Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Man Pleads Guilty To $100M Piracy Operation

iComp sends word of a Chinese businessman who pleaded guilty to selling pirated software the retail value of which totaled more than $100 million. The software came from over 200 different companies, and was sold to buyers in 61 different countries over a 3-year period. The man was arrested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the island of Saipan in 2011, after undercover agents had been working on the case for 18 months (PDF). "Li trolled black market Internet forums in search of hacked software, and people with the know-how to crack the passwords needed to run the program. Then he advertised them for sale on his websites. Li transferred the pirated programs to customers by sending compressed files via Gmail, or sent them hyperlinks to download servers, officials said. ... Agents lured Li from China to the U.S. territory of Saipan under the premise of discussing a joint illicit business venture. At an island hotel, Li delivered counterfeit packaging and, prosecutors said, "Twenty gigabytes of proprietary data obtained unlawfully from an American software company." Officials did not identify the company in court documents."

174 comments

  1. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Saipan is the largest island of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), an unincorporated territory of the United States.

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

  2. About Saipan by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    By the way... Saipan is the largest island of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

    So it is well within the scope of the Homeland Security Thugs...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  3. PROBABLY RED HAT IS THE US COMPANY !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    No doubt !! Its software is SUPER valuable !!

  4. A hundred million? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the dude pocketed a hundred million bucks, then it's a hundred million dollar piracy operation. This sounds to me like the standard law enforcement press release inflation gambit.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:A hundred million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to take this stance, then I had a prototype design (electronic) sneaked off to china and copied and reproduced

      now, fuck china hard, they did none of the work and got all the profit fuck them in their short asses

    2. Re:A hundred million? by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1, Funny

      but this is slashdot - information wants to be FREE*

      * unless it's a GPL violation, in which case they flay you alive.

    3. Re:A hundred million? by westlake · · Score: 0

      If the dude pocketed a hundred million bucks, then it's a hundred million dollar piracy operation.

      When someone breaks into your house or shop do you want to recover the full value of the property he stole or the price he received for his stolen goods --- mere pennies on the dollar at best? If he gives your stuff away, what then?

    4. Re:A hundred million? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      When someone breaks into your house or shop do you want to recover the full value of the property he stole or the price he received for his stolen goods --- mere pennies on the dollar at best? If he gives your stuff away, what then?

      Total non sequitur. No one broke into anywhere or took anything from anyone.

    5. Re:A hundred million? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Same as the US in the late 1800s. Payback is a bitch, hypocrites.

    6. Re:A hundred million? by ta_gueule · · Score: 1

      And so what? What are you trying to say? This guy didn't break into your house, did he? Or are you trying to say that stealing is the same as infringing copyrights? If so, then let me educate you. "Pirating" is not theft, it's copyright infringment. Totally different concepts.

    7. Re:A hundred million? by ta_gueule · · Score: 1

      Right, but you wouldn't have satellites, mobile phones and a lot of other stuff without spying. I know it feels bad to be on the receiving end of spying but really, until we live in a world where everybody freely exchange their information for the betterment of humanity, this is really necessary.

    8. Re:A hundred million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A GPL violation is making it not free, so your sarcastic comment is bogus.

    9. Re:A hundred million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but this is slashdot - information wants to be FREE*

      But it does, no matter how much you wish it didn't. And no, you don't get to redeclare the meaning of this metaphor (that duplicating information is easy).

      Sharing is normal human behavior, copying is easy and artificial scarcity has been one of the biggest losses of value in human history.

      * unless it's a GPL violation, in which case they flay you alive.

      Hypocrite. The GPL specifically allows copying and is a tool designed to work in a world with broken law, just like democracies use guns to defend themselves.

    10. Re:A hundred million? by Threni · · Score: 1

      You pay loads of money for software because of, amongst other things, the supports. Pirates aren't going to get support, so remove that from the cost.

      By your reckoning, I could take a photo of my cat, burn it to a CD, stick it on eBay with a price of 100 trillion dollars, and if anyone copies it from me and sells it for $100 they're the biggest, most successful criminal of all time. They're not - they're selling disks for $100.

    11. Re:A hundred million? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that, since the total value of what the guy took was 0 (nothing was removed from the possession of its owners), it was a zero dollar piracy operation?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:A hundred million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different administrations, different businesses, different people. Unless you're also saying that US violations of European copyright in the near past was payback against France/Germany/GB for their appropriation of methods and technologies from Romans/Greeks/Arabs/Chinese in the more distant past.

    13. Re:A hundred million? by ta_gueule · · Score: 1

      Your point is quite valid but what the OP overlooked is that it is happening right now, not in the 1800s. The US government and US corporations are spying, right now on pretty much every other government and corporations. Not doing so would be pretty stupid anyway. The problem is not spying, it is when you are spied. When you are spying and get caught, just deny and move along ... unless you are smaller than the entity you are spying, then you are in troubles. But when you are spied, that is a huge issue. Get as much media attention as you can and point the finger at your most hated competitor and make a big fuss about it. This is totally unacceptable.

    14. Re:A hundred million? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Or are you trying to say that stealing is the same as infringing copyrights?

      It's true that noncommercial copyright infringement isn't theft, any more than murder is rape, but commercial infringement is actually fraud, which is theft. The money the counterfeiter got was money that should have gone to the producer, money the producer actually owned.

      When you DL from TPB, nobody is harmed and most content creators are helped. But if you burn that content to disks and sell them, there is harm.
      That said, if this software ws over 20 years old it shouldn't even be under copyright (although it stupidly is).

    15. Re:A hundred million? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      but this is slashdot - information wants to be FREE*
      * unless it's a GPL violation, in which case they flay you alive.

      GPL licensed works ARE free; violations take free information and enslave it. Slave traders NEED to be flayed alive!

  5. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it surprise you if I said that there are a number of people here who despise the drug war and other such nonsense?

  6. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United States Homeland Security should not be involved in arresting people in Saipan.

    Why not?

    The fact that it has happened is egregious.

    Your ignorance is egregious. And atrocious.

    WTF is going on with the Obama Whitehouse?

    They're enforcing the law, unlike the Bush Whitehouse?

  7. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will drive prices down, so I'm all for it. Adderall and the like are sold at drug stores, but it's often inconvenient to get a script.

  8. Re:We need to stop this by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0

    What do those chemical substances have to do with the American STASI arresting people in foreign countries? Would you be comfortable with some police from a middle eastern country arresting you in the US for breaking some law they have over there? Does the word "Homeland" have any meaning for you at all?

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  9. 100 million my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More like a 60,000 USD operation, which is what he made off his dealings. Retail value here has no meaning here as nothing was taken from anyone.

    1. Re:100 million my arse by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Anyway. Who BUYs pirated software? His clients should be fined for stupidity.

    2. Re:100 million my arse by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

      sigh. how many times will you people keep repeating the same BS argument?

      of COURSE something was taken.

      what was taken was:

      - the opportunity to legitimately sell the software.
      - the perceived market value of the original was diminished.

      even if you were to argue that nobody who pirated would have bought it, the second point is very important. how would you feel if everybody was jumping the turnstiles but you were the only one paying for the subway? you'd feel like a fool and so your willingness to pay is decreased. same thing here.

      stop repeating tired and well debunked nonsense.

    3. Re:100 million my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyway. Who BUYs pirated software? His clients should be fined for stupidity.

      They were. They paid him for the product.

    4. Re:100 million my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how would you feel if everybody was jumping the turnstiles but you were the only one paying for the subway? you'd feel like a fool and so your willingness to pay is decreased. same thing here.

      So you know exactly what everyone would feel? Pretty intuitive of you... if not absurdly presumptive.

      Just because you believe something doesn't mean it applies to everyone. That's called projection.

    5. Re:100 million my arse by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Everyone in China. You can pay 2 years salary for CS6, or get the same thing from a guy on the corner (often in an official Adobe box) for one or two day's salary.

