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."
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
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.
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."
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.
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 !
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.
I hazard a guess that the cost of this operation was less than the amount of tax that the US company paid that year.
"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 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
...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
Saipan isn't a foreign country, it's a US territory in the same category as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
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
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.
'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. 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.
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.
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
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?!
"he advertised them for sale on his websites"
So people paid money to buy pirated software?
That's goes against everything piracy stands for.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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
if he was HSBC.
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.
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.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
They are not getting paid for those copies &
People who take whatever they want
That's how it works, right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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!
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>
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
Others replying to me indicate he was arrested for the crimes he committed in Saipan, which were solicited by US agents, and thus, entrapment.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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
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!
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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!
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska