Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Man Fined $650,000 For Sharing 1 Movie, Charged Extra For Low Quality
An anonymous reader writes "A 28-year-old man in Sweden has been fined 4.3 million SEK (~650,000 USD) for uploading one movie. 300,000 SEK of that was added because of the upload's low technical quality (Google translation of Swedish original). The court ruled that the viewer watching the pirated version of the movie had a worse experience than people watching it legally, thereby causing damage to the movie's reputation (full judgement in Swedish)."
How does fining someone many times their net worth accomplish anything?
Someone could fine me $5 million or $50 million dollars. It doesn't change the fact that I can't ever hope to pay it.
Are these numbers just meant to scare people, or do they *actually try* to collect many times a person's net worth from them?
From the second paragraph of TFA:
The then 25-year-old was a moderator and uploader and between April 2008 and November 2011 allegedly obtained huge quantities of content from the warez scene and shared the titles with the site’s users.
ONE Movie!?? C'mon Slashdot.
Everyone knows that copy infringement is stealing - that means they must have stolen (and therefore possess) that much worth of property and so are perfectly capable of paying such a fine. Obviously.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I'm surprised at this coming from a Scandinavian country. It sounds much more like something you'd hear from a U.S. court. Common sense tells me they'd have tacked on the extra fine either way though: low quality = damage to reputation, high quality = damage to profits. There was no winning move in that sense.
The judge, that made that "UNWISE" ruling, should be "punished" by his peers (judge colleagues), for lowering the image of the whole judiciary system in the eyes of normal (sane) people :-)
Sorry, there is (naturally) nothing in the article or the court ruling about adding an extra fine for low quality. Would have been nice, though. =:)
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
[T]he court ordered the now 28-year-old to pay $652,000 in damages for the unauthorized distribution of just one of the movies in the case. For the other 517 the man was handed a suspended jail sentence and ordered to complete 160 hours of community service.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Not sure if joking or really confusing Switzerland with Sweden like the stereotype.
When is George Lucas writing a fat check for his Star Wars re-releases?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Yes, it is about setting an example. You may have nothing but many have at least some wealth (House, Car, investment etc). This all can be gone.
How does fining someone many times their net worth accomplish anything?
It's a death penalty.
In many cases, it can't be. Unless they can claim that you bought the house with illicit funds, they can't take your house in the US, and I'm sure they are even more lenient in most of Europe.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm moving to Sweden where you have a right to pirate anything you want and not read any articles!
You mean by taking stuff from the public domain, making a movie of it and then petitioning to have the copywrite extended for ever, that sort of theft from the public domain?
Lesson: always upload in 4K to minimize punishment.
The message the judge is sending is this:
If you pirate movies then you shall do it properly! No cam, webrip, telesync or other crap! All releases that does not match BRRip quality will be punishable by law!
Judge is obviously very tired of all that poor quality and out-of-sync crap out there. We all are!
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
The solution clearly is to allow repayment in the form of $650,000 worth of movies downloaded by the MPAA from the defendant.
I thought Sweden was civilized?
This is absolutely barbaric.
Both presumably. By collecting them they scare people. The judgement was $650K, even if that is above his net worth (it may or may not be), they may be able to garnish it from future wages. $650K is below the lifetime earnings of a lot of people.
This is not to say that the ruling isn't completely unreasonable.
Piracy is tricky. People who produce content do have some right to keep other people from stealing it. It is very difficult to track down individual pirates, so most get away and reasonable fines are not a deterrent. This leads to a sort of reverse-lottery where lots of people take a chance at disastrous penalties.
Part of the problem is that the public is very split on what is reasonable.
Some people believe ALL content should be free.
Some people believe that small payments for content are reasonable, but that some industries charge "unreasonable" rates for content.
Some people believe that the industry should make all content available at the same time everywhere at the same rates.
Some people do not mind paying the rates industry charge, but prefer to download for reasons of convenience, lack o tracking, lack of advertising, or others. (many of the people who pirate Game of Thrones would purchase the content if they were allowed to without creating a subscription that they know may be difficult to cancel).
Some people are happy with any arrangement that industry wants because the purchase is voluntary .
It would be interesting to see a survey of opinions on this and see how well public opinion matches the law.
write a promissory note, copy right it. when they take it sue them for x+1
I concur. One low-quality copy ought to do it.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Don't count on the judicial branch to come riding in on a White Horse. legalzoom
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The solution clearly is to allow repayment in the form of $650,000 worth of movies downloaded by the MPAA from the defendant.
That could be a great idea, as long as he can get the copies back :)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Unfortunately you can have your home seized in a forfeiture if you default on paying back a judgement, so if the judgement is large enough, yes, you can lose your home.
Maybe all file sharers should incorporate into Subchapter S or LLCs ;)...
Loading...