    6. Re:100 million my arse by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Anyway. Who BUYs pirated software? His clients should be fined for stupidity.

      The FBI did. Same way they pretend to be 12 year old girls in chatrooms and invite guys to meet them.

      In this case it was pretty specialised stuff, not cracked copies of Photoshop.

    7. Re:100 million my arse by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Everyone in China. You can pay 2 years salary for CS6, or get the same thing from a guy on the corner (often in an official Adobe box) for one or two day's salary.

      Or, if you don't want the box, just one DVD in a plastic bag for about $1.

    8. Re:100 million my arse by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      of COURSE something was taken.

      "Taking" an imaginary profit from an imaginary sale is not "stealing".

      how would you feel if everybody was jumping the turnstiles but you were the only one paying for the subway? you'd feel like a fool and so your willingness to pay is decreased. same thing here.

      In the subway, one you get past the gate, you get the same service. If you use warez, you have no support, no tax deductions, and are at constant risk of auditing. Anyone who wants bootleg copies of MS Office or Adobe CS6 can get the torrent in an hour. Yet Microsoft and Adobe make billions from selling the same software. So, clearly no one is discouraged from buying it. In fact both MS and Adobe encourage piracy of their software in poorer countries to lock out cheaper or free alternatives, planning to move in later when there's a profit to be made.

    9. Re:100 million my arse by tofarr · · Score: 1

      That's what he said - one or two days salary!

    10. Re:100 million my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Taking" an imaginary profit

      This guy was selling the product for money, the profit was very much real.

    11. Re:100 million my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 or 2 days salary? That seems completely far since Adobe charges about 1 or 2 days salary of mine for photoshop. i make about $400/day.

    12. Re:100 million my arse by shitzu · · Score: 1

      Yea, but the argument here is that he did not make 100mil, therefore it is not a 100mil scam. 100mil was an imaginary profit, or "retail value" of the software he sold. That would probably not have been sold at retail price anyway.

  10. Censorship & Piracy by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The other day I was chatting with someone from an Islamic country and the guy told me that he **WAS FORCED TO DOWNLOAD PIRATED MOVIES** because of the censorship that was being practiced in his country.

    He posted a list of movies that he said he had to pirate because they were ***ILLEGAL*** in his country.

    The local cinemas were prohibited from showing those movies, and he couldn't buy any legal version of those movies on legal DVDs either.

    Among the names of the movies that he posted, I only remember two of them, and they were:

    The Prince of Egypt http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120794/

    and

    Babe http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112431/

    The person claimed that he felt bad for downloading the pirated version of the movies but he had no choice.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Cryacin · · Score: 3
      How would US customs feel about his arrival in the US? How would US citizens feel about his, and other's like him living in the US?

      He should probably stop living in an Islamic country.

      Of course, he snaps his fingers, and winds up skipping down the road hand in hand with his new friends in the United States of America, who's doors are always open.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Censorship & Piracy by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WAS FORCED TO DOWNLOAD PIRATED MOVIES

      The person claimed that he felt bad for downloading the pirated version of the movies but he had no choice.

      Forced to download! No choice! (As if someone held a gun to his head and MADE HIM pirate movies.)

      These words. They do not mean what you think they mean.

    3. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Warhawke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I read this twice trying to understand how a censorious government was forcing this man to download movies. How did he have no choice? Were agents holding a gun to his head telling him to download? Was he working for the government and how to download the movies to determine whether their content should be censored?

      Then I realized what you (or he) meant was that he really, really wanted to see these movies and couldn't obtain them through legal channels.

      I'm usually the one with the tent and sleeper who camped out the night before when it comes to standing in the anti-censorship line, but laws are laws, and Islamic countries have different laws as values than the U.S. and others. This guy was in no way forced to download movies. He just wanted the movies and decided to go to illegal means to get them. Legally, this is no different than downloading a movie because you're out of cash. While there may be a moral issue in the appropriateness of censorship, this guy plainly and simply violated the law and ethics of his culture and then claimed the government "made him do it." I vehemently hate DRM, and it often screws up my ability to view the content in the manner that I want. At no point does it grab me and force me to perform illegal activities by stripping the DRM or pirating content. I may or may not choose to do so of my own volition, and I may feel completely justified in doing so, but I, like this guy, have the choice simply not to consume the product at all!

    4. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person claimed that he felt bad for downloading the pirated version of the movies but he had no choice.

      Please explain to me why he absolutely had to watch The Prince of Egypt and Babe, as having "no choice" implies that this was of the utmost important regardless of the consequences.

      Entertainment is not a universal human right nor should it be as it would devalue other human rights such as the right to life and freedom of expression (and no, watching movies of your choice is not covered by freedom of expression).

      This reflects on one of the predominant attitudes in the anti-copyright movement: the idea that everyone should be able to access content under whatever conditions they feel like. An argument can be made for such access in some special cases where limiting access would be detrimental to society, but not for the sake of entertainment alone. Why should someone else not receive anything for their work just because you or anyone else feels like benefiting from it without paying for it. If you have no way to pay for it, then change that instead.

      Let me also say that I think copyright legislation has expanded far beyond what is reasonable but copyright itself does provide clear incentive to produce content. Just because it costs nothing to copy and distribute content doesn't mean it costs nothing to make it and in that sense obtaining it without paying should be considered wrong. How much you should pay and how much the producers should be able to acquire in total is a matter of debate.

      The real reason to oppose current copyright enforcement is that the tools required can monitor and sensor all data and will be misused in the future. When the enforcement model switches from blacklists to whitelists we are all going to be in trouble, largely due to a bunch of selfish parasites who started an arms race just to watch shitty clichéd Hollywood movies for free.

    5. Re:Censorship & Piracy by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

      "Cool story, bro."

      Seriously. This is the latest twist on the slashdot mentality of "make any argument, no matter how dubious, as long as it rationalizes piracy and thine comment shall be marked up."

      You know, because truly, his and your freedom demands his downloading the tale of a courageous pig that learns to be a sheepdog with the help of farmer hoggett.

    6. Re:Censorship & Piracy by TheLink · · Score: 1

      He should probably stop living in an Islamic country.

      If you really believe that, you should invite him to stay at your place (I'm assuming you're not living in an Islamic country).

      --
    7. Re:Censorship & Piracy by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I've never felt too bad for not seeing those movies.

      I remember one thing about two hollywood photography movie guys(the guys in charge of cameras, lighting and that) was that when they were in their soviet state film school, they were allowed to see western movies. but without audio.

      there really is compelling reasons for some guys to see movies, even shitty movies, in order to learn.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain to me why he absolutely had to watch The Prince of Egypt and Babe, as having "no choice" implies that this was of the utmost important regardless of the consequences.

      As in, if he wanted to watch them, he had to download them. I don't see why he'd feel bad, though. What a wimp.

    9. Re:Censorship & Piracy by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Then I realized what you (or he) meant was that he really, really wanted to see these movies and couldn't obtain them through legal channels.

      If you realized that, then why does the rest of your post make it seem as if you didn't?

      this guy plainly and simply violated the law and ethics of his culture

      Do you think that's a bad thing?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we have 4-digit id slashdotters posting flamebait?

    11. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far far too many seem to confuse figurative with literal. When something is said without either term, it is safe to assume figurative immediately context unaware. When literal is used, it is safe to figuratively assume they mean figurative and not literal. They just wanted the sentence to have more weight than it really needs or has.

      It it ripe grounds to classify responses with these two categories. This comment block demonstrates that people like taking implicitly figurative context as literal and complain about how absurd something is when read literally.

      If a content can not be obtained through acceptably normal means in a location, than using unacceptable means to acquire it shouldn't and can not have any negative recourse.

    12. Re:Censorship & Piracy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oddly, NZ recognizes this as unjust. In short, if something is not available in NZ, but is available elsewhere, it isn't illegal to import/download, or so I've been told, though that was before the Hobbit legislation.

