Man Who Sold $100 Million Worth of Pirated Software Gets 12 Years In Prison

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Who Sold $100 Million Worth of Pirated Software Gets 12 Years In Prison

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @09:10PM from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

An anonymous reader sends this quote from Bloomberg: "A Chinese national was sentenced to 12 years in a U.S. prison for selling more than $100 million worth of software pirated from American companies, including Agilent Technologies Inc., from his home in China. Li and his wife, of Chengdu, China, were accused of running a website called 'Crack 99' that sold copies of software for which 'access-control mechanisms had been circumvented, the U.S. said in an unsealed 46-count indictment. The pair was charged with distributing more than 500 copyrighted works to more than 300 buyers in the U.S. and overseas from April 2008 to June 2011. The retail value of the products was more than $100 million, the government said. Li is the first Chinese citizen to be 'apprehended and prosecuted in the U.S. for cybercrimes he engaged in entirely from China,' prosecutors said in court filings."

304 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

His mistake is obvious by TrollstonButterbeans · 2013-06-11 21:17 · Score: 5, Funny

He should have done the transactions in bitcoin.

--
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
1. Re:His mistake is obvious by Steve_Ussler · 2013-06-12 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  she should have stayed in china and avoided jail.
2. Re:His mistake is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  china does have an extradition treaty with the US
3. Re:His mistake is obvious by Reschekle · 2013-06-12 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Incorrect.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty
4. Re:His mistake is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with the United States. The rest of China does not.
5. Re:His mistake is obvious by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-06-12 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  "Incorrect."
  No, not incorrect. It says right there at your own link that there is no extradition treaty.
  
  And extradition would have been extremely unlikely in China, I think, considering that China has notoriously been one of the top countries for real copyright piracy, due to the fact that they had no copyright laws. Private property is not a big concern for the Chinese government.
6. Re:His mistake is obvious by sumdumass · 2013-06-12 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  China has to play lip service to copyright laws of other countries else they won't get the economic advantages membership in WIPO and WTO. China is members of both and have signed treaties (although I'm not sure how many are ratified) for both. Those two organizations attempt to set rules other countries have to follow in order to avoid trade penalties with member states.
  So while it might not be a big concern, they will attempt to make it appear that way. Remember when China fork a version of linux and made it their official operating system? That was to get around complaints about copyright and pirated software that threatened to sanction them through WIPO.
7. Re:His mistake is obvious by kmoser · 2013-06-13 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  He should have done the transactions in bitcoin.
  That would be insecure since Chinese Bitcoins have holes in them.
8. Re:His mistake is obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Jane, you are so wrong!! You can not request extradition from China, and you know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXTRADITION TREATY with China!
  So you are wrong!
9. Re:His mistake is obvious by Stratus311 · 2013-06-13 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Are you seriously trying to correct his correction while agreeing with him?
10. Re: His mistake is obvious by Occams · 2013-06-13 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  It is impossible to break an American law when you are not an American and not in America because the law does not apply to you. He must have either been caught doing the crime in the USA, or he must be an American citizen.
  
  --
  Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Good by gigaherz · 2013-06-11 21:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

THIS is proper use of the copyright laws.
1. Re:Good by Krneki · 2013-06-11 21:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is it ?
  I'm don't know about copyright laws in China, but unless you breach your country law, the US can fuck off.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
2. Re:Good by TrollstonButterbeans · 2013-06-11 21:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He sold to US buyers establishing jurisdiction. If he did not sell to US buyers and to only -- as an example --- Chinese buyers, US courts would likely not have jurisdiction ....
  
  .... Although in this "new post-Megaupload Wikileaks kill people with drones NSA monitors all" world maybe the US government has no limits any longer as the US courts no longer are willing to rule that such limits exist.
  
  --
  Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
3. Re:Good by ranulf · 2013-06-11 21:40 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  He was on US soil, so he can be arrested for actions illegal under US law. This is a fairly common precedent when the law was broken in the US but they have since left. This is newsworthy because the crimes occurred outside the US but he was still considered to have broken US law.
4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 21:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think with all the drone strikes in the world you would realize the US has jurisdiction where ever it fucking feels like.
5. Re:Good by Malc · 2013-06-11 21:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  He went to Saipan where he tried to sell software and data to US agents pretending to be business men. Isn't Saipan US territory? Perhaps you should try RTFA before sounding of like a dickhead.
6. Re:Good by xelah · 2013-06-11 22:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  An interesting parallel would be people in the US who allow seditious comments harmful to public order in China (or so they'll say) to be posted on their websites, which are then accessed by Chinese people. Will China now feel a whole lot happier about arresting Americans for this should they go anywhere where China has enough influence, or have their flights diverted? Or, indeed, just accuse Americans of stuff to keep them out or stop them selling stuff there.
7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So if I sell to Chinese buyers I'm bound by Chinese law? You don't see how that might be a very bad thing?
  Can't have it both ways. If Chinese citizens are bound by US law then US citizens must be bound by Chinese law. For China to agree to extradite without tit for tat would make them very stupid.
8. Re:Good by mrbester · 2013-06-11 22:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I like how he got less than someone who *doesn't* sell what they pirate can get. There's a lesson there...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
9. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-11 22:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, he was entrapped in Saipan, and prosecuted for crimes he didn't commit while in the US. His mistake was not equating Saipan with Washington DC. He might as well have been on the lawn of the White House selling bootlegs. At least it's good to know that entrapment is legal again.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
10. Re:Good by Krneki · 2013-06-11 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Depends where the servers were located, if they were in China, then the only one to blame are the US citizens that bought the goods.
  It's the same if you go to a foreign country and buy drugs not allowed in your country. The seller there can't be persecuted.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Luring someone to where you can arrest them has always been legal. How is this any different from the old tactic of police sending messages saying "Come to this address, you've won a boat!" to people who have warrants out against them?
12. Re:Good by Krneki · 2013-06-11 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  That is why I put a question mark in my sentence and I used a hypothetical situation.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
13. Re:Good by bloodhawk · 2013-06-11 22:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If you are trading with chinese citizens on chinese soil then then yes you are bound by chinese laws for those dealings, actually in most circumstances you are bound by the laws of both countries. It is one of the reasons many of the big multinationals need so many friggen lawyers as every countries laws are slightly different and they are regularly bound by multiple countries laws when trading and selling goods.
14. Re:Good by gl4ss · 2013-06-11 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  He was on US soil, so he can be arrested for actions illegal under US law. This is a fairly common precedent when the law was broken in the US but they have since left. This is newsworthy because the crimes occurred outside the US but he was still considered to have broken US law.
  Sorry, but there's nothing newsworthy about that!
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
15. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  B-b-b-but what about about his freedom of speech? Surely if "sharing" software that someone else created can be considered a personal expression of political opinion, he should be allowed to charge for his opinion?
  Regardless, this clearly wouldn't have happened if software prices met my arbitrary definition of reasonable, or the developers sold the software on the terms I agreed with, or they didn't have teh DRMs, or if HBO's subscriber agreement allowed me to share the software with 30 million of my closest friends via torrent.
16. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I really have trouble understanding your mindset and others like you that believe it is A-OK for someone to illegally acquire commercial software (or movies or music or books) and sell it. These "resellers" are not taking expensive software and giving it away in the spirit of communal sharing, they are taking that software and selling it to make a profit for themselves. They made no contributions to the development of the software, they have no stake in the company that hires staff and takes financial risk to produce said software. These people are parasites. It is disheartening that you believe it is worthwhile to defend them.
17. Re:Good by thebigmacd · 2013-06-11 23:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You have no idea what entrapment is, do you? Entrapment by nature cannot be performed by undercover police pretending to be something else.
  Entrapment is when a police officer *who identifies themselves as a police officer* orders or asks someone to do something illegal and the person complies *because they are a police officer*. They then proceed to arrest the person for committing a crime they told them to do. THAT is entrapment.
  Police have the authority to direct you to do something illegal such as drive the wrong way down a one-way street, if the situation warrants. If they arrest you for doing what they said, they have entrapped you.
18. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I really have trouble understanding your mindset and others like you that believe it is A-OK for someone to illegally acquire commercial software (or movies or music or books) and sell it. These "resellers" are not taking expensive software and giving it away in the spirit of communal sharing, they are taking that software and selling it to make a profit for themselves. They made no contributions to the development of the software, they have no stake in the company that hires staff and takes financial risk to produce said software. These people are parasites. It is disheartening that you believe it is worthwhile to defend them.
  I defend them when the accusers claim that their retail value is $200,000 dollars a copy and the penalty for copying some CDs is 12 years. Rapists and murderers rarely get 12 years. If you can't see that the motivation behind this is pure greed - as opposed to actual justice - then I pity you.
19. Re:Good by julesh · 2013-06-11 23:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Depends where the servers were located, if they were in China, then the only one to blame are the US citizens that bought the goods.
  It's the same if you go to a foreign country and buy drugs not allowed in your country. The seller there can't be persecuted.
  Your argument makes good logical sense. Unfortunately, it is not the approach courts have taken to deciding questions of this kind. The courts have instead asked where the was customer when he made the purchase, and used this as the basis of deciding what laws apply to the sale. The original reason for this was to make things easier for consumers, who shouldn't be expected to have to know the laws of the countries of sellers they deal with (particularly as they may not even have any way of knowing where the seller is), but it has been extended since then into areas where this justification makes no sense.
20. Re:Good by pantaril · 2013-06-11 23:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You don't know the meaning of the word "entrap", you stupid fuck.
  And you obviously lack few slaps from your parents which would tech you good manners.
21. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  This is what the UN proposes--extradite a foreign national to your country for an infraction that was committed in outside your country.
  This is quite frightening.
  Next, people will be extradited for so-called "hate speech".
22. Re:Good by loonycyborg · 2013-06-12 00:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Really? 12 years in prison just for possibly decreasing someone's profits? That's definitely cruel and unusual punishment.Such terms should be reserved for murderers and what-not.
23. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not entirely correct. Your description matches one of two tests, but is narrower.
  from Wiki
  
  Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
  
  A non-uniformed government agent can indeed entrap someone. Asking if you'll sell them pot isn't entrapment. Haranguing them until the finally agree to sell you pot is.
24. Re:Good by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-06-12 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I really have trouble understanding your mindset and others like you that believe it is A-OK for someone to illegally acquire commercial software (or movies or music or books) and sell it. These "resellers" are not taking expensive software and giving it away in the spirit of communal sharing, they are taking that software and selling it to make a profit for themselves. They made no contributions to the development of the software, they have no stake in the company that hires staff and takes financial risk to produce said software. These people are parasites. It is disheartening that you believe it is worthwhile to defend them.
  I defend them when the accusers claim that their retail value is $200,000 dollars a copy and the penalty for copying some CDs is 12 years. Rapists and murderers rarely get 12 years. If you can't see that the motivation behind this is pure greed - as opposed to actual justice - then I pity you.
  That price tag has less to do with any real belief that a CD is worth 200 grand a copy and a lot more to do with the unshakable American belief in the effectiveness of the brand of 'come down on them like a ton-o-bricks' justice that has filled your jails with hoards of people doing rediculously long mandatory minimum sentences for things that are misdemeanours in most other countries.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
25. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  He sold to US buyers establishing jurisdiction. If he did not sell to US buyers and to only -- as an example --- Chinese buyers, US courts would likely not have jurisdiction ....
  A more appropriate approach would be to prosecute the US buyers. They are on US soil and should be familiar with US copyright laws.
26. Re:Good by L4t3r4lu5 · 2013-06-12 00:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They can damn well try! I'm behind seven proxi###&4%f2a664#NO CARRIER
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
27. Re:Good by ATMAvatar · 2013-06-12 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Entrapment has no requirement that the officer identify him- or herself as such. Rather, the primary definition of entrapment deals more with the idea that the otherwise law-abiding individual committed the crime due to the officer's actions, identified or not. If self-identification of the officer were a component, then there would never be any question of entrapment by undercover officers.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
28. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  IANAL, but this webpage begs to differ
  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment
  The relevant bits are
  "Persons who commit these types of crimes are most easily apprehended when officers disguise themselves as willing victims."
  "On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit."
29. Re:Good by Sponge+Bath · 2013-06-12 00:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ...and then there were no remaining AOL users.
30. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  actually it was an agent provocateur - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur - not entrapment.
31. Re:Good by Sponge+Bath · 2013-06-12 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  By that standard, Jeffrey Skilling (Enron) should get off because he was *only* decreasing someone else's retirement account.
32. Re:Good by hawkinspeter · 2013-06-12 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  But, if the USians aren't distributing it, then they're not infringing copyright.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
33. Re:Good by Lord+Kano · 2013-06-12 00:46 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  So, if I (while located within the USA) sell some WWII memorabilia to someone in Europe, I can be prosecuted for violating the German swastika ban?
  BOLLOCKS!
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
34. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  However, you need to have committed a crime in that country before you can lure them into your country.
  You cannot, for example, lure someone on to your land then shoot them for trespassing.
35. Re:Good by Lord+Kano · 2013-06-12 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Entrapment isn't tricking someone into going somewhere that you have the authority to arrest them.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
36. Re:Good by Vinegar+Joe · 2013-06-12 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest you read up on US citizen Gary Lauck and see how Europeans handle something similar........
  "Lauck was arrested in Denmark in 1995, leading to a far right campaign in the USA against plans to extradite him to Germany, where he was wanted for distributing neo-Nazi propaganda. Nevertheless Lauck was deported to Hamburg where he was tried and found guilty of distributing neo-Nazi pamphlets. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Lauck
  
  --
  "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
37. Re:Good by devman · 2013-06-12 01:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You'd have to be selling to someone in Germany.
38. Re:Good by torsmo · 2013-06-12 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about very many US drone strikes outside of Afghanistan/Pakistan. Perhaps you would care to shed light on them? Oh, and I'd like to see the US even think about carrying out a strike on the Chinese mainland or anywhere the Chinese are economically/geo-politically invested.
39. Re:Good by devman · 2013-06-12 01:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This happened in Thailand not to long ago. Some dude (from the UK I believe) made fun of the king of thailand on his blog, went on vacation to Thailand months later and was arrested for it.
40. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  You don't know the meaning of the word "entrap", you stupid fuck.
  Chill down a bit, dude.
41. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  Point you guys are forgetting he was not arrested in China, instead in eurpoe
42. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, you mean like all those US drones over Hong Kong searching for that Snowden guy?
43. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  It would appear that you don't have any idea of what entrapment is either. Entrapment occurs whenever a government official causes an individual to perform an illegal action that they would otherwise have not done. See the Sorrells v. United States case, in which the supreme court unanimously agreed that an undercover officer repeatedly asking an individual to commit a crime that he would not have otherwise committed constituted entrapment.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrells_v._United_States
44. Re:Good by gl4ss · 2013-06-12 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  Luring someone to where you can arrest them has always been legal. How is this any different from the old tactic of police sending messages saying "Come to this address, you've won a boat!" to people who have warrants out against them?
  entrapment being legal or not can be contested.. it's pretty much different from the won a boat scenario too. It's more like calling someone who you know might be able to sell you drugs if you bankrolled him buying drugs from someone else, gave him money for it and then arrested him. Sadly, the US police forces have repeatedly performed such enabling and entrapping activities.
  Practically it makes breaking the law legal for the police - which is why it should be illegal.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
45. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  Hong Kong is not generally considered part of mainland China.
46. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think with all the drone strikes in the world you would realize the US has jurisdiction where ever it fucking feels like.
  I didn't realize the drone program had been expanded to copyright enforcement. Source please.
47. Re:Good by sribe · 2013-06-12 01:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You have no idea what entrapment is, do you? Entrapment by nature cannot be performed by undercover police pretending to be something else.
  That is simply not true. Current definition of entrapment is greatly influenced by John DeLorean's case (where he agreed to deal drugs because undercover FBI officers threatened his life and his family).
48. Re:Good by TheNastyInThePasty · 2013-06-12 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong. You have to do something you wouldn't normally do for it to be entrapment. Law enforcement can pretend to offer to do illegal business to catch a copyright infringer just as sure as they can leave cars unlocked to catch car thieves or send a minor to buy cigarrettes or alcohol to catch cashiers that don't check ID or offer to have sex with you for money.. It's only entrapment if they force you to do it.
  
  --
  The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
49. Re:Good by rvw · 2013-06-12 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  An interesting parallel would be people in the US who allow seditious comments harmful to public order in China (or so they'll say) to be posted on their websites, which are then accessed by Chinese people. Will China now feel a whole lot happier about arresting Americans for this should they go anywhere where China has enough influence, or have their flights diverted? Or, indeed, just accuse Americans of stuff to keep them out or stop them selling stuff there.
  For Americans this does not apply. EU citizens probably not as well. It will result in too much (international) political problems for the Chinese. But take an average Zambesian guy, and he might be not so lucky.
50. Re:Good by loonycyborg · 2013-06-12 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  He ended up serving about the same term anyway, while scale of his actions were an order of magnitude more than that of some pirate that even doesn't ripoff any retirees or other people in need of government assistance.
51. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  For China to agree to extradite without tit for tat would make them very stupid.
  You mean just like the stupid UK ?
52. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Um.. No.
  According to the wikipedia article on Entrapment, there's no requirement for the person doing the suggesting of committing an offence to identify themselves as a police officer for it to be potentially considered entrapment. Of course, depends upon the jurisdiction you're in, but still.
53. Re:Good by 1s44c · 2013-06-12 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Is it ?
  I'm don't know about copyright laws in China, but unless you breach your country law, the US can fuck off.
  This Chinese man was silly enough to enter a US territory of his own free will. US agents lied to him about a business deal but even so he should have had some idea that maybe the US wanted him.
54. Re:Good by Warhawke · 2013-06-12 01:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You are mistaken.
  The legal definition of entrapment varies from country to country, but the basic definition is that entrapment occurs when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a crime that he or she otherwise would not have committed. Knowledge that the person is a law enforcement officer is not required. See, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992). What is required is some form of but-for causation -- that but for the law enforcement officer's conduct, the defendant would not have committed the crime. Whether the defendant knows the officer is a law enforcement agent goes to objective / subjective state of mind standards regarding whether the defendant was likely to commit the crime -- i.e. inducement is harder to prove if the defendant did not know the facilitator was a figure of legal authority, because there is less of an indication of compulsion. In Jacobson, the government targeted the defendant with a child pornography mail subscription and arrested him upon his receipt and opening. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction on the grounds that the defendant did not have a predisposition towards purchasing child pornography (as no other child pornography was found in his home), and therefore but for the post office inspectors' actions, Jacobson would not have committed a crime.
  What you may be referring to is entrapment by estoppel. That "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official." United States v. Howell 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir. 1994).
55. Re:Good by 1s44c · 2013-06-12 01:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think with all the drone strikes in the world you would realize the US has jurisdiction where ever it fucking feels like.
  The US has less legal constants outside the US than inside it. The US can imprison, torture, or kill without legal comeback in most of the world, but can't even detain people without trail in the US. That's the reason Gitmo is in Cuba not Texas.
56. Re:Good by Cassini2 · 2013-06-12 01:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The US will arrest people on US territory or in international waters using whatever methods they can. For instance, in Operation Goldenrod a suspect was lured onto a yacht, and then taken to international waters. He was interrogated aboard US Navy ships, and returned to the US via an aircraft carrier.
  Additionally, under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine people can be prosecuted regardless of the legality of the method of their extradition. For example, the DEA hired Trent Tompkins (a private citizen) to kidnap Alvarez-Machain in Mexico and return him to the United States, where he was later tried over Mexico's objections.
  Finally, state police can act outside of their home state to arrest someone and bring them to trial. In the case of Shirley Collins, the accused was kidnapped in Chicago (illegally) by Michigan police, brought to trial and convicted.
57. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  I am so sick of this.
  It's spelled "ridiculous", as in "ridicule".
  Learn to engrish!
58. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  retaliation is a bitch
59. Re:Good by 1s44c · 2013-06-12 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  Hong Kong is not generally considered part of mainland China.
  Hong Kong was returned to China after China told the UK to give it back or they will take it back. We can't be sure but it looked like China was quite serious about this. The normal story that Hong Kong was leased from China was only ever half true, the busiest part was given to the UK forever.
  China is 'economically/geo-politically' invested in Hong Kong like torsmo says and given the US knows this direct military action by the US would be extremely reckless. Also given the population density of Hong Kong it would be extremely easy to accidentally kill a few hundred bystanders.
60. Re:Good by 1s44c · 2013-06-12 02:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Unless I'm thinking of the wrong person China didn't extradite. US agents lied about some huge deal to get the guy to go to a US territory of his own free will. Once there he was arrested.
  But generally speaking the US considers US law to be global but everyone else's law to be local to them.
61. Re:Good by 1s44c · 2013-06-12 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. And pretty much everything is a crime somewhere.
62. Re:Good by Main+Gauche · 2013-06-12 02:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, he was entrapped in Saipan, and prosecuted for crimes he didn't commit while in the US.
  2. Promptly escape through the Los Angeles underground.
  3. Work as soldier of fortune.
  4. Profit!
63. Re:Good by Hatta · 2013-06-12 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  He sold to US buyers establishing jurisdiction. If he did not sell to US buyers and to only -- as an example --- Chinese buyers, US courts would likely not have jurisdiction ....
  By that argument, me saying "the Thai king is an ignorant malodorous halfbreed" to citizens of Thailand would grant Thailand jursidiction to prosecute me for lese majeste.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
64. Re:Good by Penguinisto · 2013-06-12 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  ...and then there were no remaining AOL users.
  What a beautiful dream.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
65. Re:Good by Known+Nutter · 2013-06-12 02:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  NO CARRIER
  It won't be too much longer now before there is no one left who gets this joke.
  
