Slashdot Mirror


33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

An anonymous reader writes: Philip Danks used a camcorder to record Fast & Furious 6 in a U.K. cinema. Later, he shared it via bittorrent and allegedly sold physical copies. Now, he's been sentenced to 33 months in prison for his actions. "In Court it was claimed that Danks' uploading of Fast 6 resulted in more than 700,000 downloads, costing Universal Pictures and the wider industry millions of pounds in losses." Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities.

465 comments

  1. The real crime here by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is bothering to upload a camrip. Just wait for a DVD release or at least a leaked screener copy!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

    2. Re:The real crime here by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Funny

      No the real crime is that he encouraged people to watch Fast & Furious 6 .

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:The real crime here by tgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nah, the real crime here is . . . STUPIDITY:

      1. He failed to sufficiently anonymize his upload and got caught (I'm unclear if he was caught from his p2p or physical sales though).
      2. When he DID get caught, he didn't cease doing something that would land him in jail
      3. We can (and have!) debated all day long about the morality of p2p sharing . . . but he went a step further and was monetarily profiting from his acts (albeit via physical media as opposed to p2p sharing). I think it's safe to say most people don't agree with this.

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

    4. Re:The real crime here by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, they should have caned him. 33 months in prison is stupid. Beat him 40 times and send him home.

    5. Re:The real crime here by mlookaba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage)

      Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

    6. Re:The real crime here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

      Fair? Put fair aside a moment. What will the result of putting him in prison be? Will it improve society in any way? Odds are sharply against it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The real crime here by flayzernax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.

      This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen. The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or bankruptcy.

    8. Re:The real crime here by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's impossible for a government to do anything without at least some real threat of violence behind it. How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?

      Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

      Offender: "No."

      Government: "You're a poo-head."

      Offender: [sobs pathetically] "Ok, ok, I'll pay! Just please, please don't hurt my feelings again."

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    9. Re:The real crime here by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, financial harm is a real thing. And it can, thanks to how we run our economy, result in physical harm to real people.

      That doesn't mean that this case represents real financial harm, or even if it did, that someone might go hungry as a result. But in our world, you need money to survive.

      I'm always wary for this quid pro quo notion of justice that you're implicitly backing, because harm can be difficult to both quantify and qualify, and retrobution doesn't achieve nearly as much as we think it does. Let me restate that I'd almost certainly agree with the conclusions of the argument you presented, but I don't necessarily endorse the argument itself.

    10. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The dude made the choice. No one put a gun to his head and told him to patiently hold the camcorder up for 2 hours then go home and post the video online.

      If you shoplift, also a non-violent civil offense, you similarly get the opportunity for a few weeks or years of unwanted butt-fucking.

      "The punishment is too harsh for the crime" is your opinion.

      That the man in question made the choice to commit a crime that has an economic impact on a 3rd party is a fact. (Whether he's directly stealing food from the mouths of orphans or just cutting down on some studio exec's blowjob money is irrelevant).

      That the law allows a person who commits a crime to be punished, also a fact.

      What you should really be arguing for is prison reform. My solution would be to create more minimum security arrangements for this kind of crime. Personally I think we should ship anyone who does this kind of crime off to local landfill and make them sort garbage. Pay them minimum wage, require them to work 40 hours a week. Throw them in jail if they don't come to work on time. Be a lot cheaper than putting them in a prison and we get the benefit of more recycling.

    11. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

      Putting him in jail doesn't solve the problem with my parents retirement.
      Anything that doesn't refund my parents plus something extra for the trouble would be an injustice.
      Whatever, if any, punishment is suitable on top of that is not really my concern. Whatever prevent the financial advisor from doing it again works fine.
      If someone can get away with 6 month for assault and battery then I certainly think that anything above that is way excessive for a white collar crime if it has been repaid.

    12. Re:The real crime here by mlookaba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're arguing about something unrelated to my comment. My point is that sometimes the physical "violence" of being incarcerated is justified for non-physical crimes. That's all.

    13. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, the real crime here is "not good looking'. Bear with me, hear me out:

      Attractive people are known to get a lot of breaks in life, higher wages, etc. Philip Danks was just a guy who was not too easy on the eyes, scrabbling to earn a living.

    14. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopoly? There is no monopoly. If you want to use that word I dare you to articulate your ideas. Too many people around here throw crap like that out with no backing at all. I'm surprised you didn't scream some nonsense about a free market at the same time.

    15. Re:The real crime here by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.

    16. Re:The real crime here by Aaden42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?

      Easy: By ordering a more compliant entity that has a financial relationship with you to comply on your behalf.

      Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

      Offender: "No."

      Government: “Offender’s Bank: Give us $1000 from Offender’s account (by seizing every penny deposited for the next 10 years immediately in priority over EVERY other debit if necessary) plus an extra penalty for non-compliance.”

      Offender’s Bank: “Okay, here’s your money, and BTW we’re taking our own fee for enforcing this, and of course we’ll charge them for every overdraft fee that results from draining their account.”

      Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now?"

      --- Or alternatively if no bank accounts: ---

      Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

      Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”

      —-

      See: Civil compliance and no truncheons necessary. There will almost always be someone with more to lose than you and less desire to stick it to the man. They’ll comply so you don’t have to.

    17. Re:The real crime here by thaylin · · Score: 1

      They have this program by where they can remove the money directly from your check.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    18. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it "seems reasonable" (to you) to lock a non-violent offender in a cage with violent offenders is that you know nothing else. This is exactly the same process that leads the majority of people in the US to automatically assume that recreational drug use should be a crime. They know nothing else.

      The way to change your viewpoint is through imagination and critical thinking. Look to yourself for the answer, not the status quo. The "way the world works" is often wrong.

    19. Re:The real crime here by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but you have to consider who’s perspective of improving society really matters here. If it scares more people into not eroding the *AA’s business model, then it’s a win for the groups that are *really* buying the laws.

    20. Re:The real crime here by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is an excellent idea. I just hope the unthinkable never happens, and somebody who doesn't have a legitimate bank account and job suddenly decides to be a ciminal!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re:The real crime here by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.

      Not at Slashdot...

      People seem to miss the point that this was a criminal activity for profit.

      But of course here, entertainment that cost millions of dollars to create must be free.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    22. Re:The real crime here by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

      Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”

      Bender the Offender: Hmm, there's no point in working if they take all my earnings, I think I'll just go on the dole.

      Taxes will end up paying for the crime no matter if it is jail or fines.

      --

      Enigma

    23. Re:The real crime here by SydShamino · · Score: 3

      What if the offender's employer refuses? What if the offender's employer doesn't have a bank account? What if the offender's employer's customers refuse? What if it's turtles all the way down?

      Physical confinement is a good deterrent for white collar crime - far better than it is as a deterrent to violent crime, in my opinion, because the type of people who use violence tend to have minds better able to shut off emotions and critical thought as needed, whether than need is for 10 minutes while shooting and robbing someone or 15 years behind bars.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    24. Re:The real crime here by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The dude made the choice. No one put a gun to his head and told him to patiently hold the camcorder up for 2 hours ..."

      Are you 100% certain about that? This is Fast & Furious 6 we're talking about here.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    25. Re:The real crime here by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

      no, the real crime here is a misleading title that implies he was given 33 months solely for the act of filming a movie with a camcorder.

    26. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it is a crime. That lobbying you're talking about was ten years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can argue all you like about if it should be a crime, fact is, it is a crime, according to law, which is where crime is defined (you don't get to make up your own definition, sorry).

    27. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

    28. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WARNING: You have activated Slashdot's Logic-and-Reason detector. Rational logical thought is forbidden. Multiple infractions may go on your permanent record.

    29. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's beside the point.

      You cannot have a deterrent and then not use it when that deterrent doesn't actually deter an idiot like this from breaking that law.

      Prison is supposed to deter not punish, no one wants to be put in prison, but if they ignore that then they need to enforce that. The result for putting him in prison is to deter others from breaking the law.
      They could have fined him, but that wasn't the punishment.

    30. Re:The real crime here by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now? I guess i'll have to start mugging people."

      FTFY

    31. Re:The real crime here by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Having said all that, the MAIN problem with this man is stupidity.

      If the point is deterrence and something FOR SOCIETY, than I can't see why any more than 6 months is reasonable. Prison is horrible and nobody in their right mind wants to be there -- despite the blather of people who don't expect to go who are "tough on crime".

      I want crazy people who are going to kill me and rich people who abuse power in prison -- that's it. If we closed half of them this country would be headed in the right direction.

      If the guy were SMART, he wouldn't be going to jail. And Jail seems to just be a place for POOR or STUPID. Everybody else just contributes a lot of money to the legal system.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    32. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopoly? There is no monopoly.

      Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on reproduction and distribution of a particular artistic work. You DID know that, right?

    33. Re:The real crime here by thaylin · · Score: 1
      The employer cannot refuse if they are employing him in the US. It does not matter if they have a bank account. If they are paying him when they take out the rest of his taxes they have to garnish that amount and send it to the government. If they are paying him under the table that is a different matter.

      I dont think it is a matter of it being wrong for white collar, but copyright infringement should never be anything other than civil.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    34. Re:The real crime here by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Will it improve society in any way?

      You and I who are not inside the "justice bubble" as some are who make their living on the legal system know the answer is NO.

      And thank you for bringing that point up. There is nobody who goes through the court system who is not going to feel a lot of pain. The concept of years in prison is a huge punishment. This guy does a few months and he won't do it again. Society is saved!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    35. Re:The real crime here by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      White-collar criminals usually have much more to lose by being imprisoned as well.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    36. Re:The real crime here by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I don't think that deterrence works at all. But it does empower the FBI and a lot of government agencies to go snooping around IN CASE there is a broken window.

      The police will tear gas people for ruining a park, and it costs more money than anyone in government put into that park in a year.

      There are all these agencies looking for an excuse "for the children" "for security reasons" and "to protect property" and the lives and well being of actual people be damned. I can't afford to have my kids eat well or go to Soccer -- but thank goodness we spent all this money tracking down people on the web who MIGHT have done something.

      yet still I get spam, and legitimate sites give me programs with trojans in them. I got nothing out of this security state.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    37. Re:The real crime here by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      ... people who use violence tend to have minds better able to shut off emotions and critical thought as needed, whether than need is for 10 minutes while shooting and robbing someone ...

      I believe you have a logical fallacy here. Maybe some people *like* to hurt others and/or enforce dominance over others, and rather than shutting off emotions and critical thought during the act are actually enjoying it. Maybe that's why they do it in the first place, even more than the monetary reward (after all, the contents of the average wallet hardly seem worth a life).

    38. Re:The real crime here by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, it's cheaper and does not encourage prison corporations to side with the copyright lobbies.