Hardly true. Plenty of asset forfeitures based on simply being involved with illegal activity. Oh, that car with the completely empty secret compartment? Ours now. The house you bought with your inheritance that we caught you dealing drugs from? Ours now.
For example:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yea5RW9iAJYJ:ij.org/how-a-philadelphia-family-lost-their-home-to-asset-forfeiture-3+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(Cached, the original site wasn't answering...)
Next it's the computer you uploaded it from and the house your computer was in.
http://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?t=3s
You wouldn't steal a handbag.
>they can't take your house in the US
No, but in the US they can file a lein on the house which puts them ahead of you whenever the house is sold. And if you have a mortgage, some lenders add a clause to the loan that allows them to require full repayment of the loan immediately if a lein is attached, with foreclosure to follow soon after.
So no, technically they cannot take you home, they just get the bank to do it instead.
This case was in Sweden, but at least in the U.S. as long as media companies can buy extensions of copyright terms from politicians and prevent anything from ever becoming public domain, I don't feel too bad about their work being stolen. They have, in effect, stolen untold millions in works that should have been free for all to distribute, extend and enjoy. Copyright was not meant to extend until Disney gets tired of buying updates to the law.
um, have you read the news lately? there have now been multiple studies showing torrents and file sharing actually increase sales and revenues, for movies and music.
the "groupthink" you're talking about isn't even what you say it is. please pay attention to slashdot, since clearly you haven't lately.
many of us are now championing file-sharing, not because we feel like we have a "right" to it, but because it is measurably better for all parties involved, content producers and content consumers.
or perhaps you don't actually care about the truth, you just like to feel clever by using phrases like "slashdot groupthink".
I don't like to see people breaking the law. But what I really don't like to see is a torrent search where the only results are 480i DivX versions. Good grief, people. Can't you see how this damages a movie's reputation? If you must upload pirated movies, upload 1080p x264 encodes or I will double the damages when the case comes to court. Now, please excuse me; I need to get some more popcorn.
--Christina Brobacke, Västmanlands Tingsrätt
How does fining someone many times their net worth accomplish anything?
Someone could fine me $5 million or $50 million dollars. It doesn't change the fact that I can't ever hope to pay it.
Are these numbers just meant to scare people, or do they *actually try* to collect many times a person's net worth from them?
They do try to collect, because the numbers are adequately large to make it worth their while. Numbers are numbers, they don't lie.
...
It's those damn statisticians that lie
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
um, have you read the news lately? there have now been multiple studies showing torrents and file sharing actually increase sales and revenues, for movies and music.
There are also studies that show the opposite. But those studies are lambasted but the ones that confirm the groupthink are always accepted without question.
Just wait the for the US movies studios to use that with the DMCA and other laws to take down bad reviews.
You used to be cool...
I detest the RIAA, MPAA, and all the rest of the organizations
which screw both the artist AND the end user. For example, as a matter of
principle I will never use anything from Sony again, after the root kit
fiasco they perpetrated.
But at some point reality has to set in, with respect to everything being "free".
Quality films or music or books cannot be produced for free.
And it is unreasonable to expect artists to work without being paid.
You or I can't work without being paid -- we would starve and be homeless.
Only a person who is detached from reality expects others to work for free.
It is a model which DOES NOT WORK.
However, most of the stuff offered these days IS crap and is not worth watching
or listening to even if it IS free. So it's not worth downloading, sharing, or any of the
rest of it. If anything, those who sell such crap should be punished for wasting resources.
Myself, when I find a genuinely good film I am happy to pay to watch it, and the same
goes for music I enjoy. I pay because good stuff enriches my life and I believe those
who produce good stuff should be rewarded for their efforts, in part because if they are
rewarded I then have a greater chance of enjoying more of their work. Viewed in this
light paying for good work can be viewed as a selfish act because it tends to ensure the
flow of that which the payer enjoys.
The notion of free movies and / or music is a concept embraced by people who have
not joined the adult world. Argue against this all you like, but all you will have done in
the end is prove you are still a child who fails to grasp the realities of economic exchange.
_
Je should have offered to mail popcorn. That would have reduced the fine bin $10'000. I mean, every penny counts.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
"Hardly true. Plenty of asset forfeitures based on simply being involved with illegal activity. Oh, that car with the completely empty secret compartment? Ours now. The house you bought with your inheritance that we caught you dealing drugs from? Ours now."
That's not a court judgment. Asset forfeiture is a completely different thing, and is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand.
In the U.S., I am pretty sure that the courts don't (can't?) force you, in a judgment, to give up one home and (I am also pretty sure) one car, or the tools you need to make a living. For example, if you're a carpenter they could not touch your toolbox in most circumstances.
In regard to asset forfeiture: I think in the long run, seizure of assets that weren't directly part of, or derived from the proceeds of, illegal activity will be ruled illegal. It has certainly been abused, and I know of no real, legal basis for it.