  --
  Beware of the Leopard.
66. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Please sit tight while the "evidence" arives. Please keep your current tcp/ip connections open, and your cell phone turned on. Our nearest operator will be with you shortly.
67. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  So theft is OK as long as you are not stealing from an individual who is poor?
68. Re:Good by loufoque · 2013-06-12 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  There is a simple explanation to this: 200k is worth more than a life.
69. Re:Good by Stuarticus · 2013-06-12 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure how you know all this, are you a cop? If you are you have to tell me!
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
70. Re:Good by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-06-12 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  Speaking as an American citizen: Given the revelations of this past couple weeks, I have no confidence that our government would operate within those constraints if some random functionary decided it was more important to spirit an American citizen off to Gitmo than to observe that citizen's "inalienable" rights.
  That's the thing about secret courts - there's no oversight. I'm sure they claim there is; but you're never going to see any proof that it exists or functions the way you'd want it to.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
71. Re:Good by LordLimecat · 2013-06-12 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  Just googled "average sentence murder". Google says,
  http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/annual/section2.html#murder
  "Offenders who have been sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter will serve an average of 19.1 years...."
  You know what bugs me about slashdot? Just about every third comment makes stuff up in the hope that noone will call them on it, just so they can sound knowledgeable. Scratch that, thats what bothers me about most people who enter into a discussion-- their inability to shut up when they dont know what theyre talking about.
72. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, they are. It's easier to prosecute uploaders/distributors since they are knowingly violating a copyright that they do not have the rights to...it's fairly easy to prove the knowingly part since they have to know they didn't create the content. It's harder to prosecute downloaders/purchasers since you have to prove the knowingly part and it's easier to argue that you believed the uploader/distributor was doing so legally. But if they can prove that you actually knew that the source of the content was not legitimate, it's every bit as much of a violation of copyright.
  And, of course, the other reason they go after uploaders/distributors is because they can argue for ridiculous damages. One pirated distribution can lead to others. But if they go after downloaders/purchasers, they can't really make the case for damages above and beyond the retail cost of the software.
  This seems like a common misconception here and other places where copyright is discussed...downloading/purchasing is safe for practical reasons, not for legal ones. It's just not practical for copyright owners to try to enforce their rights against downloaders/purchasers.
73. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  And to add to this, picture all the WW2 games. Even Wolfenstein 3D. Any game with a swastika in it? Banned. ID Software and the like would have to replace them with other icons, even change the storyline just to be within the law and to sell their games.
74. Re:Good by mrchaotica · 2013-06-12 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there's a lot of people who think so. It is the premise of folk-hero Robin Hood, after all...
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
75. Re:Good by Applekid · 2013-06-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think with all the drone strikes in the world you would realize the US has jurisdiction where ever it fucking feels like.
  While the US has no problem sending drones in through Pakistan and other sovereign nations, it doesn't take a military historian to guess what would happen if it sent one through the airspace of a nation that could match the superpower, like China.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
76. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  You're planning to eliminate *all* of them?
  captcha - aghast
77. Re:Good by Applekid · 2013-06-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  NO CARRIER
  It won't be too much longer now before there is no one left who gets this joke.
  Is there a text way to communicate the little green "internet" light on the router turning red?
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
78. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  I laughed. Thanks.
79. Re:Good by bws111 · 2013-06-12 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Nowhere does it say anything about downloading. It says he 'travelled with the products', which sort of implies CDs/DVDs. Buying a DVD/CD (even a pirated one) is not copyright infringement since you have not copied (or distributed) anything.
80. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  It is already an anachronism. It shall live on just as the floppy disk save button, check boxes, radio buttons, and slider UI elements have.
81. Re:Good by bws111 · 2013-06-12 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  And if you do that IN THAILAND they would indeed have jurisdiction, just like the US has jurisdiction when this guy is on US soil (which he was).
82. Re:Good by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-12 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure there's a lot of people who think so. It is the premise of folk-hero Robin Hood, after all...
  That Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" is right up there with "Columbus proved to people that the world wasn't flat" among popularized misconception.
  What Robin Hood actually did was to steal back money from the Sheriff, the extant government of the region, which had been extorted from the people at a terribly unjust rate.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
83. Re:Good by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-12 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  By that standard, Jeffrey Skilling (Enron) should get off because he was *only* decreasing someone else's retirement account.
  Skilling stole money though a shell corporation scheme. This guy copied software.
  Let this be the 47,895th time on Slashdot that somebody has written, "theft and duplication are not the same thing."
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
84. Re:Good by IRWolfie- · 2013-06-12 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Example of strikes outside Afghanistan/Pakistan: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/somalia-drones/all/
85. Re:Good by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-12 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  And I wonder if this is actually good for business.
  
  An Agilent product intended to speed the design process for electronic equipment was among the software illegally copied by the couple, according to the indictment. The SystemVue 2009 program sells for $45,000.
  
  The government will be keeping this man in a cage (possibly a rape-cage) for the next dozen years on behalf of Agilent, for their vengeance. I know I won't do business with any group of people who behaves this way, no matter what euphemisms they employ to try to justify it. I wonder how much this will help their profits vs. hurting their reputation.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
86. Re:Good by sociocapitalist · 2013-06-12 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  NO CARRIER
  It won't be too much longer now before there is no one left who gets this joke.
  What joke?
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
87. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  The US has less legal constants outside the US than inside it. The US can imprison, torture, or kill without legal comeback in most of the world, but can't even detain people without trail in the US. That's the reason Gitmo is in Cuba not Texas.
  Hadn't you noticed? Texas is becoming the new Cuba.
88. Re:Good by dcollins · 2013-06-12 04:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "The US... can't even detain people without trail in the US."
  NDAA-2013, signed into law the first of this year, says otherwise.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefinite-detention_n_2402601.html
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
89. Re:Good by rahvin112 · 2013-06-12 04:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There have been several arrested in China. The Chinese tend to limit these arrests to those you speak and write in a Chinese dialect though which is frequently expat's. I believe there is an American expat doing 10 years in hard labor right now for comments he posted while in America.
90. Re:Good by paiute · 2013-06-12 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  NO CARRIER
  It won't be too much longer now before there is no one left who gets this joke.
  Yes, nowadays it is a scream from another part of the house:"FRIGGING COMCAST IS DOWN AGAIN!"
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
91. Re:Good by rahvin112 · 2013-06-12 04:17 · Score: 2
  
  One of the interesting consequences of the "lock everyone up" (or more conveniently "lock up all the poor people") policy is that crime in the US is at record lows (as in recorded history). America is safer than it's ever been since industrialization.
92. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  I think with all the drone strikes in the world you would realize the US has jurisdiction where ever it fucking feels like.
  You need to read "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky.
  Of course the above book has some big words in it, so your
  tiny little brain might not do well with it.
93. Re:Good by loonycyborg · 2013-06-12 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  What does this have to do with theft?
94. Re:Good by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  wrong
  If you're country has a treaty or trade agreement with the US then the US copyright will apply to your country.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
95. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  But when people in other places seek reciprocity, the US calls it terrorism.
96. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  um, not much? China's military is shit. The equipment is shit, their military RnD is shit, and the military strategy and tactic are almost 100% focus on a Soviet attack. Yes, Soviet.
97. Re:Good by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, not Bollocks. It depends on the trade agreement and/or treaties.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
98. Re:Good by tilante · 2013-06-12 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to re-read the article. He was arrested in Saipan, with is an island in the Pacific... and a US Territory. Thus, he was arrested by the US, for selling to US citizens while on US soil.
  Basically, he got greedy and decided the potential gain was worth the risk that it was a set-up, and bet wrongly.
99. Re:Good by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-06-12 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  No route to host.
100. Re:Good by Lussarn · 2013-06-12 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  I think he got disconnected before the punchline, bet it was good though...
101. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  dun-da-da-dun dun-dun-dun ...
102. Re:Good by Obfuscant · 2013-06-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, it is not the approach courts have taken to deciding questions of this kind. The courts have instead asked where the was customer when he made the purchase, and used this as the basis of deciding what laws apply to the sale.
  Since you're talking about "questions of this kind", perhaps you ought to know what the courts had to rule on? From TFA:
  
  He was arrested in June 2011 by U.S. agents when they lured him to a meeting in Saipan where he believed he was delivering 20 gigabytes of data to the representatives of U.S. businessmen. Saipan, an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and like the Atlantic island of Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S., giving American authorities jurisdiction.
  
  The location of the seller: US soil. There was no extradition. The location of the buyer was also US soil, but the only question the courts have to rule on here is "guilty or not guilty", since the seller's location puts him clearly within US jurisdiction. You don't even have to argue about irrelevant drone strikes and hegemony.
103. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  NDAA-2013 allows the military to detain indef without trial. The OP was referring to "legal" (presumably in the civilian sense, given the rest of his statement).
  I'm not saying I'm for or against it, I'm just pointing out that you're conflating. Missing a little bit of context can mean everything.
104. Re:Good by antdude · 2013-06-12 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  There are still many people who still use dial-up like my uncle and me. :/
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
105. Re:Good by Cederic · 2013-06-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  ..and yet: The US will run out of missiles long before China run out of soldiers.
106. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Citation needed.
107. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  I think with all the drone strikes in the world you would realize the US has jurisdiction where ever it fucking feels like.
  I didn't realize the drone program had been expanded to copyright enforcement. Source please.
  Copyright violations are economic terrorism!
  Source -- RIAA
108. Re:Good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-06-12 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm don't know about copyright laws in China, but unless you breach your country law, the US can fuck off."
  That's a dumb thing to say.
  
  The crime was committed from China, but it was committed IN the U.S.
  
  If you commit a crime in the U.S., then come to the U.S. and expect to not be confronted with it, then YOU can fuck off.
109. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  12 years for making 60k profit ? You would get less for torturing someone.
  The US was founded on large scale copyright theft from the UK. The Chinese are only doing exactly the same at a similar point in their development as was done by the founding fathers.
110. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Took me a moment to get the joke. Those were the days!
111. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 06:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  NO CARRIER (capitalized) is a text message transmitted from a modem to its attached device (typically a computer), indicating the modem is not (or no longer) connected to a remote system.
  source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NO_CARRIER
112. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  And indeed it does, should you ever set foot in Thailand.
113. Re:Good by serialband · 2013-06-12 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike Puerto Rico, people born in Saipan are not conferred US citizenship.
114. Re:Good by mrchaotica · 2013-06-12 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Since I'm attempting to draw parallels with the popular perception of copyright infringement, I think the popularized misconception is just as relevant as the reality (or perhaps, even more so).
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
115. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Your boat example is legal, and not entrapment. "Hi, I'd like to pay you to kill my wife. I'll give you $1,000,000. Meet me at [address]" is entrapment. They solicited for a specific crime and used that against him.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
116. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-12 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's only entrapment if they force you to do it.
  No, it's entrapment if that specific crime would never have been committed without their involvement. If a criminal advertises in the newspaper "Special this week only, spousal execution and disposal, $100,000", then the police could assume that if they didn't call the number, someone else will, so calling it and arranging a meet and arresting him is not entrapment. If they put out an ad "help wanted, $100,000 for one night's work," and some curious soul shows up to see what it's about, and the police lay out a plan for a murder and offer $100,000, that's entrapment. There's no force needed. If the police solicit the illegal act, it's entrapment. If the criminal does, it isn't.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
117. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I never said it was a-ok. I just ask that when the government works such cases, they follow their own rules.
  
  Why do you encourage lawlessness within law enforcement?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
118. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  And don't forget, those numbers correlate better with TEL use/elimination than incarceration rates.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
119. Re:Good by HeckRuler · 2013-06-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thank goodness there's no US military in the US.
120. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-12 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Murder" is a specific charge. Does that stat include people who plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid a murder trial? That, and the better stat is always "first time offenders", as repeat offenders get longer sentences regardless of the specific crime.
  