    39. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds are sharply in favour of it, actually, because there was a person who was responsible for determining the effect of his actions on society and figuring out the best way for him to repay society for his crime, having heard the details of what happened and pleading on both sides. (That's the judge, by the way, not anyone here.)

    40. Re:The real crime here by sinij · · Score: 1

      This is rather strange view. So if I non-violently create a Ponzi scheme and proceed to rip off people for billions it is unjust for me to go to jail?
       
      Punishment as deterrent is not entirely ineffective, at least for rational individuals.

    41. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what exactly is copyright if not a monopoly concerning an intellectual product? a person is given singular and absolute control over distribution - hows does this differ from a monopoly?

    42. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is a limited monopoly on the recreation and distribution of a specific work.
      The "victim" was granted a copyright, a monopoly, on the work in question. This guy broke the law by violating that government granted monopoly.

    43. Re:The real crime here by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      But the headline said all he did was record a movie in a theater and that's what he's being punished for! And on Slashdot, headlines are never completely misleading lies!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    44. Re:The real crime here by Jhon · · Score: 2

      "And what benefit does jail time give the public? "

      That the threat of jail prevents many crimes. Point is that the "benefit" is not zero.

      GENERALLY, (at least in the US) jail isn't automatic on a first time offense -- or even second or third. The courts bend over backwards trying to give the defendant a chance to change. And if jail wasn't a decent enough threat, why do so many criminals flee from the cops?

    45. Re:The real crime here by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So I take it that you believe that people who commit tax fraud should not go to jail either?

    46. Re:The real crime here by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not in jail for recording a movie; he's in jail for distributing copies and selling them. Selling copies isn't a civil offense; it's a crime. And did you miss the part where he kept selling and distributing even after his arrest? I have pretty liberal views on file sharing, but this guy was asking for it.

    47. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as law enforcement without violence or the threat of violence. People will not voluntarily arrest and sentence themselves and place themselves into prison.

    48. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that might work on liberals actually

    49. Re:The real crime here by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

      Agreed, though this sentence is meant to dissuade other would be uploaders from copyright infringement. That is the point of the sentence, for others to think twice before uploading. Much like not all tax evaders in the U.S. are caught, the IRS will make an example of high profile celebrities.

    50. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage)

      No, the real crime is not shooting the asshole for being the most obvious douche in the country.

      If it was your money (work) being ripped off you would be screaming bloody murder - oh, wait. you don't do anything worthwhile or produce anything of value! Tell Mom you want some more "little pizza things" in the basement.

      It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

      I don't know where you got your ideas about "critical thinking" or injustice, but please, apply for a Darwin award.

    51. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does the government do when the offender's bank or employer says "no"?

      EVERYTHING the government does, is done with the understanding that its will is backed up with force. That is the very definition of government: a monopoly on the use of force.

    52. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear! :-D

    53. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he's actually correct. Sometimes physical correction is required. If your neighbor keeps flinging poo in your yard - and you ask them to stop several times and they don't stop sometimes you have to punch them in the nose. We can talk about assault and polite society all you want - but some people will not respond to that and need to get a more immediate and powerful disincentive for their undesirable behavior. Now, in most places you will end up in jail for punching the guy in the nose. It doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been a fast solution to the problem though. It is too bad that judges don't generally have the leeway to say, "well in this case he deserved it, case dismissed".

    54. Re:The real crime here by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The benefit is the assurance of a functioning justice system. The end of punishing lawbreakers is in fact to establish a system whereby lawbreakers is punished.

      Its not about putting them to use, at all.

    55. Re:The real crime here by mark-t · · Score: 1

      One can approve of caning as punishment for particular crimes without themselves being guilty of the crime for which they would approve of the caning, nor even particularly "like" caning overall, but believe in the premise that it might stand as one of the most effective means of preventing a repeat offense without simply executing the person. The most effective means of preventing a repeat offense that does not involve execution is when the violator genuinely repents of the crime, but this is something only the person themselves can control... it is not possible to directly induce it or bring it about, although it can sometimes be achieved indirectly by whatever discomfort the criminal might be made to experience from the punishment for their crime, which is probably the single strongest argument that may exist for supporting punishments like caning for particular crimes.

    56. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a CIVIL offense, moron. Copyright law is part of the civil code, not criminal.

    57. Re:The real crime here by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      They have this system where some people arent employed legally or on the record (ie, waiters, criminals, day laborers).

      The threat of violence is what gives the state the ability to enforce law, fundamentally.

    58. Re:The real crime here by msauve · · Score: 1

      Whoosh. The employer only "has to pay" because the government's threat of force then falls on them. To the original point, force is the only thing the government has to enforce its will.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    59. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limited monopoly and a real monopoly are two different ideas altogether. Sorry if you slashtards can't understand that.

    60. Re:The real crime here by mlookaba · · Score: 1

      "Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead."

      The fundamental flaw with that logic is the assumption that the offender is remorseful, and wants to be put to good use. While it is certainly true in some cases, it's almost certainly NOT true in others. Figuring out which is really difficult, because it turns out that people tend to lie when they get caught.

    61. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't mind. If a financial crime is committed, then the punishment should be financial in nature. So take away all the criminals possessions and pay restitution to his victims. Similar to what I think we should be doing to all the bankers that are responsible for the financial crisis we recently went through. Take away their yachts and cut holes in their golden parachutes.

    62. Re:The real crime here by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      A good question is who is paying to watch a cam? Especially when the pirate bay has rips and screener copies of most modern movies all for free.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    63. Re:The real crime here by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But on slashdot, perfection is encouraged... and nothing less is tolerated. You have a 6-digit sid.... don't you know that by now?

    64. Re:The real crime here by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how the IRS operates.

    65. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you shoplift, you are taking a good from an owner, that will likely be used for sale and have an associated value therefore taking from their potential income. I don't want to get into a IP argument really(it's friday)...

      That the man in question made the choice to commit a crime that has an economic impact on a 3rd party is a fact. (Whether he's directly stealing food from the mouths of orphans or just cutting down on some studio exec's blowjob money is irrelevant).

      You can make an economic impact on a third party, and not be doing anything illegal. So what did this guy steal? He stole potential non guaranteed sales from a third party(studio exec's blowjob money), but he did not actually take a good/product/item with him out the door. He reproduced a copy from the original work(and probably a shitty one). I know about copyright law and everything, but I think that definitely the punishment does not fit the crime. We live in a place where you can copy anything, and put it somewhere else. There could likely be a chilling effect on production. It is a social benefit we have from technology and i think there are negative chilling consequences from trying to hinder that, and it also one of the reasons why OSS is so sweet. What if everything was shared? Would there be a chilling effect on production. Or would everyone want to be that guy, who made something awesome and benefited the world. I know money is a great motivator, but in a world where everything was shared, would there be other motivators that would catalyze industry?
      Just some random thoughts for Friday

    66. Re:The real crime here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      For most non-violent offenders their crime often involves a loss of money or property from the victim.
      The problem is often the offender has costed more damage then he could afford to repair. So how do you punish someone who had committed a crime but doesn't have the resources to make reparations?
      That is why the Rich tend to get out of jail. They do a crime, but they just pay the fine and go home. The poor cannot pay the fine so the court decided that only thing they can really take away from him is his freedom for a period of time, so that is what they do.

      Now this isn't fair, or justice. But there hasn't been much discussion on the alternatives. In the United States we have a law against Cruel or Unusual punishments, while on face value it is a good thing. However it does hinder innovation in penal justice.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    67. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually most crimes are not prevented or thwarted by jail or excess sentencing. The reason is that those committing crimes aren't considering the risk or consequence of their actions. The line of thinking that jailing, violence toward (physical abuse, caning, etc), etc will reduce crime is naive, but it is also the line of thinking most people have grown up with and been taught. Other solutions may not necessarily have a significantly better outcome, but without different approaches being attempted its we're probably not going to see a significant reduction in crime.

      What we know has had major impacts in different parts of the world:

      1. Advancements in medicine (drugs) have reduced crime (they have almost eliminated the need for insane asylums)
      2. Banning certain chemicals from gas (has resulted in significant reductions in violent crime)
      3. Reducing the wage disparity between classes (particularly reducing poverty, educational opportunity, and enabling advancement)
      4. Focusing on rehabilitation facilities for drug offenders rather than jail
      5. Legalization of at least low-impact recreational drugs

    68. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume we're only talking about non-violent criminals, in which case the money has to be somewhere. IMHO even shunning people from participating in the economy is preferable to violence.

    69. Re:The real crime here by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work... There's a huge number of people who feel they're entitled to special treatment, who abuse the system you describe. It's this crazy viewpoint that you and a whole generation of coddled, entitled people have, which is eroding all the good in this country.

      Your black and white view of not imprisoning non-violent offenders has led to abuses of power at all levels, from your neighborhood meth dealers, to the criminals using the Ferguson tragedy as an excuse to steal from innocent small business owners.

      This guy in particular is a great example. Police originally just warned him not to do anything, and so instead of abiding he says "Damn! If nothing's going to be done to me for doing this, I'm going to share this movie some more - What they gonna do?"

      He also sold physical copies, so this is not a guy just putting something online for others. He's knowingly committing a criminal act for profit, after he's been caught and was not "forced into a cage" as you put it.

      Think he'll continue with this pattern of behavior after being locked up with a bunch of violent thugs? Probably not... Is prison the answer? Not for everything, but for buffoons like this guy who won't learn any other way, yes.

    70. Re:The real crime here by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Of course, the flaw in this is obvious. Actually there are quite a few.
      *****
      Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

      Offender: "No."

      Government: “Offender’s Bank: Give us $1000 from Offender’s account (by seizing every penny deposited for the next 10 years immediately in priority over EVERY other debit if necessary) plus an extra penalty for non-compliance.

      Offender's Bank: "No".
      ***

      Or better yet,
      *****
      Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

      Offender: "No."

      Government: “Offender’s Bank: Give us $1000 from Offender’s account (by seizing every penny deposited for the next 10 years immediately in priority over EVERY other debit if necessary) plus an extra penalty for non-compliance.”

      Offender: OK. I take out my money and won't use a bank.
      ***

      Or even:

      ****
      Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

      Offender: "No."

      Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

      Offender's employer: No.
      ***

      At some point the threat of jail time for people responsible for certain actions is a necessity.

    71. Re:The real crime here by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Completely agree, I would add to point 2 that once he'd uploaded to enough peers (now seeds) there was no point in continuing to seed.

      Having said that he may have been convicted on his sale of physical copies, which makes him a complete douche.

    72. Re:The real crime here by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      In the end there's no point having laws you wont or can not enforce. Either they have to punish offenders or they need to get rid of the law. Obviously they chose punishment. I can't feel any pity for stupid and sometimes people have to be made an example of. It's not a matter of profit because obviously governments don't create profit. Quite the opposite actually.

