuff is generally based on the fact that someone owned the DVD and has a right to copy their own property. That seems defensible, even if it makes life harder for media companies. In this case, it was never the property of anyone but the studio, because no one ever paid anyone for it, so there is no real ethical argument for this.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Hadlock]

A blockbuster film and a 747 cost about the same in dollar amounts to make; mass piracy of a film before it's released has a huge impact (in this case, 10% or more) on sales.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tnk1]

There do exist Federal Sentencing Guidelines and they are generally followed. Judges can be constrained in sentencing guidelines and by precedent as well as law. No judge is going to want to be overturned on appeal, even just for the sentencing phase. Judges are powerful, but not all-powerful. Unless you're on the Supreme Court. Then you don't even have to follow your own precedents.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tnk1]

You know, someone could well get a year in jail for receiving and distributing any stolen good. You probably wouldn't think much of his sentence if he was selling someone's stolen engagement ring. Consider, however, that even though buying this work print and distributing it did not keep the studio from showing the movie, it *did* deprive them of the right to dispose of their own property as they wished. And a movie costs a whole lot more to make than even a very nice engagement ring, so you should at least give them that much of a right to their own work. Whether or not they have a right to DRM the hell out of the DVD you paid for, they certainly have the right to keep the stuff they never sold to you or anyone else and not have it distributed.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tnk1]

Sounds like they are working backwards to find the original person. That person will probably get a lot more than a year in the pen. Assuming they find him, of course. The original thief might well be a lot smarter than this guy.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[betterunixthanunix]

What is with these car and plane references? This guy did not "fuel up" anything -- he made a copy of a pre-release movie, and uploaded it to a filesharing server. Is that such a big deal? Really?

"Oh no, he caused us to lose some money on our already risky investment! Imprison him, and then let us sue him after he gets out!!"

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country (.ec) , the local IRS shuts down any store which refuses to charge and transfer VAT in pirated games and movies... go figure!

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[betterunixthanunix]

I think the point is that there needs to be some line where a studio can expect to make money fair and square through distribution.

1. Big budget movies are risky investments.
2. The movie studios did make money from the movie despite the fact that this pre-release copy was downloaded by some people.
3. Am I really supposed to feel sympathy for the movie industry? They pull all sorts of underhanded tactics to cheat people out of their wages (see: Hollywood Accounting).

Since they hadn't even sold a copy to anyone yet, obtaining the movie is both theft and it also decreases the potential value of the movie before they even have a chance to collect on it.

No, it was not theft, it was copyright infringement and perhaps breach of contract. Uploading a copy of a movie to megaupload is not theft before, during, or after the theatrical run of a movie.

In this case, it was never the property of anyone but the studio, because no one ever paid anyone for it, so there is no real ethical argument for this.

The argument is not about whether or not it is ethical -- the man presumably agreed not to do what he did as a condition of his job -- but rather whether or not a yearlong prison sentence is justified. I would say that it falls squarely in the "not justifiable" category, since our prisons exist to protect us from dangerous people and copying movies is in no way dangerous.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[betterunixthanunix]

Correction: this guy did not even leak it from the studios, he just uploaded a copy he bought on the streets. Yeah, that really justifies imprisonment.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[DaveV1.0]

Oh, so what you are saying is that if someone steals your car, wrecks it, is arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail, you and/or your insurance company should not be able to file suit against the thief to recoup the losses.

Or, even better, someone without insurance speeds, drives recklessly, hits you and puts you in the hospital for a couple of weeks, is arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail, you should not be able to sue him for medical costs, lost wages, etc.

Right? That is what you are saying isn't it?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate me, but,
Bootlegs have been a part of new york city street culture for over 3 decades now, it probably never occurred to this guy that he was doing anything wrong at all.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jamstar7]

It's more like, doing a sweep in a crack zone for all the 2 and 3 block dope dealers after spending 2 years building a case against their distributor. It makes for flashy headlines to say '77 Drug Dealers Arrested in Sweep' than 'Cocaine Distributor Arrested', no matter how much product he was moving.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he could HAVE been forced to write "could have, not could of" thousands of times a day for the next year.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Nikker]

You have to be kidding me. How would you find out who was taking supplies from an office? Maybe we could start with the people with access to the supplies?? How many people in a production have complete access to edited footage? Nah let's just blame the guy who found a stolen post-pad on the street and make an example of him.

Lets be serious for a second. If you were a part of the FBI and a business reports missing valuables do you start scouring chat rooms or start questioning people that were in charge that stole it in the first place. You guys make it sound like this guy has some contacts within the industry and is likely to do it again when he doesn't have access to anything to begin with. This was just a witch hunt and no one in the production wanted to get fried for it so they throw a grandpa behind bars instead. Stay classy guys.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[LWATCDR]

He didn't sell it.
It is more like someone getting a year for "buying" an engagement ring for $5 and then leaving it on a counter for any one else to take.

Really? Do you honestly think anyone didn't got to the Movie because they downloaded a work copy of it without special effects?
So now we have to PAY for this guy to go to prison for a while. He will probably not be their for a year but lets say he is. So we have to feed, cloth, provide medical care, and security for this guy for a year to protect us from people uploading bad copies of bad movies?
Really is this even a good use of resources?
Sorry folks but this is a stupid waste. Fine him $5000 and be done with it.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Jonner]

Yep, the lesson is: "If you are a good neighbor and share with others, you might go to jail." How much more evidence do you need that the system is broken than that the message the government sends is in direct opposition to what children are taught from early childhood?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Em Adespoton]

In which case, they should sue him over this in civil court, just like everyone else does.

To validate the prison sentence, you have to explain how this was detrimental to society such that he needed to be locked up to protect everyone.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[cheekyjohnson]

(in this case, 10% or more) on sales.

How can they possibly know that?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[shermo]

Sounds sensible to me. My 3rd party car insurance was $125 this year.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that when someone points out a major issue with someone else's grammar, another person always has to follow it up with some minor nitpicking about the complaint itself, as if it was supposed to be perfect in every way? I guess grammar nazis get really annoyed when someone else beats them to the punch.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Dhalka226]

Then you don't even have to follow your own precedents.

Why should the Supreme Court have to follow precedent? Do you really want to create an institution that can never revisit the decisions made by people who lived hundreds of years ago? There has to be somebody in the chain who can go "yeah, that last decision was bullshit." We've chosen to make that the Supreme Court and not any lower court. Seems reasonable.

If it seems they do it disproportionately more than they uphold their previous decisions, it's because the Supreme Court only takes cases with a constitutional question to answer -- and "we got it wrong" is infinitely more valuable than "the decision is the same as last time." There is little point taking a case if a significant number of justices don't believe there is a distinct possibility of a different outcome. In short, "no, we won't hear your case" is also equivalent to "the decision stands."

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jamstar7]

Silly wabbit, EVERYBODY knows the Constitution has zero bearing on any copyright or trademark infringement cases.

START THE MOVIE!!!!

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

It could have been worse, he could have been forced to read your tortured misuse of the English language

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jd2112]

In which case, they should sue him over this in civil court, just like everyone else does.

To validate the prison sentence, you have to explain how this was detrimental to society such that he needed to be locked up to protect everyone.

You don't understand. If he hadn't uploaded the movie the tax revenue would have paid off the national dbet and bought everyone a pony!

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Hadlock]

94% of all internet statistics are made up on the spot. The important thing is that I got moderation karma for it.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Artifakt]

Try this. If someone breaks into your house and all you had was a basic combination lock, they would still be the criminal. If, over a few years, the "somebodys" doing the breaking in evolve into Depleted Uranium Armored Fiendish Hybred Godzilla Clones with Field Mobile Howitzer Penises, and you are getting 'broken into" three times a day, and you still are using just that combination lock, they are still the criminals. So frelling what - you're innocent, but you don't sound too bright. Why should I brave city streets full of a hundred thousand DUAFHGCwFMHP's, just to sit on a jury and help get a conviction on one of the many who ripped you off? Yeah, if I'm incredibly noble, couragious and dedicated to justice, I'll pay the price to keep the social mechanisms of justice going, so you can be a fool but an honest fool.

See, there's your problem. You're demanding that 300 million Americans pay any price, bear any burden, and show a level of moral virtue that would make Sir Lancelot feel inadequate, so as to provide a level of protection from all the torrenters and file sprinters that is sufficient with all the extra power the bad guys have gained. Those people all owe it to big content to do that without even hinting that big content should get better security, so that big content doesn't feel like they are being labeled as criminals instead of victims. That's because people such as you keep turning every accusation of stupidity into an accusation of moral failing.

It's an interesting proposal. We'll get to it right after the Lion and lamb lie down together in peace and everyone gets their pony.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Em Adespoton]

No, that's if he bought the movie... which he couldn't do, as it hadn't been released yet.