  Why make up statistics? Because even the "official" and documented ones are made up (in that they twist the stats to show what they want to show, in your links case, they were obviously out to prove prison sentences were increasing). And interestingly, in FL, "Murder" includes "attempted murder" and not "second degree murder", so depending on how you group "murder", the statistics will change.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
121. Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2013-06-12 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Entrapment is enticing someone to commit a crime, then arresting them for it. Likely he will not be charged for the "crime" he was lured to Saipan to commit for that very reason. They entrapped him to trap him, then dropped all charges on the illegal charge, and will pretend it never happened. Which means the entrapment was perfectly legal.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
122. Re:Good by St.Creed · 2013-06-12 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, if I (while located within the USA) sell some WWII memorabilia to someone in Europe, I can be prosecuted for violating the German swastika ban?
  Yes - if the state of said citizen made a point of it, *and* you travelled to a country where they have jurisdiction (Like the ABC-islands) or a country that wouldn't hesitate to extradite you for a second (Venezuela comes to mind).
  We had a few cases of Dutch folks selling pot to tourists in The Netherlands (which was legal under the circumstances) and then getting arrested when crossing the border to Germany, for selling it to German nationals.
  If you like liberty, stay in your country and obey its rulers, always. Welcome to the new world order.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
123. Re:Good by Fjandr · 2013-06-12 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  The transaction took place in a US territory, giving the US courts jurisdiction.
124. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck are you talking about? He ripped off US companies, so the US tricked him into setting foot on US soil. What planet are you on that you think this should need to have anything to do with Chinese law?
125. Re:Good by Savage-Rabbit · 2013-06-12 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I am so sick of this.
  It's spelled "ridiculous", as in "ridicule".
  Learn to engrish!
  Grow a pair of balls and dispense your spelling nazi lectures under your username.
  
  --
  Only to idiots, are orders laws.
  -- Henning von Tresckow
126. Re:Good by cheesybagel · 2013-06-12 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think you underestimate their air force. It isn't what it used to be 20 years ago. They may not have the experience but they certainly have the equipment. 200 J-10 fighters (competitive vs the F-16). Plus a similar number of J-11 fighters (competitive vs the F-15). Stealth fighter prototypes (J-20 and J-31). Their native engine manufacturing technology is subpar but their electronics and weapon systems are not that bad.
127. Re:Good by oreiasecaman · 2013-06-12 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  ...and then there were no remaining AOL users.
  So... September finally ended?
  
  --
  This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
128. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah. Stalin used to do that as well. Not to mention the work camps.
129. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yemen.....
130. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well the king of Thailand is a theif and criminal. Its hard to believe the Thai officials bother to search the net for the name of everyone entering.
131. Re:Good by gigaherz · 2013-06-12 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  No. 12 years for making money off someone else's work. Copyright infringement is one thing, copyright infringement with the intent to make a profit is the evil one.
132. Re:Good by sumdumass · 2013-06-12 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's true. In some areas, they even sell fake drugs (represented as real drugs) in order to get purchasers on tape then arrest them a few blocks away.
  And example of entrapment would be a cop asking you to hold a bag, then the cop right beside him arresting you because it had a bunch of drugs and a loaded handgun in it.
133. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  That's plain bull^H^H^H^H^H rubish!
134. Re:Good by yacc143 · 2013-06-12 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Hint, there are quite a bit of different ways to signal troubles to access the Internet.
  Actually, your cable/DSL modem can be quite online, and you cannot access anything because your ISP managed to mess up the routing.
135. Re:Good by yacc143 · 2013-06-12 23:11 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, there is a German version with the graphics "fixed".
136. Re:Good by tilante · 2013-06-13 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  And? I didn't say that they were. Regardless of how the US treats the people there, though, it's still a US territory. The people he sold to were undercover Federal agents. I'll admit that I'm only presuming that they're US citizens, but that seems a reasonably safe presumption.
137. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Hong kong island was british territory forever. The new territories were leased, and the lease was to expire in 1997. HK was not viable as a seperate entity without the new territories.
138. Re:Good by hairyfish · 2013-06-13 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hong Kong was returned to China after China told the UK to give it back or they will take it back.
  Cite? I lived in Hong Kong in the 70's and early 80's. It was always clear then that Hong Hong was to be given back when the lease expired in 97. If what you say is true, then the (at the time) Chinese govt had as much say in world politics and the Ethopians do now. I hardly think that the likes of Margaret Thatcher would've been swayed by such rhetoric. And the British Empire was giving back colonies left right and centre back then, you statement is pure bunk.
139. Re:Good by bebilith · 2013-06-13 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  The US can imprison, torture, or kill without legal comeback in most of the world,...
  As a non-US citizen, fuck off!
  The US has to comply with local laws in most of the world. They only get away with it in the couple of countries they have destroyed and the one that's too busy fighting itself to seriously object.
140. Re:Good by julesh · 2013-06-14 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Since you're talking about "questions of this kind"
  Actually, the kind of question I was talking about was the kind GGP was talking about, which related specifically to remote purchases of downloadable material that is hosted in a foreign country. Sorry if that was misleading. :)
141. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-14 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Awesome joke. Makes me feel... old. The other possibity is "Crap! The paper tape broke AGAIN".
Nuber not that impressive by mysidia · 2013-06-11 21:21 · Score: 4, Informative

500 copyrighted works to more than 300 buyers in the U.S. and overseas
The retail value of the products was more than $100 million, the government said.
In other words... on average ~$200,000 per product, and ~$333 thousand per buyer
This makes sense, when you are talking about companies like Agilent that sell overpriced products, that retail for probably approximately $500,000
That's why the "pirated $100 million in software" is neither impressive, nor indicating a particularly outrageous pirate.
The outrage, should be the pricing of Enterprise software, not the" inflated retail price " as some sort of metric of the pirate's activity.
Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
In simple economic terms... the high price places their product out of demand.
By definition, they're worth what the buyer was willing to pay the pirate for the procureent.
If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
1. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Pubstar · 2013-06-11 21:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If you read TFA, you would have realized that most of the sales were to counties that have US trade embargoes imposed.
2. Re:Nuber not that impressive by TrollstonButterbeans · 2013-06-11 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  "If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong. "
  
  That is operating on the assumption that the pricing is wrong. Photoshop, Office and Visual Studio are $1000 because many casual users and small businesses will pirate the product or install the office's software on a personal computer (I'm not saying this is right, but I know too many photoshop thieves), but most medium-sized and large businesses and government will purchase the product.
  
  The pricing isn't wrong, the pricing adapted to the marketplace in a way that rewards very high cost and fewer sales.
  
  And super-expensive software often occurs in small markets where the seller is very reliant on trade secrets and does not want their product floating around in the wild for competitors to study, typically in very lucrative and super-specialized niche markets.
  
  --
  Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
3. Re:Nuber not that impressive by ranulf · 2013-06-11 21:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wanted to make this point, but more so. The guy sold copyrighted material to 300 people. Let's say $100 a pop, which sounds high for someone to fork over for known pirated material. That's $30,000 which is by my reckoning about 4 months salary for the typical person in the US. But this was actually over a 3 year period.
  Piracy is bad, and I don't agree with it, and even more so because my livelihood comes from software development of things that are typical targets of piracy, but the punishment here seems massively out of proportion to the crime. 12 years in prison is in the same ballpark as a murder.
4. Re:Nuber not that impressive by unkiereamus · 2013-06-11 21:57 · Score: 2
  
  I'd just like to point out that the median personal income in the US in 2012 was 42,693 USD.
  
  I don't know where you're living, but I'd like to live there if the typical personal income is 90k.
  
  --
  I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
5. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-06-11 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  A typical person in the US makes $90,000 a year? What?
6. Re:Nuber not that impressive by stanIyb · 2013-06-11 22:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm not saying this is right, but I know too many photoshop thieves
  If you know a lot of people who steal other people's copies of photoshop, you're probably hanging out with the wrong crowd.
7. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Average salary in Norway is 80k USD, not that far off.
8. Re:Nuber not that impressive by ccguy · 2013-06-11 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you know a lot of people who steal other people's copies of photoshop, you're probably hanging out with the wrong crowd.
  Because of the stealing, or because they use photoshop?
  
  Anyway - if Adobe had "per use" licensing, they would get my money. I'm not going to buy their product outright, and I'm not going to pay their huge monthly rental license. I'm sure for a lot of people it's a reasonable cost, but for me (which need to do very casual, and trivial, editing) it makes no sense.
  
  But let me pay $5 per photo I edit, and I'm in. It's still expensive, of course, but I can afford to pay that the 2-3 times I year I actually need photoshop.
9. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
  The market price is the price at which their is maximum supply and demand. That is, it is both the highest price at which consumers demand it and the lowest at which sellers are willing to supply it. And we're typically talking about the price over time because most "cheating" can only be temporary, eventually cheaters run out of money.
  A supplier can always sell under the market price, but eventually they have to make a profit or go out of business. A supplier can steal from another supplier and sell below market price, but only so long as they aren't caught, or the people they're stealing from run out of stuff to steal.
  When temporary activity ceases, you then get a market correction, and prices will rise.
10. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  Not sure how accurate the article is but by the sounds of it it was not just $100 a pop, some of it was up to $1200 a pop. But considering said software retails for 10's to 100's of thousands that is still a bargain. most likely it was easily in excess of 100k in made, possibly several hundred k depending on the software sales mix.
11. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ...If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
  Legal trade embargoes obviously cast aside for a moment, I'd say you truly don't understand how difficult it might be to price certain types of software. A product used in engineering and design that costs $100,000 and $10,000 per person per year to maintain sounds like it might be priced fairly when talking about using it to design our next-generation communication satellites or Mars space rover. That investment in design might make you the preferred vendor generating millions in revenue.
  But the instant you start talking about that same $100,000 software package being used to design the perfect rubber dildo or fake vomit, suddenly it's a complete rip-off, and should be priced cheaper? Why, because ironically they ended up designing and selling the #1 sex toy in multiple countries and made twice as much revenue as the guy making satellites and space rovers?
  I'm not arguing that some software packages are overpriced. They are. However, it's quite easy to see based on the application of certain software packages it becomes very difficult to pin an appropriate price tag on it.
12. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Grishnakh · 2013-06-11 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where you're living, but I'd like to live there if the typical personal income is 90k.
  Maybe he lives in Manhattan or Silicon Valley. With typical rents being $3k/month and up, someone making $43k would never be able to afford to live there.
13. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:11 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Personally, I steal only pirate copies of photoshop. That's not as bad, because the people I took it from had no right to have it in the first place.
14. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2013-06-11 23:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  500 copyrighted works to more than 300 buyers in the U.S. and overseas
  The retail value of the products was more than $100 million, the government said.
  In other words... on average ~$200,000 per product, and ~$333 thousand per buyer
  This makes sense, when you are talking about companies like Agilent that sell overpriced products, that retail for probably approximately $500,000
  That's why the "pirated $100 million in software" is neither impressive, nor indicating a particularly outrageous pirate.
  The outrage, should be the pricing of Enterprise software, not the" inflated retail price " as some sort of metric of the pirate's activity.
  Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
  In simple economic terms... the high price places their product out of demand.
  By definition, they're worth what the buyer was willing to pay the pirate for the procureent.
  If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
  Not really. While i you are correct about pricing a d demand your conclusions aren't. The software vendors chose to forgo more sales in favor of higher prices; probably figuring the margins were better since there would be fewer users to support and the higher price justified the required level of support. That's their choice and does not mean someone else has the right to pirate and sell at a lower price point. The buyers were simply not target customers despite their desire to have the software.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
15. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  If you're "outraged" by the high price of Enterprise Software go write an open source replacement.
  And I'm calling shenanigans on this part:
  >>Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
  >>In simple economic terms... the high price places their product out of demand.
  How can you simultaneously be outraged at the price and go on to say their business model is broken?
  If they're model was broken they would be out of business.
  I like free beer too. Not all beer is free. Some beer is cheap and some expensive. This is good, it gives us all lots of beer to chose from.
16. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:17 · Score: 0
  