    13. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Your choice is not like that guy's choice. Leaving aside that laws are not ethics are not cultural values (congruent to a degree that is strongly dependent on your location, but not the same), his choice is quite different.

      Your choice is whether to accept or reject a contract between you and the movie vendor. Party A: You. Party B: Vendor. Enforcer: Government.

      His choice is whether to accept or reject a unilateral prohibition against the movie itself. Party A: Him. Party B: Government. Enforcer: Government.

    14. Re:Censorship & Piracy by telchine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would US citizens feel about his, and other's like him living in the US?

      As far as I'm concerned, so long as they learn the local language and customs ... anyone who can use an apostrophe correctly is welcome to become a US citizen.

    15. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other day I was chatting with someone from an Islamic country and the guy told me that he **WAS FORCED TO DOWNLOAD PIRATED MOVIES** because of the censorship that was being practiced in his country.

      Then he was either lying, or using hyperbole. You can only say you are "forced" to do something if you are doing so under duress. In most situations, most people consider actions taken under duress to be morally acceptable, at least when it does not involve directly violating someone else's human rights. The common example of when duress is not considered a morally acceptable excuse is called the Nuremberg defense.

      He posted a list of movies that he said he had to pirate because they were ***ILLEGAL*** in his country.

      No. They are movies which he had to "pirate" if he chose to view the material. So right off the bat he had the choice to not view it at all.

      The person claimed that he felt bad for downloading the pirated version of the movies but he had no choice.

      So did he PAY a non-authorized source for them? Or did he download them for free? That's another choice he had right there.
      And he had yet another choice- he could have PAID an authorized source for the movies. Yes, he would still be violating the laws of his country. But he wouldn't be committing piracy or copyright infringement by doing so.

      Example- I wanted to play a video game in the US which was not legally released in the US market. So I broke the law and illegally imported a copy. But I did not pirate it or violate copyright by doing so. There was another game I wanted to play, also unreleased in the US. But I didn't care enough to bother trying to import a legitimate copy, so I simply chose not to play it. Then there was a third game, same situation. In this case, I simply downloaded a cracked copy.
      None of those situations was piracy, one was copyright infringement, one was no crime at all, and one was illegal import. But in NO case did I ever PAY some asshole who was selling someone else's materials.

    16. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would US customs feel about his arrival in the US?

      Since when is the US the ONLY non-Islamic country on the planet?

      and winds up skipping down the road hand in hand with his new friends in the United States of America, who's doors are always open

      I have a very good friend who was born in Iran. She is a fully legal citizen of the USA now, and in fact happily married with three children. She lives in an rural State in the US which is well known for being a bastion of Conservative thought and all around bigotry. She is well-respected in the area, has plenty of friends, and you won't meet a person who has a bad thing to say about her.

      The visions of the US you see portrayed in popular media and by Trolls in comment sections on websites is not universal, and in most parts of the country has almost no resemblance to reality. I've traveled to several Islamic countries, and to be blunt I've never felt the kind of hostility or Western Hatred from the actual people "on the streets" which I see portrayed in the news or see from assholes like you.

    17. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other day I was chatting with someone from an Islamic country and the guy told me that he **WAS FORCED TO DOWNLOAD PIRATED MOVIES** because of the censorship that was being practiced in his country.

      He posted a list of movies that he said he had to pirate because they were ***ILLEGAL*** in his country.

      The local cinemas were prohibited from showing those movies, and he couldn't buy any legal version of those movies on legal DVDs either.

      Among the names of the movies that he posted, I only remember two of them, and they were:

      The Prince of Egypt http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120794/

      and

      Babe http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112431/

      The person claimed that he felt bad for downloading the pirated version of the movies but he had no choice.

      Had no choice! What a load of non-sense.

      I don't buy illegal drugs from an illegal source because I have no choice!
      I just don't do drugs!

      If this person really thinks that the censorship in his/her country is that bad, move! Or at least wonder if all this hassle is really worth it for 'Babe'!!!

    18. Re:Censorship & Piracy by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Or when it comes to games you'll find that some DRM(Games for Windows Live) isn't available in some countries.

      I'm sorry, but if you can't be arsed to sell your stuff and it gets pirated then you can't claim lost sales. At all.
      Same goes for DVDs, Books, Comics and other stuff. You didn't find a regional publisher for those? You think that the hassle to actually sell your goods outweighs revenue? Boohoo. Cry me a river. But do so silently.

      Also, regional publishing rights. These need to go. Electronic goods distribution has been international since the Internet. If it takes you 20 years to react to a fact of life, then maybe -just maybe- your business modell doesn't deserve to survive. Just maybe.

      If piracy is indeed a service problem(Steam/GoG/Humble bundle sales seem to indicate so), then it is made worse by regional publishing rights.
      Did you know that you could lose your whole Steam/Amazon library just for moving into a different publishing region?

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    19. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How would US customs feel about his arrival in the US? How would US citizens feel about his, and other's like him living in the US?

      Who the fuck would want to live in US either?

    20. Re:Censorship & Piracy by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Well if he wanted to see them he had no choice, anyway. But I think you already knew that, didn't you?

    21. Re:Censorship & Piracy by scarboni888 · · Score: 2

      Just because a law exists does not make it right. And when laws are not right it is you moral duty to break them. Over and over again. Until the buttheads that support the wrongness finally understand the error of their ways.

    22. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's your thought on the following:

      1. You purchase some DRM protected content.
      2. You take it home to discover the DRM fails and you are unable to use the product.
      3. The shop you purchased this from refuses to acknowledge there is an issue with the product. At best they offer you a credit note.

      Do you just suck up the loss?

    23. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      True to an extent, but laws are ethics in that they (supposedly) embody the moral construct of a specific society. Laws that are malum prohibitum are not morally based, and therefore less than commentary on the ethics of a society. The difference between contract acceptance and unilateral prohibition is true. Would your analysis change if I were debating between purchasing/downloading a bootlegged copy of a movie or concert, which are unilaterally prohibited in the United States? While the degree may be different, OP's repeated emphasis on that the guy was "forced to" download is misplaced. "Had no other choice if he wanted to see the work" is a more accurate portrayal.

    24. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      If it is your moral duty to break laws, then you have a similar moral obligation to suffer the consequences. Otherwise I'd postulate it is only your moral duty to change laws.

    25. Re:Censorship & Piracy by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The OP's logic is roundabout, but if the content is banned it has essentially been appropriated by the government, and fulfilling any moral obligation to the producers of the content has indeed been blocked by force. It's a different story with DRM or exploitative pricing, since those are implemented by the producers.

    26. Re:Censorship & Piracy by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      He had no choice as in someone put a gun to his head and told him to start DLing or die? That's hard to believe.

    27. Re:Censorship & Piracy by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      The other day I was chatting with someone from an Islamic country and the guy told me that he **WAS FORCED TO DOWNLOAD PIRATED MOVIES** because of the censorship that was being practiced in his country.

      He posted a list of movies that he said he had to pirate because they were ***ILLEGAL*** in his country.

      The local cinemas were prohibited from showing those movies, and he couldn't buy any legal version of those movies on legal DVDs either.

      Among the names of the movies that he posted, I only remember two of them, and they were:

      The Prince of Egypt http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120794/

      and

      Babe http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112431/

      The person claimed that he felt bad for downloading the pirated version of the movies but he had no choice.

      He could also just consider not watching those movies...

    28. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Marijuana is legal in NL but illegal in my country. I am basically *********FORCED********** to break the law to get my marijuana here. Isn't that insane? Oh, wait...

      Captcha: alcohols. Figures.

    29. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Laws still aren't ethics; I might accept "laws *articulate* ethics...", perhaps. Hmm. I think I lack sufficient skill to concisely convey my thoughts, here.