    73. Re:The real crime here by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. You mean the ones who commit violent crimes like shoplifting, pick pocketing or selling weed, who couldn't possibly participate in the economy, by for example, going to McDonald's or have a girlfriend order something from Amazon. I hadn't thought things out that thoroughly I guess.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    74. Re:The real crime here by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      This is, in a nutshell, why EVERYONE should be a Libertarian. Society cannot have an increasing Authoritarian Governance, simply because we want people to behave in ways that aren't part of the natural order of a society.

      That being said, in this case, the person wasn't just sharing video, he was knowingly, and willingly AND willfully breaking the law. I have no sympathy.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    75. Re:The real crime here by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That system would hurt poorer people a lot harder than wealthier people unless the fine is set at a sliding scale. But then you need to explain why a rich person using drugs costs society more than a poorer person.

    76. Re:The real crime here by Sarius64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn! If only he had bankrupt an energy conglomerate, dissolved hundred of millions of dollars in pension funds, and legally embezzled 9 figures into personal accounts! He'd have received no punishment at all!

      The fall-out from Enron

    77. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing didn't see any of those bankers doing jail time for credit default swaps / mortgage loan fraud that nearly took down the western economies, pushing millions of people into massive debt and losing their homes. But heaven help you if you upload a movie you recorded in a cinema that you paid to see.

    78. Re:The real crime here by Sarius64 · · Score: 0

      Thank you Mr. Shill

    79. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Financial advisors, and retirement accounts are bound by the SEC, and legal contracts. Cam pirates are bound by nothing, except maybe boredom.

      Your analogy is clownshoes!

    80. Re:The real crime here by caseih · · Score: 1

      Until the DMCA, copyright was always a civil offence, as it should be, with the penalties to be monetary in nature, not prison. Remember all the FBI warnings on old VHS tapes about going to prison for copying the video (or heaven forbid public performance)? They were all bold-faced lies. At least until the DMCA criminalized copyright violation. Now you can get more jail time for copyright violation than for violent crime such as rape.

    81. Re:The real crime here by ketomax · · Score: 1

      Make each of the female characters from the movie cane him 40 times and see how effective the punishment becomes.

    82. Re:The real crime here by dhalsim2 · · Score: 1

      Your logic is ridiculous. Incarceration isn't a violent act, and more so, the damage that this guy did is real. It's really not that different from arson. An arsonist might cause many millions of dollars in damage, just so that he can have a moment of entertainment. Should arsonists go unpunished?

    83. Re:The real crime here by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      The threat of incarceration is meant to be a deterrent. You are completely free to not commit a crime. In passing the law, society has already requested, without force, that you not do so. If you intentionally commit a felony anyway then you go to jail as you've already demonstrated that simply asking you is not sufficient.

    84. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why it is unjust. Punishing someone as an example to others is reprehensible.

    85. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heresthe problem with what you said, a camera recorded version of a movie is like a financial investor taking a bunch of 1$ bills out of the waste deposit of a paper shredder.

    86. Re:The real crime here by sahuxley · · Score: 1

      But it's more important for the government to protect one business model of one form of entertainment than this man's freedom.

    87. Re:The real crime here by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      No, the real crime is that you can't figure out that sentencing for crimes works by a judge weighing all the factors in a case.

      I know this was in the UK, but follow along...

      In my state, a Class 6 Felony (the lowest possible, and one which can be expunged by merely staying out of trouble) has a maximum sentence of either .33 years, .5 years, 1 year, 1.5 years or 2 years depending on if it's your first time, if it was a violent crime, etc. etc. The presumptive sentence is a year. If there are ZERO mitigating factors, one way or the other. If your lawyer or the state's lawyer enter a plea and then stand there silently, you get the presumptive sentence.

      Despite the minimum sentence of .33 years (4 months), as a kid, I plead guilty to a Class 6 felony here, and I served 2 weeks on work release. Not only were their legally mitigating factors to move me to the .33 year maximum (first offense, non-violent), the judge then had the latitude to impose a sentence as short as 14 days -- but not longer than .33 years.

      Lets get back to the guy who got 33 months "just" for filming a movie.

      Upon conviction in the magistrates court the maximum term of incarceration in the UK for copyright infringement is 6 months and/or a "level five" fine of £5,000.

      Upon conviction in the Crown court the maximum term of incarceration in the UK for physical copyright infringement is 10 years and/or an "unlimited" fine.

      The judge there says, well, you're up for "just" filming a movie -- lets review any mitigating factors. Oh? After filming the movie, you uploaded it, and the torrent from your specific cam was downloaded 700,000 times? And you also burned copies and sold them on the street? In that case, you're going to find yourself at the top of the scale instead of the bottom, and you're going to do 33 months.

      In exactly the same way I did 14 days instead of 2 years, this guy did 33 months because he "just" filmed a movie.

    88. Re:The real crime here by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      but think of the cane lobby!

      canes will be prescribed for everything from headaches to depression
      cross walk signals will be extended by 15 maybe even 45 seconds!
      motor vehicles will require cane holder compliance by 2020 resulting in a huge bill to tax payers
      then come the robots.. soon if you can walk without a cane you will be given the cane until that situation resolves it's self.. then you will be required to use TWO canes!

      the resulting MLC victory of the elders over the lawn-yellers will be unrelated

    89. Re:The real crime here by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      damnit.. replytofail

    90. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget he was let off the hook the first time, then he continued to share the movie.

    91. Re:The real crime here by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'll just mention that the headline for this summary is grossly misleading. He didn't get jail time for recording the movie with his camcorder in a theatre per se, that sounds like they caught him in the act of recording; no, he got jail time because all the things he did in the weeks and months following that, as mentioned above; sharing on p2p, outright selling hard copies; and then continuing to do so even after approached by the police with a warning. That's a special kind of arrogance.. or ignorance; they sound alike and go hand in hand.
      I will say that the penalty seems incommensurately stiff to me; but this jackass put himself in that position.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    92. Re:The real crime here by tgeek · · Score: 1

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

      Fair? Put fair aside a moment. What will the result of putting him in prison be? Will it improve society in any way? Odds are sharply against it.

      Who said prison sentences are supposed to improve society? Yeah, it'd be great if somehow they did. But the reality is in most cases it's to deter or prevent some action from occurring again. That action may be something affecting society as a whole, or could be as specific as an individual.

      For example, let's say some otherwise rational guy has some personal grudge or vendetta against ME and ME alone. Every night he comes and breaks out one of my windows. Police catch him and give him a warning. Next night the police catch him breaking another one of my windows. Why shouldn't he get some jail time for that? It's not affecting society as a whole, just me.

      Now, do I like the MPAA/RIAA or the laws supporting their failing business models? Nope. But when somebody like this Philip Danks is caught and warned that he needs to stop doing what he's doing, and he flagrantly ignores such warnings . . . then I suppose those groups have a right to expect the laws to be more strongly enforced (regardless of how I feel about the groups or the laws)

    93. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whomever all modded this ridiculous tripe as "insightful" probably ought to lay the damn crack pipe down.

      "Stole" is theft. It's akin to the analogy the parent poster chose to use. It's like me walking over and ganking a cd out of your player and walking off with it. You're deprived of the use of it.

      What we're describing here is a completely different crime and it rightly is defined differently. "Infringed" is the proper term and the one that you need to be using and the proper concept EVERYONE needs to be working with here.

      In "infringement" you're only depriving a "rights holder" of the privileges given to the same by the government to "encourage the furthering of the arts and sciences". You're not taking a physical item away from them. You're only depriving them of a percieved or real potential to make money off of something which is not a foregone conclusion. It's not theft. If you're framing it in those terms, you're conflating two very, very different notions and you fucking need to quit doing it because they are two totally differing concepts and thereby have differing laws involved. Infringement ISN'T stealing by any stretch of the imagination- and that's not changing anytime soon in the laws because they're not the same. Get It?!

    94. Re:The real crime here by xevioso · · Score: 2

      None of this is relevant. You are forgetting that there are victims of crimes, and those victims have a right to justice, and part of justice involves incarcerating people for certain crimes.

      Perp A breaks into my house because he is looking for jewelry, which he then pawns for money to fuel his "victimless" meth habit. Incarcerating that person has two effects: It removes him from the street, where he can get access to drugs that harm himself and society, and removes him from the street where he can no longer burglarize homes. The idea that society must work to rehabilitate this person is nice insofar that at some point he will be released, but that is secondary from physically stopping this person from committing certain crimes by incarcerating him.

    95. Re:The real crime here by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Unless said corporation decides to get into the market of automatic caning machines....

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    96. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How would you feel if" is entirely the wrong question to ask. The aggrieved party is not the one to rationally mete out justice because they are aggrieved and NOT RATIONAL. The whole point of a criminal justice system is to avoid that sort of thing.

    97. Re:The real crime here by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So you're referring to Ken Lay the weasel who was convicted on ten felony counts for his acts as the head of a corporation, but managed to avoid 20-30 years in prison as punishment for his crimes by having a heart attack and dieing. That's the guy you're unhappy got "no punishment at all"? The sneaky bastard planned all along on having a massive heart attack if he was ever convicted of anything as a way of avoiding a prison term, you bet.

      Even though the criminal justice system had to vacate the convictions because he died before his appeals were exhausted (and he couldn't very well assist in his own defense at this point), "civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate." In other words, you can't imprison the dead man to punish him (or you could, but it wouldn't be a very effective punishment, deterrent, or rehabilitation effort), but his family can be punished by having money and property taken away from them through the civil courts.

      Nice try.

      At the bottom of the reference I linked to, they mention that there are conspiracy theorists that say that Lay faked his death and he's still alive. Are you one of them? Of all the people who saw his dead body, not a single one of them would come forward to tell his story for the probable six figure payment he'd get? Sure.

      When I saw the headline for this article I could guess that it was biased and incorrect, and I was right. The guy got 33 months in prison not for recording a movie in a theater, he got the criminal sentence for distributing copies for sale. The former could have gone unnoticed and would have harmed nobody, had he not continued to distribute even after he was warned about it.

    98. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You strike me (no pun intended) as an anti-corporal punishment type person. "No no! You can't spank a child!"

      Yeah. Punishment is meant to be unpleasant. You think the punishment is TOO unpleasant? If you don't like the consequences, then don't perform the action.

    99. Re:The real crime here by butalearner · · Score: 1

      The important point, I believe, is that incarceration shouldn't be the first response for non-violent criminals. Which makes a whole goddamn lot of sense, the massive snark in the comments here notwithstanding. Yeah, we might end up having to incarcerate some, or maybe even a majority of them, but I guarantee you we end up with less overburdened prisons and more tax-paying, productive members of society.