  Eh this will basically never happen. Look at drugs. When I was in high school some kid got caught by police with ~$100 (what he actually paid) of marijuana in hit car. When the news report came out, they said it was $10,000 worth, and were all talking about how he was obviously on his way to distribute it to his friends so that they could split up and sell it in different parts of town. The reality was he always bought in bulk so he wouldn't have to go out and buy more every couple of days. But here, 15 years later, he's still in jail on drug trafficking charges.
17. Re:Nuber not that impressive by stanIyb · 2013-06-11 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't you have to take and/or mess around with their physical property before you could do that, though?
18. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well, what's the median personal income in Manhattan or Silicon Valley?
19. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  Just checked citi-data for median household income:
  Manhattan, NY: $68,706
  San Jose, CA: $76,495
  Sunnyvale, CA: $88,364
  Cupertino, CA: $118,904
  Santa Clara, CA: $82,714
  Mountain View, CA: $92,504
  Palo Alto, CA: $118,989
  Redwood City, CA: $67,611
  That should be most of the valley. Just for comparison's sake, I live in Austin, TX where there is a lot going on: $50,132. In my slightly above middle class zip code: $65,230
  Now if you really want to have fun, go back and run a cost of living calculator for those places. :)
20. Re:Nuber not that impressive by king+neckbeard · 2013-06-11 23:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So, the Chinese citizen is Prometheus and the US government is Zeus? Didn't they have anything better to do, like turn into swans and rape young women?
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
21. Re:Nuber not that impressive by rockout · 2013-06-11 23:49 · Score: 2
  
  On the Upper East Side of Manhattan, per capita income is over $90,000/year, and well over $100K/household on average.
  But yes, in most other parts of the country, he's way off. Perhaps he lives in Manhattan and has a skewed sense of what people make.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
22. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  >By definition, they're worth what the buyer was willing to pay the pirate for the procureent.
  Please, try not to be such an idiot. They are worth whatever the seller is willing to sell them for.
  >If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
  It's this kind of thinking that makes me lose faith in the future. It is true that going after pirates who can't afford your legal product is a losing strategy. Going after people who can afford it is a very fucking good idea. If it's not worth $500k to you, then you obviously do not need it. Period. Make do without. If it's 100% required for you to do business, well, that's what people call a "cost".
23. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  >That's $30,000 which is by my reckoning about 4 months salary for the typical person in the US. But this was actually over a 3 year period.
  Wow. Out of touch. The median household income in the US is $50k/year. That includes households where multiple people work. That's more around 9 months salary for average homes. I'm a EE with over five years in industry and I don't make $30k in 4 months. I do live in a really cheap part of US, but you may need to check your privilege. It's almost two year's salary for people stuck at minimum wage (before taxes) ($7.25/hour * 40 hours/wk * 52 wk/yr = $15800/year).
  Just think a bit more about those numbers a bit, please.
24. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, I just sneak in to their houses and get access to their computers, copy photoshop onto my USB drive, then delete photoshop from the hard drive I got it from. That makes it theft. If I didn't delete it then it would be like copyright infringement - I certainly wouldn't want to be caught doing that.
25. Re:Nuber not that impressive by fustakrakich · 2013-06-12 00:34 · Score: 2
  
  The corporations that build and operate our prisons demand a minimum occupancy, and by god, they're gonna get it, if we have to lock up the whole country.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
26. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Sponge+Bath · 2013-06-12 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  They also own a yacht and have oil wells. I saw it on an episode of Dallas.
27. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2013-06-12 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Mind you (as we drift further and further off the topic), that's /household/ income, versus personal income (versus personal salaries). Roughly 40% of all reported household income includes 2 wage-earners. And income often includes more than salaries. Your numbers aren't an accurate comparison.
28. Re:Nuber not that impressive by ranulf · 2013-06-12 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I live in the UK and what little I know about US wages comes from friends working in tech jobs in CA. But regardless of the actual figures, even if the average salary is double or half of what I said, the point was that 12 years in prison is an unfair punishment compared to the actual crime.
29. Re:Nuber not that impressive by gl4ss · 2013-06-12 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  but the sw was floating around.. released as warez.
  saying that it equated to 500k of lost sales is a joke tough. the buyer never had that much money to begin with.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
30. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Main+Gauche · 2013-06-12 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Median salary in Norway is closer to 50K, much further off.
  Median != Avg.
31. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  The software vendors chose to forgo more sales in favor of higher prices; probably figuring the margins were better since there would be fewer users to support and the higher price justified the required level of support. That's their choice and does not mean someone else has the right to pirate and sell at a lower price point. The buyers were simply not target customers despite their desire to have the software.
  The consequence of saying that in turn is that if that pirated copies with people not part of the target demographic do not count toward any loss figure. So instead of countering the reasoning why artificially inflated prices are wrong in this sort of "accounting", you give anoter, separate, reason for discounting the "$100 million" figure.
  Whether companies have a right to exclude customers on arbitrary criteria like how much money they have to spend ("walletism") is debatable. The usual US stance does not translate automatically, or even well, to the rest of the world. Like how certain countries manufacture their own generic medicine because their people are too poor to pay for vastly overpriced big pharma produce. The reasoning there ("have to recoup research costs!", "no you don't, just produce more, doofuses!" or more directly "our people are dieing, stuff you and your greed!") applies even more to software (usually minus the dieing part) since "producing" is so cheap, once a gold disc is pressed.
  I'm not saying the prosecution is wrong (they're not, according to the law, but then the RIAA and MPAA aren't either, according to the law), just pointing out an oft-overlooked assumption that you should be aware isn't true everywhere.
  But anyway. If you're not in the target demographic then the company shouldn't worry about you, since another non-paying user is just that much more market penetration, and not a loss for the company since they've already decided they don't want your money. If they suddenly do, then it's back to pricing considerations.
32. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Pionar · 2013-06-12 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
  Who said it was the vendor going after him?
  And it says in TFA that the Agilent product in question was a "product intended to speed the design process for electronic equipment". And it was $45,000, not $500,000. Still, Agilent charges $45,000 for that product because it's found people that are willing to pay it.
  If you can't afford the software, or you don't think what it gives you is worth $45,000, then don't buy it. It's not for you. Don't bitch about it. Don't pirate it. Find something else in your price range.
  And there's a big difference between going after pirates who post your stuff on TPB and a guy who made $30,000 (low ballpark) off your work.
33. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's $30,000 which is by my reckoning about 4 months salary for the typical person in the US.
  So the average Joe is pulling in about 90k/year? You're reconing is off by almost 100%; median salary in the US is between 45-50k/year. Dual-income households are more likely to be making that kind of money.
34. Re:Nuber not that impressive by loufoque · 2013-06-12 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Pricing software is very easy, it's whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
  If the buyer is not willing to spend sufficient money to cover your production and R&D costs, then that means there is no good business model for this particular product and that you should do something else with your life.
35. Re:Nuber not that impressive by PPH · 2013-06-12 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  $200,000 software products come with a lot of configuration, training and support services from the vendor. What IT director* is going to sign off on this kind of expenditure for a piece of software that doesn't even come in its own shiny box?
  *The home/small office market for stuff at this price is approximately zero.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
36. Re:Nuber not that impressive by flibbidyfloo · 2013-06-12 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Just as a point of comparison, if you think $30k is an "average" salary for 4 months, you aren't living in the same America I live in.
  Also, are you just pulling that $100 figure out of your ass because it seems like a lot for you to pay for a pirated program? If I were a business person in, say, Iraq, or another country where I couldn't legally buy this enterprise level software, $100 would seem super cheap to me.
  I'm not disagreeing with your contention that the punishment doesn't fit the crime though, but I'm too lazy to RTFA for more detail, so I'll limit my comments to your post :)
37. Re:Nuber not that impressive by brit74 · 2013-06-12 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
  No, you're wrong because if people are offered two different prices for the same product, they'll choose the cheaper price. Let me give you an example: let's say you want to buy a product. It costs $500 (retail). You want this product so bad that you're willing to pay $800. Then, someone comes along and offers it to you for $100. You buy it for $100. What does this prove? Does it prive that "the buyers (you) weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at" (i.e. $500)? No. It means you picked the cheaper of the two options. It does not prove that you weren't willing to buy it for $500. It does not prove that " those sales by definition were not worth the retail price."
  
  By definition, they're worth what the buyer was willing to pay the pirate for the procureent.
  It's worth pointing out that what the buyer paid the pirate for the software and what the buyer would be willing to pay the pirate are two different things. For example, the buyer might've paid $100 for the software, but was willing to pay $1,000.
  
  As long as we're talking about "market value", it should be pointed out that *everything* is valued at what the buyer was willing to pay for the product. For example, let's say that a car is being sold by a car dealership for $10,000. If a car thief came along and stole the car, what's the car's value? According to your definition, it's worth whatever the thief would've paid for it. If the thief was poor and only willing to pay $2,000 for the car, would that mean that the thief should old be charged in court for the theft of a $2,000 car? Economics is fun, isn't it?
  
  I will admit that, because software can be easily duplicated, the car and software example doesn't quite match up.
38. Re:Nuber not that impressive by fustakrakich · 2013-06-12 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Funny?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
39. Re:Nuber not that impressive by mrchaotica · 2013-06-12 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  ...For me (which need to do very casual, and trivial, editing) [licensing photoshop] makes no sense.
  In that case, using Photoshop at all makes no sense. There are cheaper (or free, or even Free) programs that will do the casual and trivial editing you want more easily than Photoshop.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
40. Re:Nuber not that impressive by ccguy · 2013-06-12 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...For me (which need to do very casual, and trivial, editing) [licensing photoshop] makes no sense.
  In that case, using Photoshop at all makes no sense. There are cheaper (or free, or even Free) programs that will do the casual and trivial editing you want more easily than Photoshop.
  Maybe, but I don't want to look for, install, and learn the basics of whatever alternative is good this month.
  
  There's plenty of tutorials, templates, etc for photoshop that just don't exist for many others. Just because something else would be enough for what I need it doesn't mean it's the right solution for me.
41. Re:Nuber not that impressive by thejam · 2013-06-12 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Pricing software is very easy, it's whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
  Pricing needs agreement from the seller too. Otherwise, I'd like everything free, thank you very much.
  Asking $100K for specialized engineering software isn't insane when you consider how much specialized dedication, education and talent may be required. It's definitely not just "coding".
  Don't surgeons and other medical specialists charge huge fees, and yet their impact is narrower since they only help one person at a time? Please don't say research engineers & scientists ought to be poor because they're not from a "blessed" profession like medicine, law or finance. Research engineers are way underpaid relative to their impact on society, and somehow accept the situation because they're doing something they love. Don't physicians like helping people too?
  Doctors and lawyers have a weak guild system (via medical and law licensing boards) which helps them constrain membership growth and reduce foreign competition. Thus they're paid well. The profession engineering designations (mostly CivE and MechE) don't really apply to high tech (EE, robotics) & the IEEE doesn't have clout (& hasn't been much help with H1B). Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, who create the future, are politically weak, while doctors and lawyers, who fundamentally protect the status quo (bodies and property), are politically strong. This has to change.
42. Re:Nuber not that impressive by loufoque · 2013-06-12 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Pricing needs agreement from the seller too. Otherwise, I'd like everything free, thank you very much.
  If that's all you're willing to pay, then problem solved. The product cannot be sold and therefore there is no point in building a business around it.
  