If a house was bought with, say, money from illegal slave trade, or was used in same, that's a different matter. Then there is justification for seizing the property.
All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml). Also, they purchase helpful copyright extensions from our politicians so that nothing can ever fall into the public domain (see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html).
So, yes, a studio does deserve to profit from its creative work, and the people who participate should also get paid. But the studios should beware of wallowing in hypocrisy as they shout about having things "stolen" from them.
what the heck does that mean?
it does not sound appealing to me.
I would prefer to order the open source soup instead.
(google translate is the weird)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
don't be so sure about that - there are cases where something in the public domain has been recopyrighted and removed by changes to the law
And further, there is no legal basis for seizure of a computer because in the U.S., copying for personal use is not a crime. A court can theoretically fine you the statutory amount for that civil infraction, but that's in the form of dollars, not property. There is no "forfeiture of assets used in the crime", since there was no crime committed.
All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits
OP here -- responding to the remarks quoted above --
You are allowing yourself to get caught up in details which don't
change the fundamental truth that all those who produce
deserve some form of compensation for their efforts.
Business has nothing to do with morality. There is no "high ground".
All the whining in the world about how unfair things are won't change
the amount of unfairness. If you want to change the system, you must
work from within that system and gain enough power and influence that
you can then effect change. But the odds are that by the time you do that
you'll have developed a taste for nice cars, nice houses, and beautiful
women half your age, and you will laugh at the fools who blather on
about "high ground".
Life is not about "fairness". It is a game you won't even know whether you
have won or lost until the day you die. Chew on that while you are busy muttering
about high ground.
__
...but nothing short of a script rewrite could help them.
You familiar with the Disney catalogue?
"snow white" is still public domain. so is pinnochio. What isn't public domain are the seven dwarfs happy through dopey, jimminey cricket, and others. These are new characters that Disney created. you're free to make your own pinnochio XXX or whatever you want to do.
Note that the original snow white had seven dwarfs, but they didn't have names. you can't use the Disney names.
There are still a lot of public domain stories, or old comic books to transform into movies which is about all they do these days.
Perhaps a respin of "the A-Team" is in order? (not Disney, but you get the point)
Only in the states is it popular to mortgage your house and minimize payments. Something about interest and taxes? Is it just in California? Hopefully an American homeowner can bring me up to speed. But my point is that other countries have different forms of taxation which encourage homeowners to actually own their house. I do not know what it is like in Sweden, but in Canada you have a much higher percentage of people who own their house when compared to, for example, California.
A 64x64 pixel MPEG is so low quality that it would be worth millions!
You wouldn't steal a handbag.
No, but I stole a handjob once. But then I had to give it back.
A derivative of a public domain work can be copyrighted. Unless retroactively copyrighted by Congress, the original work is not.
Now that is "fark ready" headline.
They have no *right* to "keep other people from stealing it." That is madness--that means they can shut down the internet.
The only "right" creators have to themselves is to try and make money off their work. *Try*. That's it.
expandfairuse.org
I wonder if they give MacGuffin releases less of a fine.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That's why I live in Texas. Unlimited homestead exemption, plus generous allowances for things like pets, sporting equipment, even boats and firearms. And there is no wage garnishment in Texas.
Of course nobody really expects to collect from common citizens when they are caught file sharing. But a court judgment of $50 million dollars looks like a substantial loss on paper and such tactics help companies claim massive tax deductions and even to use such figures to lobby legislatures to pass special laws, get special lower tax rates, and even get subsidies.
No, they will keep "stealing" (copy right infringement) and laugh at your tired and pathetic post.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Tell it to youtube, I used a public domain classical recording and the video got taken down.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
No excuses, just laughing our asses off at you.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Which is the greater crime?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Only in the states is it popular to mortgage your house and minimize payments. Something about interest and taxes? Is it just in California?
Do you mean to tell me that Canadians buy homes from cash on hand?
in Canada you have a much higher percentage of people who own their house when compared to, for example, California
That might have something to do with the fact that most Canadian homes don't cost over a million dollars.
DATABASE WOW WOW
While that's true in theory, you're forgetting that copyright law exists only to benefit Disney. The Wizard of Oz is also in the public domain, but Oz the Great and Powerful needed Disney lawyers on set to approve what shade of green they painted the witch.
If you had the audacity to attempt filming a Snow White movie without the Mouse's explicit, written consent, their legal team would relish driving you to bankruptcy--even though you'd be perfectly within your rights.
DATABASE WOW WOW
California Median home value
I am not from California, but it is trivial to find out the median home value there. It is very uncommon for the average Californian to have $400,000+ to buy a home in full. They take out a mortgage to be able to buy the home initially..
I have no idea what the stats in Canada are to compare, but it appears that 1/3 of American homeowners have no mortgage.
A homeowner with a mortgage does indeed own their home. They can do with it as they wish. The mortgage holder can initiate foreclosure on the homeowner for breaking the terms of the mortgage, but the person that signs the mortgage is the owner of the home.