      As for the guy headed to prison for almost 3 years, he should've been hit with fines and/or wage garnishment the first time they caught him. If he kept it up after that, that's when you start hitting him with heavier fines, community service, confiscating tech, computer restrictions, etc. Wage garnishment need not be as draconian as some of the other commenters have said. They know they have to make it worthwhile for the person to work. Yeah, he might quit his job and refuse to get a new one and end up in jail anyway, but he might not, and that would be better for everybody.

    100. Re:The real crime here by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Sounds like you're a violent sociopath. Maybe we should cane you if you like that kind of punishment so much.

      A good beating administered by the authorities in a controlled and relatively safe environment will likely do FAR MUCH LESS damage than being locked up with animals and sociopaths for 3 years.

      You simply don't have any clue. You can't relate do doing any kind of hard time. You probably can't even relate do doing a week or a weekend in the local lockup.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    101. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactemundo!

    102. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better question is who is paying to watch a cam of Fast and Furious 6?

    103. Re:The real crime here by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      How would I feel? Indifferent.

      I've been there and done that.

      Besides getting the better bonus for the work that was a turkey, I was not harmed by rampant piracy. It was supposed to have killed the entire industry before I was even in it but that never happened.

      Good works will prosper. Turkeys will fail. Plenty of people will still pay.

      The same was true for "Cute and Stupid 6". The rampant industry killing piracy didn't actually do the studio any real harm. Neither did the one particular example the the perp will do time for.

      Incarcerating this person is just an unnecessary drain on my wallet as we collectively all have to pay big bucks for it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    104. Re:The real crime here by Beerdood · · Score: 1

      Retribution, Rehabilitation, Off the Streets, Deterrence - that's generally the purpose of prison

      Retribution - the "fair" part in your argument; I'm not going to comment on whether 33 months is fair, but you spend some time in prison to pay for what you've done. Whether it's 1 month or 10 years is a separate topic. This could arguably be a fine and not necessarily prison time, or some other form of punishment as you may be suggesting
      Rehabilitation - this part is supposed to turn criminals back into model citizens. This is mostly a joke in the US prison systems; why would for profit prisons work on ensuring prisoners don't return to prison? That's just lost profit. Maybe this is what you see as pointless. This is in the UK though; I'm not familiar with the state of the prisons there so I can't comment. But even so there's still some benefit for..
      Off the Streets. If he's in prison, then he's not still recording bootlegged movies. That's one less camcorder viewer for 33 months. There's your slight "improvement to society in any way" you're looking for. And on top of that there's
      Deterrence. The knowledge that recording video footage and then distributing this for profit lands you jail time is probably sufficient to deter some existing people from their recording, or helpful in preventing new criminals from starting up in this business.

      Deterrence is probably the most helpful argument for prison time for this. Office Space sums this up well enough; when the 3 protagonists start their scheme up, they're sure that they might just get a slap on the wrist or some minimum security light prison. But after learning that this crime is quite capable of getting them in a pound-me-in-the-ass prison, they're worried all of a sudden! Now if Samir and Michael knew before they started this scheme that there was any possibility of going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison, they probably wouldn't have started the scheme in the first place

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    105. Re:The real crime here by phorm · · Score: 1

      Commercial gain does change this picture somewhat. My only counter is that jail-time also imposes a burden on society, whereas a fine that wipes out any profit from the infringement + imposes enough of an additional penalty would probably have worked well enough, and saved the cost of housing this idiot in a cell.

    106. Re:The real crime here by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Putting him in jail doesn't solve the problem with my parents retirement.

      Nope. But it solves the problem of the next guy thinking "hey, I'll steal a bunch of money from old people because even if I get caught all I'll have to do is give the money back". And it solves the problem of THIS guy doing the same thing for at least a few years, because it is hard to run a financial scam business from inside prison.

      Anything that doesn't refund my parents plus something extra for the trouble would be an injustice.

      Here's a novel idea. Make the punishment time in jail AND reimbursement of the loss. I assume someone has already patented that idea, but if I say "reimburse the loss using a computer" I can get a new patent. Profit!

      Whatever prevent the financial advisor from doing it again works fine.

      "I couldn't steal from old people while I was in prison, and now that I'm out I really don't want to ever go back so I'm not going to do it again." Ok, prison time served to prevent this financial advisor from "doing it again". What's the problem with putting him in prison, again?

      If someone can get away with 6 month for assault and battery

      I punch you in the nose for continuing to fling dog poo into my front yard and you just won't stop. I get 6 months for assault. And you think someone who steals the entire life savings of old people shouldn't get more time than I did as a deterrent to him and others like him? The only punishment for him should be giving back the money, so he's no worse off than when he started and is free to do it again -- this time if he doesn't get caught it will be pure profit for him. You think a system where he has no risk and all reward is going to deter him? Man, your value system is really cock-eyed.

    107. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not a crime and there is no victimization.

      Unfortunately for your stupid uneducated semiliterate ass, there IS
      a crime. And the LAW spells out exactly what that crime is.

      You can't even spell a simple word like "privilege" correctly.

      God damn it, I am sick of lowlife stupid pieces of shit like you
      posting utter bullshit like they actually know something.

    108. Re:The real crime here by DaMP12000 · · Score: 1

      What about we switch this kind of prison sentences with forced community service? That would still punish the offender but offers society a way to gain benefit from it instead of having to pay out of the citizen's pockets (taxes) for their life in prison... Just sayin'...

    109. Re:The real crime here by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      What if your like me, and am a freelancer (sole proprietorship), that doesn't have a regular employer. I work with many companies, who cut me a check, and don't take out taxes or anything else. If I were to pull all my money out of my bank, how would the government get access to my money or revenue stream coming short of physically coming to my house, raiding the place, taking me to jail while they confiscate everything I own. Even then, I could keep my "cash stash" somewhere else they cannot find, so they'd only end up with my immediate possessions.

      If they tried to track down my bank, I could withdraw and close the account. If they tried to go to my employer, they'd find I don't have one. If they tried to track down the dozen or so "regular" client companies I have, ok, but as a freelance/contractor, I can just stop working for them, and look for new clients who didn't get the government memo, bypassing the levy.

      Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

      Offender: "No."

      Government: "Offender's Bank- Give us $1000 from Offender's account..."

      Offender's Bank: "Uhh, sorry he withdrew all his money and closed the account yesterday."

      Government: "Offender's employer: wait what, he doesn't have an employer! damn! Find out who pays him all year long, he has to make money somehow. Ahh, here he works with a dozen or so businesses that pay him somewhat regularly"

      Governemnt: "Offender's clients -- pay us instead of him when you pay."

      Offender's Clients: "Uhh, ok, but he mentioned he wouldn't be able to work with us anymore due this, so we don't expect to be paying him for anything since he's not rendering services to us anymore."

      Goverment: "Nooooo! Who does this guy think he is. We'll just have to go in full swat style and raid his home and arrest him then."

    110. Re:The real crime here by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Nope. "Bootlegging" has always been a criminal offense. It was even this way before recent lobbying got the relevant bits of the US Code changed.

      Back in the day, crackers had really nasty things to say about people that sold pirated works.

      Even then, in that context, there was a social convention dictating that selling other people's stuff wasn't cool.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    111. Re:The real crime here by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Incarceration isn't a violent act, and more so, the damage that this guy did is real. It's really not that different from arson.

      What a jackass you are.

      Equating ARSON with copying and sharing a movie. No one is going to get KILLED by copying a movie. People may very well DIE because of arson.

      THIS is why we have to have a public discussion about the correct level of punishment for the digital equivalent of shoplifting. Otherwise, anti-social morons will happily allow the imposition of midieval punishments that belong more in ISIS than a modern democracy.

      The nonsense that passes for ethics these days...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    112. Re:The real crime here by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      It seems like your argument is that a government doesn't have any authority over banks or employers. Both of those are licensed by the government (in most places). If the bank doesn't comply, their license can be suspended, and they won't be able to do things like hold deposits for their customers. If a business' license is suspended, they won't be permitted to operate in that jurisdiction. If they continue to do so anyhow, the government will shut them down by force.

      The employer has more to lose than the employee; they'll garnish the employee's wages or risk being shut down. The bank is in the same situation.

      Now, if the offender doesn't have a job, bank accounts, or other financial assets that could be seized to pay off the fine, then some alternative method of punishment could apply. Governments are experts in applying various kinds of force effectively, and they generally don't like getting "no" as their answer.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    113. Re:The real crime here by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.

      Then the appropriate action is for "the people" to rescind the monopoly, isn't it? Though I'm not sure how you can consider a movie a monopoly. It's entertainment.

      This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen.

      If "we the people" put lawmakers in office that make this a crime, then that's what it is. Not that I agree with this one, but that's how laws work.

      It's called "intellectual property". Again, it's not really a term I agree with. However it is considered property. And by giving it away, you are hampering the owners ability to make money off of it. How much? I really don't know. No one does. The *IAA's of the world ridiculously over inflate the amount. Then people like you claim that nothing is lost. The amount is somewhere in the middle, though I have no idea where. Regardless, someone (person or corporation) spent a bunch of money making this movie and they should be able to try to make money off of it. If you don't agree, then don't pay to see it.

      The law on the books right now indicates this is a crime. Even if you and I don't agree with how it's dealt with. That's not how laws work. People don't get to choose on an individual basis if a law is stupid or not. That's part of living in a society. Perhaps you forgot to give someone their french fries at the drive through. They don't get to decide that anti-murder laws are a stupid idea and shoot you.

      If you don't like the law, then you either do what you can to fix it, try to overthrow the government that enforces it, go to another country where the majority of the people think like you do, or move to an island somewhere and start your own society.

      The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or bankruptcy.

      If they want to disagree with it, that's fine. Then don't go to the movie theater. Stand outside and boycott it. Draw others to your cause. I didn't read about this case, but I doubt this has anything to do with protesting injustice.

      Even being a civil matter. I don't think it's right that a persons life can be ruined over something as stupid as this. Having jail time on your record, or being forced to pay mountainous sums of money does no one any good. But please don't act like these people are some kind of freedom fighters or innocent victims.

    114. Re:The real crime here by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I agree that physical correction is sometimes necessary. The problem is very few people know how to properly apply it, and fewer still will take the message to heart. It escalates more than anything else. I often lament that i cant jsut go pound the crap out of my neighbor instead of calling the cops, but it would escalate into true violence and possibly vendetta.

      --
      Good-bye
    115. Re:The real crime here by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Yes. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.

      The idea that ANY one would actually PAY for a cam in this day and age is simply beyond belief. You gotta wonder if they are using some creative version of the terms "pay", "commerce" and "commercial use".

      The relevant legal definitions may look like nothing we would recognize.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    116. Re:The real crime here by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      You want justice? Ha ha ha. Keep on wanting. That's a rare thing in this life. The best we can hope for is some measure of punishment. But to expect it to happen, much less expect justice, is a fools errand.