  Asking $100K for specialized engineering software isn't insane when you consider how much specialized dedication, education and talent may be required. It's definitely not just "coding".
  This is completely backwards. The price of software has very little to do with the costs of producing it.
  The price depends on how much value it brings to the buyer.
43. Re:Nuber not that impressive by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  This type of software is a lot different then widely distributed software. Volume and horizontal distribution factors change the game.
  You are talking about a product that also accompanies machinery worth millions.
  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with their market strategy, only pointing out why you example is horrible out of place.
  Plus their are people who would like to get any service or product for free, does that mean all services and product should be free?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
44. Re:Nuber not that impressive by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not stealing. Coping. Specifically copyright infringement(not the copier, but the distributor) and likely EULA violation, again the owner not the copier), until they install it, depending on the wording in the agreement.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
45. Re:Nuber not that impressive by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't you just go to a copier place and use it their? or a library? or a friends house? sounds to me like you just making excuses.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
46. Re:Nuber not that impressive by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's software the sells fro 100s of thousands of dollars. Typical for vertical machinery software.
  yes, it is out of proportion. I generally don't like prison for most crimes. It'sa punishment that makes society worse off over all.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
47. Re:Nuber not that impressive by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  "The price of software has very little to do with the costs of producing it.
  The price depends on how much value it brings to the buyer."
  That's incredible stupid. Of course the cost to produce impacts the price. If you can't sell it for more then you produce it, then you go out of business.
  If that price doesn't have consumers that value it, then they don't buy it.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
48. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  " Let's say $100 a pop".... Another dope that didn't RTFA or prior coverage.
49. Re:Nuber not that impressive by loufoque · 2013-06-12 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  If the costs are higher than the perceived value, then there is no viable business model.
  The costs impact your margin, not price.
  You are clearly completely clueless about economics.
50. Re:Nuber not that impressive by ccguy · 2013-06-12 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Photoshop is not available in none of those places, plus of course I'm trying to *save* work, not do more.
  
  I don't need excuses not to buy from Adobe. It's them who need to give me reasons to buy.
51. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Then go to city-data.com and get the data you want yourself.
52. Re:Nuber not that impressive by sjames · 2013-06-12 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  So, since we can 'assume' that Agilent would never violate the law, the actual loss to them was close to zero.
53. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  $200,000 software products come with a lot of configuration, training and support services from the vendor.
  No they don't. This is EDA stuff. The training and support cost extra.
54. Re:Nuber not that impressive by mysidia · 2013-06-12 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  That is operating on the assumption that the pricing is wrong. Photoshop, Office and Visual Studio are $1000 because many casual users and small businesses will pirate the product or install the office's software on a personal computer (I'm not saying this is right, but I know too many photoshop thieves), but most medium-sized and large businesses and government will purchase the product.
  That's an example of a company that is highly profitable. Adobe and Microsoft's pursuit of 'small' pirates is half-hearted at best. Their products are profitable, and pursuing 'pirates' doesn't earn them significantly more revenue.
  And super-expensive software often occurs in small markets where the seller is very reliant on trade secrets and does not want their product floating around in the wild for competitors to study, typically in very lucrative and super-specialized niche markets.
  If the vendor doesn't want their software floating around, they will typically deliver it as a cloud service, or through a hardened appliance, that doesn't provide the end user access to code, and is locked to specific hardware, through the use of some custom on board FPGA or ASICs.
55. Re:Nuber not that impressive by mysidia · 2013-06-12 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Let me give you an example: let's say you want to buy a product. It costs $500 (retail). You want this product so bad that you're willing to pay $800. Then, someone comes along and offers it to you for $100. You buy it for $100. What does this prove? Does it prive that "the buyers (you) weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at" (i.e. $500)? No. It means you picked the cheaper of the two options.
  "$100" is not "the cheaper of two options"
  It is a lower price, for a version of a product with a huge defect -- namely, that the sale is illegitimate.
  The illegitimacy of the sale, means they are actually different products -- the pirated product may be competing at some level, but it's not "the same" product.
  Invariably, the buyer almost certainly had the option of buying legitimately first, and other options only came up with either some extensive searching explicitly towards that end, or towards "asking around for favors".
  Of course... the amount they're willing to pay most certainly should drop precipitiously, as the pirated version is not only illegitimate, but surely includes no valuable skilled support from the vendor, software maintenance service, upgrades, or ability to speak candidly with the vendor and request new features/enhancements.
56. Re:Nuber not that impressive by Suhas · 2013-06-12 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  > most of the sales were to counties that have US trade embargoes imposed
  Wait, so US now imposes trade embargoes on counties as well? This is just more of Yankee aggression as most of the poorest counties which cannot afford to buy legal software are in the south and South Dakota
57. Re:Nuber not that impressive by sumdumass · 2013-06-12 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  copying is/can be a copyright violation too. Receiving a copy that has been copied and distributed to you is not which is what I think you were going for.
58. Re:Nuber not that impressive by sumdumass · 2013-06-12 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Please, try not to be such an idiot. They are worth whatever the seller is willing to sell them for.
  No, They are worth whatever the seller can sell them for.
  I wrote a little hello world program and I am willing to sell it for $2 million dollars. If my shop catches fire, the insurance definitely will not cover that amount and likely I would be arrested for insurance fraud. If people were actually paying that price, it would be a different story. It is worth whatever I can sell it for.
59. Re:Nuber not that impressive by mysidia · 2013-06-12 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  Who said it was the vendor going after him?
  You can infer this, because the vendor/manufacturer of the software holds the copyright; only the rightsholder can make the claim of infringement.
  Still, Agilent charges $45,000 for that product because it's found people that are willing to pay it.
  Maybe so, gouge the customer for whatever they find themselves able to pay, and still be able to justify the purchase.... Sounds like a monopolistic practice to me.
  If you can't afford the software, or you don't think what it gives you is worth $45,000, then don't buy it. It's not for you.
  That makes sense, but it doesn't work for people, who neither have the $45,000, nor can do what they need to do, without the software.
  It's not for you. Don't bitch about it. Don't pirate it. Find something else in your price range.
  I think whoever would need their product but can't afford it, is entitled to bitch all they want.
  Your recommendation is that they not pirate it, but it may be in their best interests to do so; furthermore, it may be mutually beneficial to them and the software vendor, for them to do so; as it hurts the competition of their software vendor, and increases the chance that in the future they will have to make a legitimate purchase.
  And there's a big difference between going after pirates who post your stuff on TPB and a guy who made $30,000 (low ballpark) off your work.
  Yeah... the guy who made $30,000.... sounds like he defrauded the recipient out of $30k. They got ripped off due to overpaying for illegitimate software -- which omits important things like support and the opportunity for updates.
  Furthermore, if they were willing to pay 70% of retail, they should have just negotiated with the software vendor.
  Pirating software is cheating a whole lot, so if you DO pirate, at least get a 90% discount, because the mid term market value of pirated software is essentially $0; any "value" is just due to limited demand, and limited number of pirates who can get ahold of a copy.
  I believe anyone who buys an illegal copy of a $45,000 product for $30,000 is a moron. Since they are essentially risking that the value of that 30k "investment" will be $0 very quickly, after getting busted and forced to destroy the copies. $15,000 doesn't really mean squat in any business that matters, except possibly a small business startup, which couldn't afford the $30k either.
  On the other hand... the guy who buys an illegally pirated copy of a $45,000 product for $2000; I can kind of understand that.
60. Re:Nuber not that impressive by david_thornley · 2013-06-13 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Cost to produce software is fairly close to zero nowadays. Support can be more expensive, and probably dominates the per-unit costs.
  Software design can be really expensive, but that's a fixed cost by the time the duplication begins. The question is whether the amount earned covers this cost.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
61. Re:Nuber not that impressive by brit74 · 2013-06-13 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  It is a lower price, for a version of a product with a huge defect -- namely, that the sale is illegitimate.
  Keep in mind that different products have different values attached to those peripheral value-addeds. For example, you can't claim that music is "defective" because it was taken through piracy - since there's no such thing as "music maintenance", "upgrades", or "the ability to speak candidly with the vendor". Some software products fall into the same category. Also, don't think that piracy stops pirates from "speaking candidly with the vendor and request new features/enhancements". I've seen pirates caught on webforums complaining about bugs in games that haven't even been released to the public yet. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.139753-Arkham-Asylum-Pirates-Get-a-Gimpy-Batman
  
  I think my point still stands, since you never attempted to even dispute the fact that the price paid by the pirate is not the same thing as the price they would've paid had piracy not been an option (when you were attempting to claim that the value of a product is only what the buyer (i.e. pirate) paid for it).
  
  Effectively, you're claiming that, if a pirate gets something for X dollars (where X dollars could be as low as $0), then that shows that's all they were willing to pay, and therefore, it is the value of the product. That's obviously flawed and wrong.
62. Re:Nuber not that impressive by mysidia · 2013-06-14 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know where you're living, but I'd like to live there if the typical personal income is 90k.
  No you don't... because a big mac at McD's costs $40 there, and a full meal costs $80.
  But you can go down to starbucks instead, and have yourself a small coffee for $30.
  Or go to theatre, and buy a pair of movie tickets for $300, and enjoy an $50 30-oz bag of popcorn
63. Re:Nuber not that impressive by unkiereamus · 2013-06-15 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the difference is in the external costs.
  
  Generally the internal costs of an area are consistent, a big mac will cost a certain percentage of the median income, no matter what that income is, but external costs are fixed.
  
  For an example, I used to live in Honduras, the median income was 3k USD or so, the costs of food and housing were commensurate. International airfare, however, doesn't drop, nor for that matter, did the value of the student loans I still have outstanding.
  
  --
  I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
64. Re:Nuber not that impressive by mysidia · 2013-06-15 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  International airfare is just expensive, and its pricing is complicated -- because there are high fuel costs for the airline dependent on costs in both source, destination place, and there is little competition.
  International airfare, however, doesn't drop, nor for that matter, did the value of the student loans I still have outstanding.
  No... but if you went to school there, the cost of schooling there should have been lower.
  This is why prospective students should scope out the full cost of schooling, in relation to the cost of living wherever they're considering studying.
  And why it's probably not to their economic advantage, to go study during their college years at a place with a higher cost of living, than where they intend to live and work; without a scholarship, anyways.
65. Re:Nuber not that impressive by unkiereamus · 2013-06-15 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  International airfare is just expensive, and its pricing is complicated -- because there are high fuel costs for the airline dependent on costs in both source, destination place, and there is little competition.
  It's actually more complicated than that, there are international treaties involved in international airfare. The basic point, however, is that the 500USD ticket down there was much easier to buy when I was living in the states than the 500USD ticket back to the states was to buy while I was living down there.
  