This should all have been fixable by donating a decent sum to his congressman's election campaign, or direct to IRS, or both.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Artifakt]

I'm starting to favor a +1 Pedantic twit option, myself. Everyone has their pet peeves about grammar or spelling. A given example is usually trivial - for example I still read the post with "could of" to see what the poster had to say, and didn't bother to criticize the misuse or even give it any attention. But, where does that stop? When someone makes enough of those mistakes, an increasing number of people start skipping the posts. At some level, we all read a little way into the missive and simply give up, and if it looks bad enough, we find ourselves giving the time to do even that much only grudgingly. Every well written thought says you cared enough about a reader that you at least tried to avoid turning him away before he got to your points. Every poorly written thought says you didn't care that you would lose some potential readers. So, just how many readers do you have to not bother with before you are moving into the arrogant jerk category? If I decide not to bother correcting the mistakes that turn away 60%, 80% or 95% of the people who might potentially listen to what I have to say, at some point, I've been abusive of both a lot of people, and of the very idea I'm supposedly supporting. Can you, as a person who correctly used such words as pedantic and derisive, honestly say there are no levels of mistakes in spelling or grammar large enough to make you disregard the very possibility that there was any value in what that person had to say worth the time it would take you to read further?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I read your post twice, trying to figure out what you meant when you wrote about curing ham. Thought it was some sort of colloquial metaphor. I guess I'm so hungry I can't see straight.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[countertrolling]

What does that have to do with the price of rice? You should be modded off topic... and trolling

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, well, I should point out that I don't think that copyright infringement should be criminalized. I was just saying that where there is a criminal prosecution, there is usually a good reason to have a parallel civil suit.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jd2112]

No, that's if he bought the movie... which he couldn't do, as it hadn't been released yet.

No, he uploaded the move to the internet so billions of people who would have otherwise watched the movie in theaters multiple times and then bought multiple DVDs and Blu Ray disks instead downloaded it off the Internet. Don't you remember the internet crashing because everybody was downloading X-Men:Wolverine? (I don't either but the MPAA never let facts get in the way of arguments for buying legislation so I'm not going to let facts get in the way of my making a mockery of them.)

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[jd2112]

And I forgot. Somehow Google is to blame. They drove the getaway car or something.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, this poor bastard should have been a mere link in the chain of a greater investigation that ended in the downfall of an international criminal network that accumulates untold profits from the piracy and sale of Hollywood intellectual property...or perhaps I've been watching too many Hollywood movies. The work-print "Robin Hood" gets a year in prison, while the vendors profiting from the sale of illicit goods go free?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Do you honestly think anyone didn't got to the Movie because they downloaded a work copy of it without special effects?

Yes -- because some people realized it sucked (or realized it was not to their taste, if you like) and didn't see it.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[mjwx]

A blockbuster film and a 747 cost about the same in dollar amounts to make; mass piracy of a shit film before it's released has a huge impact (in this case, 10% or more) on sales.

On the conrtary for good films, pre-release piracy drums up advertisement, people will go see it, especially with friends or family. People see that Shit film is Shit and stay away from it. The only reasons crap films make money is that they are out for a weekend before everyone realises that its shit.

BTW, a B747 costs US$250 million, X-Men Origins wolverine cost US$150 million and that would be high for a movie as it involved far too much CGI. Glad I never paid to see that stinker, Saw it on TV in a Thai hotel lounge (either that or Fox News, I picked the thing that insulted my intelligence the least), I'd be pissed for wasting my bandwidth on that spectacular turd.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

So we are playing a game of recursion

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

We need a -1 Pedantic Twit option. Sure, Off-topic covers it, but it's not sufficiently derisive.

I, for one, welcome our new idiocratic overlords.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

There were also laws in the books prohibiting alcohol, interracial marriages, and homosexuality. Not every illegal action is unethical, and not every unethical act is illegal.

Yes, and the correct response was to not get caught breaking those laws, while working to get them changed.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

Laws are meaningless. Morals are all that matter. A law does not make wrong or right. It makes legal or illegal.

All immoral laws should be broken.

But the only morality that counts is the consensus of the majority, as expressed in the laws of a country. A fanatical anti-abortionist may consider it morally justified or even necessary to shoot an doctor, but that is not something most sane people would agree with.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

Think of OJ Simpson. You can be found criminally not guilty but still liable in a civil court. The burden of proof is lower in a civil case.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

Am I really supposed to feel sympathy for the movie industry? They pull all sorts of underhanded tactics to cheat people out of their wages (see: Hollywood Accounting).

The movie industry has to make money like any other business. If you disapprove of their accounting practices so much, why don't you just boycott their products?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a mod stalker who is modding down my past comments and is too much of a cowardly pussy to admit it or face me.

OFFTOPIC: This is the first time I ever noticed you, but from looking at your signature I would actually mod you down(no mod point atm). You are basically asking for it with that attitude in your signature.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Now compare the relative earnings of music to movies. Generally movies despite their higher production costs make more money. So as SJHillman below mentions why are those who are in possession of a 'stolen' Walkman (music) getting stiffer sentences than someone who is in possession of a 'stolen' stereo (movies).

Keeping in mind that even this analogy is a bit off because implying physical theft to physical property implies that the original was in fact stolen and thus the owner is now without. In these digital theft cases the original owner still has their original copy and what is in fact being argued over largely is mere speculation of lost revenue.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

The only reasons crap films make money is that they are out for a weekend before everyone realises that its shit.

Please explain again the law that forces you to go to see a film as soon as it opens without reading any reviews.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[betterunixthanunix]

Clearly you did not bother to look up what the term means. "Hollywood Accounting" refers to the practice of setting up dummy corporations that are paid large amounts of money during the production of a movie, so that a movie studio can claim to have turned no profit. This allows the studio to not pay people whose contracts stipulate that they receive some percentage of the profit turned by a movie -- for example, the author of Forrest Gump, which was enormously successful financially but which the studio claimed turned a loss.

This is not a question of "making money like any other business." There are businesses that are run honestly and that do not actively try to cheat people out of their money. If you want to make a comparison with another business, ask yourself this: what other business can turn a loss on almost everything it produces without going bankrupt?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[tehcyder]

Lesson learned, upload movies from behind 7 proxies.

I suppose "don't upload movies you have no right to" is out of the question?

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Hatta]

I have a disc, I have a computer. I have the right to use them as I see fit.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[Em Adespoton]

(I don't either but the MPAA never let facts get in the way of arguments for buying legislation so I'm not going to let facts get in the way of my making a mockery of them.)

I think it's impossible to make a mockery of them at this point... that's like making water wet.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[oreiasecaman]

Meanwhile, go to Hong Kong or most places in South America (Brazil's particularly bad for it) and you won't find a single legitimate console or game in stores.

Ain't true, here in Brazil at least. Stores do sell legitimate console & games, but those (mostly) don't get bought because of their outrageous price... as in, an PS3 price is between 2x to 3x the minimum wage around here. Then of course there's a black market, where modded consoles are easy to buy, and they command about half the price of the original stuff.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[dpilot]

I just hope that nobody looses their way on this discussion. Amazing how nobody ever gets called a looser, isn't it?

I have a pet theory about language and Hamming distance... Sometimes it's fun to deliberately interpret such mistakes exactly as written, and then try to twist things around to make it make sense. Along that line, sometimes it's fun to deliberately introduce errors into a sentence and do this. Scary thing is, sometimes the result actually can make sense. (Sometimes it can make sense by adding another error, etc.)

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[mjwx]

The only reasons crap films make money is that they are out for a weekend before everyone realises that its shit.

Please explain again the law that forces you to go to see a film as soon as it opens without reading any reviews.

Please explain where you pulled that out of.

I think you could do with 10 minutes looking at how normal people go and see movies. Those who read proper reviews are considered pretentious snobs. Decisions are entirely on hearsay.

In reality, people tend to ask their friends about new release movies. Friends, in case you don't have any will generally answer with three responses.
1. The preview looks good.
2. I've heard that is good.
3. I've heard that is shit.

Responses two and three will only be cultivated amongst a large mass of people some time after the film has been available to the general public. So for shit movies, the studio's rely on the general apathy of people not to find out a film is shit before seeing it. If a bad film is leaked before release, it gives plenty of time for the word to get around that a film is horrible.

Please explain the law that forces people to read reviews before going to the cinema (lets ignore the fact that reviews are also less then honest).

All you've managed to demonstrate is that you've never done anything like going to the cinema with a group of friends, probably because they don't like as you chide them for not reading reviews.

Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies

[rusl]

So his crime was giving instead of taking. The MPAA hates Christmas. They want to change it to "It is better to receive than to give."

how much will this cost US

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo, instead of imposing a fine, we'll let the taxpayer foot the bill for a year's incarceration. Brilliant.