      Would my analysis change if your source was a bootleg? No. That's just adding another intermediate step between you and the vendor; the work itself is still not prohibited to you. Unless I've misinterpreted and you meant something else. Now if the work was being denied to you by its own vendor, that would be something I'd have to contemplate.

      I do certainly agree on your view re the OP's emphasis.

    30. Re:Censorship & Piracy by 1s44c · · Score: 2

      Well if he wanted to see them he had no choice, anyway. But I think you already knew that, didn't you?

      I can't imagine why any grown man would want to watch babe, a Children's film about a talking pig.

    31. Re:Censorship & Piracy by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the number of digits on your UID related to your intelligence, punctuality, respectfulness, social status etc.

    32. Re:Censorship & Piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forced to download! No choice! (As if someone held a gun to his head and MADE HIM pirate movies.)

      As a citizen participant in his government, how does he make informed decisions on whether or not "Prince of Egypt" or "Babe" should be censored if he cannot in fact see the movies?

      Think of it as "forced to download" versus "forced not to download". "Forced to download" won.

      Both governmental censorship and IP law are in "force". I'm prepared to say that choice is removed from the equation and TBTB (whether media or government) have elected to trade in force, not in freedom.

      The winning move may be to not play the game, but eventually they'll take the money for IP by force (like taxes for the NEA or restricted broadcast spectrum or taxpayer-funded-but-IP-encrusted research).

  11. Strict in dealing by loftconversions11 · · Score: 1

    Does he solely do that piracy software or there are also other people with him when he did that black internet market? They (U.S. Department homeland security)should be more stern more in dealing this kind of black market.

    1. Re:Strict in dealing by Coffeesloth · · Score: 0

      Frankly the Department of Homeland Security had no business getting involved nor had they any business going outside of this country to make arrests. What part of Homeland applies to foreign countries? Seriously, this has always been handled by the FBI in the past, what changed and why?

  12. How much tax did the US company pay? by russsell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hazard a guess that the cost of this operation was less than the amount of tax that the US company paid that year.

    1. Re:How much tax did the US company pay? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      how much US tax did the person pay while selling property of US companies?

      two wrongs dont make a right

    2. Re:How much tax did the US company pay? by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      The money is probably given to the Chinese government which in turn funneled back to the U.S. in the form of treasury bonds in order to finance the deficit spending.

  13. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you do not have personal experience knowing someone who's life was destroyed by Meth, which is not Adderall.

  14. Was it oracle and the range-check function? by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 0

    Was it oracle and the range-check function?

    ;>)
    .
    Slashdot covered this earlier in the year with a judge saying that a high-schooler could write the range-check code from scratch with no difficulty. Yet Oracle was suing for millions for nine lines of code that checks and validates the input matching the expected range of values.
    .
    If these court cases can hide what exactly the person is charged with doing wrong and illegally, then how can we even know if there is a potential miscarriage of justice?

    1. Re:Was it oracle and the range-check function? by Acapulco · · Score: 1

      ...then how can we even know if there is a potential miscarriage of justice?

      I don't think we can or ever will... even if I hope we do.

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
  15. Re:We need to stop this by Trepidity · · Score: 0

    This guy made less than $100k selling pirated software, so we're not really talking about some kind of big-shot international criminal syndicate. I don't think I would want the U.S. busting small-time drug dealers in random third countries either.

  16. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have had that experience, then you're not impartial to begin with. What is it that you want? Safety?

  17. STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It has *nothing* to do with stealing shit on the high seas!

    It doesn't even have anything to do with *stealing*! It is *information*! The original *copy* is still in the hands of the fuckers who made it!

    All he did, was rip off people, by profiting from the artificial scarcity that was originally there for the makers to *rip off people*, and that is nowadays *only* used for the *distributors* to rip off people and rip off the maker *too*!
    So what he did was *exactly* like what the distributors do. Apart from a tiny fixed amount of money that went to the makers for their *service*.

    He's just deemed a "criminal", because the organized crime that usually does the crimes, also controls the government. That's the only difference.

    1. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      so making profit for clicking a link is totally OK at the expense at the people who put hard work behind it?

      I understand that there is markup, and its usually way too high making the product artificially scarce, thats a different problem, but if everything were free in the world we would still be wiping our asses with leaves and bathing once a quarter. There would be no incentive to do anything, and man is lazy as shit, need proof? See article where some lazy fuck clicked a link.

    2. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

      1. the word piracy has several meanings. get a dictionary.
      2. you added the word "stealing." However, it is stealing. It's stealing the opportunity to sell to certain people and, more importantly, ruining the *perceived value" of the goods which cannot be returned.

      your arguments have been weighed and found to be immature.

    3. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      at the expense at the people who put hard work behind it?

      At the expense of them? As far as I know, this guy's actions had no direct effect on the people who made the original product.

      but if everything were free in the world

      Who claims that everything in the world should be free?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words can take on different meanings, or senses. Most of them do! You use context to determine which sense is being used. Now you know!

    5. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      They are not getting paid for those copies &
      People who take whatever they want

    6. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. the word piracy has several meanings. get a dictionary.

      Yes, yes. Just because a word technically can be used to describe a certain thing doesn't mean it's intelligent to use it that way. The problem is that is confuses the issue for people who are ignorant and the two are legally quite different. Running to the dictionary won't change either of those things.

      It's stealing the opportunity to sell to certain people

      Like ('normal') competition does?

      ruining the *perceived value" of the goods which cannot be returned.

      People can imagine whatever they like. No one's stopping them from doing so. I can imagine a lot of things, but the fact that something that someone does might make it less likely that I'm able to continue believing in my delusions does not mean they stole from me.

      Believe it's wrong if you wish, but it has no direct impact on anything like actual stealing does (again, go ahead and run to a dictionary if you want, but it won't help you).

      your arguments have been weighed and found to be immature.

      Thanks to brilliant sentences like these, I'm sure he was thoroughly convinced.

    7. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      They are not getting paid for those copies

      But they've directly lost nothing. The only thing they've potentially 'lost' is potential profit, and I lose that all the time just by existing.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, this guy's actions had no direct effect on the people who made the original product.

      Well, folks on the Pirate Bay usually have a positive effect on media sales (studies have shown this), but in the case of counterfeiters like this guy, there was actual harm. TPB users probably wouldn't buy anyway (unless they liked the movie they pirated and saw the DVD at Walmart), but these people spent money on the product -- money the producers should have gotten but never saw.

      Who claims that everything in the world should be free?

      I do, with the caveat that it will have to wait until it's possible, when robotics are good anough to do any job.

    9. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      there was actual harm

      Well, I think what you consider actual harm and what I consider actual harm may differ.

      but these people spent money on the product

      But the amount of money they spent is still relevant. If the real product costs more money, and there are no 'illegitimate' ways to get it at a cheaper price, then people may simply decide not to buy it at all.

      money the producers should have gotten but never saw.

      "should have gotten"? That doesn't sound much different from the usual copyright infringement.

      The only difference between selling it and giving it away is that the probability of the original artists losing potential profit most likely increases when someone illegitimately sells their product. If you believe that loss of potential profit causes harm, then it would seem that you should believe that both selling the product and allowing others to copy it for free causes harm.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your existence has no value, software does

    11. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      But the amount of money they spent is still relevant.

      That's true, if the counterfeiter charged $5 for photoshop it's a pretty good bet the buyer wouldn't have paid full price. $75 for office? Maybe.

      "should have gotten"? That doesn't sound much different from the usual copyright infringement.

      The difference is there's money involved. If I share a file with you it's the same as selling it for $0. That 0$ actually goes to the publisher. If I sell it for $5, that $5 does not, but it's $5 that belongs to the publisher. IMO the "potential profit" the fat cats speak of is bullshit. With counterfeiting like this, there is an actual, real, profit. It was proven that the people were willing to pay for it.