  --
  I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
Retail versus actual street price by mathew42 · 2013-06-11 21:39 · Score: 1

A more realistic figure would be software price after it has been discounted by the sales person.. Most (all?) enterprise software is discounted heavily and comes with large ongoing maintenance and support fees.
1. Re:Retail versus actual street price by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  A more realistic figure would be software price after it has been discounted by the sales person.. Most (all?) enterprise software is discounted heavily and comes with large ongoing maintenance and support fees.
  The legal system started that bullshit. Auto manufacturer makes the car for $5000, sends it off to their dealership priced at $25,000 and the car gets stolen off the lot. Gee, I wonder how much it's insured for...
  Don't even get me started on the jewelry racket...
  Perhaps a serious revamp there would be a start to end this nonsense of a 90% markup to MSRP "value".
2. Re:Retail versus actual street price by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  They are talking about specialized engineering software here, not mass market enterprise stuff where there is huge various in pricing. The market is relatively limited hence it isn't something you can get a lot of large discounts on unless you are already spending a shitton of money with them.
Just another Day... by lunacyq · 2013-06-11 21:41 · Score: 0, Troll

Of the U.S.A ruling the world as normal. Move along, nothing to care about here.
So, an action only in one country is a crime ... by magic+maverick+ · 2013-06-11 21:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's pretend I host a website that allows you to download hundreds of novels and other works. These are all still under copyright in the USA. But I, and my website, are located in a place where all these works are in the public domain (e.g. Australia, and Russia).
If I then (perhaps I'm a masochist) visit the USA, can I be arrested and charged? Probably not actually.
But, if I suddenly allow you to download novels etc. that are not in the public domain in the country I operate in, I suddenly can be charged in the USA? Even though I never visited that country, nor had any dealings there?
Why the fuck do countries have laws that allow them to prosecute people who are did their criminal activity in another jurisdiction?

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
3.78 seconds by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:05 · Score: 0

per dollar.
standard has been set.
38 seconds for a 10 dollar movie.
so fuck the 5-10 for that... call it a five dollar fine/restitution and people can keep their stuff, even. you know damn well that 100+ million was not recovered.
Moral of the story... by Wickedpygmy · 2013-06-11 22:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't travel to U.S territories if you're wanted for U.S crimes.
1. Re:Moral of the story... by antifoidulus · 2013-06-11 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Did you actually read TFA? He went to Saipan for the express purpose of making a deal...it wasn't like he went on a vacation, landed on US soil and was immediately arrested, they caught him on US soil engaging in the crime.
  
  Moral of this comment: RTFA.(Though I guess the summary is partially incorrect in that regard, it wasn't "entirely from China" if he traveled to Saipan to sell stuff)
  
  --
  Monstar L
2. Re:Moral of the story... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2013-06-11 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Did you actually read TFA? He went to Saipan for the express purpose of making a deal...it wasn't like he went on a vacation, landed on US soil and was immediately arrested, they caught him on US soil engaging in the crime. Moral of this comment: RTFA.(Though I guess the summary is partially incorrect in that regard, it wasn't "entirely from China" if he traveled to Saipan to sell stuff)
  The real moral: You can't fix stupid
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
3. Re:Moral of the story... by EmagGeek · 2013-06-12 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  As the article states, these acts were committed in China, where they may or may not be legal.
  Next thing we know, US Police will start writing tickets for people speeding in Belgium.
4. Re:Moral of the story... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  Good advice. I'm taking it one step further.
  I'm not being wanted for any crimes, anywhere, and I don't travel to the US on principle, for as long as your current kind of administration (or any like it - I really couldn't care less whether it's the republicans or the democrats who are the current sock-puppets) remains.
  Which is a shame.
  As far as I can tell, the US is a country well worth visiting, populated by a great many nice people. Unfortunately, all that is fouled beyond recognition by the ways in which your administration (and all it entails) acts domestically as well as internationally.
Quid Pro Quo? by Mistakill · 2013-06-11 22:06 · Score: 0

Now, i wonder how many American's will be charged for crimes against the STATE in China, for example, supporting pro Tibet movements... After all, if its good enough for the goose...
1. Re:Quid Pro Quo? by Skapare · 2013-06-11 23:33 · Score: 2
  
  THIS is the danger! Maybe it is less so because technically this theft is illegal in China, too, and he did step onto US soil. But the danger is that things we in the US think of as perfectly legal, like putting up web sites about Tibet's political struggles, or insult the royal family in Thailand, or trade in historical Nazi artifacts, we run the risk of being arrested in one or more countries. And to the extent that the US government demands extradition for things that are illegal here, for acts done in the other countries, those countries might demand similar extradition the other way.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
2. Re:Quid Pro Quo? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Well, don't go to Chinese sovereign soil after doing so and you'll be just fine.
  This asshat went to Saipan (Chinese people, but a U.S. territory) to sell warez to American cops.
  If you go to China and help out a pro-Tibet rally, I expect you to be tossed into the pokey.
3. Re:Quid Pro Quo? by Sponge+Bath · 2013-06-12 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  If an American protested China's occupation of Tibet in the streets of Beijing, he WOULD be arrested. See how that works?
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Obviously because so many crimes cross international borders. He sold illegal product to US citizens over the internet, and was then dumb enough to make a delivery on US soil. There's no room for outrage here unless you're the kind of edgy guy that thinks anarchy would be cool.
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 22:23 · Score: 0

Try reading the Bloomberg story before spouting off.
Brilliant example by stealth_finger · 2013-06-11 22:47 · Score: 0

Without googleing who the fuck are Agilent Technologies Inc.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
1. Re:Brilliant example by gl4ss · 2013-06-11 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  well they sell high margin electronics analysis equipment and apparently software.
  that's how they got the 100 000 000 figure. it's pulled out of a hat, completely.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Brilliant example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  IT is high margin and expensive because the market for it is so small, if it wasn't high margin then it would not be worth any companies time, investment and risk to actually make said equipment and software. If it was such an incredibly lucrative market you would see lots of competitors driving price down, you don't because the market is too small. There are many many examples of such markets in the world and it isn't because of people pulling arbitrary prices out of a hat, it is because to stay in business each product sale has to account for a much more significant portion of your cost recovery and you profit base.
3. Re:Brilliant example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  It is what was the good part of HP and was split off in the nineties. It makes measurement equipment for electronics and life sciences. Computers and printers stayed with HP. Nowadays Agilent is doing much better than HP.
4. Re:Brilliant example by geekoid · 2013-06-12 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's probably a reasonable number,. You should price specialized manufacturing and engineering software some time.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:Brilliant example by petermgreen · 2013-06-12 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Agilent techologies are a company that demerged from HP taking the test equipment buisness and a few other bits and peices. They also produce (or at least produced, I think they may have spun it off.........) some very expensive software for RF circuit design.
  Our labs at uni are full of HP/agilent gear.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by stealth_finger · 2013-06-11 23:02 · Score: 1

Let's pretend I host a website that allows you to download hundreds of novels and other works. These are all still under copyright in the USA. But I, and my website, are located in a place where all these works are in the public domain (e.g. Australia, and Russia). If I then (perhaps I'm a masochist) visit the USA, can I be arrested and charged? Probably not actually.
I would say yeah. They've shown all you have to do to be arrested on entry to America is post a few ill thought tweets.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:It is, however, definitely appropriate. by stanIyb · 2013-06-11 23:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you made $100M (really that, not RIAA funny-math $100M, mind) then that is $100M that the original owners could have made.
Except when you consider that the prices official sources charge are usually much more. People most likely bought software from him because he was selling it at a cheaper price. Would they have bought it otherwise? Who knows? But why should we assume they would have?
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Grishnakh · 2013-06-11 23:06 · Score: 1

Why the fuck do countries have laws that allow them to prosecute people who are did their criminal activity in another jurisdiction?
Because they want to, and because they can. Why wouldn't they want to do so? If you're allowing US residents to download novels from your Russian website, you're causing the US publishers to lose money. Since the US government is a government by the corporations, and for the corporations, obviously they're going to be very interested in shutting you down.
It's copyright, not market. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:12 · Score: 0

Therefore they will sell at the maximum price they can get maximum profit at. NOT your market price.
Because, as this event shows, there IS NO MARKET, you buy from one mandated sole supplier or GTFO.
That is not a market, unless you're going to accept being able to vote for the party in power makes Soviet Russia a democracy.
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:20 · Score: 0

If it's legal in your country, they won't extradite you to another country to stand trial. Every time some reporter talks shit about a middle eastern country they start demanding that they be turned over to 'stand trial' for their blasphemy...we haven't turned anyone over yet. A lot of countries won't extradite to the US even if the crimes are illegal, because they know the system is bullshit. Like child support...they know if they extradite the person will just end up in jail for nonpayment, get out a month later, then end up in jail again for not being able to pay all the fines/fees/etc. Rinse/repeat until they die of old age.
Anyway, the US wouldn't be able to arrest you in your situation unless you went there. Then it's fair game on your ass. If you did something particularly bad, they might send people in after you..but they aren't going to do that over some $20 novels. Now if you had sold a joint somewhere....
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Bearhouse · 2013-06-11 23:22 · Score: 2

Because they would probably never get prosecuted there, sometimes because there are no laws, other times because there is no effective system to apply the law, (even international law).
Whilst this tactic is of course open to abuse, and recently has been, it's also good for cases of war crimes etc.
Anyway, I think you're missing the point here; if you are party to/enable a 'crime' to be committed in a certain country, then they can go after you.
Seems fair enough. Remember, ignorance of the law is no defense. If you're doing business across borders, better know what you're doing.
Finally, you really think guy did NOT know what he was risking? He was selling stolen software!
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-11 23:31 · Score: 0

I think there's a big distinction between low touch sales where you do not distinguish the country of your buyer (eg. he's from "the Internet", and you're selling to "the Internet", and high touch sales where you directly deal with every sale and know that you're selling to the US and that it is illegal there. You fall on the latter side even more if you're directly and knowingly communicating with Americans to negotiate the sale.
In the latter case, I think it's perfectly fair to require that you don't break the law in either country, and for the US to have jurisdiction over your activity.
OTOH, if US citizens were to fly to Russia (using your example) to purchase goods or services in a transaction that is entirely legal in Russia, then the US citizens should be the sole ones culpable for breaking any US laws when they return home.
"Worth"? by J'raxis · 2013-06-12 00:08 · Score: 1

Was this software "worth" $100M in the same way a single MP3 you could buy for $0.99 is "worth" tens of thousands of dollars when it comes to copyright claims?

--
Liberty in your lifetime
1. Re:"Worth"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Or less depending on which direction the lawsuit is.
  How much did the Canadian record companies "settle" for when they were charged for piracy when they sold compilation CDs and never paid the artists?
  Is this amount the same or substantially less then when individuals are sued for the same "crime"?
Since when... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:08 · Score: 0

... does US Law apply in China?
Oh, that's right, the US Government believes that US Law applies everywhere in the world.
1. Re:Since when... by fustakrakich · 2013-06-12 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and it has the muscle to back it up. Gotta problem with that... Punk?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That. Stop Doing That. by FuzzNugget · 2013-06-12 00:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

Stop calling it piracy, damn it. Did he sail the high seas then rape and pillage? No, he sold cracked software. It's called "commercial copyright infringement," but that doesn't sound so sexy, does it?
Every time you call it piracy, you let the corporatists win.
1. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by Major+Ralph · 2013-06-12 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  but... I like being called a pirate! It's makes me feel like a swashbuckling badass. But on the high seas of the internet.
  
  --
  I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
2. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by geekoid · 2013-06-12 02:20 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Piracy is correct. The term goes back 400 years regarding copyright violation. Know the history of what you speak before bitching about it.
  To be clear: In this matter, you are wrong.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  You've already lost and, yes, it sucks. Piracy is copyright infringement in modern parlance. Accept it, get over it, and move on
4. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by brit74 · 2013-06-12 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I can't believe you got voted up.
5. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by Anomalyst · 2013-06-12 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  If you leave your swash unbuckled can they arrest you for indecent exposure?
  