Now there's a good way to discourage illegal copying of someone's work; make them pay extra for crappy copy. Yeah like that is a good idea.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
So does the value of the movie approach infinity as the resolution approaches zero?
Smuggling is a better analogy. Piracy involves the theft of good from another by force. Theft here should be understood to indicate that the victim is no longer has his property. Smuggling involves the circumvention of government enforced artificial scarcity. The victim of smuggling is often a government backed monopolist (though, sometimes it's the exchequer given how often smugglers circumvent tariffs) and will resist the end of lucrative scarcity.
I say therefore that those who now claim the title "pirate" would better serve their cause by using the term "smuggler." Besides better reflecting their views, it'd be good p.r. After all, would you rather be compared to the Somali guys who went after Tom Hanks in "Captain Philips" or would you rather be compared to Han Solo?
You mean like using Hollywood accounting to stiff the talent despite the fact that the film in question is one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There is a AMC near me that has Atmos and HFR 3D
Sure you can. You can violate the social contract in force when you created something, corrupt copyright law afterwards, and never allow that work to enter the Public Domain.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That might have something to do with the fact that most Canadian homes don't cost over a million dollars [trulia.com].
You've obviously never looked at the housing market in Vancouver BC.
First, in 1996 a large swath of works were "retroactively copyrighted by Congress" in the United States. Second, one company that makes derivatives likes to sue other companies that make derivatives. Third, one company that makes derivatives often applies for trademarks for dolls and the like based on names of characters in the original public domain (according to copyright) story, so that no other company can make and sell merchandise based on the original public domain (according to copyright) story.
I wouldn't steal a car, but if a mate of mine rang me up and said "I just got myself a Bugatti Veyron, would you like me to burn you a copy", I don't think I could refuse.
I'd understand this for "Jiminy Cricket", a name invented by Disney. (Collodi's novel had several talking crickets show up after Pinocchio kept killing them.) But last time i checked, Disney owned a U.S. trademark on the name "Pinocchio" for dolls, and Pinocchio was obviously in Collodi's novel.
You can try to rationalise it as much you want it, however they dont have the right to wreck some poor sod life just to make an example of it for the rest of us. And then fining it extra because it is low quality...yes honour, he deserves the double of the fine, because he wrecked up our mercedes and he is giving a bad image of our brand?? To the hell with them I say.
I live in the United States and seek to buy a lawfully made copy of the film Song of the South and the animated television series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea. Who is selling?
They are using the courts to making money of it, and apparently quite easy money, and the courts are sucking it up...
In Canada mortgage interest isn't tax deductible so there is more incentive to pay down the principle. It isn't buying homes from cash on hand but it is a little different from the American environment.
If I was an American I might still have a mortgage because it would have made relatively more sense to invest money other ways than it would to pay down my mortgage.
As a Canadian paying down my mortgage had a relatively low ROI but it was risk free and I wasn't giving up any tax exemptions. Canada doesn't allow people to walk away from mortgages and only lose the house either, so that part of the risk equation is different.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
The fact that it was recorded almost assures that it wasn't public domain. Now, it may have had a permissive license, but that's different than being PD.
Reduce copyright to a sane length and make an exception to allow breaking encryption for the purposes of backup and we'll talk. Until then, the social bargain that is copyright is broken.
Good-bye
You live in Texas so you can loose judgements and not forfeit property?
The Wizard of Oz is also in the public domain, but Oz the Great and Powerful needed Disney lawyers on set [techdirt.com] to approve what shade of green they painted the witch.
This was only because they were using a character created by Disney. Frank Baum's wicked witch was wildly different than the one created by Disney, but the move Oz the Great and Powerful decided to use elements of the Disney's wicked witch instead of Frank Baum's. This is why they had to walk a very fine line to avoid copyright issues.
If Oz the Great and Powerful has used an old hag with an eye-patch and a golden cap (like the book) then they would have had nothing to fear from Disney.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
"The laws (called homestead exemptions) vary state-by-state. I remember hearing about Florida having laws like you describe, but I think that's not the case in most states."
Not even close. The laws I refer to are an attempt to avoid creating what amounts to debtor's prisons.
No purpose of society is served, if a court were to fine a person everything they have, including their means of making a living (or, for that matter, a place to live).
Pardon me. I didn't read that as closely as I should have. That might actually be part of it.
But I don't really think so. Those are statutory protections against creditors. What I am talking about is limits to court awards. Close to the same thing, but not quite.
While I agree that it varies from state to state, if I am not mistaken courts will generally allow you to also keep one automobile, and your primary means of making a living.
In Canada mortgage interest isn't tax deductible so there is more incentive to pay down the principle
Thank you, I thought it was something like that.
"Asset forfeiture isn't justified in any case in which it is applied"
I happen to agree with you but I did not want to get into that.