    117. Re:The real crime here by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Surely community service would create the same deterrence and benefit society more than rewarding him with free room and board and medical care at the taxpayer's expense?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    118. Re:The real crime here by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but i will never support putting people in cages for 'stealing' intellectual property, EVER. Copyright is a social bargain, and the other side has taken FAR too many liberties. Lets not make it any easier for them. WE are in a golden age of culture generation right now, there is no social need for such strong IP protections.

      --
      Good-bye
    119. Re:The real crime here by taustin · · Score: 1

      Or someone who no longer has a legitimate bank account or job decides to take up crime as a career instead of a hobby.

    120. Re:The real crime here by taustin · · Score: 1

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

      Fair? Put fair aside a moment. What will the result of putting him in prison be? Will it improve society in any way? Odds are sharply against it.

      Depends on whether or not you consider a deterrent to criminal copyright infringement an improvement. This being Slashdot, discouraging crime that let's them get free stuff is, of course, evil, bad, and totally unacceptable. But normal people might not agree.

    121. Re:The real crime here by tippen · · Score: 1

      Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

      Not sure which "we" you mean, but there are plenty of parents that spank kids. It isn't pointless or counterproductive.

    122. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Sounds like you're a violent sociopath. Maybe we should cane you if you like that kind of punishment so much.

      A good beating administered by the authorities in a controlled and relatively safe environment will likely do FAR MUCH LESS damage than being locked up with animals and sociopaths for 3 years.

      You simply don't have any clue. You can't relate do doing any kind of hard time. You probably can't even relate do doing a week or a weekend in the local lockup.

      Plus you can even have a machine do it with precisely calibrated force for each stroke to maximize the pain but minimize the long term health risk. I for one, can see no downside to imbuing machines with an AI trained to inflict maximum pain on humans as it's zeroth law.

    123. Re:The real crime here by joshuao3 · · Score: 1

      I read something a few months back that really struck me. I don't recall the source, so I'll try to paraphrase to the best of my ability. The basic tenant is that punishing a crime with the intent to get back at the offender is nothing more than revenge and is not the intent of the rule of law. The rule of law is to 1) remove violent and disruptive individuals from society, 2) discourage others from perpetrating the same crime.

      In cases with violent and disruptive components, such as assault and drug dealing, it's very clear that incarceration is the best option. For non-violent crimes, such as IP theft, money laundering, etc, it's not really so clear. Since the intent this time wasn't to remove the individual from society (which I think we call can agree wasn't necessary in this case) that means that the judge somehow A) determined the value of the stolen film, B) decided that 33 months was the amount of incarceration that would discourage others from stealing the same "value" of property. The judge ruled out public service, ruled out probation, and ruled out fines as an acceptable deterrent to future offenders. While it's easy not to agree with the ruling, it takes a very good understanding of human psyche to know when a penalty is enough to discourage OTHERS from committing the same crime.

      --
      Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
    124. Re:The real crime here by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      Laws do need to be enacted to protect an entity that protect that entities investment in a project that has some form of value. Whether or not we agree that a movie the caliber of 'Fast and Furious 6' has value or not is not being debated, though personally I have my own viewpoint.

      If uploading someone else's work of 'art' means that they were financially deprived, the person putting the 'artwork' out in the public, available for free internet downloads, should be held financially responsible. That's the only way it would be possible to come close to 'justice' for the aggrieved party.

      Community service is all well and good, and a lesser form of punishment. However, the injured party has not in any way been made 'whole' by the offender performing community service.

    125. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is bothering to upload a camrip. Just wait for a DVD release or at least a leaked screener copy!

      why is this funny?

      It's true!

      At least if it's a cam then it had better be a good one with sync'd up audio and a steady shot. SHEESH. At what point when you're posting crap cams is it just bragging that "I snuck into a movie theater with my 10 year old camcorder and filmed it from under my coat, tee hee."

      If you are buds with a projectionist then on the overnight showings he'll let you sneak into the projection booth and set up a HD cam right next to the projector and you might be able to get a good recording of the audio onto mini disk or some high quality format to dub in later.

      Not that I know anything about bootlegging at all. I don't.

    126. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I take it that you believe that people who commit tax fraud should not go to jail either?

      No, they should have to work for the IRS customer service desk helping people in person with their 1040 questions until the fraud debt is repaid, plus a reasonable administrative fee. If they violate that specific court order, then they can go to jail for contempt.

      Also, jail/prison should not be synonymous with rape. That is extra-judicial punishment and turning a blind eye towards it (much less encouraging it) lead to a more savage society, especially when you put non-rapists in with rapists, or murderers who become rapists while in prison to exert what little control over their lives they have.

    127. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot

      6: Legalized abortion

    128. Re:The real crime here by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      At the bottom of the reference I linked to, they mention that there are conspiracy theorists that say that Lay faked his death and he's still alive.

      I got a fake I just made it up conspiracy theory. His heirs killed him by inducing a heart attack because they knew him dying before appeal would complicate the civil suits so they might be able to force settlement and keep more of the inheritance. That seems much more plausible than he faked his own death. But like I said I just made it up so it's probably not true.

    129. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they should have caned him. 33 months in prison is stupid. Beat him 40 times and send him home.

      uh...shouldn't that be more like 700,000 strokes with the cane? Just sayin'

    130. Re:The real crime here by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

      I don't think people are recognizing that 33 months is a light sentence. The jury definitely shaved off a few months beneath what they would have handed down if he had been found guilty of pirating Fast 5. That movie was exponentially better than #6.

    131. Re:The real crime here by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Seriously? spanking kids can be productive. It is just like anything else in this world, punishment is not a one size fits all.
      I respond well to physical punishment because i am not very tolerant to pain. So when I got spanked / wooden spooned, I wouldn't do it again because I didn't want the pain. Send me for a "timeout" big whoop-de-do I didn't find it as a punishment at all and would be at it again within 5 minutes of me being out of a timeout.
      Where as my friend was complete opposite, spanking just made him furious and would make him lashout more, but giving him a timeout made him completely obedient.

    132. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage)

      Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

      I'm sorry that was a bad example, if their conned out of the money they have only themselves to blame. And these assholes to do this on a daily bases, IE, the house crash, and other financial markets, bla bla ect. And yet BOTH the con artists, and politicians, feds that were bought off by financial institutions to put in loopholes and other "incentives" that allowed these crashes and other market cons to take place should be executed. Why allow more tax payers money to be wasted on these idiots by throwing them into club fed, or a state prison.

    133. Re:The real crime here by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Ownership is not the same as monopoly. Do you have a monopoly on the money in your wallet? If I can get my hands on it does that mean I have a moral right to keep it?

    134. Re:The real crime here by tomhath · · Score: 1

      I just hope the unthinkable never happens, and somebody who doesn't have a legitimate bank account and job suddenly decides to be a ciminal!

      Well, if anyone had RTFA, the perp is quoted as saying this:

      Also what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome.

    135. Re:The real crime here by schlachter · · Score: 2

      obviously your a shill for the cane industry...

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    136. Re:The real crime here by schlachter · · Score: 1

      I think most people would choose to be caned 40 times over going to jail for 33 months...assuming that the caning won't do any permanent damage, perhaps aside from scaring.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    137. Re:The real crime here by nukenerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate." In other words, you can't imprison the dead man to punish him .. but his family can be punished by having money and property taken away from them through the civil courts.

      It is not punishing his family. It is restoring them to the status they would have been in if the culprit had not committed his crime. Which is as it should be.

    138. Re:The real crime here by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I meant limited monopoly. That is no kind of special privilege that should be leveraged to throw people away in jail. And if you look at the way these limited monopolies have been used. They aren't so limited. Take for example the happy birthday song.

      Give me a break. It's a monopoly on the right to distribute a certain resource. Even though that resource is technically supposed to be a specific set of information.

      A monopoly is a monopoly. And humans are humans and they try to control all the things. :( grow up AC

    139. Re:The real crime here by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      So... further more philosophically, we shouldn't be granting this kind of power to individuals, none-the-less crazy non-person institutions.

    140. Re:The real crime here by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Are you on some kind of drugs?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    141. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you're trying to be sarcastic, but so much of that is stupid that I can't tell which parts you're trying to be sarcastic about and which parts you actually believe. Are you saying that selling weed is violent? Or that one can survive entirely within a black market (including medical care and employment)?

    142. Re:The real crime here by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Wait... is this in lieu of 'Federal pound you in the ass' prison? ;)

      --
      Loading...
    143. Re:The real crime here by trawg · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone here disagrees that what he did was wrong and he should be punished - certainly most of the comments I've seen agree with that.

      I think most people just disagree with the severity of the sentence - jail time for a single instance of copyright infringement just seems completely disproportionate. Putting him in jail costs a fortune - thanks, privatised prisons - and doesn't seem to do much for rehabilitation (in many cases, doing the exact opposite).

      Extensive fines, community service, etc - there are other options.

    144. Re:The real crime here by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Why is the idea of rehabilitation a nice 'secondary goal' to the primary goal of stopping the person from committing crimes? By forcibly incarcerating someone, you accept responsibility for what happens to them during their incarceration as well as their attitude afterwards. If you fail to even consider providing incentives or starting any kind of positive feedback loops for good behaviors for those you've restrained, then you fail to live up to your goal of stopping the person from committing crimes. Oh, you get a few months or years respite from them while they're in jail, but unless you plan to keep them locked up for even the pettiest of "uncomfortable crimes" such as burglary, then they WILL be released in time.

      Tailoring the punishments to assistance to not commit crimes, even if that assistance means a support group for someone who's lonely and steals something to get attention instead of jail, you gain real improvements in peoples lives. It is called the 'Department of Corrections' for a reason. Perhaps it's time we started correcting the issue instead of just shutting them away.

    145. Re:The real crime here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Actually most crimes are not prevented or thwarted by jail or excess sentencing. The reason is that those committing crimes aren't considering the risk or consequence of their actions.

      Paraphrasing that : "Most burglars who break down my door are not stopped by my door". Brilliant.

      How do you know how many crimes are prevented by the threat of jail? You imply yourself that those not committing crimes are considering the risk. Despite considering myself a moderate person, I am sure that I would have committed a few "crimes" in my life if there were no risk of punishment, so I have taken the risk into account, and I am sure I am not alone.

    146. Re:The real crime here by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      Then jail him for the burglary, not for his drug usage.

    147. Re:The real crime here by Nethead · · Score: 1

      You simply don't have any clue. You can't relate do doing any kind of hard time.

      Yes I can. I did about the same amount for stealing long distance calling from Sprint using a C64.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    148. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is mixing apples and oranges. A financial adviser taking your parents retirement is theft, they are depriving your parents of their money. Making a copy of something without the permission of the content creator is not theft, no one is deprived of real property, which is why copyright infringement is supposed to be a civil law issue. Sounds like you drank the Kool-aid the media companies have been putting out about copyright being theft.
      I do think this guy crossed the line when he made physical copies and sold them though because he likely made a profit from the copies, an action which does deprive the original content owner of a potential sale.

