Ohio Prison Shows Pirated Movies To Inmates

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Humphrey was sentenced to 29 months in prison for selling pirated copies of movies through the subscription-based USAWAREZ.com. He was later sent to the Lorain County prison in February for a parole violation and while he was a prisoner, he says guards showed inmates Ride Along and The Wolf of Wall Street before they were released on DVD. A spokesperson for Lorain County Correctional Institution Warden Kimberly Clipper said prison officials are aware that pirated movies are being shown to prisoners and the issue is being investigated. But she said she couldn't comment further because the investigation is ongoing."

Comments

Re:Odd Selection

[SJHillman]

If you want violent felons to have any hope of being rehabilitated, you need to show them what true criminals look like.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[wisnoskij]

If it is a for profit prison, this actually would be showing pirated movies for profit.

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

Is The Wolf of Wall Street the kind of movie you should be showing prisoners anyways?

Well, probably better Tango and Cash, Demolition Man, or Escape from Alcatraz.

Re:Fair Use

[Torp]

I don't think that's considered fair use :) It's pretty much illegal. Even if they bought a legal DVD, they're not licensed for public performances.

Re:Perfect!

[sconeu]

I'm guessing those are rated Arrr?

Re:Difference

[mi]

The code clearly states that distributions by unauthorized person is a crime. charging is irrelevant.

False. Though all unauthorized distribution is illegal, not all of it constitutes a criminal offense. To make the perpetrator a felon, according to paragraphs; 506 federal Title 17 of the United States Code, the distribution must be committed:

1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
3. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Our protagonist qualifies for the first item above. And so do his current jailers. Small-time non-profit distributors — such as torrent-users, who keep the stuff they just downloaded available, but not for long enough to qualify for the second case — do not.

Re:Difference

[nabsltd]

This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance". If these DVDs had been legally purchased (instead of definitely pirated), it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public". After all, can you just walk in and watch movies with the prisoners? Remember that size of audience is unimportant for determining "private" or "public". A wedding with 500 guests where only people with invitations are allowed in is "private", while a bar with seating for 3 people is "public".

Re:oh yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) :)
2) ;)
3) ???
4) Free movies!