Re:how much will this cost US

[varmittang]

Yeah, because we are sure he will be able to get a job that pays enough to pay the couple of million it cost to prosecute him and repay the plaintiff for the damages. This is better for him to serve some time than being in monstrous debt for the rest of his life. He will probably be out in a couple of months anyways.

Re:how much will this cost US

[cduffy]

"Out in a couple of months"? Maybe not.

For Texas, at least, it would have to be a year and a day to be eligible for parole; a year bare is actually the harsher sentence.

Re:how much will this cost US

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes let's just impose fines on criminal mischief. That'll teach 'em.

Re:how much will this cost US

[Anonymous Coward]

What is brilliant is that you are focusing on monetary costs and forgetting what really matters.

You see, this person did nothing other than uploading a movie, which he acquired without physically harming anyone. He also did not invade private property in order to steal it. The thing was already on the streets.

So, now he gets to be imprisoned for a whole year. Prisons are supposed to keep harmful elements out of the streets, while at the same time punishing them for their transgression. This person, being free, does not appear to be harmful to the general public. So why imprison him?

Not only he will cease being a productive member of the society for the full year, but he also be in contact with undesirable people, either violent or convicted of more serious offenses. Not to mention the emotional scarring and the damage to his personal life.

So, instead of rehabilitating the guy, he's probably going to get more screwed up.

If only the punishment is desired, hell, use him as free labor for one year. Keep him on his job but have him show up somewhere to do community work. That would be more useful and depending on the type of work could even be a net positive for the treasury.

Re:how much will this cost US

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the way it's always worked with robberies. Never heard of a bank robber having to pay a fine, only about said robber going to jail.

Re:how much will this cost US

[dpilot]

If you're going to start that kind of thinking, we're all screwed.

I'll only mention one class of people - drug users. We don't want people to use drugs, because they mess up your life, right? Well if the drugs don't mess up your life on their own, the legal system will finish the job. Once you've got a criminal record, you can usually pretty much forget it. (Unless you've already made it, of course.)

When Nixon ran for his first term, one of the planks on his platform was "crime". Once elected, he felt he had to deliver, and had people begin analyzing the problem to come up with a plan. They felt that a significant amount of crime was drug-related. Though their first impulse was the usual combination of punishment and supply interdiction, they did enough analysis to know that it wasn't going to work. They went after drug treatment, instead. It doesn't work all of the time, but it works enough of the time to make a real difference.

Crime wasn't the same issue for Nixon's second term. After the election he disassembled the distasteful first-term solution - the one that worked. We moved to punishment and supply interdiction - the War on Drugs, and with varying levels of escalation, we've been there ever since.

Anyone ever consider the link between the War on Drugs and the illegal immigration problems? Our War on Drugs has funded the drug cartels south of the US (Mexico for sure, Central and South America also) so well that they pose a serious challenge to the government. That makes for a poor business environment, discouraging investment and job creation. No jobs, look North.

Re:how much will this cost US

[St.Creed]

Anyone ever consider the link between the War on Drugs and the illegal immigration problems? Our War on Drugs has funded the drug cartels south of the US (Mexico for sure, Central and South America also) so well that they pose a serious challenge to the government. That makes for a poor business environment, discouraging investment and job creation. No jobs, look North.

While I have no sympathy for those that chant "illegal immigrants are the cause of all our problems", I do think the business environment was pretty poor to start with. Given a state doing quite well, with opportunities for those on the bottom, noone would have had to turn to drugs. But yeah, add a not-really-functioning corrupt state to a mix of humongous amounts of money from drugs, spice it up with modern weapons imported from neighbouring countries then yeah, it all goes downhill from there.

Stopping the vicious circle now is much harder than it was even 10 years ago. The crisis did not make things easier at all.

Re:how much will this cost US

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo, instead of imposing a fine, we'll let the taxpayer foot the bill for a year's incarceration. Brilliant.

Good point. Let's just kill him now with a chunk of rebar salvaged from a construction site dumpster.

Or, to be cheaper, just make him watch the movie repeatedly until his brain pops into a grey matter slime and leaks out his ears. Given the movie, that should be faster, too.

Re:how much will this cost US

[drb226]

MAFIAA should pay for his time in jail. I mean, it's waaaaay cheaper than the billions of dollars they would lose if he continued pirating, right?

Re:how much will this cost US

[rusl]

Actually they lose money because they had a very tenacious promoter of their movies working hard for them, even breaking laws, all for free. But now he is in jail. Of course it's important to make the odd symbolic bust to keep the price of the bootlegs high. Same as with the war on drugs there are only two proponents for the war on piracy: cops and robbers - everyone else is a casualty.

Problem with the analogy..

[Xunker]

The problem with calling it "a Ferrari without a paintjob" is that it's not a Ferrari of a movie. Hell, it's not even an Hyundai Elantra of a movie.

At least watching the workprint made it fun: "Claws Grow".

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[g0bshiTe]

Good to know I'm not the only one that saw that copy. It was actually better than watching the finished product. At least there were more laughs.

It wasn't till the end fight scene I realized what it was. During the bus fight I kept trying to figure out why Silver Surfer was in the film.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[AngryDeuce]

At least watching the workprint made it fun: "Claws Grow".

Hell yeah! I found the workprint to be far more entertaining than the finished film as well. I watched it at least 3 times and laughed my ass off every single time. Remember the plane crash? "EXPLOSION!!!" The part when Wolverine gets hit by the Big Rig was great, too.

I wish more studios would include workprints and stuff like that on their legitimate DVD/BD releases. The process of making a movie is often times far more fascinating to me than the movie itself.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[DreadPiratePizz]

I find it interesting that you would be more interested in the process than the narrative itself. I remember a time when people went to films to be lost and engrossed. A noticeable special effect was a bad thing which took you out of the film. Now, it seems people WANT to see outrageous effects which call attention to themselves. I'm guessing it's because the narrative of many films simply does not grab an audience any more, so there's really nothing to take you out of.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[Anonymous Coward]

'm guessing it's because the narrative of many films simply does not grab an audience any more,

It's sad how derivative Hollywood has become. They aren't even deriving ideas from others anymore, they are deriving it from their own derivative products. Soon we'll have sequels of remakes of sequels and remakes of sequels of remakes all now in HD and 3D.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[varmittang]

Hey, sounded like you were entertained by it. So, you paid them a few dollars for the hard work they did, right?

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[Anonymous Coward]

When entire movies are shot in front of green screens the special effects are the movie.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[pinkj]

At least watching the workprint made it fun: "Claws Grow".

Hell yeah! I found the workprint to be far more entertaining than the finished film as well. I watched it at least 3 times and laughed my ass off every single time. Remember the plane crash? "EXPLOSION!!!" The part when Wolverine gets hit by the Big Rig was great, too.

I wish more studios would include workprints and stuff like that on their legitimate DVD/BD releases. The process of making a movie is often times far more fascinating to me than the movie itself.

If you get Sin City - Extended Cut, you get to watch the whole film with green screen, though it's sped up to be 14 minutes or something.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[Animats]

I wish more studios would include workprints and stuff like that on their legitimate DVD/BD releases. The process of making a movie is often times far more fascinating to me than the movie itself.

If you go to SIGGRAPH meetings, especially in LA, you can see more of that stuff than you probably want to. "And here are all 34 versions of the slime flow we did before the director and the execs found one they liked". All of this is made possible by armies of people doing jobs which are a lot like aligning wallpaper patterns. We've gone from a cast of thousands on screen to a cast of thousands in cubicles. At least they have a union.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[AngryDeuce]

Well, in the case of 'Wolverine', when I got around to watching the finished film on DVD I wasn't really too enamored with it. I just didn't care for the movie when it was a "serious" film, but the workprint was both hysterical and fascinating to me. It's not that I dislike the character or comic book movies or anything, I've generally enjoyed Iron Man, Ang Lee's Hulk (Apparently I'm in the minority on that one, and I hated the Ed Norton sequel), Thor, The X-Men films, etc. The Wolverine movie was just boring to me in some way I can't put my finger on.

I guess it's like what Plinkett said in his now legendary review of Star Wars: Episode 1. Paraphrasing: "[on the subject of the original trilogy 'Special Editions'] This is why I found the Special Editions so goddamned offensive. It's like George Lucas just shoved as much crap into every frame as he could. It doesn't accomplish anything but distract you, like a child waving his arms in front of you yelling 'look at me!'" During this section of the review, he cuts to the scene from the redone A New Hope where Luke and Obi Wan are cruising into Mos Eisley in the land speeder just before the "These are not the droids you're looking for" scene and it's totally ridiculous in a way I hadn't consciously thought about before with those films. It's not immersive, it's totally distracting and detrimental, and puts into words one of the things I didn't like about them (or the prequel trilogy) that I wasn't able to put my finger on. I felt much the same way about the Transformers series of films, there was almost too much insanity and shit going on all the time that I wasn't intrigued, I was fucking bored.