My point was simply that asset forfeiture (whether right or wrong) applies to criminal cases only. Copyright infringement (for personal use) is not a crime.
The interesting thing is that the goodwill losses in reputation for the movie or Nordisk Film is probably a lot higher from the verdict being public, pissing people off, than it was from 100 people downloading the bad quality rip.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Granted.
Define "stealing" in this context. Because "stealing" patents by utilizing the underlying ideas in more or less spelled out ways in a patent application are the basis of most industries in their foundations. It's only much later is there any real recognition of patents, generally, as companies (and people) feel a need to create artificial barriers of entry to preempt competition.
Now, the case in point is copyright, and certainly there's a much greater view of respect for that field precisely because it is, in theory, supposed to be of a much more narrow scope. But, we're so far down that rabbit hole--the very definition of a derivative work has become so warped and the time span for a copyright to last has grown so large--that the respect for copyright at all has really had a falling out.
Which is the problem, full stop. If reasonable fines are not a deterrent, well, they're simple not a deterrent. Sometimes justice and punishment aren't a deterrent. That's life. Strive to correct this in some way only makes the situation worse. I mean, by the logic stated, jay walking should carry perhaps 20 years or even a death sentence. That's absurd.
A more major part is that those writing the laws are being effectively bribed with money from copyright holders into writing laws beneficial to copyright holders. So, that there is a "split on what is reasonable" is true. But, we live in a democracy, and I'm quite certain that way more than 90% of people are not in the "fine a person into oblivion". Hell, ever time you see a story showing the vast majority of a nation are committing piracy, it's a good sign you should rethink your laws to decriminalize it more, not try to crack down harder on it. That doesn't inherently mean that content creators won't be paid at all--although they may have to come to terms with the idea that even fewer will make a living wage from it. But, it may mean devising another system than copyright to facilitate it.
Piracy is voluntary too, between two consenting people to copy some bit of data. The rub is of course that it's piracy that's the issue, not whether people are somehow obtaining content from the industry directly without paying.
See above. I'd say Napster was a good effective opinion poll of a sort. I am wary, though, of how any survey may be stacked one way or another to distort the message people wish to express. After all, most people may feel guilty about piracy, but that doesn't mean they feel they should be punished for it. Self-guilt happens in lots of circumstances which are clearly entirely victim-less, so it's important to not extrapolate unwarrantedly even if surveys did suggest that some sort of fine or whatever would be appropriate.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Since downloading isn't stealing, and letting someone *copy* or download your copy isn't pirating.
See, to steal something means to take it away from someone else.
Since copying isn't stealing, original source is still intact, nobody has lost anything. The people who download never would have bought a copy, they might have rented it from netflix, redbox or somewhere else, but never actually bought their own copy.
Now some people, after doing this (a lot really according to current research), if they enjoy the content, will purchase a copy to keep for themselves.
So really, all internet sharing is, is free advertisement for the studios. They lose nothing, there's no copyright violation as nobody makes physical copies of the media - it's all a sham, a complete, literal sham, and they (the studios) are pulling the wool over the judge's eyes while masturbating to the piles of cash they are stealing from their customers.
The only people that are pirating (and violating copyrights) are those that take a copy, then make physical copies and sell them on the streets or over the internet.
Those are the ONLY pirates involved, and yes, those can hurt the studios, as it takes away from their physical copy sales (because someone did buy a copy).
See the difference? (I know I'm preaching to the choir here)...
Downloading/Offering for download is NOT pirating or stealing.
Physically making copies on media and selling them IS pirating, and theft of profits.
They are 2 distinct activities, 1 hurts the industry (the real pirates), the other helps the industry (digital sharing).
Uh, hang on. Oz the Great and Powerful was a Disney movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939) was an MGM movie. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone that's confused, like the previous two posters.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
At what point do you forgive someone?
Are you still holding a grudge against Germany for the WW2? Or the US for slavery? Or what about most clothing companies for abusing child labor in the 80s and 90s? Or their continued abuse of cheap labor in India and China? Sony fucked up once and haven't done that again, a fiasco that probably didn't even affect you, yet you wear clothes, probably eat meat and drive a car - all of which are doing more physical harm in a day than what Sonys rootkit ever did.
Obviously.
So, if you were to say, do a screen-capture of a single frame while playing a movie, then post that image to a blog at say, 160x100 highly compressed jpeg, it would so devalue that movie, that you would owe the studio trillions.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Sorry, you can't steal from yourself. But if you look the other way, it can seem like you are getting a reach-around.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
I think he's indicating that he prefers to live in a state where many laws still benefit average citizen/consumers.
Of course, it's also a place where patent trolls like to go to have cases decided...
Maybe something like: "I had to 'review the evidence' in this case and the quality was crap, so I'm double pissed now."
Imagine the damages for a single pixel image!