      My opinion is that commercial infringement should be illegal, but noncommercial infringement should not.

    12. Re:STOP. CALLING. IT. PIRACY! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The difference is there's money involved.

      It doesn't matter either way. As long as you have money and would have bought the official product had the cheaper version not been available, they lost potential profit. They gain no less than they would have if someone just shared the product for free.

      but it's $5 that belongs to the publisher.

      Huh? The same could be said of normal copyright infringement. Any money not given to the publisher 'belongs' to them.

      Of course, I disagree. I think the money belongs to the seller.

      It was proven that the people were willing to pay for it.

      "That's true, if the counterfeiter charged $5 for photoshop it's a pretty good bet the buyer wouldn't have paid full price. $75 for office? Maybe."

      No, it wasn't. Just because a small amount of money exchanged hands doesn't mean they're wildly different scenarios. Potential profit was all that was lost.

      At no point did that $5 belong to the publisher. The customer never gave it to them to begin with.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  18. Do not sell "pirated" software by EzInKy · · Score: 0

    That is the moral of the story. If you get something for nothing then share it for nothing. Profiting from anothers work may be a crime, but freely sharing what you have with others is not, and is certainly in sync with the most followed world religions.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by Acapulco · · Score: 1

      If you get something for nothing then share it for nothing. Profiting from anothers work may be a crime, but freely sharing what you have with others is not, and is certainly in sync with the most followed world religions.

      I believe there is enought evidence that this is not the case, as the RIAA/MPAA have been so thoughtful in constatnlty reminding us.

      --
      Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    2. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by Warhawke · · Score: 2

      Not to derail, since I completely agree, but it's worth pointing out that typical "free-sharing piracy" is not "sharing what you have."

      Although you might think you have a tangible copy of a song or movie sitting on your hard drive, what you really have (assuming you obtained it legally) is a license to use that song according to 1) the EULA, if there is one, and 2) the copyright law of your respective country. What you don't have is a license or freedom to upload and share the file with the rest of the world. That right remains with the copyright holder.

      The sword cuts both ways. We should restrict the piss out of copyright inflation and reverse it significantly, but seriously, if we've been arguing that "copyright is not property," and therefore "infringement is not theft," let's actually stick to that argument rather than pretend all of the sudden that copyrighted works are now suddenly chattel and therefore shareable.

    3. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nobody has been (as far as I know) sued for sharing music they "owned" The only ones that hit the courts are the people re-sharing something they had no rights to have in the first place. And they sue uploaders in "downloading" lawsuits. The PR is lying to us. It takes a lawyer to understand who's really suing who and for what. The point being they want to make people think that downloading a movie or sharing a movie you "own" will land you in jail or bankruptcy. And our tax dollars are paying for the actions against us.

    4. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      IANAL (law student), but just because the record companies have not sued (at least with excessive publicity) the general public for sharing music to which they had license does not make it presumptively legal. It's just a whole lot harder to prove than obvious downloading and infringement, so it's easier to create a chilling effect based on the simple cases. Although not as popular in p2p / torrent cases, this is the basis of "public performance" violations where ASCAP/BMI can sue business owners for plugging their iPod into the store speakers without paying for a commercial public performance license. By reproducing a copy and sharing it, you are making a technical commercial infringement, although not nearly as severe or "morally culpable" as the guy in the article who did not own but nevertheless profited off of the piracy.

    5. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      IANAL (law student), but just because the record companies have not sued (at least with excessive publicity) the general public for sharing music to which they had license does not make it presumptively legal.

      It makes it presumptively illegal, but de facto legal. If your actions are never prosecuted, even though known to the authorities, then your actions are legal. Much like the laws from the 1800s about stupid stuff (illegal to mispronounce Arkansas in Arkansas, or carry wire cutters in your back pocket in Texas) are so unenforced as to be legal. In fact, the courts have indicated that a law unenforced long enough has been repealed because enforcing it again would be, de facto unconstitutionallly unfair (inequal under the law and all that).

      Although not as popular in p2p / torrent cases, this is the basis of "public performance" violations where ASCAP/BMI can sue business owners for plugging their iPod into the store speakers without paying for a commercial public performance license.

      Though that's pretty wildly enforced. There have been cases of secretaries with iPods on their desks getting into trouble. At least from my time in a record store, I have some CD "for promotion only" that I can play for for commercial public performance.

      By reproducing a copy and sharing it, you are making a technical commercial infringement,

      I am not argueing law. I'm arguing reality. Has anyone ever gotten in trouble for it? Mix tapes are older than you, and I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for making one. Internet sharing is mix-tapes on a grand scale, and they only go after people who mix that which they do not own.

      I'll break it down. If you can't point to a case of someone mixing only what they own and getting in trouble, then I'll assume it's explicitly legal, regardless of what the law says. Though I am aware plenty of sites have been shut down because they would allow it.

    6. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      You're welcome to assume, but you would still be wrong. Check out A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), and the UMG Recordings case cited therein:

      We conclude that the district court did not err when it refused to apply the “shifting” analyses of Sony and Diamond. Both Diamond and Sony are inapposite because the methods of shifting in these cases did not also simultaneously involve distribution of the copyrighted material to the general public; the time or space-shifting of copyrighted material exposed the material only to the original user. In Diamond, for example, the copyrighted music was transferred from the user's computer hard drive to the user's portable MP3 player. So too Sony, where “the majority of VCR purchasers ... did not distribute taped television broadcasts, but merely enjoyed them at home.” Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d at 913. Conversely, it is obvious that once a user lists a copy of music he already owns on the Napster system in order to access the music from another location, the song becomes “available to millions of other individuals,” not just the original CD owner. See UMG Recordings, 92 F.Supp.2d at 351–52 (finding space-shifting of MP3 files not a fair use even when previous ownership is demonstrated before a download is allowed); cf. Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, No. 95–1107A, 1996 WL 633131, at *6 (E.D.Va. Oct.4, 1996) (suggesting that storing copyrighted material on computer disk for later review is not a fair use).

      Nor is your assertion that archaic laws are overturned when not enforced. You could in fact bring up any of the laws still on the books; they would just be overturned and are considered to be a waste of taxpayer money to bring a case on them, so no one does. If a law is on the books and has not been repealed, it is still valid. Even these crazy examples still are law. Even if you were correct, digital file sharing has only been around for years, not decades or centuries. Mixtapes are recognized as a different issue because they are analog and therefore lossy -- they cannot be recreated and reshared an infinite number of times. Nor are you sharing your mixtape with massive quantities of people. This is why record companies haven't gone after mixtapes. You're only sharing a self-terminating, lossy version to a limited number of people that you likely know, not a high-fidelity perfect copy of an original to a market of millions. The former is likely to drive up demand by free marketing, whereas the latter is likely to suppress demand by providing a free, identical copy to potential market members. Also, you have no idea whether mixtapes are older than me or not :) I have vinyl and mixtapes, as well. From the Wikipedia article on Mixtapes:

      An important distinction between homemade mixes and retail compilations of pop music is that the latter generally obtain permissions for the use of copyrighted songs, while the former do not. As a result, mixtapes, such as those produced and sold by club DJs in the 1970s, are illegal. Most[who?] mixtape enthusiasts assume that private mixtapes are inoffensive from a fair use standpoint, but this is far from clear. Frank Creighton, a director of anti-copyright infringement efforts for the Recording Industry Association of America, was quoted in New York Times as saying that "money did not have to be involved for copying to be illegal."[7]
      While mixes on cassette tapes may not have inspired the wrath of the record industry in the past, Mr. Creighton said, "digital mixes have better sound quality", and given the proliferation of CD burning for friends and relatives, "it would be naïve of us to say that we should allow that type of activity".[7]

      I would be really wary of thinking that simply because a law is not commonly enfo

    7. Re:Do not sell "pirated" software by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Did you not read my last sentence? It was the "exception" where they do go after sites that allow it. They take down Megaupload, but how many suits have they (anybody) filed against megaupload users? None? Yes, I'm aware the RIAA/MPAA are demanding data be retained for future actions against users, but no user suits yet.