I don't know, maybe I'm just of the wrong generation to appreciate the flash over the substance. I love good special effects, but not to the detriment of the story, and what we have today hardly passes as good anymore, in my opinion. I'm far more drawn in by the dated techniques of yesteryear like the Ray Harryhausen work in Sinbad or Jason and the Argonauts. For instance, my favorite movie dragon, of all time, was Vermithrax Pejorative, of the awesome, cult film Dragonslayer. Nothing since compares, and Dragonslayer came out 30 years ago. It gives me hope that Peter Jackson is looking to Dragonslayer as his inspiration in creating the dragon Smaug in The Hobbit.

Maybe it's the uncanny valley? Even early CGI, such as what we see on films like Jurassic Park, seemed far more realistic to me than most anything that's come out within the last decade.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[Digital Vomit]

Oh, have the studio's finally gotten around to setting up a site where you can pay what you feel a movie was worth via Paypal or credit card?

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[tehcyder]

I find it interesting that you would be more interested in the process than the narrative itself. I remember a time when people went to films to be lost and engrossed. A noticeable special effect was a bad thing which took you out of the film. Now, it seems people WANT to see outrageous effects which call attention to themselves. I'm guessing it's because the narrative of many films simply does not grab an audience any more, so there's really nothing to take you out of.

It is probably also connected to the fact that people seem to have an increasingly short attention span, so the "ooh shiny explosion"special effects help to keep them interested.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[tehcyder]

If you get Sin City - Extended Cut

I shouldn't think even the director would want to sit through that. What's bearable in short comic book sized fragments on paper became wearisome as a movie.

Re:Problem with the analogy..

[rusl]

Seriously though I wish that open source programmers set up a general donations website (for their work, not hollywood shlock) Because I would donate more if it was easier. I wanted to donate to rsync but apparently it's not possible. There are so many awesome programs just given away for free and I really value them.

More like a 1980 Ford Pinto without a paint job.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I right?

Re:More like a 1980 Ford Pinto without a paint job

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Only after its been rear-ended.

Put it in perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

That movie made over $200m profit after MPAA creative accounting, and before DVD / blu-ray sales. Not bad for yet another comic character flick.

where do i find it?

[Anonymous Coward]

am i the only one who suddenly wanted to see this?

Re:where do i find it?

[Farmer Tim]

Here you go.

Part of the reason why he was punished

[Anonymous Coward]

He knowingly shared Wolverine Origins with other human beings. The movie makes The Room look like a masterpiece.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[mark_elf]

If only you had been there, he would be a free man today. In fact, the film probably was better without all that sterile, fake looking animation.

They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA says the jailed guy got the movie on DVD for $5 from some guy in a Chinese restaurant. So the movie was already in commercial, pirate distribution on DVD and the feds did nothing about that. Instead they went after the movie buff who uploaded the DVD for no commercial gain. This sounds more like the usual "war against the internet" than "going after the right person" as the articles propagandistically pretend.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Synerg1y]

Lol, the Korean was clearly a lot smarter about it than the defendant in this case. I think only in America do people exist who would take a movie they bought illegally, that hasn't been released yet, and upload it via their IP to a major download site that everybody has access to.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real travesty is that the writer, director, and lead actors aren't doing jail time for that piece of shit. The film stole $350 million from unsuspecting moviegoers in the theatrical release alone.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[jklovanc]

RTFA, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing." The found the person who uploaded the stolen video to a sharing site. That was a criminal act so the prosecuted him. That does not mean that they are not still investigating the situation and are not looking for other people in the chain of custody. Should they not have persecuted him because he was not the only person in the chain?

There is also a huge difference between a few DVDs available in person at a few select locations and an uploaded file available to anyone with an internet connection. The latter has a much wider audience, is easier to find and has much more impact on the revenue for the film. They are going after the "right" person as the uploader did far more damage than the DVD supplier.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Pope]

Two weeks later, the F.B.I. showed up, having tracked “SkillyGilly” through computer footprints. Mr. Sanchez said he explained what had happened. “Talk to the Korean,” he said he told them. “You keep following leads and you’ll get to a warehouse.” But when the F.B.I. asked if he could identify the peddler, he said no.

Reading is fundamental

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[misexistentialist]

Producing pirated DVDs for sale requires a lot more criminal intent than uploading a file. The movie made $85 million the first weekend and seems have had around the normal profitability for the series so there was probably no perceptible damage. No harm, no intent to harm, no crime.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Sounds more like, "A senator who is in the MPAA's pocket poked his buddies in the FBI to make an example out of this guy"...

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[TheSpoom]

They're prosecuting the low-hanging fruit. It doesn't matter if he didn't cause as much financial harm, he's easy to prosecute and makes a great example.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know he was telling the truth?

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[jklovanc]

No harm? Even you say "probably" when referring to lost revenue. So there is possibly lost revenue.
No intent? If the person didn't know there was a law against distributing copyright material he should. His intent was to spread the video around which is against the law.
No Crime? The fact that he broke the law makes it a crime. For example a speeder. He has not been in or caused an accident so not harm. His intent is to get to where he is going faster, not break the law, so no intent. No harm, no intent but still a crime.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone you've only seen once is difficult to identify.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[mcgrew]

There is also a huge difference between a few DVDs available in person at a few select locations and an uploaded file available to anyone with an internet connection. The latter has a much wider audience, is easier to find and has much more impact on the revenue for the film.

Yes, if the movie's a stinker and they see it's a stinker, they won't shell out the money at the theater and the crappy movie loses money. However, if it's a good movie people will want to see it in its full glory and it will do better than if it hadn't been released early.

Putting your material on the internet only hurts sales if it stinks. As Cory Doctorow points out, nobody ever went broke because of piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity.

On the other hand, If the movie is on DVD and you buy a counterfeit, you did indeed cost the studio a sale (not in this case, you would have to be able to buy a legit copy for a counterfeit to hurt sales).

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[roc97007]

> and has much more impact on the revenue for the film.

Right, in this case, by warning people away.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[fafaforza]

But even by the actor's description, it wasn't finished. So if anything, it was just a behind the scenes of how a current movie is made, for those curious enough. Why all the hoopla?

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Killer Instinct]

This sounds more like the usual "war against the internet"

or the war against drugs.

-KI

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? No they have done nothing about the DVD seller except make tut-tut noises saying they are looking for him (they know perfectly well of the existence of the pirate DVD trade but it's the internet that gets their resources). And there's no reason to expect Sanchez to know who the Korean was, any more than I could identify any street vendor who I might have bought a phone charger from. Your emphasis makes it sound like you think he invented the Korean but there is no supporting evidence of that.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[tehcyder]

The real travesty is that the writer, director, and lead actors aren't doing jail time for that piece of shit. The film stole $350 million from unsuspecting moviegoers in the theatrical release alone.

It's not stealing, it's just moving pieces of paper from morons to other richer morons.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[tehcyder]

Putting your material on the internet only hurts sales if it stinks. As Cory Doctorow points out, nobody ever went broke because of piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity.

If I could download all of Cory Doctorow's work for free, why would I then go and buy any of his books?

You can give away small samples to encourage readers, but at some point if everything's pirated no one will ever pay the artists any money at all.

Re:They ignore the commercial pirate?

[mcgrew]

If I could download all of Cory Doctorow's work for free, why would I then go and buy any of his books?

I don't know, maybe because you're not a cheap bastard? If you can check his books out at the library for free why buy them? Despite (Doctorow says "because of") the fact that he gives his books away for free, he's a New York Times best seller, which kind of belies your "if I can get content for free I won't pay".

The fact is most people aren't cheap bastards and will buy works from artists they enjoy, even if they can get them for free. Only the dishonest person thinks piracy hurts sales. Warren Marshall, head of Electronic Arts, stated on Planet Crap ten or so years ago that the reason he had so much DRM on his games is because he was a pirate in college. Again, the dishonest people like him (like you?) are the ones who think piracy hurts sales.

You do know that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates, right?

Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me is that instead of posting it anonymously, he does it under his login and hopes to get bragging rights for the whole thing. That was the really dumb part. If he just wanted to share, he could've done better to protect himself.

Hrmm, seems the OP is slighty incorrect

[SGDarkKnight]

"The person who decided to share the movie illegally was tracked down"

Well, not exactly... the person who first uploaded it was tracked down, not the person who first stole it, copy it, and give it to the Koreans to sell on the street.

Seems the person to first share it is still out there...

Re:Hrmm, seems the OP is slighty incorrect

[jklovanc]

And according to the article, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing", still being looked for.