  --
  There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
6. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, calling it piracy isn't something created by "the corporatists"...You must be new here.
7. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 08:01 · Score: 0
  
  I can't believe you still haven't been voted down.
8. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by FuzzNugget · 2013-06-13 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  As I recall, it was Jack Velenti who repurposed the term in the 70s/80s in Hollywood's attempts to outlaw the VCR and make themselves *not* look like the assholes in this equation.
9. Re:That. Stop Doing That. by david_thornley · 2013-06-13 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  And I've read references to copyright infringers as pirates a lot older than 1970. Like it or not, "piracy" has had a meaning of copyright infringement for centuries. It was originally commercial copyright infringement, like this case, but that was when there was essentially no personal copyright infringement, and the extension to that seems reasonable.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:It is, however, definitely appropriate. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:21 · Score: 0

This guy ^

He sold $100m of software that he got for free!.. Well then, he must have $100m, right? No? Only $50k? Well then, he sold $50k of software, learn to math.
Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

100 million for 12 years in prison... Might be worth it...
History of people arrested in the U.S. on vacation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:27 · Score: 0

because they were involved in VICTIMLESS "crime" as defined by the U.S. (totally legal in their origin jurisdiction):
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/news/story?id=6362238
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aj..NNwfvacU
There are a couple more but most of them related to online poker.
Edward Snowden have chosen to defect to China. He basically recognize the superior human rights of China. The only group of people that defects to China are North Koreans. Therefore USA = North Korea.
The prices! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:31 · Score: 0

This is only like 10 copies of Photoshop in Australia. Give the guy a break!
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2013-06-12 00:43 · Score: 2

Why the fuck do countries have laws that allow them to prosecute people who are did their criminal activity in another jurisdiction?
Many EU countries have such laws. Your post is mostly anti-US, but many EU countries assert legal authority over actions that never happened in their countries. I hate to resort to Godwin's Law but it does provide a great example. For instance, in the USA it is quite legal to own and sell Nazi memorabilia. Such violates French law. In fact, if it were up to the French they would prevent everybody in the world from doing this. They've sued Ebay in the past and other companies to force them to not show US listings of such to French citizens. I want to be sure I'm clear here - they don't want French citizens to see US listings intended only for US residents on such transactions. In the past Spain has prosecuted human rights violations that didn't occur in Spanish territory and didn't involve Spanish citizens. These are but a few cases.

The actions in this case are not as clear cut as some might like to think. The perp was engaged in software piracy or violations of copyright. The US government's official position is that software and media piracy is destroying the US economy and putting people out of work. It's an irrational argument, but it's what they say. So crimes like these are viewed as something like direct economic warfare against the USA, hence the overreaction in the penalty, which is meant to serve as a deterrent. Since the perp apparently sold his wares to US citizens, this provided the justification to go after him.

Just as a point of interest, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan is here) have special visa rules that don't apply to most US territories and Chinese citizens with a machine readable passport who fill out certain forms in advance are allowed visa free travel to the Northern Mariana Islands (they cannot travel to Guam without a visa though). Since the perp didn't need a visa to go to Saipan, that made it really easy to trick him into going there.
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by fustakrakich · 2013-06-12 00:43 · Score: 1

Why the fuck do countries have laws that allow them to prosecute people who are did their criminal activity in another jurisdiction?
Because criminal 'justice' is a business. From that POV, it is very easy to understand, and you don't waste time on silly sentimental trivialities...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We need more Calgon! by rayhigh · 2013-06-12 00:53 · Score: 0

Ancient Chinese secret, huh?
I drank alcohol when I was 15 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 00:55 · Score: 0

I live in Belgium and started to drink beer when I was 15-16... Can I go on vacation to USA ? or is it too risky ?
1. Re:I drank alcohol when I was 15 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  unless you were selling to minors in USA then proly ok to visit, but we'll keep our eye, o wait NSA, we have our eye on you.
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:01 · Score: 0

Your signature makes me pro-abortion.
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by magic+maverick+ · 2013-06-12 01:04 · Score: 1

Yeah. I am kinda of edgy. I do kinda think that a bit of anarchy and fucking freedom would be sweet. You know, no fucking laws and shit holding us down! Fuck the man!
Also, we have enough production capability in the world that we could easily be living in a post-scarcity communist society by now. No state, no classes, no government. Just good old fashioned help your neighbor and take only what you need. Don't want to work? Hell if I care, come smoke a joint with me. There's enough to go around even if we all only work just 4 hours a week.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Federal Pound Me in the @ss Prison by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:22 · Score: 0

He's not going to last 12 years.
1. Re:Federal Pound Me in the @ss Prison by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-06-12 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, the federal debt can be repaid entirely with a press of the button from the federal reserve, passing the inflation to the American lower-class people, which the elite don't care since the beginning.
  
  --
  New Economic Perspectives
Jurisdiction and other legal tidbits by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 01:33 · Score: 1

There seems to be a common misconception across this thread about jurisdiction. The US has jurisdiction here because the guy stole (layman's term) from US companies (including my own). It's no different than if the guy had come into my office, taken my computer, and fled to China. Every country I know of follows this principle of law - it's not unique to the US. Luring him to Saipan permitted the DoJ to nab him and take him back to the US for prosecution under our copyright laws.
12 years is undoubtedly a stiff penalty, but it's unlikely that he will serve all of it. The penalty is more of a message to his associates and others like him.
1. Re:Jurisdiction and other legal tidbits by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Copyright infringement isn't stealing.
This is exactly by geekoid · 2013-06-12 02:18 · Score: 1

what copyright law is supposed to do.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The US conquered China by ikhider · 2013-06-12 02:55 · Score: 1

To my understanding, much of China, including the government use cracked Windows software. A few years ago, this would be unthinkable, now China bows to US laws. What about those street vendors in China who sell knock offs of films and music? Will they fly American Airlines? The upside is China is gradually adopting GNU/Linux. I think their distros are Asianux and Red Flag. Not the best distros, but better than Windows.

--
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Hostage taking dressed up as a piracy charge by pmikell · 2013-06-12 03:42 · Score: 0

No matter how much you dress this up as a piracy charge, hostage taking to secure the extradition of Edward Snowden is still hostage taking.
1. Re:Hostage taking dressed up as a piracy charge by pmikell · 2013-06-13 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  W00t! I got a "-1 disagree" from a butthurt authoritarian!
China is slacking by pmikell · 2013-06-12 04:07 · Score: 1

Saipan (Chinese people, but a U.S. territory)
A Chinese populated island in that part of the world that China doesn't claim to own? Standards in China have really fallen a long way.
but how? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 04:56 · Score: 0

How did they find him out?
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by geekoid · 2013-06-12 04:57 · Score: 1

"Why the fuck do countries have laws that allow them to prosecute people who are did their criminal activity in another jurisdiction?"
For trade reasons. Almost like its a global economy or something.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by geekoid · 2013-06-12 05:01 · Score: 1

"anarchy and fucking freedom"
these are mutually exclusive. You can not have both. You should grow up and thing upon that.
"Also, we have enough production capability in the world that we could easily be living in a post-scarcity communist society by now."
THANK. It's more then goods. When the complete supply chain is robotic, then we can consider a completely social economy.
Not Communism. Again, grow up and read up.
And, of course, land will always be a scarcity.
"...even if we all only work just 4 hours a week."
Yes, are work week could be cut in half, although not down to 4 hours yet.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Read the article.... by FilmedInNoir · 2013-06-12 06:28 · Score: 4, Informative

He was arrested in June 2011 by U.S. agents when they lured him to a meeting in Saipan where he believed he was delivering 20 gigabytes of data to the representatives of U.S. businessmen. Saipan, an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, is part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and like the Atlantic island of Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S., giving American authorities jurisdiction.
No Navy Seals or government conspiracies, just an old fashioned luring operation.

--
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
1. Re:Read the article.... by FilmedInNoir · 2013-06-12 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, yes, stayed in China. The stuff down there, with the extradition treaty thread.... nevermind.
  
  --
  Sig. Sig. Sputnik
2. Re: Read the article.... by Occams · 2013-06-13 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  It is still an invalid arrest because the law did not apply to him when he did those actions. No American governments can make laws that apply in other countries, except for American citizens. Fuck off is the proper response.
  
  --
  Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
Chinese justice by mendax · 2013-06-12 07:08 · Score: 1

Given the Chinese government's peculiar and primitive sense of justice and appropriate penalties for crime I'm surprised he wasn't burned at the stake.

--
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
I don't see what the big deal is.. by nbritton · 2013-06-12 09:11 · Score: 1

This is newsworthy because the crimes occurred outside the US but he was still considered to have broken US law.
Crimes transpire in the jurisdiction the victim was located in at the time of the crime, for a prosecutor to get envolved they need to have jurisdiction and probable cause first. Typically these two requirements are met when a victim asserts jurisdiction and probable cause to the commission of a crime in a complaint filed with a law enforcement office. The prosecutor, of that jurisdiction, then prosecutes the complaint on behalf of the victim, or on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction.
It's my understanding that the people bought the software while on US soil, so the crime would have happened here, wherever the complaint was filed. If you sell pirated software over the internet to someone in China, China and the US both have the right to prosecute you, because the act is presumably criminal in both jurisdictions.
Pirated software is everywhere in China by waferbuster · 2013-06-12 11:07 · Score: 1

I lived in China for a while, and there's nothing discreet about the availability of pirated media. Every mall has at least one store right out in plain sight which is jammed with music and DVDs, all of which are ripped copies. It's out there in public, and nobody thinks anything about it. If you buy the movies which are currently in theaters, you'll often get to see silhouettes of folks who stand up in front of the camera in the theatre. Software? It's usually about 2 bucks for a disk. Photoshop? Microsoft Office? Windows Server? You name it, it's available for basically nothing. Of course, you have no way of knowing what trojans or viruses are installed along with the software...

There is *no* enforcement of of copyright in China. Now, what makes this case different from most China copyright cases is that that the guy left China, and sold to American agents. If he'd kept it inside China, he'd have been fine.

--
I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
12 years in prison. by gatfirls · 2013-06-12 11:23 · Score: 1

That's comically absurd. You know things are bad when he's probably wishing he was tried in the Chinese courts.
We're going to pay 600,000$ to keep this guy locked in a cell for 12 years to say: "Don't Copy That Floppy". Go take a look at the average sentence for egregious violent crimes.
Shameful.
Re:So, an action only in one country is a crime .. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 17:50 · Score: 0

Some countries have laws that child raping and sex tourism is illegal no matter where it is. Im all for that, unfortunatley the USA is nearly always about $ and never about goodness.
Robbing hood by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-12 19:37 · Score: 0

Robin Hood was a troublemaker and King Richard wasn't good. Richard was mostly off murdering people in the Middle East for the terrible crime of Having Money While Not Being Christian. He took most of the country's men at arms with him, leading to the decline of law and order in England. He left his brother John to look after this sorry mess, but not before emptying the treasury. So John had no soldiers, an empty armoury and an empty treasury. He was obliged to hire mercenaries, which is always expensive and often just produces better armed bandits. As a result he had to raise a lot of money in a tearing hurry, which is why taxes were high. A consequence of this was fiscal and sometimes open rebellion on the part of his barons, who reacted to the high taxes by paying only under duress. Interestingly this situation led directly to the Magna Carta and modern democracy: arguably John invented democracy as a way of playing his barons off against each other (he could only subdue one at a time, as soon as he moved on to the next barony the last one rebelled again).
Dumb dumb dumb duhhhh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-13 04:32 · Score: 0

Amazing that you read neither what Reschekle wrote, nor what he was replying to.