Slashdot Mirror
'Pirate' Website Owner Sentenced To 4 Years In Prison
Grumbleduke writes "Anton Vickerman, who owned SurfTheChannel.com, has been sentenced to 4 years in prison following his conviction last month for 'conspiracy to defraud.' This is the first successful prosecution of an individual in the UK for running a website merely linking to allegedly infringing content (several earlier cases collapsed or resulted in acquittals). Vickerman was prosecuted for the controversial offense of 'conspiracy to defraud' for 'facilitating copyright infringement,' rather than for copyright infringement itself, and it is worth noting that the relevant copyright offense carries a maximum prison sentence of only two years — half of what was given. FACT, the Hollywood-backed enforcement group who were heavily involved in the prosecution noted that the conviction 'should send a very strong message to those running similar sites that they can be found, arrested and end up in prison,' but it remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on pirate sites, or encourage development of the largely hopeless legal market for online film."
A snausages just for you, boy!! Who's a good U.S. lapdog? Yes, *you* are!!
So when can we expect "conspiracy to defraud" cases to be initiated against, e.g., the suits in charge of RBS leading up to the 2008 financial crisis?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Now you Brits know how we Americans feel when we wipe with our Constitution. Based on my read of BBC's coverage, looks like this guy was guilty until proven innocent.
While I'm a rather happy pirate and pirate supporter, I don't think you can quite count it as "merely linking" if you actively source pirated material to link to. The flimsy excuse the pirate bay has for instance is that it's "just an indexing site" and can just as happily be used for legal material... when you are going out and looking for pirated stuff to link to, "merely" leaves the table.
Also I might just be tired, but the summary makes it seem like he got four years out of a maximum of two possible - that's not the case. He got 4 years out of a maximum of TEN possible according to the articles I've seen about it.
And now I feel all dirty for having to take the wrong side in this argument. I wish people would understand that if we stopped using hyperbole and chest thumping tactics we'd win on default in the eyes of the public. With articles like this, misrepresenting facts, twisting words, transparent agendas... That's as low and useless as the *AA tactics we oppose.
I need a shower, proceed with the discussion without me.
You won't have anybody to change your bedpans in ten or twenty years. Then what? Well, I guess there's always immigration to fill in, and you get more people to lock up and make work for free.
The fraud didn't matter. That's a part of everyday business amongst the big boys. No, the problem here was he picked the wrong target.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So, I suppose this means giving people jail time for minor civil infractions (while letting major crimes, such as international larceny and funding terrorism, go unpunished) is the new normal?
Looks like Vickerman's real crime was not being wealthy enough to buy his way out of trouble...
This world, she is fucked...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So when are youtube's owning stake in the UK being locked up for this one then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBn4RMTU9SU (the crow - full movie)
States are now puppets of the corporations. This is something I can't seem to make anarchist-capitalists understand. They don't comprehend that money == power. With a government the corporations may not exist, but the large companies and rich owners would still be in charge and writing the laws that make us all victims to their whims.
ALSO: How can a judge enact a punishment that is double that proscribed by law? This looks like a stupid decision just waiting to be overturned by an appeals court.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The US Gov has mutated and is deep into international extortion and terrorism, even on a retail basis. Basically, governments all over the world need to tell them and their weaslely spying and extortion to get stuffed ans stay home. We taxpayers would appreciate it, too.
States are now puppets of the corporations. This is something I can't seem to make anarchist-capitalists understand. They don't comprehend that money == power.
But this happens because the current standard of "doing politics" is money-based. There are alternative systems in which having money doesn't translate into having power (at least not automatically), such as those based on birth (monarchy/feudalism) or merit (the pre-modern Chinese bureaucracy), but they're mostly frown upon, and for good reasons. Then there are those in which money basically isn't permitted, but those also don't solve the issue, as in them you simply declare the de jure political rulers as being the de facto owners of 100% of the money, there not existing any distinction whatsoever anymore. The solution, if any, definitely isn't clear.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
FACT: you are a dumbass.
Corporations undeniably have considerable power and influence, but that's a far cry from being the state's puppet masters. The problem is: on difficult issues like IP, which most voters are soft on, politicians are open to be swayed either way. By their advisers, who are most likely lobbyists for corporations. That is the big advantage they have over the general populace: not control over politicians; in this case merely having their ear is enough. The politicians do not understand the issue and are happy to be "properly" informed, and most voters do not give a damn.