Re:Hrmm, seems the OP is slighty incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume he was telling the truth about the Korean?

In one year he will get his vengeance...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst. Super villain origin. Ever.

obligatory

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Here's the obligatory proportions post. How many people have been arrested for the housing market crash thus far? How much monetary damage did those people actually do in comparison to this guy?... yeah.

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the housing market crash was caused by a whole lot of people taking out loans they could not pay back. How is this the same? Were the houses stolen?

Re:obligatory

[jklovanc]

So because we don not prosecute the big bad guys we should not prosecute the little bad guys? Sorry that is false logic

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of these movie execs have been prosecuted for deceptive accounting (Hollywood accounting)?

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Does somebody pay fucktards to post idiotic shit like this?? or are that that many inbred red-necks online?

Re:obligatory

[doshell]

You're inferring a statement which is not in the grandparent post. Proportion is a valid way of judging how fair the society we live in is. Where would you rather live: in a society where murder is punished but pickpocketing is not (although formally forbidden), or in one where pickpockets always go to jail while murderers are never convicted?

Re:obligatory

[roc97007]

Look into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the congresscritters behind them. The banks were required to make very risky loans, and it caught up with them. I mean, with us, because it's our tax money that bailed them out. So yeah, he has a point. Why hunt down a guy who uploaded a movie and send him to jail, when (for example) the people directly responsible for the recession saw no fines, no jail terms, got reelected? I think it's because in the first case, it's the plaintiff making the rules, and in the second case, it's the defendant who is making the rules.

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, your logic is false because that is not what the word proportions means. Look it up, I''ll wait.

Re:obligatory

[teamhasnoi]

Funny, I think if "little bad guy" took my homemade independent movie and spread it around, he'd be facing two charges. Jack and Shit. No prosecutors, no FBI, no nothing. Same if the big movie studio stole my film. The reason this went anywhere is because the movie studio can afford endless lawyers, and can pull the strings that us 'mortals' can't.

We shouldn't prosecute any bad guy if the law is not equally enforced across the board.

Re:obligatory

[jklovanc]

Considering that your "homemade independant move" has a projected revenue of Jack and Shit there is a huge difference. Also the studio's lawyers have nothing to do with this prosecution; it was the FBI. Now if they had sued the guy then the "endless lawyers" issue would fit. If the police do not procecute ever such offence then the law becomes unenforceable. There is a term called selective prosecution. One never want to go to court where a defence attourney can show where someone was not prosecuted for doing something but their client was for doing the same thing.

One of the resons for encarceration is deterant. With this prosecution being given so much puplicity maybe others will think twice before uploading pre-release movies.

Re:obligatory

[jklovanc]

You might want to understand the false logic of Morton's Fork before making arguments like this.

There is a third option; Pickpockets and murders both go to jail for a time comenseate with the crime. I would prefer to live in that society.

Re:obligatory

[teamhasnoi]

Considering that your "homemade independant move" has a projected revenue of Jack and Shit there is a huge difference.

Exactly my point. $=enforcement. Most likely outcome if I call the FBI about my movie? "Sorry, you'll have to call the local police department. They won't do anything either, but hey, it'll get you off the line."

If the police do not procecute ever such offence then the law becomes unenforceable.

Again, exactly my point. Same law, but one crime is important and has victimized 'real live movie stars', and the other is ignored and 'public cable access'.

Re:obligatory

[houghi]

How many people have been arrested for the housing market crash thus far?

Well, there is the dad of that girl from 2 Broke Girls.

Oh darn, I should not know about that show as I live in a country where it isn't distributed.

Re:obligatory

[doshell]

At no time did I state there was no third option. I was just making a contrast between two of the available options.

In fact there are at least four options:

1. 1. Murderers are punished, pickpockets are not
2. 2. Pickpockets are punished, murderers are not
3. 3. Neither pickpockets nor murderers are punished
4. 4. Both pickpockets and murderers are punished

If you substitute "financial fraud" for "murder" and "copyright infringement" for "pickpocketing", then the original post by nEoN nOoDlE pointed out that the current situation, option 2 above, seems disproportionate. Your reply was to the lines of "So you think we should go for option 3 instead? Sorry, that is false logic". I then pointed out that your inference was the actual bad logic in the discussion (because nEoN nOodIE may actually prefer one of options 1 or 4, and you can't tell which by his/her post alone).

The other statement I made regarding proportion was merely intended to illustrate that, even between two arguably "wrong" options (1 and 2), one of them might be perceived as worse. I don't think this is "false logic" unless you see the world in purely black and white terms.

At any rate, any sane person, including me and you (as stated in your last post) would prefer option 4.

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

You're interpreting his post completely wrong. Let me dumb it down a bit.

Just because we don't prosecute the big bad guys doesn't mean we should give 100x penalties to the little bad guys to make up for the shortfall.

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we don't prosecute the rich we shouldn't prosecute the poor. That isn't false logic, it's equality before justice.

Re:obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

comenseate

You just made that word up, and for that you should feel shame.

Re:obligatory

[chrb]

Actually they did jail someone! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html?pagewanted=all

Re:obligatory

[chrb]

"Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

Re:obligatory

[7-Vodka]

Who should they start with?
The people who bought houses?
Those who sold the loans?
Those who repackaged the debt and lied about AAA ratings?
Big wall st. firms who traded in them and peddled and lied even after they knew they were selling junk?
The SEC who did not do their job?
Freddie and Fannie who backed the junk?
The congress and the executive for price fixing in the housing market through legislation?
The FED for providing free money and price fixing in the housing market?
The FED for printing money and price fixing the interest rates?
The lobbyists like Gingrich who got rich off the process by peddling influence?

I mean the list goes on and on and aside from the homeowners who hold the least responsibility here imho, the rest ARE the system itself.

Break the status quo and regain the voice that was taken from you by the elites: support Ron Paul.

Re:obligatory

[purpledinoz]

No, it was caused by a whole lot of fraud. The people at the bottom giving out the loans lied on the mortgage applications. The banks packaged up these toxic mortgages and paid the rating agencies rubber-stamped AAA on these worthless securities. Companies like Goldman Sachs sold these worthless securities to their customers, then bet against them knowing they were worthless. The financial execs knew what was going on, it is fraud, it is illegal, and it is because of them that the poverty and joblessness is increasing. This is theft on a MASSIVE scale.

Re:obligatory

[purpledinoz]

Think of it this way, given that the FBI and law enforcement has limited resources, shouldn't some of these resources be spent prosecuting the biggest theft in history? Because we prosecute the small guys we SHOULD prosecute the big guys.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[nschubach]

I don't think it matters. The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."

I wouldn't call it a Ferrari either. Maybe a Pinto without a paint job.

Re:More like a 1980 Ford Pinto without a paint job

[Anonymous Coward]

Only after its been rear-ended.

In that case you'd want the '77 version, before they fixed the gas tank problem.

Hard for me to get excited about it

[ATestR]

Come to think of it, I still haven't seen this movie. The first one was good, the second OK, the third... well, you get the picture.

Re:Hard for me to get excited about it

[Opportunist]

(Zen wisdom incoming)

Movie ideas are like tea. You take the leaves and herbs, and you brew them with some hot water, and you get some wonderful tea, and it is powerful and strong, and it will refresh you and invigorate you.

And you see that the tea was good and you decide to make another cup of tea. You take the same herbs and the same leaves and you brew them with some more hot water. And you notice that the tea tastes bad and stale, and that you should rather wash your feet with it than drink it.

As for tea, it is for movies: Throw away the herbs and leaves after using them once and use some fresh ones. Even if that costs a few bucks, but at least you spare yourself the embarrassment of showing that you don't know jack about tea. Or movies.

Re:Hard for me to get excited about it

[St.Creed]

As for tea, it is for movies: Throw away the herbs and leaves after using them once and use some fresh ones. Even if that costs a few bucks, but at least you spare yourself the embarrassment of showing that you don't know jack about tea. Or movies.

Well... in China everyone uses the leaves multiple times. But hey, what do they know about tea, right? :)

Re:Hard for me to get excited about it

[Opportunist]

Chinese, what do they know? All they make is cheap knockoffs anyway! :)

But yes, if the tea (or the movie script for that matter) is REALLY awesome, you can brew it more than once before the results get repugnant. Sadly, there are few cultures able to cultivate tea (or scripts) of such a quality.

So where did get it?

[OzPeter]

That copy was not ripped from a theatrical release DVD. It was obviously copied directly from a data file in some productions houses' work flow. This guy was just an accessory after the fact. And that "Sanchez explained that he actually bought the movie on DVD for $5 from a Korean man in a Chinese restaurant.". So where does the data originate from?