That would devalue ALL movies that have ever been made. You would owe the movie studio's 10 or 20 Earth's [pre-industrial revolution of course, so all the good bits haven't been used up].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
You're right; my biases got the better of me. Disney was making another Oz movie, and, in a refreshing change of pace, Warner was being a jerk.
You still have to be very careful with things that are in the public domain. Reprints of images from the movie posters (now in the public domain) were found to be infringing, and Warner thinks it's entitled to a trademark on anything involving the word "Oz."
DATABASE WOW WOW
Ahh...truly a question for the ages.
Warner thinks it's entitled to a trademark on anything involving the word "Oz."
Well trademark is not copyright and thus there is no concept of public domain. The only way you can dispute a trademark claim is to show that it was a publicly used term before the trademark was established and still is. But IANAL.
In Texas? Compared to what other places?
THAT is not so clear cut.
In Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.[4] and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder.[5] the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. [source]
If you create a perfect reproduction of a public domain work, you enjoy no copyright on the result. If you do an interpretive dance to the music, then the work as a whole enjoys copyright protection. The sound track in isolation, extracted from the video probably still does not enjoy copyright protection, assuming no changes.
No THAT is art!
3D printing the death of cars!
They have no *right* to "keep other people from stealing it."
That's a pretty fucked up argument. How many other industries would you apply that to? Do banks have no right to keep people from stealing the money they hold? Maybe that's a different situation, because it's not actually their money. But what about brick and mortar stores? Do you have no right to prevent others from stealing or copying your work? Because I'm pretty sure the law says otherwise.
But that's all ignoring that this person apparently hasn't been fined for downloading the movie; he's been fined for distributing the movie. And for that, they do have a right to keep others from doing; it's called copyright.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
No, piracy is not tricky.
The scapegoating model where we as a society lay hands on one sacrificial goat to take all punishment is completely unreasonable and has nothing to do with justice. 650k for sharing a movie is wholly unreasonable. I don't give a shit what some people believe. Some people used to believe (and still do) that the first woman was created from a man's rib. Belief didn't increase the validity of the idea by the number believing it.
Nobody who shared movies or music among friends back before the internet was fined as such. Inserting "internet" into it does not increase the guilt of the sharer.
Let's talk about sharing. Sharing is like shitting or eating. You can outlaw it, but it won't stop the flow, just hide it from direct view of some in public, polite society. That's it. You can't make laws against the nature of man, punish one dude in a million, and claim any morale victory. It's absurd and the guy who takes any form of moral relativism on this is a wishy washy retard.
Yes, to some degree, it sucks to the content provider HOWEVER, they are not wholly innocent just by the fact that they know the game and engage in it anyway. I open a fruit stand, I cannot complain some people buy my fruit, use the seeds, and grow it themselves, depriving me of income. I knew that going in, just the nature of the beast.
The law needs to protect against others using a copyrighted work without permission in a commercial manner. It already does that. Does the law need to stop individuals from sharing? Can it stop me from farting? Not without undue government intrusion. Solution? Tell businesses to have business models that make sense, crack down on commercial usage of copyright infringement, and have sensible fines for that that will dissaude but not bankrupt (not fantasy figures pulled out from the ass), and leave private people the fuck alone.
And that is exactly why you could film a new Oz film, just as long as nothing's called "Oz."
DATABASE WOW WOW
The child rapist and murderer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux has also been sentenced to pay restitution. He hasn't payed a dime while getting rich in prison working the stock market but through accounts in his sons name.
But that guy just murdered and tortured some girls. He is not as serious a criminal as someone who uploads a movie of course.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So does the value of the movie approach infinity as the resolution approaches zero?
Here's the mathematical representation: lim r->0 v(r) = inf
Both presumably. By collecting them they scare people. The judgement was $650K, even if that is above his net worth (it may or may not be), they may be able to garnish it from future wages. $650K is below the lifetime earnings of a lot of people.
If my country shafted me like that, well, there are plenty of other countries in the world I wouldn't mind living in.
I'd send them a little letter once I'd got there telling them in the sweetest of words where to put their fine.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
you're free to make your own pinnochio XXX or whatever you want to do.
Well - his nose is hard and long ......
I was under the impression that it is quite common for anyone convicted of tech crimes to be barred from using computers. Chances are, if you're committing tech crimes you are mostly skilled in tech jobs, and being unable to use a computer deprives you of that work.
Imagine the damage when they realise your monitor is displaying over 2 million single pixel movies!!!
Both of those situations is stealing, not copying. Different things
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
I don't think the people who sell intellectual property (i.e., movies, songs etc) find your joke funny. The man stole indirectly by causing loss of potential income to copyright owners of the movie. But perhaps the judge must give a break down of how exactly uploading this movie deserves $650,000 fine.