      They just take the easy target, and lie about it to scare everyone else.

      Anyone who owned the CD but downloaded a copy had the charges dropped because the RIAA didn't want the law tested. They are consistent about dropping charges if the case looks likely to test the law itself in court. Then they work to get the law tweaked to harm the people.

  19. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this modded -1 & not +5 informative? Homeboy walked on to US Federal government land. I'm far more concerned about the enforcement of property laws on Chinese Nationals strutting on to US soil than I object to copyright enforcement & mission creep in this case.

    They lured a dumbass to their jurisdiction. It's not like they diverted a plane flight.

  20. Real reason he got arrested? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 2

    "Li trolled black market Internet forums"

    Maybe the forum members got disgusted by his posts, and so reported him to the Feds. Seriously, I didn't know till I checked my edictionary that "troll" had the pre-Internet non-mythical meaning of "circulate, move around".

    1. Re:Real reason he got arrested? by Maow · · Score: 2

      "Li trolled black market Internet forums"

      Maybe the forum members got disgusted by his posts, and so reported him to the Feds. Seriously, I didn't know till I checked my edictionary that "troll" had the pre-Internet non-mythical meaning of "circulate, move around".

      I think that "trolling" in this instance, and when people are looking to incite comments in Internet forums, comes from this definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29):

      Trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or bait fish, are drawn through the water.

      Sounds like a reasonable analogy for what the guy was (probably) doing. Posting comments about cheap software to see if anyone would (bite|buy).

    2. Re:Real reason he got arrested? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Sounds like trawling. Perhaps one word is a corruption of the other?

    3. Re:Real reason he got arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember kids. If you run a software piracy operation, don't post goaste-redirects on black market internet forums.

    4. Re:Real reason he got arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling and trawling have the same 'fishing' meaning, IMO.
      It means you drag the lure behind you whilst moving.

  21. Re:We need to stop this by Acapulco · · Score: 1

    I would not be comfortable with any police force (or military for that matter) from *any* country arresting anyone in *any other* country. I think extradition treaties are there for a reason, but even then extradtion orders are supposedly carried out by the local LEO on behalf of the requesting LEO.
     
    And *even* then, there should be a close oversight on this, to prevent things like the Dotcom scandal. Anything else seems like a slipper slope.. obviously I'm not comfortable as this is already happening (and has been for who knows how long). Slippery slope indeed..

    --
    Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
  22. Re:We need to stop this by krotkruton · · Score: 3, Informative

    Saipan isn't a foreign country, it's a US territory in the same category as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

  23. Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't anyone asking the question....why did the department of homeland security arrest this guy in Saipan?

  24. Arms wide open by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'The man was arrested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the island of Saipan'

    So lemme get this straight - the Department of Homeland Security spent taxpayer money finding and arresting a software pirate...

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Arms wide open by Ikonoclasm · · Score: 2

      They arrested a bootlegger. Pirates sail the high sees looking for booty to plunder. Infringing on copyrights involves downloading or sharing copyrighted work with others. Bootlegging involves copyright infringement in order to make copies for sale for profit. Piracy is a criminal offense as it often involves rape and murder. Copyright infringement is a civil offense that the MAFIAA somehow managed to convince the US government to treat like a criminal offense, even though it's definitely not. Bootlegging is a criminal offense as it involves copyright infringement for profit, which is the key distinction from simply downloading a movie to watch or a kid downloading PS because he could never hope to afford a license for himself.

    2. Re:Arms wide open by westlake · · Score: 1

      So lemme get this straight - the Department of Homeland Security spent taxpayer money finding and arresting a software pirate...

      The DHS includes almost all law enforcement agencies in the federal government --- including para-military organizations like the Coast Guard. The software pirate who breaks federal laws is a legitimate object of pursuit. He will be charged and he will be convicted. It happens all the time.

    3. Re:Arms wide open by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But how is selling a bootleg in China, copied in China, printed in China, and paid for in Chinese money by two people who have never left China a US crime under US jurisdiction?

    4. Re:Arms wide open by dissy · · Score: 1

      But how is selling a bootleg in China, copied in China, printed in China, and paid for in Chinese money by two people who have never left China a US crime under US jurisdiction?

      Dunno. Why do you ask?

      I especially wonder why you ask when the article you asked in is about a Chinese man who left China and was in a US territory breaking US laws (as dumb as those laws can be at times)
      Post to the wrong article again?

    5. Re:Arms wide open by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get the memo? The whole world is the US' jurisdiction. Has been since WW2

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    6. Re:Arms wide open by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It's not, but offering to sell someone a bootleg copied in China and printed in China after you've landed on US territory with the goods in hand pretty likely is.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:Arms wide open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume because it was software pirated from an American company, or at least some of it (Windows, Office, etc).

    8. Re:Arms wide open by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is a civil offense that the MAFIAA somehow managed to convince the US government to treat like a criminal offense, even though it's definitely not.

      I dunno. If they send people for up to 5 years to federal jail for copyright infringement, it looks to me like they've upgraded copyright infringement from a civil to a criminal activity. By the way, in many countries, copyright infringement is now criminal offense, thanks to the intense lobbying and arm twisting of the US government. It's only fair that what the US government shoves down the throats of the world's population comes back to haunt US citizens as well. Of course, it would be better if the whole Copyright MAFIAA and their sock puppet governments were dismantled and thrown out of orbit, but for that, we have to wait for the post-US/post-Europe era.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    9. Re:Arms wide open by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They didn't charge him with the fake entrapment acts used to lure him out, but the ones he previously committed in China (or else the press releases by the feds are all lies to smear him in the media and distract from the illegal entrapment).

    10. Re:Arms wide open by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not if you were invited there by the police for that purpose. Ever hear of entrapment? The report read like they charged him with crimes committed in China, not uncommitted crimes in Saipan he was only doing because he was told to by the US federal government.

  25. And america ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IS STILL 16.3 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT rofl
    suckers go on go after people that will never get you money back...funny

  26. Scope of Homeland Security by orzetto · · Score: 2

    Since when Homeland Security has started investigating something as trivial as copyright violation, even on a grand scale? Aren't they supposed to deal with terrorism, natural disasters and more serious threats to life and property? Wouldn't this be the competence of the FBI instead? And what jurisdiction do the US have over this man, as the crimes committed in China?

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Scope of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Scope of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to answer your questions.
      Because Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of home land security.
      There are many parts to homeland security.
      Prehaps being a bit flippant but the FBI has more important things to do... ICE... not really. They're the more of kick mexicans out and keep fake goods out department. (ok ok they do a few important things)
      US jurisdicition because he was dumb enough to come to america territory after pirating the goods of american companies.... He should have just stayed in china.

    3. Re:Scope of Homeland Security by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Since Customs was one of the initial departments of DHS. Though, why US Customs cares about items that never left or entered the US, I can't tell you.

    4. Re:Scope of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy did bring bootleg software into a U.S. territory. That makes it an ICE issue.

      This doesn't address the initial set-up of the operation, but the actual bust is well within ICE's remit.

  27. $100M That's All? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Do you think it would be possible to get him to plead guilty to ALL of the world's piracy? I mean, If I'm ever looking down the barell of the *AA's guns and expect to be found guilty, then I'm going down Like Spock: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Who wouldn't want to become the modern day version of, Jesus?!

  28. Not quite right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commercial scale piracy is a criminal offense, well unless the RIAA do it, in which case it's a contract matter (i.e. those off book copies of records they were selling, or the compilation disk where they never notified or paid the copyright holder, stuff like that is civil). Well lets just say it's a criminal offense, if your a person person and not a corporation person.

    In this case, the person was Chinese, the software was expensive, retailing at $2000-$3000 a pop. so it made sense to meet at a beach resort, on a holiday island, half way between China and the US. With the Homeland Security agents spending 2 weeks to scope out the location first.

    Their tans let them blend in for surveillance purposes. All totally necessary and in no sense an overkill.

  29. Is there someone paying cash for pirated software? by prasadsurve · · Score: 1

    "he advertised them for sale on his websites"
    So people paid money to buy pirated software?
    That's goes against everything piracy stands for.

  30. Why are we taxpayers, paying for this? by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Seriously, this is INSANE. First off, MS and the other companies go to great lengths to NOT pay their fair share of taxes. And if a nation attempts to have the companies and wealthy from these pay their fair share, they threaten to go elsewhere.
    Then to add injury to insult, Gates had MS Windows cost less than $5 to buy in the store in China, while here, they take in $200-1000. And they actually pay MORE taxes in China than in America. INSANE.

    BUT, I look at the likes of Bill Gates and Balmer, who have invested into companies that basically steal IP from America and are now hard at work shipping it out. For example, Bill gates wants to develop his nuke idea in China rather than in America. But, China has ZERO intention of protecting his IP. In fact, they will use it for their own purposes and like Germany's transrapid, buy one and then steal all of the tech.

    Seriously, the west needs to quit providing companies like this with help, when they constantly screw over the nation. HP, Dell, IBM, GE, etc should be allowed to take up the theft with China, rather than having us solve their issues.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why are we taxpayers, paying for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a mistake to think the corporations are not already in complete control of the USA.

    2. Re:Why are we taxpayers, paying for this? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The really insane part is that you can not go to China, buy a couple hundred copies (at $5 retail price), carry them to the US, and sell them here (at say $100 a pop). Fully legal copies, original packing, original license key, etc. Somehow they suddenly lose validity it seems. And somehow if it is for own use (e.g. people carrying laptops with a copy of Windows on it) there is no problem. It's just weird.

    3. Re:Why are we taxpayers, paying for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, the west needs to quit providing companies like this with help, when they constantly screw over the nation. HP, Dell, IBM, GE, etc should be allowed to take up the theft with China, rather than having us solve their issues.

      Wow, that was an amazing troll! You literally had me going and agreeing right to the very end.

      However if we allowed China to enforce Chinese law in a US territory on US soil, as you suggested they should have done, I think we'd have a slightly worse problem than our copyright law situation!

      I mean if we allow Chinese law to rule in any US territory like Saipan, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico, what's to stop them from claiming our laws don't apply in California or Washington?

      Perhaps the most ironic and funny part of this is, if Chinese law did rule on US soil, again as you say it should, your post would be illegal as it speaks out against the Chinese government. If you had your wish, you might be in jail or have your typing fingers cut off or something :P

  31. Re:We need to stop this by ApplePy · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, it was Bushy the Younger who signed the papers for the DHS, no?

    We, the public, were sold an agency that was supposed to protect us from terists and terism, whatever those are. Somethin' 'bout dang ol' furreners burnin' the flag n shit.

    I'm not sure what terism is, but I don't think it has anything to do with the price of pirated software in China.

    So, are you okay with this sort of mission creep, as long as it's your black man crush in the White House? It's bizarre, the bad behavior people will overlook on the part of their government, as long as their favorite party's puppet is the one on stage.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  32. Re:We need to stop this by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Saipan in a foreign country? I thought it was part of a US territory.

    Personally, I'd outlaw governmental lying. Claiming to be a 14 year old girl to invite men to your sting? Say "I'm not a cop" when asked what you do when meeting a suspect undercover? Invite a foreign national to a US territory to arrest them for what isn't even a crime ( If I'm in Mexico and kill an American, I broke Mexican law, not US law, so deciding they are undesirable people, then inviting them to the US to arrest them for breaking US law when they never set foot there before is insane). If anything, the people that approved his visa should all be fired and arrested. They knowingly issued a visa on false grounds. I haven't seen any exception in US immigration law for covert op visas issued on false pretenses.

  33. Re:We need to stop this by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    I think you meant to write "Clearly you do not have personal experience knowing someone who chose to destroy their life with Meth, which is not Adderall".

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  34. can selling pirated software be justified? by swell · · Score: 1

    A bright, handsome young man joined our Mensa computer group in the early 80s. We were mostly hackers and programmers and we swapped a lot of software. Just curiosity; we'd run a program a few times to see how it worked. We'd disassemble it to figure out how the clever parts were done. And we'd move on to the next batch of software at next months meeting.

    The young man seemed to come from nowhere and was instantly very popular. After a while I discovered he was printing labels for his 5" floppy disks and selling the software. He even set up a nice office downtown in our US city for this business. We were close, and he wasn't ashamed to show me his operation. I was stunned at his brash lack of morals.

    But he went on to explain that he was from Ireland. The money was not for him, but for the IRA. He was proud to contribute, and it became clear that he was a hard core supporter and a patriot. But all I could think of was that the already dirty money would be going to buy guns & powder and escalate the violence.

    He disappeared as mysteriously as he appeared- altogether staying less than 8 months in our city.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:can selling pirated software be justified? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened to him.

  35. Re:We need to stop this by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

    Unless he was forced to take the Meth, then it was his own choice to take it. So he destroyed his own life.
    I don't see why drugs are singled out to be prohibited, when there are so many other vices that destroy lives. Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, legal drugs,...... Either ban all of them or let Darwin take care of the addicts.

  36. Re:We need to stop this by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    That already awefully sounds like entrapment.
    Prosecuting a crime that wouldn't have been committed if it hadn't been encouraged by a LEO is sort of not ok.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  37. Attacking ships must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop piracy now!

  38. Re:We need to stop this by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    It's not entrapment. He committed the crime without being encouraged by LEO. He performed an action in his country that his country declined to prosecute or deport him for. So the US LEO tempted him into their jurisdiction so they could arrest him for a crime committed elsewhere.

    Still dodgy as hell, but not entrapment.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  39. What is more telling .... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    is that there appears to be little or no effort by the Chinese government at stopping piracy of software. Sure, on occasion you here about Chinese authorities making busts but my guess is these are mostly politically motivated. The Chinese are known for acts of piracy and disregard for copyright law.

    1. Re:What is more telling .... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't surprised if the operation is actually supported by the Chinese government.... look at what kind of software is being mentioned in this article.

  40. Piracy of expensive CAD software. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    I know there is a strong resentment of the heavy handed tactics by MPAA and RIAA and various other copyright extortion rackets. In slashdot this has created some sympathy for anyone accused of piracy. But this is different folks.

    This guy is not pirating DVDs that sell at 10$ a pop. The software mentioned in the document, Ansoft Designer, Ansoft HFSS, Ansoft SIWave, Ansys Multiphysics etc sell at USD 50K down + 10K a year typically. The R&D content of these products are measured in man-decades. Even the entry level developer positions in such companies require a Masters in a STEM field. Computer aided design tool making companies like Ansys, Ansoft, Fluent, Abacus, *CCM++ are the last few companies that pay decent wages for American ^H^H^H^H STEM grads from American univs. It is not fair to club these companies with RIAA and MPAA and paint them all with a broad brush.

    Piracy of these software bleeds these companies and actually hurt earning potentials of nerds in America. These companies are places where it is cool to be a nerd. They treat their employees well because PhDs do not work to the drum beat of a slave driver. You have to convince them to be productive voluntarily.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Piracy of expensive CAD software. by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the potential military application of some of these software... no wonder why DHS was involved.

      Being that said:

      "PhDs do not work to the drum beat of a slave driver. "

      And to the eye's of a normal MBA, this is same as "laziness". It does take some extraordinary management skills to activate these people, at least for STEM PhD's are concerned. Liberal Arts PhD's are much easier to motivate, they willing to do a lot for cheap.