  Who ever released the original data is the person who needs to spend time in jail, not some patsy who bought a cheap DVD from an anonymous pusher in some shady restaurant dealing.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[ifiwereasculptor]

The biggest problem with his analogy is that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was more like a Volkswagen Beetle. The "paint job" they added in post-production was all it had going for it.

Still the Wrong Guy

[Sir Realist]

Look, I don't really follow the Slashdot party line on this one; I think stealing from artists you respect is stupid, because they won't make you more stuff. And Sanchez was an idiot for uploading this thing from the illegal pirated copy he bought. But his punishment does seem disproportionate, and they still got the wrong guy.

This guy bought stolen goods, and made illegal copies of copyrighted materials. Somebody, somewhere, actually stole the proof from the studio. That is the real crime they should be punishing if they want to stop pre-release pirates. And I won't even bother to point out how effortlessly easy it would be to track copies and identify leaks in this technical audience, because I'm sure you can all come up with half-a-dozen schemes yourselves. If the studios can't be bothered to prevent the leaks or identify and punish the leakers in the first place, why should we care what happens to the leaked materials?

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Imagix]

I disagree. I think they got one of the right guys. (Note "one of", not "the" right guy). I don't think anybody could reasonably expect that the guy was dealing with an above-the-board transaction. This guy was willfully distributing stuff the he knew (or any reasonable person would have known) wasn't legit.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Hatta]

Look, I don't really follow the Slashdot party line on this one; I think stealing from artists you respect is stupid, because they won't make you more stuff.

This is quite consistent with the "slashdot party line". You should reward the artists you like by spending as much as you can on them. Otherwise they're likely to find more lucrative employment. I don't remember anyone on /. ever saying that you shouldn't spend money on artists you value. Giving money to talented artists is extremely important, whether or not copyright is just.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[mark-t]

I don't want to get into the whole "copyright infringement is not theft" debate, but I'd like to point out that infringing on the copyright of any artist is stupid... at least if one has any respect for anyone's copyright at all, because infringing on one person's copyright damages the value of copyright in general for *ALL* artists, and does not just reduce the theoretical value of the work being infringed. Copyright is, after all, a legally recognized social contract - the artist has (or is supposed to have) limited duration exclusivity on the work, and the general public has an obligation to respect that exclusivity for the copyright's duration. When that exclusivity is compromised by somebody copying any copyrighted work without permission, the social contract is weakened slightly, and it reduces value that copyright offers artists (arguably being an incentive for them to resort to other means, such as DRM, but that's another matter). In exchange for offering the artist his limited exclusivity, the work actually can get widely published and distributed, where the only way the artist could have otherwise kept any exclusivity on control of the work would be to not publish it at all, or to release it only to very select people. That's why copyright infringement is actually illegal and not just a civil matter, because the value that it offers general public is being harmed by it.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[St.Creed]

Did you bother to read the entire argument? Because it looks like you stopped reading after the first 9 words...

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[mcgrew]

You sound like an RIAA lawyer. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT! The supreme court decided that one a couple of decades ago. Both copyright infringement and theft are crimes, but they are completely different crimes. Copyright infringement is no more theft than rape is murder.

Theft is when you shoplift a CD from Walmart, copyright infringement is when you rip and upload it. Most thefts are misdemeanors with small fines, copyright infringement can leave the infringer destitute.

Go to Cory Doctorow's website, he's begging you to "steal" his books, all are there for download. He gets it, you and Hollywood don't. I've read hundreds of books by Isaac Asimov, I've only paid for a dozen or so. But were it not for "stealing the content" by checking it out from the library, I'd never have bought a single Asimov title.

This guy bought stolen goods

Only if the counterfeiter stole the blank CDs. The Korean sold a physical item to the guy, which contained material that infringed copyright. It wasn't stolen property.

When you have to resort to intentional misstatements like "copyright is theft" to buttress your position, your argument is damned weak and you might want to reexamine your thinking process..

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Sir Realist]

Point. And I do think this guy should be punished for what he did, to discourage people from uploading obviously stolen stuff. But it seems like they're setting the severity for the punishment on this guy as if he were solely responsible for the pirating of the movie, rather than just one idiot in a long chain of thieves. A year in prison is a long time and will probably significantly ruin this guy's life. I'd think a couple of weeks in jail, a fine, and maybe some community service would be enough to make the point in his case.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Sir Realist]

You left out "artists". They're the third group that use that argument regularly.

I'm not one of them either, but I know quite a few.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[AdamJS]

Many artists, particularly those that aren't yet multimillionares, view the fight against piracy and the fight for multimedia conglomerates to gain more shares of the profits and less to the artists as generally bad.
Of course, some don't, but I think the former is a more rational position.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Tanuki64]

I did. If I was wrong, sorry. But when it comes to copyright discussions it usually is sufficient to stop reading when a certain set of keywords appear.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Sir Realist]

And yet, this was never a discussion about how much of the pie the multimedia conglomerates should get vs. how much the artists should get - its about whether we should give them any pie to divide up at all. If you steal a dollar's worth of movie, you may only be stealing a tenth of a cent from the writer, but you're still taking from them. And the megacorp you stole the rest from was the one that chose to make movies you like; they're going to make decisions about what to make next year based on how much profit things made this year, and you didn't vote for the movie you liked. (Mind you, since this started with a story about Wolverine, that's probably an argument _for_ stealing that movie, if you're going to watch it at all...)

On the divvy-up, I totally agree with your rational artist friends. I'm a strong supporter of various writer's strikes, and new technologies that allow artists to sell directly to consumers bypassing the corps. But cinema-grade movies are still heavily capital-intensive - you don't generally just pop out and make one yourself in your backyard. So the production companies that support the artists are important too.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[Sir Realist]

Yeah fine; descend into pedantic word choice arguments if you like. Copy-replace "infringe" for "steal" (in the appropriate tense, since we've decided to be pedantic) in my original comment, and you'll find that my original point still stands; they're trying to plug the leak in the wrong place, with the wrong guy, and they've punished Sanchez disproportionately because of that misplaced effort.

Honestly, you people who can't get past shouting "NOT THEFT" every time anyone so much as thinks the word copyright, regardless as to whether the distinction is in any way relevant to the argument at hand, are not doing your own cause any favors.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[mcgrew]

It isn't pedantery, it's calling a presumed RIAA shill (or someone they've brainwashed) out for incindiary and false terminology.

Honestly, you people who can't get past shouting "NOT THEFT" every time anyone so much as thinks the word copyright

You only hear "NO THEFT" whan a shill or an idiot calls copyright infringement "theft". Incindiary, false language demands to be called on. When someone talks about M$ or "open sores", they're trolling and it's flamebait and needs to be called out. This is no different.

you'll find that my original point still stands; they're trying to plug the leak in the wrong place, with the wrong guy, and they've punished Sanchez disproportionately because of that misplaced effort.

I have no argument with tha point, my argument is with inflammatory, false (LYING) language. Doublespeak is not welcome. There are few here with two digit IQs, save your inflamatory language for the normtards at Yahoo news.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[tehcyder]

Look, I don't really follow the Slashdot party line on this one; I think stealing from artists you respect is stupid, because they won't make you more stuff.

This is quite consistent with the "slashdot party line". You should reward the artists you like by spending as much as you can on them. Otherwise they're likely to find more lucrative employment. I don't remember anyone on /. ever saying that you shouldn't spend money on artists you value. Giving money to talented artists is extremely important, whether or not copyright is just.

Yes, this is the classic slashdot "download the song illegally but send a cheque direct to the musician anyway" argument, as though there is zero cost involved in producing music and the artist should have all of the profit.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[tehcyder]

Go to Cory Doctorow's website, he's begging you to "steal" his books, all are there for download.

That's up to him though. Presumably he earns enough money from other sources that he can afford to do this.

But were it not for "stealing the content" by checking it out from the library, I'd never have bought a single Asimov title.

Libraries have permission to lend books from the copyright holders.

Re:Still the Wrong Guy

[mcgrew]

Libraries have permission to lend books from the copyright holders.

Wrong. They OWN the copies of the books on their shelves, bought and paid for, and they're legally free to lend them, resell them, tear out pages, or burn them, despite what the author wants (although an author who didn't want his books in libraries would be a fool). Where did you get the crazy idea that a library needed an author's permission to lend books?

However, you miss the point. Hell, you seem to be trying to avoid the point at all costs.

Variable sentences

[Anonymous Coward]

If he had obtained/watch it legally, his sentence would have only been in the neighborhood of two hours.

Re:Variable sentences

[Opportunist]

Well, plus the financial damage.

Possibly worth noting;

[grasshoppa]

It's possibly worth noting that that version was actually more interesting than the final cut.

Re:Possibly worth noting;

[Opportunist]

I was pondering that.

I guess I finally found a really good reason to download bootlegs: They let you see far more interesting stuff than the finished crap.

Re:Possibly worth noting;

[tehcyder]

I was pondering that.