An example would be something like this:
Number of illegal downloads of the movie: 10,000
10,000 * $10/per viewer = $100,000
$50,000 punitive damage
$30,000 poor quality recording (damaging movie maker rep)
Total fine: 100,000 + 50,000 + 30,000 = $180,000
Now a new character for the Muppets: the Swedish Judge!
[...] People who produce content do have some right to keep other people from stealing it. [...]
... aaand there you have the buy-in. Stating opinion as fact. The above statement may be a valid interpretation of the law in many cases and in many jurisdictions - but whether people who make public performances have an ethical right to all aspects of the performance is very much an open question. For me it's a question of living by the sword / dying by the sword. If you want your performance to be in any way protected, then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't perform it in the open, unprotected public. And if you do, you will have to expect creative minds to take your idea and run with it.
yes, we have no bananas
This was compensation for losses on the behalf of the wronged party.
The losses that don't actually exist.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
This damage is valued at SEK 300 000.
How could they possibly determine that? Furthermore, reputation is utterly subjective and I do not believe this is something the law should take into account to begin with.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That's still only one movie they got him for.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
China sells lots of cheap $20 knock offs the $900 bags.
So who is the biggest criminal, the guy who charges $20 for a copy, that cost $8 to make.
Or the Italian mafiaso who sells a $900 bag that cost $15 to make using illegal immigrants in Italy.
Or the judge who earns $400k/year being a dick.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Damn authority figures that get paid too much are out of step of reality and are dumb asses who know nothing.
Lets fine judges/lawyers $50million for tiny mistakes in their professions.
Cant wait for jesus to whip their ass, with rapture.... melt mofos.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
In Sweden, forfeiting pets in illegal, but has been done anyway...
Forfeting homes happens all the time, even though there is a severe shortage of apartments for rent.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
FWIW the film in question (Beck - Levande begravd) was a total fiasco at the box office... The fine (if ever paid) would likely provide a higher income than the film netted at the cinema.
4.3 million SEK is probably a large portion of the movie's total revenue, if not surprassing what it has already made. ...
It was made for ad-funded free TV for Chris's sake
It got low reviews from critics, and the series was already a trite.
Would filesharing it at low quality really degrade it's quality? Sorry, but you can't polish a turd.
(No offence to my cousin's husband who plays the lead in this movie. He's got to eat too...)
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
I think it'd be better if copyright didn't exist at all. Or at the very least, if they didn't ruin people's lives for copying movies, no matter how many...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Well, I don't know what his net worth is, but assuming it's an average middle class net worth he has just been sentenced to life in poverty. Personal bankruptcy is not a good option, because in Sweden that just means you keep all your debt and you are not allowed to buy anything but life's basic necessities until all of your debts are payed off.
Some interesting information about the case: The man was the most active uploaders on one of the biggest Swedish torrent trackers, SweBits. He went under the handle "Marcil". The police and the intellectual property industry private investigators got Marcil's IP address from an anonymous person who claimed to be part of the torrent community. The judgement speculates that Marcil was outed by someone who was jealous of his status in the torrent community.
The front man of the intellectual property industry in Sweden, Henrik Pontén was personally involved in the case and in the trial.
So then what is the point of the numbers? Well, I think the facts speak for themselves.
I hope the industry will forgive a large part of Marcil's debt after some time when they judge that the example has been properly made.
I hate thieves of all kinds.
Those bereft of the little Saturday morning morality plays aimed at kids from the late '50's wouldn't have been exposed to the idea that it doesn't matter who you steal from, stealing is stealing. Our favorite programs like "The Lone Ranger" and "Sky King" and those sorts of programs would instruct kids between right and wrong. And they were right, BTW, it _doesn't_ matter who you steal from, if you do it, you are a low-life thief.
I dont think you have ever been to texas because you are describing New York!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Without copyright the GPL would not work.
So? Without copyright, the GPL would be unnecessary.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
not 61 people! Without context that number means nothing, did these 61 people molest little kids? or murder anyone in cold blood for no reason at all? 61 in 4 years doesnt seem that bad at all, in fact I am shocked its not higher
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's both a scare tactic and a protection against precedent. Let's say I was the head of a big company with lots of lawyers and money and I sued you for sharing one movie I owned the copyright to. If the penalty for losing was reasonable - say, 10 times the cost of a DVD of the movie, or about $150 - you might decide to fight it. This could 1) result in you winning and not having to pay a fine at all and 2) setting a precedent that others would use when I sued them.
However, if the fine was a few million dollars per movie, suddenly you are looking at a lifetime of bankruptcy. What's more, the bigger the number the scarier the outcome seems. If the MPAA/RIAA could sue for a trillion dollars without being laughed out of court by a judge, they would. Now, you are unlikely to want to fight this court fight. You'll be likely to take the very one-sided settlement that I "graciously" offer you where you admit that you did it (regardless of whether or not you really did) and pay a "much reduced" fine of a few thousand dollars. This has the added benefit of freeing the big copyright holder up to sue more people and rake in more settlement money.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If he was able to release a movie with better quality and user experience than the original, would the movie companies owe him money? Removing DRM should be considered doing a public service.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Uh, hang on. Oz the Great and Powerful was a Disney movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939) was an MGM movie. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone that's confused, like the previous two posters.