    2. Re:Piracy of expensive CAD software. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Piracy of these software bleeds these companies and actually hurt earning potentials of nerds in America

      Only if the piracy has a negative effect on the income of the companies. How many of the pirate's customers would have payed 50k for the software if they hadn't been able to buy it cheap?

  41. The man could walk free.... by kcelery · · Score: 1

    if he was HSBC.

  42. Thanks America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We Chinese leaders give a hearty thanks the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for allowing us to transfer this culprit's ill gotten gain into our own accounts. Keep up the good work fellows!

  43. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What any government cares most about is itself. And having significant portion of population not being able to work (and pay taxes) due to addiction is, therefore, bad.

  44. For Profit Piracy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is bad.

    Now, you do have to pay bills for a 'free' operation that involves 'piracy' for the greater good of free information, but outright selling copies, that is crossing the line.

  45. Calm down there, chief by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    As pointed out, Saipan is US territory but it has special visa rules. Basically it's easier for Asian people to get visas to go there and a few other US territories in Asia than the US mainland. Also, those Pacific US territories have sketchy reputations and there have been allegations of slave labor factories operating there, so I'm sure he thought nothing of being asked to go there. I'm sure that those who approved his visa did so under orders from their superiors. I have a lot of personal issues with how the US government operates its visa policy and how sometimes even family members of legal immigrants can't get visas to visit here, but I don't see any crime being done here by approving a visa application - as long as the approver wasn't paid by the applicant to do so. Finally, your assumption that no US law was broken is likely false. I'm sure that he had US customers. Anytime some one gets rich off piracy, Uncle Sam gets really interested in that person.

    Less you be too sanctimonious, please understand that many EU countries prosecute supposed "violations" of their laws that don't even take place on their own territory. France threatened to close down Ebay because (gasp) it's legal for people in the US to sell Nazi memorabilia from World War II and they made Ebay provide filters so French people can't see such items. The sellers in question were not even marketing their items to French citizens and in fact probably expected only US buyers to purchase them.

    1. Re:Calm down there, chief by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As pointed out, Saipan is US territory but it has special visa rules.

      Who pointed it out, and what are the rules? I looked online and the rules didn't look to help a Chinese national get to Saipan (though Taiwanese and Hong Kong passport holders have special rules.

  46. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Say "I'm not a cop" when asked what you do when meeting a suspect undercover?"

    The guy we want to catch is the person who is only avoiding illegal stuff when cops are around. I have no problem with cops telling this particular lie.

    I do have a problem with cops enabling crimes that the suspect wasn't even capable of doing on his own. Like purchasing missiles only available from the US Army when the suspect has zero contacts.

  47. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you don't really understand the problems. It sucks. Its terrible what happens to people, but, its more than just the chemical itself.

    Lots of people have used meth without issue. Its given to military pilots for long missions, still today. Meth can be used safely. The problem comes when you prohibit it, because, there are people who want strong stimulents....and those people are going to get them.

    So instead of going to the drug store and getting a pill, at a reasonable price, they go to another addict who is willing/able to deal with more dangerous characters to get larger quantities and distribute it. (I would say for profit but, lets keep it real, his only profit is going right into his arm, or lungs).... so he pays a very high price for a very high potency product that is too expensive to take orally, and not provided in a convinent form.

    Its the situation caused by prohibition and other terrible policy that created these situations, driven people away from safer drugs and safer forms of their drugs, and done much of the work of ruining these people's lives.

    Frankly, it angers me greatly that these policies are not seen as tantamount to pushing people into ovens.

  48. Re:We need to stop this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh, if you're going to ban all of them, then you never really know where to stop. After all, coffee has caffeine, and advil's a painkiller.

    I say just let people do whatever the hell they want to themselves, so long as they're not hurting others. Darwin will do his job to those that can't keep shit under control, leaving the remainder of people as either having more willpower, or more reasoning or whatever. Get rid of the idiots, and the strong remain. Basically, it's a win-win.

  49. Re:We need to stop this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    I don't think I would want the U.S. busting small-time drug dealers in random third countries either.

    If you get caught with $100,000 worth of cocaine you're going to prison for a LONG time. If you think $100k is "small time" you must work on Wall Street.

  50. Great, $100 million added to US economy! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    That's how it works, right?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  51. Enforcement Budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone later realized that the teams of enforcement personnel from multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions, travelling and on the case for 18 months, actually cost *more than $100 million* they were allegedly "saving" but the figure was buried in an accounting report that is being worked on, by several agencies, in several jurisdictions...

  52. Re:We need to stop this by hottoh · · Score: 1

    Not true.
    Signed in Bill Clinton's tenure? It basically says 'any US citizen violating a US law is guilty of breaking that law, regardless of their location at the time of the event. 'It goes on to say that any 'US citizen breaking a law of a [specific] foreign countries is then a felon in the US.'

    http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/253F3d234.html
    In 1998, Thomas Bean, an FFL, was in Laredo participating in a gun show. One evening he crossed the border into Mexico for dinner. A box of ammo was found in his vehicle by Mexican customs officers. At the time importing ammunition into Mexico was considered a felony. Bean was charged and convicted of the felony of unlawfully importing ammunition. As a convicted felon, Bean lost all rights to possess firearms when he returned to the US.

    <quote>
      ( If I'm in Mexico and kill an American, I broke Mexican law, not US law, so deciding they are undesirable people, then inviting them to the US to arrest them for breaking US law when they never set foot there before is insane). </quote>

  53. Re:We need to stop this by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    He was entrapped for the new venture, but not for the others committed previously. And it's the previous ones he is being charged with. He was "lured" with an entrapment scheme designed to trap him, but as he wasn't charged with the new crime, it was not illegal entrapment.

  54. Re:We need to stop this by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    You desire to turn this into a guns right issue doesn't change the facts. The page you link to is quite clear, he did not serve time in US prisons (as the Chinese man is facing), and was not charged in the US for a crime committed elsewhere (as the Chinese man is facing). He had a foreign felony conviction considered a felony conviction for US firearms purposes. That is a narrow issue completely unrelated to the issue in this case. But OMG, Bill Clinton took our guns, and Obama is doing the same! Guns, guns for all. Screw civil rights, we don't need them if we have our guns. Though, we wouldn't need guns if we had our civil rights, but don't think about it logically, that's too hard.

  55. Re:We need to stop this by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Others replying to me indicate he was arrested for the crimes he committed in Saipan, which were solicited by US agents, and thus, entrapment.

  56. Re:Cheap NFL Jerseys from China by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Ok, terrible to reply to a robospam post. I'm just wondering if a post offering "Cheap NFL Jerseys from China" in a story about a Chinese counterfeiting operation is irony or some sort of slightly confused bot that actually read the summary and thought the post might be a relevant product pitch?

  57. Re:We need to stop this by serialband · · Score: 1

    Saipan is tecnically a Commonwealth, which is slightly different from a Trust Territory like Guam or Puerto Rico. Foreign nationals do not need a US visa to visit Saipan, just a visa to Saipan from the government of Saipan. Foreign nationals need a US Visa and go through US immigrations to visit Guam. You still have to go through immigration again in Hawaii when you arrive from Guam. People used to travel to Guam and become residents to fast track a US citizenship, but that's more difficult now. A lot of Asians now use Saipan as a stepping stone to US citizenship.

    A territory is an insular area protected and adminstered by the United States. They have have non-voting members in congress.
    A commonwealth is a self-governing insular area that elects to be part of the United States. They have their own government and are more independent.
    Commonwealths, territories, and protectorates are insular areas whose people are citizens of the United States, with the exception of American Samoa. The Samoans are nationals--free to go anywhere in the United States--but they are not citizens.

  58. Re:We need to stop this by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    http://www.exploresaipan.com/Visit_Saipan/Travel.aspx
    http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/niv_guam.html

    It appears that your information is incorrect. You need a US visa to go to Saipan, unless one of the exceptions.