I guess I finally found a really good reason to download bootlegs: They let you see far more interesting stuff than the finished crap.

The technical side of movie making has very little to do with how good the final film is, so it's not of much interest except to those actually working in the business.

Re:Possibly worth noting;

[Opportunist]

You underestimate me. Or you overestimate Origins, your pick.

I am generally interested in the question how stuff works. I'm not in the movie industry, but it was very interesting for me to see how the "bullet time" FX in Matrix were executed. I'm not the kind of person who enjoys being baffled, I want to know how it's done.

Motherfucker Jones did a dime for this you know

[slashdotresearch_mj]

Also has anyone else ever seen when the police do a "raid" on the bootleg dvd sellers on Canal Street in NYC? I've seen it happen a few times and the police move as slowly as possible, it seems to allow everyone time to pack up all their shit and escape. Sometimes enough time for people to pack up entire carts and run down the street with them. Not exactly a possibility for this dude, clearly. No idea what the sentence time is for someone caught with pirated material in real life is compared to online possession/distribution, or maybe it's the same?

Re:Motherfucker Jones did a dime for this you know

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of you going "Whoosh" on the reference, see the movie Horrible Bosses

Re:Motherfucker Jones did a dime for this you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Support a NYC cop! Buy a copy from a Korean guy in a Chinese restaurant!

Part of the proceedings go into the retirement funds of NY's finest. No refunds. No post-sale recognitions.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[ifiwereasculptor]

The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."

Tell me about it. Not only this guy, but every distributor of that crap should be jailed for unleashing such an atrocity. I saw it on TV and still felt like demanding my money back.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[gonk]

Except the original VW Beetle had a whole lot going for it even without its paint. Of course, its paint was high quality, too.

robert

How was i crimmal?

[Anonymous Coward]

506. Criminal offenses6

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

          He didn't earn any money off uploading it

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

        The work was a unfinished work that was never going to see the light of day.

(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

Did they find anyone that downloaded the movie from the megaupload site? If they didn't have anyone to show that download it then there is no evidence of distribution attributive to him. It might have over some some where else.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion

I think he has a goo case for bad representation and for appeal.

Re:How was i crimmal?

[mjr167]

It was being prepared for commercial distribution. It just wasn't done yet. Notice the present tense. Copyright doesn't only apply to a finished product, but also to works still in production.

Re:How was i crimmal?

[newcastlejon]

FWIW "being" is present tense, but not always in the way you suggest. Let's take another common legal use as an example. A last will and testament:

I, [name], being of sound mind and body...

In this case a little Shakespearian intonation might help: "being preparèd". If you look at it like that then the parent might have a valid point.
Might, but I doubt very much that this was the intended meaning.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[sootman]

The movie was so-so and the effects were HORRIBLE--literally lower than SyFy monster-of-the-week movies. Watching the workprint was the best part. It's interesting to see the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Gene Siskel had a metric for movies: "Is this film more interesting than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?" My variation is, "Is watching this movie more fun than watching the 'making-of' extras on the DVD?"

doesn't fit the crime

[spirit_fingers]

I know what the law says, and I know that he broke the law. But consider this: there was no provable financial harm to the producers of the film. No one was hurt. No one was deprived of anything. Yet, this guy is deprived of his freedom for one year and earns a permanent criminal record. This was a classic victimless crime and I would argue that that makes it no crime at all.

Re:doesn't fit the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what the law says

Care to share? I'm still trying to figure out what law he broke. I don't understand US copyright law very well, but is there *really* a criminal copyright law for people who distribute without receiving any money? I can definitely see a civil suit, but a criminal case? I'm actually thinking its more likely to be a trade secret law, but everything in the press says that it's copyright... Please fill me in.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[helix2301]

I agree the movie was bad Sabertooth being Wolverines brother was so stupid. Not to mention my favorite character of all time Gambit got just totally messed up they made him look like a dork and a idiot. Bad movie and they already have plans for a 2nd movie according to hsx.com

To put this in perspective (Why America is DEAD!)

[PortHaven]

Recently, a Social Security employee was robbed and shot. The shooter, recently released from prison after 9 months "time-served" of a 10 year sentence for armed robbery.

So armed robbery, and you can be out in less than a year. Upload an unfinished video of a film and it's a year in prison.

The avg person's well being is meaningless to the Law. But the profits of a stealing mega-corporation, now that the Law is concerned with.

There is a point where the Sheriff is corrupt, and his badge is nothing more than a bully pulpit.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[ProppaT]

Don't worry, that was an typo on the editor's part. I clearly remember Hugh Jackman describing it like getting a "Fiero without a paint job."

TMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody knows way too much about Ford Pintos, even for /.

Bought this in China

[Anonymous Coward]

I was living in Beijing at the time of the leak and they started selling the leaked version in the DVD shops, didn't know it was an unfinished product when I bought it though.. I was pretty amused at the lack of special effects for most scenes. Thanks Sanchez!

Missing the forest

[Anonymous Coward]

make the government responsible for policing your profits, and at their expense

Almost fell out of my chair laughing. Government benefits more from this complex, ambiguous, unjust, and exploitable system of law than any other group you can name. The system rakes billions of dollars through the business of government each year. Ever heard of administration overhead? In the business of government -- where you're spending other people's money -- administration is a profit, not a loss.

Of course the real jackpot is the leverage afforded to the elite who run the business of government by this system of law. As everyone knows, you don't make a fortune in the business of government with your paycheck. You do it behind the scenes.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Tarlus]

Yeah, but neither of those are Ferarris. I probably wouldn't liken the film to a Ferarri either, but I digress...

Bad analogy

[Opportunist]

It's more like having a Ferrari with every kind of shielding stripped so you actually get to see how the valves work and how the transmission shifts.

Personally, I'd almost say that "working copy" is more interesting than the finished movie. But that's the geek in me, I don't like magicians for the same reason: I wanna know how stuff works!

Re:Bad analogy

[StikyPad]

While he probably meant it in a derogatory manner, I think most of us would happily accept a new Ferrari lacking only a paint job. I know I would. In fact, I'd probably be willing to spend a year in jail if I got to keep it. Can't say the same for X-Men First Class though...

Re:Bad analogy

[tehcyder]

I don't like magicians for the same reason: I wanna know how stuff works!

But half the fun of magic tricks is in working out how they are done.

Re:Bad analogy

[Opportunist]

For you, maybe. For me, it's a frustration and a half 'til I figured it out. I cannot enjoy a magic trick until I found out how it's done.

Re:To put this in perspective (Why America is DEAD

[Opportunist]

He should be effin' glad the badge isn't seen as the aiming cross. But we're getting there, give it time.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[__aasehi2499]

One of the sweetest things I ever picked up was the titanium bicycle frame that had just a clear coat on it, let you see the metal striations and all the welds in their raw form, with no filler to smooth any of it out, the flexible, rigid strength was visible.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[modecx]

Indeed, if you ever get a chance look up close at a Ferrari F40, it has paint, but just barely enough to make it look Ferrari red from a distance.

The paint is thin and nearly translucent as it is opaque, so it adds the least possible weight. You can see the carbon fiber/nomex/kevlar weave right through it; it's also notoriously easy to scuff, and difficult to polish. The paint job wouldn't be close to acceptable on a factory Kia, but people paid for what is basically a street legal thoroughbred race machine, and shaving a few pounds of paint off makes it go faster, you know.

(C) infringement mostly perpetrated by individuals

[D4C5CE]

patent and trade mark is left to businesses

And so don't the similar harsh penalties for what once used to be organized economic crime strike you as disproportionate at least in some copyright cases where it has been reduced to as little as an inadvertent mouse click?

Cf. http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2008/11/cory-doctorow-why-i-copyfight.html - and that's by a published author who makes a living selling his works.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[hal2814]

At least your favorite Marvel character isn't Deadpool. If that were a decent Deadpool adaptation, then his Common Sense would've started tingling and he would've gotten the hell out of that shitty excuse for a movie.

In a plexiglass prison? Or wait a minute, this was

[D4C5CE]

...not that movie. ;-)

police state

[Anonymous Coward]

police state.

Lock up everyone for everything.
I hope someone beheads the judges whole family and makes him watch.

This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

every government protects its country's business interests. What's amazing is that this is a revelation to apparently grown up people.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Joce640k]

Watching the workprint was the best part. It's interesting to see the behind-the-scenes stuff.

My thoughts when I read this story: "Sounds interesting, where do I get a copy?"

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Joce640k]

And inside it's all bare metal and visible welding...carpets are heavy!

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[roc97007]

Hey, that's an insult to Fieros!

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[AaxelB]

I don't think it matters. The movie butchered so many comic book back stories...

Ha! Good one!

that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."

I wouldn't call it a Ferrari either. Maybe a Pinto without a paint job.