    149. Re:The real crime here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

      The trouble with that is that it requires huge administration and monitoring. Where is this army of officials who are going to stand over these penitent offenders mowing lawns and sweeping streets, to ensure that they don't just bugger off home or, worse, back to their usual haunts and gang? Prison is efficient in that a small number of jailers can oversee a couple of magnitudes higher number of prisoners. Jeez, we are told that even that is expensive.

      Yes, it is cheaper still just to tell an offender to go and sweep the streets, but unless he is monitored he will just laugh as soon as he gets round the corner, and all the way home too.

      Actually, cons were once made to do useful work. Typically they were made to break up stones in quarries. But earnest activists declared that it was inhumane.

    150. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah they have to give him a medal! Watching that movie takes courage.

    151. Re:The real crime here by Amtrak · · Score: 2

      Advancements in medicine (drugs) have reduced crime (they have almost eliminated the need for insane asylums)

      Tell that to all the homeless schizophrenics on the street due to deinstitutionalization. We have not eliminated the need for forced institutionalization we have limited it some but mental health is a seriously neglected part of american society. Here's a less sensational article if you don't like the other one.

    152. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rrrright, because free vs rising costs year over year are the only options. Talk about a false dichotomy. The reality is that copyright enforcement has gone way too far in favor of one side to the detriment of society as a whole. That doesn't mean stealing is okay but its an awful lot like the old days when stealing meant getting your hands chopped off. I had thought we progressed beyond that point but there are many people still arguing for it. Someone getting 33 years for this is a bit much. Of course I'm sure it is aggravated by the fact that he kept doing it even after he was caught, still, 33 years seem a bit much.

    153. Re:The real crime here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      If a financial crime is committed, then the punishment should be financial in nature. So take away all the criminals possessions and pay restitution to his victims.

      You are new at this crime busines aren't you. Criminals tend to have no posessions. I was one of several involved in a fraudster being taken to court. Everything about him was in the style of a wealthy man - drove a up market car, had a big house in the best part of town etc. But it turned out he owned nothing . Everything you saw about him belonged to his wife, as she testified. The crime did not, it seemed, qualify for a jail sentence (as some guys here will be delighted to learn), so the guy walked free and unscathed.

    154. Re:The real crime here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      I assume we're only talking about non-violent criminals, in which case the money has to be somewhere.

      Try to find it though.

    155. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you look at the details:

      1 - he was caught
      2 - he didn't stop doing it after being told to
      3 - when they took him to court, he pissed the judge off. Excessively.

      I suspect that most of that 33 months is for acting like an arrogant piss-artist in the dock....

    156. Re:The real crime here by kuzb · · Score: 1

      >true violence and possibly vendetta.

      As opposed to that "fake violence" when you hit him?

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    157. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the world is this insightful? I know people that have done a weekend in local lockup. It's not fun but certainly not as bad as "a good beating administered by the authorities in a controlled and relatively safe environment." How can you even for a moment sanction behavior like that? You're ok with "authorities" like that?

      Does hard time suck? I'm sure it does but the answer isn't to act like savages and beat someone with a stick. You are the person that doesn't have a clue and probably never will. I'm embarrassed to be of the same species.

    158. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that you think making people go to a work camp and slaving away for the public is a better thing than just locking them up. You speak of archaic thinking, but want to bring back slavery. Only difference is your slavery will be about committing crimes instead of skin color (although socio-economic conditions in the US make the two rather related)

    159. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't the GP.

    160. Re: The real crime here by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      It's really torture. You are torturing a person for close to 3 years by locking them in a cage with violent criminals. I have heard jail stories from dudes who did time for various crimes. Bottom line: you don't ever want to be in jail, even for a day of you aren't street hardened and can't fight.

    161. Re:The real crime here by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen. The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter.

      That might be what you want to believe, but it's not true.

      "Both men pleaded guilty to charges of committing offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988."

      It's criminal law. Legally, the mistake he made was selling copies. Yes, selling things you don't own is fraud and fraud is a crime.

      The common sense errors he made were selling the copies (at £1.50 each) via facebook, and using the same username for both the torrent uploads, and online profiles such as the plentyoffish dating website, which made it trivial to trace him.

    162. Re:The real crime here by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If one is opposed to confinement in a cage for nonviolent crimes, then why should one go to jail for contempt? That's a non-violent crime too.

    163. Re:The real crime here by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone here disagrees that what he did was wrong and he should be punished...

      For what this person is accused of (distributing information contrary to censorship laws), even fines and community service would be disproportionately severe. Social responses are fine, up to and including complete ostracism—people have the right to do that anyway without any special justification. He can be barred from the theater, or even all theaters, if they so choose; if he agreed to a deposit or performance bond in exchange for his ticket then that would obviously be forfeit. However, as he has infringed on no one else's legitimate property rights, his own remain inviolate.

      The proportional response for a deliberate violation of anothers' rights is that you lose any claim to those specific rights. The murderer forfeits his own right to life; the thief cannot complain when others take "his" property. The proportionate response to copyright infringement is merely that the offender can no longer claim copyright. But unlike self-ownership, and to a lesser extent property rights, copyright is asymmetric, favoring some and harming others. For most, giving up any claim to it is a reasonable price for not being subject to others' claims.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    164. Re:The real crime here by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing what the "real crime" is here, but here is the source of the injustice:

      According to many studies over 15+ years, the vast majority of downloads are people who never would have paid to go see the movie in the first place.

      Accounting for this, then: if 700,000 downloaded the movie, that probably means (very roughly) 700 lost ticket sales. If a ticket sale is £5 (five pounds if Slashdot doesn't reproduce that character correctly) then after all was said and done, the movie studios might have actually lost about £700 total.

      They can't try to claim they lost the whole office box price for every download. That's so overblown as to be nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

    165. Re:The real crime here by xevioso · · Score: 1

      " If they continue to do so anyhow, the government will shut them down by force."

      Thanks for validating my argument. At the end of the day, the government must ultimately be able to respond to white collar crime with force.

    166. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or his death was faked. Note the insistence on a closed-casket funereal (for a non-traumatic death?) and just how conveniently it was scheduled.

      Also note that he was a great pal of a) a sitting U.S. President, b) A previous U.S. President, and c) the ex-director of the CIA (b and c are the same person).

      And he had a fortune in the bank.

      So yeah. If anyone got away with faking a death, it was Ken Lay.

      AC

    167. Re:The real crime here by gnupun · · Score: 1

      what exactly is copyright if not a monopoly concerning an intellectual product?

      The same kind of monopoly a car owner gets after paying for his car? (Do non-owners have the right to a joyride without the owner's permission?) In this case, the copyright holder has the monopoly because he paid hundreds of millions for the creation of the content and therefore has a lot of rights in controlling it.

      a person is given singular and absolute control over distribution - hows does this differ from a monopoly?

      BTW, calling it just a monopoly is completely wrong without saying it's a monopoly of what? Is it a monopoly of racing movies? No, there are dozens/hundreds of other such movies. So, where exactly is that monopoly that you claim is stifling?

    168. Re:The real crime here by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2

      People like you are the reason we build prisons in the first place.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    169. Re:The real crime here by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is not punishing his family. It is restoring them to the status they would have been in if the culprit had not committed his crime.

      That's not necessarily true. While his children may have benefited from growing up in a home with extra money, they are likely not benefiting from that money anymore (that source dried up a long time go), and taking their property does nothing but punish them for the acts of their father.

      You believe it is appropriate to punish the children of a criminal when the criminal himself is no longer available for your revenge? Would you be receptive to someone who knocked on your door with a confiscation notice for your car because your father stole $100 from someone 20 years go and your father isn't around to be punished, so you must be in his place? How many generations would it take before the father's crimes would be cleared from the blood of the progeny?

    170. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punishment as a deterrent works on the assumption that people are criminal by nature; That the only thing preventing complete anarchy is fear of the consequences should we be caught. However, that hasn't been my experience. It seems to me that overwhelmingly people, in general, want to avoid causing suffering to other people. Many people are even willing to suffer a little themselves rather than causing suffering in someone else.

      In my experience mentally sound individuals commit crimes usually to relieve themselves of some perceived suffering (I need money to eat) or because they believe no one is actually going to suffer as a result (selling bootlegs of a movie taken with a camera phone). There are also crimes of passion in which a normally sound individual is temporarily made unsound by emotional stress and then there are those who are just wired wrong (psychopaths and sociopaths, for the most part). The probable punishment for the crime isn't going to enter into the equation for the first or the third category (which makes up the vast majority of criminal acts). The criminally insane aren't going to become productive, caring members of society because they're afraid of jail (or even death), they're still going to be criminally insane. The second category might be influenced by the threat of punishment but in reality he's going to weigh it against his odds of getting caught and his probable reward for performing the criminal activity. If he does get caught then spending time in jail is, statistically, going to make him more likely to commit an even bigger crime down the road (often the kind where other people do get hurt).

      Humans are social animals. We've always existed in packs and, as a result, we're wired to care about the other members of our community. We need to recognize that most crime is born of necessity and bad wiring and begin to address the issues that might make crime seem necessary and to provide treatment for the bad apples in order to significantly reduce criminal acts. We've been using punishment as a deterrent for at least a thousand years and it hasn't had a lot of effect. Education, improving quality of life (especially at the bottom rung) and advances in medicine have reduced crime significantly and repeatedly over the last millennium.

    171. Re: The real crime here by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with creation and distribution of the new copies.

      The copyright holder cannot tell you what you can do with the copies once legally obtained. There is no control of downstream use, barring copying.

      It is a monopoly in every sense of the word, and furthermore, that's the correct word to use.

    172. Re:The real crime here by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting that there are victims of crimes, and those victims have a right to justice, and part of justice involves incarcerating people for certain crimes.

      "Justice" is a societal construct. 500 years ago, "justice" for the crime of theft was often losing a hand (it still is in some societies). 300 years ago in UK, "justice" for petty theft was hanging. 50 years ago, "justice" for having sex in private with a person of the same gender was up to 10 years in prison in some US states.

    173. Re:The real crime here by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Yes, money was being stolen. Probably not as much as the studio argued but it was being stolen. If you actually had job that involved creating anything, you would not be so dismissive of IP theft.

    174. Re:The real crime here by dnavid · · Score: 1

      And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

      So if I steal a hundred million dollars, the absolute worst case punishment I could receive in Anonymous Coward-ville is a billion years of community service? That's a better risk/reward ratio than any business opportunity I've ever been presented with. I'm in.

    175. Re:The real crime here by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      You have a point, but I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Lay case involved someone dying soon after conviction, so the money could have been pulled back quickly. OTOH, if his family had managed to blow it all in a few weeks, perhaps with the aim of making it inaccessible, then I would have no sympathy with them anyway.