In the USA, the situation is slightly worse perhaps: you guys are a nation of lawyers, or at least it is them who are in control. With the president reiterating that IP is the key to the future of American economics, and lawyers having a vested interest in endless IP-related litigation, you can forget about patent or copyright laws ever being reformed. That is, unless politicians and lawmakers with a conscience, and with a decent understanding of the issue, take office. Fat chance of that.
In the Netherlands, national politics is utterly boned. The largest parties are either socialists who stick to their ideology but unfortunately have the wrong one, and the liberals (= moderate right wing) who have a good ideology but seem to have forgotten it completely. I think my vote might go to the Pirate Party this time.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
With a government the corporations may not exist, but the large companies and rich owners would still be in charge and writing the laws that make us all victims to their whims.
You clearly don't understand anarcho-capitalism. There would be only one law: Keep your hands off other people and their property without their permission.
Obviously, a definition of what counts as "people", "property" and "permission" need to go along with that single law but it's fairly intuitive. Anything capable of asserting itself as a person is one. You can claim unowned property by marking it as yours and taking an interest in it. No you can't claim the moon when you've never been there. No you can't claim an entire continent by planting a flag on a beach. Permission requires non-fraudulent consent. Knowing all that, how on earth do you get the idea that following these ideas can end up with the "rich" stuffing poor people into meat grinders for their amusement?
The only way anyone could get rich is by serving wants of the masses with lower priced higher quality goods and services than the competition. In a free market, if we all want Nike shoes and McDonald's hamburgers, Adidas and Wendy's are going broke and there's nothing they can do about it. The "poor" decide who becomes "rich". Consumers have the ultimate power, not producers. With services like Urbanspoon, Yelp, etc, you can't even claim much of an asymmetry of information. If your product sucks, a few people might experience it firsthand but word will spread quickly and you'll be out of business in no time. With government intervention, Wendy's could claim that McDonald's has a monopoly and get subsidized, etc, etc. Even though everyone wants McDonald's, Wendy's can play political favors to waste time and money giving us what we don't want.
If you want to then argue that popular taste sucks, you're just being a snob. We each are the judge of what we like best. If you think that because your opinion is a minority that you'll be left out in the cold, you're wrong again. It's the government that necessarily reduces variety with regulations and market intervention. In a free market, if you want something bad enough and willing to pay for it, you'll get it, even if it's raw milk or fish pedicures.
For more insight, I recommend that you read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman.
You clearly don't understand anarcho-capitalism. There would be only one law: Keep your hands off other people and their property without their permission.
When the entire city, including the roadways, police, education system is owned by a private corporation, how does one live a lawful life without selling oneself to the corporation?
Knowing all that, how on earth do you get the idea that following these ideas can end up with the "rich" stuffing poor people into meat grinders for their amusement?
The gilded age. There but for government regulations won by a strong labor movement go we.
The only way anyone could get rich is by serving wants of the masses with lower priced higher quality goods and services than the competition.
Yes, and because of economies of scale the rich can provide higher quality goods and services than the poor can. The consequence of this is wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. Money makes money faster than labor does. Without specific provisions(like say, government regulation) to stop this, inequality will rule until the poor rise up and slaughter everyone. Is that what you want?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And more important, you need to define what can be "property". In various times and places, such definitions included people and ideas.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
even though the overwhelming majority of the population supported the ban.
citation, please.
I'm pretty sure the "overwhelming majority of the population" doesn't give a fuck one way or the other. The majority of eligible voters don't even bother to vote these days.
no taxation without representation!
It's still rather weird that you can get a longer sentence for helping someone with copyright infringement, than you can get for the infringment itself, no matter how large, though.
The problem with communism, anarchishm AND capitalism, is that they anticipate all members to be either communists, anarchists or capitalists respectively.
For the anarcho-capitalism proposed here to work, you would require respect for property rights or laws. Granted you have respect for property rights/laws, you are back in our current system only with less government. Less government means you have even more have-mores and many have-lesses. Welcome the feudal system.
They are all theories that look fine on paper, but people is different. It's this difference we must cater to.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Here is an interesting analogy to contemplate. Your manager has to fire someone, who told him he had to do so? Generally those decisions are not made by the person performing the acts. Often the person that made that call plays nice guy, apologizes, lies and says "If there is anything I can do for you let me know". What if the poor sap having to fire people was the US, and the people playing nice guy are someone else?
The layers of feces covering what's really happening in the world are very think and smelly. Until we shovel enough away, it's pure speculation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.