...wait, were you serious? It seems silly to pretend that the last 15 retcons or complete rewrites were okay, but this one is a step too far! I haven't seen the movie in question and have no reason to believe it's not horrible, but to borrow from James Nicoll, the problem with defending the purity of Marvel back stories is that Marvel back stories about as pure as a cribhouse whore.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[helix2301]

Ryan Reynolds did a terrible Deadpool and his Green Lantern was horrible. He stunk in Blade 3 I was glad to see Triple H beat him up. Ryan Reynolds needs to keep away from the comic book movies his adaptation are not up to par.

Sadly

[Anonymous Coward]

Upload a single movie: 1 year
Giant multi-billion-$ corporate fraud: 6 months or so

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a pinto without the Ferrari badges that a studio exec was planning on gluing on. I think the guy should be considered a consumer watchdog who warned people off of a fraudulent product, not an IP thief.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[hrimhari]

After what I saw on X-Men 3 I considered myself sufficiently warned and thought people who cared about the comics would be too.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[sexconker]

One of the sweetest things I ever picked up was the titanium bicycle frame that had just a clear coat on it, let you see the metal striations and all the welds in their raw form, with no filler to smooth any of it out, the flexible, rigid strength was visible.

My flexible, rigid strength is clearly visible in it's raw form, too.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[SeximusMaximus]

This is the problem with trying to please Comic book people in a major motion picture ADAPTATION. The script writers have to take short cuts to make the movie film length, and that cuts into the many years of development that exists in Comic book universe. It's absurb to think that the writers need to stay so many degrees away from the comics, as it is a completely different medium to tell a similar story. If you want complex back stories, stick to a medium which can build upon the stories. Feature Films are not your bag, but don't try to ruin it for the rest of us.

Just to be Fair

[Anonymous Coward]

If it didn't to feed the monster, we might want to also charge the production and distribution companies for fraud in claiming this awful movie was entertainment.

Re:To put this in perspective (Why America is DEAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he could be released earlier as well. But this is ridiculous. In fact, his uploading of the movie probably generated more buzz for the studio than the studio is willing to pay for. So he may have helped the studio make more money indirectly.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no need to put someone in prison who isn't a danger to society; its too expensive. Just cut off a pinky.

So?

[betterunixthanunix]

You really think that we should add another prisoner to an already over-crowded, over-burdened prison system just for that? Please, this punishment is way out of proportion with the "crime."

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Grishnakh]

I think the "paint job" bit is a bad analogy, and I think the "Pinto" bit is unfair. If the thing is showing green screens and such, it's really more like a Yugo without the seats and steering wheel. Actually, I think comparing it to a Yugo is probably unfair too, but I can't think of a car worse than that. Maybe a Pontiac Aztek.

Trading natural rights for artificial ones

[mykos]

Does anyone else see the madness in taking away a real person's liberty and pursuit of happiness in order to sate the artificial rights of an artificial person? I mean, artificial persons don't even risk imprisonment had the committed crimes against him, yet if he commits a crime against an artificial person, he gets removed from life for a period of time.

A Good Start

[Jellodyne]

Everyone involved in distributing X-Men: Origins: Wolverine deserved a year in prison, not just the pirates.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Grishnakh]

I'm not sure how Green Lantern could have been much better even with a different actor in the lead role.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Grishnakh]

A movie doesn't have to be "pure" (or true) to the comics, it just has to be good. The X-Men movies directed by Bryan Singer were good. After he left, they took a nosedive.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Grishnakh]

Beetles were good cars, so that's a dumb analogy. Beetles were simple and reliable, even if their performance sucked. A better comparison is with the Yugo.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. Even with the Iron Duke engine that tended to catch on fire, Fieros weren't that bad (and actually got pretty good right before they stopped production with the later V6 models). A better comparison is with the Yugo or Lada.

OK, so, let's look at the numbers...

[jamstar7]

Per the IMDB page, this turkey cost an estimated $150 million. Openning weekend brought in $85 million & lunch money. Overall theatre sales at the end of run, $373 mil and change.

This doesn't count DVD sales & royalties scammed from the cable companies to show it on TV. This also doesn't include merchandising.

Now factor in Hollywood accounting and poormouthing and we now know why the studio loses money on a film that was made for 32 million and brought in half a BILLION

Horray for bad analogies Re:lesson learned

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the plane returned to the factory unassisted with the tanks back to empty (and clear of fumes) and the only way anyone knew what had happened is that there were several reports of an unpainted 747 flying overhead.

Oh and by some miracle the engine lifecycle had been reset to zero and the engines and all other parts that would have experience wear were magically returned to new.

In fact it was later revealed that it was all a magic trick and the thief/pilot had simply generated an illusion of the plane that the security guard saw fly away and plunge into the ocean after a parachute was seen opening a minute earlier.

In fact... no, your analogy was shit because no single use only physical object was stolen (except for perhaps a physical DVD disc). All the data, and work and editing and props and Hugh Jackmans and such were all still in place and available for post production work if necessary and the movie still went on to make stupid money:
Budget: $150,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $85,058,003 (USA) (3 May 2009) (4099 Screens)
Gross: $373,062,864 (Worldwide) (1 October 2009)

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[irving47]

That is bizarre. I am sitting next to a window that overlooks a DeLorean painted red. (The owner is in the process of reverting it)

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[jamstar7]

The Trabant.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[sootman]

I've got a copy, but evidently it wouldn't be a good idea for me to post it. ;-)

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[roc97007]

Agreed, although I was not fond of the iron duke; with its iron crankcase and aluminium head, it tended to blow head gaskets due to TCE differential. However, the V6 Fiero was fast and reliable and all Fieros were stylish. There was nothing stylish, fast or fun about the film.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[countertrolling]

Maybe a Pinto without a paint job.

Wrong movie. That would be Fantastic 4 with the human torch.

Re:To put this in perspective (Why America is DEAD

[flimflammer]

So you really think he's going to be in prison for one year?

I certainly don't.

1 Year in Federal Prison?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd take a year in federal prison before I'd accept a financial judgement for a ridiculous sum that would ruin me forever.
Maybe I'm missing some information, though.

'Ferrari without a paint job'

[seeker_1us]

More like a rusted out pinto. That movie was garbage.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[bloodhawk]

Actually I thought the movie without the paintjob was far superior than the final cut. The movie was so bad that at least getting to see the wire frames on the CGI, some of the green screens and the wires for the stunts made the movie slightly more barable, without that stuff the movie was just plain bad.

Charge?

[Galestar]

What exactly is the charge? I had a quick read through the article and it was not mentioned.

fast and furious sopa edition

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Release pirated copy
2. Claim massive losses
3. Lobby Congress
4. ...
5. Profit!

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Anonymous Coward]

I really appreciate this post. I’ve been looking all over for this! Thanks !
Dermatal Review
Dermatal
Dermatal Scam

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[Anonymous Coward]

Some high-uid fool was going on about how he couldn't find it a couple months ago (read it, he makes an interesting, if IMO stupidly wrong, argument), and a certain ill-tempered AC* called him out on the stupid wrongness and posted a link.

*Me?! Why, how did you guess...

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[CTU]

I agree. I was not much of a deadpool fan, but when I saw the movie, I thought it was just some random generic bad guy with powers and I was stunned speechless when I was told "that" was deadpool.

Fucking loved it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucking loved it because I have never seen an entire movie in this form.
Definitely explains why everything looks so fake nowadays.

I'll be deleting the finished X-Men movie long before I will delete this gem.

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[JosKarith]

Not unless you shave your pubes, "Sexconker"...

Re:Ferrari without a paint job

[TheTurtlesMoves]

You are aware that one of the comic book authors also had a lot to do with the script at least in 3. Also from a reading the comics myself, they where anything but consistent. For example in some Saber is little more than a grunting animal, while in others he was quite human in behavior, much like in the movies.

Subjects are for subjects, not comments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I right?

About what? You haven't said anything.

My tax money going to support movie companies?

[BlueCoder]

I am seriously outraged. My tax dollars should not be used to help support the copyright industry. It's one thing to sue monetarily, it's another thing to put someone in jail for a year to the cost of the taxpayer for $50,000 a year. Second it's cruel.

It's one thing to give a business a tax break, it's another for government to actually do their job for them and enforce a flawed business model. To become their bill collectors.

Keep this up and people in this country will revolt. Revolt against the government and Hollywood. Suing and putting people in jail that are your potential customers. What has this country come to.

The leak is the only reason I saw it in theaters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox is awful. I suppose 1 year is better than trying to sue him for millions of dollars. But when will they realize that the leaked version is THE ONLY REASON I SAW IT IN THEATERS. It was really fascinating to see it in progress.

so this makes the guy

[Anonymous Coward]

dirty sanchez?