      Someone coming for $100 after 20 years is possible but unlikely - an edge case.

    176. Re:The real crime here by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The Lay case involved someone dying soon after conviction, so the money could have been pulled back quickly.

      He was convicted more than four years after he left Enron. From the wiki:

      Investors lost billions of dollars. Before Lay was put on trial he was estimated to have a gross wealth of approximately 40 million US dollars. It is believed that most of it was spent on his legal defense.

      So, out of billions that investors lost (mostly to other people, not to Lay), Ken Lay had at most 40 million and actually much much less. That leaves very little for the "two children, three stepchildren, and twelve grandchildren". And wife.

      So where did the money go? Did the family "blow it all in a few weeks"? No, the money went from one investor to another, from employees hoping to cash in big to stockholders who sold at inflated prices. Did either side in that do anything illegal? Not if it was Lay that was distorting the market and making some money, while the others went along for the ride. (You sold a house near the peak of the housing bubble for what it was appraised at. Two months later the value drops. Are you guilty of fraud?)

      So, how do you fairly pull billions of dollars out of a family whose patriarch started with only $40 million before the lawyers hoovered it up into their pockets?

      And "quickly"? Remember, he had been convicted but still had a full appeals process open to him. Had he lived, he had probably a full decade of appeals to go through. Because he didn't live and he didn't get the chance to appeal, the convictions have to be vacated. That leaves the civil courts with lawsuits filed against people for money they never saw, who didn't commit a crime other than be related to Ken Lay, (some only by marriage), who no longer has a criminal conviction to be used as evidence IN that civil process.

      I think "quickly" is a rather odd word to use for the decades of legal battles that would result from such a situation. And to be fair, you'd have to go after so many innocent parties to recover that it would be 1) a nightmare and 2) an economic powderkeg. How many retirement funds sold Enron stock because it was high and there was a demand? I dunno. They're all beneficiaries of the acts of Ken Lay, shouldn't they be sued, too?

    177. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out, "break the law and take precautions not to get caught."

      I'm Anonymous Coward because REASONS.

    178. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The real crime here is Fast & Furious 6 showing at all. Or being filmed in their first place.

    179. Re:The real crime here by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      The monopoly is that only you get to sell that particular movie. So, you have a monopoly on the market for that individual movie.

      People with all sorts of different views on copyright refer to the construct as a statutory monopoly. Stop being silly.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    180. Re:The real crime here by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      At some point the threat of jail time for people responsible for certain actions is a necessity.

      I agree that force is necessary, but I disagree that jailtime is always the ultimate expression of that force. So, I suppose thanks for forgetting what the focus of your argument was.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    181. Re:The real crime here by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      It's often possible to get a judge to pierce through shams like that. Not saying it was in that case. But sometimes.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    182. Re:The real crime here by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The problem with trying to limit something to being a civil offense is that there is an assumption that the civil fine will be paid. Fail to pay and you're now in contempt of court or worse, heading toward or in the realm of criminal law.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    183. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >FAR MUCH LESS

    184. Re:The real crime here by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      In that case your comment would be accurately defined as a 'straw man' as it did not relate to the incident in question. The counter comment brought it back in line to what actually occurred and 'OH no what about the Wookies" means nothing. It is a civil matter and as such should have only been treated in the civil courts. The actual action only fully demonstrates the current corruption of democracies and the justice system by psychopathic corporate executives.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    185. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not in jail for recording a movie; he's in jail for distributing copies and selling them. Selling copies isn't a civil offense; it's a crime. And did you miss the part where he kept selling and distributing even after his arrest? I have pretty liberal views on file sharing, but this guy was asking for it.

      No, not even that.

      He's in jail for interrupting a man's livelihood.

      You, Ferris Bueller's Day Off and all that?

      The folks making a good livelihood at entertain, natural resource extraction or defense contracting do not take lightly an interruption of their livelihood, no matter how light hearted, conscientious or inconsequential in the larger scheme.

    186. Re: The real crime here by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      Fake violence, like two guys punching it out, clearing the air and getting on with no lasting harm and no festering resentment.

      As opposed to real violence, involving weapons, maiming and death.

      Punch out your neighbor. Maybe you'll end up friends afterwards.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    187. Re:The real crime here by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The monopoly is that only you get to sell that particular movie.

      If someone created that commercial movie, of course, they're are going to want to sell it. Who else, besides the owner, should have a right to sell movie tickets or DVDs for that movie? Pirates? Consumers? Who's being silly now?

      That's like complaining that a donut-shop's owner has a monopoly to sell his donuts? Who else should have the rights?

    188. Re:The real crime here by Jhon · · Score: 1

      " The reason is that those committing crimes aren't considering the risk or consequence of their actions"

      This is silly. Your basic premise is that "threat of jail isn't considered by those committing crimes" means that it doesn't prevent ANYONE from committing crimes. By your own reasoning, you've expunged the entire population of those who aren't committing crimes without questioning if their "crime free" state was at all influenced by the threat of jail. *BOGGLES*.

      Example: A monster (they exist -- and the scary part is they look just like us) kidnapped my daughter and did horrific things to her. Trust me, the ONLY thing keeping me from committing murder is that one day I won't be available to walk my daughter down the isle* as I'll be behind bars. This is an extreme example, but how many people WOULD steal (or worse) if the KNEW there wouldn't be anyone coming for them?

      *My daughter was recovered and the monster is getting ready to go to trial.

    189. Re:The real crime here by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did read the summary. That's why I know that the HEADLINE, which is what I specifically referred to, is a BARE FACED LIE.

      You're not stating anything in disagreement with me, you're just hand waving to make it look like you are.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    190. Re:The real crime here by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      when are you moving to ISIS?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    191. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said elsewhere, that financial crimes ARE violent crimes. You'll find that my posts, at least, are remarkably consistent.

    192. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pussy.

    193. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decrimiailize all non violent crime?
      Fraud
      Burglary
      Grafitti

    194. Re:The real crime here by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 2

      > If someone created that commercial movie, of course, they're are going to want to sell it. Who else, besides the owner, should have a right to sell movie tickets or DVDs for that movie? Pirates? Consumers? Who's being silly now?

      Still you :)

      The donut analogy fails because other people can sell donuts that look and taste exactly like the donut shop owner's donuts. This is normal competition and is a good thing. If the donut owner has some patented formula where only he can sell specific types of donuts, that's a statutory monopoloy again, but it's a patent monopoly, so let's focus on copyright.

      As far as "who else should have the rights?", let's start with noting that, in the absence of copyright, everyone would have the rights to create and sell copies of the work. For works that are sufficiently old, this is what happens, with the result that you can pick up the complete works of Shakespeare for $3.99 off Amazon (fake example don't ask me for a link). All of society benefits from these lower prices, much more than societies benefit from cheap donuts because donuts are bad for you and lead to obesity and other health problems.

      Of course, the problem with zero copyright is that the creators don't get paid and, therefore, many people who would create copyrighted works if they could monopolize the sales of them will instead choose not to create copyrighted works. There are a number of ways to resolve this. One way would be just having the government directly pay people to write books, paint artwork, and make movies. There are problems with that. Another way is copyright. There are also problems with that.

      All in all, I think giving copyright owners some type of time-limited monopoly over their works is a good idea. So, to answer, "Who should have the rights?", I'd answer, "the creator only for about 20 years, and then everyone". It's not that copyright is bad -- it's a creative solution to a real problem. The issue is that right now, copyright lasts for 70 years past the death of the author. That's too damn long: most copyrighted works make a lot of money at first, and then revenue goes way down, so, pretty soon after the work is released, we could expire copyright on it and the creators wouldn't lose much, but society would gain quite a bit. 20 years is plenty of time for Marvel to recoup its costs for all their big-budget movies about buff men with giant, magical hammers.

      But, like I said before, my opinions on copyright aren't really relevant to whether copyright is a monopoly. It is, and it is so described. This is true no matter what you think of it.

      ---linuxrocks123

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    195. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they should have caned him. 33 months in prison is stupid. Beat him 40 times and send him home.

      That

      is called being Taliban

    196. Re: The real crime here by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Nothing against you, mate. Just yelling at the unjust universe.

    197. Re: The real crime here by arwel · · Score: 1

      The bloke was an idiot. Apart from camcordering a movie in a theatre rather than pirating a better-quality DVD, he was stupid enough to continue selling copies after he'd been arrested and showed his contempt for the legal system, showing no (not even fake) remorse. He was asking to have the book thrown at him, and it was. Anyway, this is Britain we're talking about - even though he was sentenced to 33 months, if he's a good boy in prison he'll be automatically paroled after half the sentence is served.

    198. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll be automatically paroled after 16.5 months anyway, if he behaves himself in prison.

    199. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much money in prisoners. That's why they are full. Cha-ching.

    200. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try Montana Power as a better example. People relied on pensions they didn't get.

    201. Re:The real crime here by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Everything being "free" is not the issue at all, you obviously have not been paying attention.

      People actually paid money for a hard copy cam-recorded version of the flick. That really surprises me, and it should cause the movie industry to question some very basic assumptions people make.

      The film industry no long has the option of being able to control and restrict access to it's products; at one time they could create a product and say this is what it costs, in this/these forms, and if you want it you have to go here or here to get it in only this/these forms for this price.

      But people don't care if the flick is in ultra high res on DVD or IMAX, they just want to watch it at their own leisure on their PC monitor or whatever, they don't even care if the quality of it is really great, and when it comes down to paying what the industry demands for it in just the form they've made available, or simply watching a less high quality version of it for a reduced price or for free, it is obvious what people are going to do.

      The obvious solution would be for the industry to grow up and spend less money on attorneys, and more effort on making their product available in all the forms potential customers want it in for a reasonable price for those forms.

      I've yet to see any proof the music or film industries have lost a dime from the enormous amount of free PR their products get. Quite the contrary. Given this, THAT is why people here find the prosecution of people and the long prison sentences outright ineffectual and offensive. Because it serves no purpose. You are not deterring anybody; the imprisonment of people is just costing us all a fortune. Which would be OK if it made any discernible difference in pirating materials - which it does not.

      In essence, the state is being used to persecute the public and to steal FROM the public in order to permit industries to continue to fail to produce and distribute the products they have efficiently in the forms that people want.

      So you just keep missing the point yourself and keep clinging to the idea that this is a simple matter of criminal activity for profit. You're a sucker for sticking-up for a system set-up to put people in prison for years and paying for their imprisonment just to make some scumbag lawyers rich.

    202. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screeners for profit, really..? And how do you expect that to have worked out?

    203. Re:The real crime here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Who said prison sentences are supposed to improve society?

      You and I are paying for them, and as such we ought to demand it. Otherwise, it's just throwing good money after bad.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    204. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of childish, romantic view of violence is held exclusively by those who have absolutely no experience with it.