Thank you very much for pointing out my mistake before the misinformation spread too much. I saw Disney mentioned in the previous post and never researched who actually produced these movies.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Without copyright someone would be able to take free software and make non-free versions of it without any requirement to also distribute the source code, which means that we would get the binaries but no practical way to modify them.
How does a copyright owner's right to take a work out of print benefit the public? And if a law does not benefit the public, why does it exist?
Without copyright, companies couldn't sue you for such things, either. But all of this is irrelevant to me, as I don't care about the GPL.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I think it's fair to assume that if an average Slashdotter found him/herself in a dark alley with an RIAA/MPAA executive, said executive would be found the next day stabbed 37 times in the chest. It's been done to death, hence the focus on the details.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Income based fines ("dagsböter") are used in Sweden, but this was a set amount for damages ("skadestånd"). Since he also got the equivalent of a suspended jail sentence there are no additional fines to be paid as "punishment".
I think Disney owes me about $100 billion for this terrible VHS of "The Black Hole". Plus, it's really grainy.
I joke-- not a bad movie, but they probably released such a poor quality copy to help hide the wires holding up the robots.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Yeah, but if a lien is placed, you only have as few as 6 months to pay if off and the interest is super high, like 25%. It's a smorgasbord for tax lien investors. They get close to 25% return in 6 months, or they get a house.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I don't live in Texas, but seriously dude: this has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm sure if I knew where you lived, I could bring up some horrible red herring about it.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'll down vote it on IMDB because of the reputation damage from this court decision.
Privacy is terrorism.
The thing is that the breakdown is just plain silly.
It doesnt really make sense to have both a "licence cost" ( pulled out of a hat ) PLUS compensation for lost sales.
A compensation as a licence cost * penalty factor OR a compensation for the actual lost sales makes sense.
Both the licence cost or the claim about lost sales are in reality just made up, since there is no equivalent licence available,
and there is no way to actually calculate the damages for lost sales.
If they invented a list price for 10 trillion dollars for an "online unlimited redistribution licence" or claimed 6 billion lost sales,
it would have been obvious that they were just arbitrary numbers. As it is now, they somehow managed to convince the laymens that
contitutes the first instance court in Sweden that the number are solid.
I think it would at least have been possible to argue against the claims. If the ruling is appealed,
and with a new laywer, there is a high probability that the ruling will be different, even though the courts in sweden
are lobbied hard with "immaterial rights conferences" and interest groups sponsored by the media companies.
And if you're rich you can kill 4 people and seriously injure 2 more in a drunk driving accident and get away practically scot-free!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
By the rules of Homeopathy, dilute the video until there is nothing left, not a single pixel, and it will have the most value!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Well I have no musical talent, so it wouldn't be a perfect reproduction.
"I was under the impression that it is quite common for anyone convicted of tech crimes to be barred from using computers. Chances are, if you're committing tech crimes you are mostly skilled in tech jobs, and being unable to use a computer deprives you of that work."
That's CRIMES. The subject under discussion is not a crime. Two very different things.
We can now sue the studios for low quality movies.
I mean, I had to endure the low quality of Hollywood for a very, very, very long time. The quality of the movies is so low that it is almost not worth downloading them via TPB. And the fact that they are FullHD does not help either with the overall quality.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
US homeowner here. Mortgage interest for my primary residence is deducted from income for the purpose of Federal income taxes. In my state, it also applies for state income taxes, and I suspect in many other states. If I'm in a 33% marginal tax bracket*, and pay $9K mortgage interest, that means I pay $3K less taxes. Since I have a 4.5% interest rate, this means that it's effectively 3% after taxes.
Therefore, it isn't necessarily worth it to pay the principal down early. If inflation is > 3%, for example, I'm financially better off making the minimum payments.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The fine (if ever paid) would likely provide a higher income than the film netted at the cinema.
Well that's not a hard bar to clear. If they're practicing Hollywood Accounting the movie will never net any movie regardless of how many tickets it sold.
Perhaps the fines should be a percentage of the profits?
Much better than burning the original.
Bert
Pocahonchio
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
I want to be compensated by the studios because the version I watch on my iPhone isn't at nearly the same resolution as the same movie shown in a theater.
L. Frank Baum published a series of (mediocre, weird) children's books, from around 1900-1910, all with OZ in the title.
The term Oz was derived from his filing system. He had two or three filing cabinets, the last one labeled O-Z.
The claims to trademark by movie companies are entirely court-muscled by the despicable showboats who call themselves "entertainment lawyers."
And some people consider that the content-owners should die a painful death and let the content-makers and content-users find together a honest way to keep creation flowing...