      Go on, embarrass yourself further by trying to pretend you're a real tough guy.

    205. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a product of public education to have come up with that logical non-sequitur. First of all, confinement is not violent. Second of all, theft on a large scale, such as he was convicted of, merits at least as much punishment as a common burgler.

    206. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't going, but the idiot decided to flout the authorities after he was raided and not prosecuted. He deserves everything that he's getting now.

    207. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comment of the year, thanks! ;-)

    208. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you watch too many movies. You do know that is it easy to kill or permanently harm someone just by punching them, right?

    209. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure .... in a fair and free market. IP laws are far, far from fair. The public's domain has been basically stolen from under you. Well done folks.

    210. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is probably why, after due deliberation, the initial copyright term was a reasonable seven years.

      Corporations have a lot of influence evidently and are reaping the rewards.

    211. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/justice/revenge. I think that's what you really meant to say here, because that's all it is about at that point in time if the "victim" has the right to incarcerate a "perp" without any concern whatsoever of making the "perp" a functional member of society once again.

    212. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the beating he deserved but the one he needed. See YouTube college humor batman questions the joker.

    213. Re: The real crime here by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Agreed, 7 years and the power to seek reparation or damages. Not 33 years in prison and a lifetime of renewing the same old bullshit over and over by repurchasing and re branding and extending and lobbying.

      I never said it was wrong to have a monopoly. Just that these monopolies have created powerful beasts which are seeking to further erode and destroy the rights of others.

    214. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which he then pawns for money to fuel his "victimless" meth habit.

      Are you arguing that this anecdote is an example of how drugs like meth should be criminalized? Taking meth itself is a victimless habit. People can commit crimes like robbery/muggings for any kind of habit. For alcohol, for cigarettes, for a new iPhone, for food, does that mean all of these things should be illegal as well? Addiction is a medical problem and should be treated as such. Crimes related to addiction are still crimes in their own right and can be pursued as such without the coloring lens of whatever it is that led them to commit the crime in question.

    215. Re:The real crime here by Optali · · Score: 2

      Indeed. No objection to that.

      I indeed believe in the right to personal vengeance: Victims or families of victims of crimes or offences should be entitled to avenge such acts: The victim of a scam should be entitled to kick the scammer in the balls (or something like that) and the victims or family of rape or murder should be entitled to physically punish or kill the culprit. Why not?

      Why is the state the only one with a permission to act as a proxy in these matters?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    216. Re:The real crime here by Optali · · Score: 1

      It would escalate anyway, even if you call the cops. I assume that your neighbour is smart enough to know that it's you who called the cops, right?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    217. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you wonder why you can't get laid.

    218. Re:The real crime here by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

      During much of history, gross stupidity was a death sentence.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    219. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really??? How far did you get in your education? What social responsibility do you acknowledge?

    220. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you wonder why I can...

    221. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, in the same sense that I wonder why Stephen Hawking always takes first place in the Boston Marathon every year.

    222. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know shit. There are more than 70 notches on my belt. If I don't get laid as often these days, it's because most women aren't in it for the long haul, and meaningless sex has become boring. If I can't look down on her face and imagine her as the mother of my child, I don't want to fuck her. Doesn't stop women from trying... I've got a reputation, and they all want to come for a ride.

      Now, go back to your moms basement and play your video games like a good little troll.

    223. Re:The real crime here by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Jail time has always served multiple purposes.

      1. Justice - for the victim(s)
      2. Deterrent - for possible future criminals
      3. Punishment - for the criminal
      4. Prevention - protection from repeat crimes.
      5. Rehabilitation - for the criminal

      The extent to which each of those 5 are accomplished by jail time, and the extent to which each of those is valuable to the public, the victim, and the criminal, are often debated.

    224. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If any of that was true, you wouldn't be such a needy and insecure little twat that you feel the need to brag about it.

      You are screaming in impotent rage as you read this, because you're being forced to face the fact that everyone can tell what a pathetic loser you are and always will be.

    225. Re: The real crime here by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      No, just lying in bed, working from home at my highly paid job, wondering when it was that slashdot got so lame. Used to be people came back with facts. Or counter arguments. Or opinions of their own. Or experiences of their own.

      But it's been reduced to the point where the only opposition I ever get to my statements is from idiots who try to paint me as something I'm not and attack that. It's sad. You're sad.

      I'm everything I ever said that I was. My life is stranger than fiction most of the time anyway, I have no need to lie to get people excited.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    226. Re: The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would not have reacted with that puerile little tantrum if I hadn't touched a nerve. And the only possible reason for that is if I was perfectly spot-on in everything I said. QED.

    227. Re:The real crime here by Yehzo · · Score: 1

      Yes he committed a crime and was dumb enough to not take the first warning which would have had him on his way however, 33 months for selling a pirated movie is a bit rough. They should have fined him a set price for each download, gave him at most 6 months, some probation and then sent him on his way. Almost 3 years for recording and selling a screen rip, thats just something else.

    228. Re: The real crime here by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      > Fake violence, like two guys punching it out, clearing the air and getting on with no lasting harm and no festering resentment.

      A punch can bring serious injury or death. It's serious business, and the law recognizes it as such.

      If someone won't stop punching you, people who carry weapons can use them in their defense.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    229. Re:The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reach in my bank account. I'll show you how a non-violent guy instantaneously has the capacity to kill.

      I had someone reach over state lines to enforce a lien because my bank had a branch in my old state. The bank blacked out the info so I could not see who ordered it or who did it. They took every penny I had over a back bill+attorney's fees that I DISPUTED. Because I left the state they took the opportunity to drag it to court without my knowledge.

      People very well could have died. And I wouldn't feel much remorse about it. Stealing from people is no better than jail and only appropriate if they stole the assets to begin with.

  2. Seems like they found something by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    “Also what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome. Is it simply going to be a waste of everyone’s time?” he concludes.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    1. Re:Seems like they found something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeAlso what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome. Is it simply going to be a waste of everyoneâ(TM)s time?â he concludes.

      So now he has free lodging too.

      This is as low-level crime as there is. Community service would have been better option, IMHO. There are people that murder others on the road in "accidents" because they are high or drunk and these people get much less punishment. Unless you live in a warzone, drinking under influence or distracted driving or dangerous driving is the leading cause of non-medical death. Maybe if these crimes included some jail we'll see a lower mortality rate than 1% of the population per lifetime.

    2. Re:Seems like they found something by bobbied · · Score: 2

      The MPAA can sue you, but they cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. That's just civil court though.

      Problem with this guy's story is that what he did was illegal too. It was the illegal part that got him the jail time.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Seems like they found something by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Vehicular collision, you functional retard. An "accident" implies it's nobody's fault: it disclaims moral responsibility while accepting physical culpability. It's not as if you did it by intent, so you have no moral impetus to change your behavior, and you are a victim of circumstance.

    4. Re:Seems like they found something by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Yes, people who are reckless and dangerous seem to certainly have no moral impetus. IMO people shouldn't be let off easy for those kinds of mistakes. Then again, it shouldn't be governments passing judgement on them IMO either. But that's a whole other ideological ballgame.

    5. Re:Seems like they found something by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      I think the “irony quotes” on “accident” were enough to imply GP didn’t intend to suggest DUI is actually an accidental occurrence where nobody is at fault.

      That said, agreed that community service or something that actually contributes to society makes a lot more sense than having society pay to house & feed him for (near enough to) three years, followed by pretty much ruining his ability to ever be a contributing (IE job holding & tax paying) member of society.

      You like hanging out at the movies so much? Fine. Ten hours a week scraping chewing gum off the floors and seats of every theater in town for the next three years. Seems like it should do the trick.

    6. Re:Seems like they found something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know quotes are for emphasis. Like "Genuine" leather or "Chicken" pot pie.

  3. If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?

    1. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by TWX · · Score: 1

      That depends on how one defines selling a physical copy. If he was basically just recouping the cost of the physical media and providing to known associates then it's different than if he was selling them for-profit on the street to random strangers.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by just_another_sean · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree he deserves to be punished and I get that he probably doesn't have enough money to pay a fine so it's off to the joint he goes but is 33 months really a fitting punishment here? That's almost three years of this guy's life. And the claim that "millions were lost" has been proven to be exaggerated over and over again. A download does not equal a lost sale; those that download do not buy, they simply go without. I'm not saying that makes it OK, I'm just saying the punishment does not fit the crime.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the price of the physical media, if he charged more than 15 cents each, he was making a profit off of unlawfully obtained copies of someone else's work. I do not know anyone who would demand a 15 cent compensation from friends, most people would accept it as a trivial cost between friends who probably offered more expensive resources in the past with no effort to recover the costs.

    4. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      If you are going to pirate something, release it for free.

      But if you are going to be a total scummy fuck and make money off some other persons work like that, all sympathy lost.

      The legality and morality situation of the recording in the first place is still up for debate. (as is the whole of Hollywoods legacy, but who cares about international laws)

    5. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should anyone have control over the copying industry? Free market here would be great IMO.

      I'm all for the free market but it's not the copying that is the problem. The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours
      to produce a movie and all those people want to get paid. If you made copying legal then one of 3 things happen:
      1) Noone produces movies anymore
      2) They figure out another way of paying for the movie (merchandise tie-ins, product placement, etc..)
      3) Metal detectors, etc... at the movie theatre and/or some other way of preventing copying.
      Copying is too hard to enforce and we need a better way. I don't think swat teams and prison is the answer but I
      don't really like the idea of movies being even more corrupted with advertisement either.

      artists can get payed better when not bottlenecked by shitty distributors with monopolies

      That might be so but if copying is legal then the indie film producer has the same problem. They can only sell 1 copy.
      How do you fairly compensate the people who spend the many man hours producing the movie? The movie industry
      isn't perfect by any means and there are plenty of people getting rich who maybe shouldn't but removing all copy
      protection would require movies as we currently know them to cease to exist.

    6. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you mean he stole the distributor's copies and sold them? Or wiped the original copies then sold his own?

      Or do you mean that he put a sequence of 0s and 1s in a particular order, and other people freely gave him money in exchange for a physical representation of that sequence? OH THE HUMANITY! Let's lock up the bastard and produce a costly, bitter individual, institutionalised and well-trained for real crime.

      Since we're making stupid, arbitrary protectionist laws, can we lock you up? I have no sympathy for loud idiots.

    7. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by ruir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would be fine with metal detectors at theatres. While you are at it, besides shoving down their throat one hour of adverts as it already happens, whip them too. I am not going to theatres anyway, these people do not deserve our hard earned money. As for the proceedings of the movies trickling down to actors or people, or the actual book writers, dream on, Hollywood accounting makes sure they only get a pittance.

    8. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the claim "millions were lost" is bullshit. Let's assume his physical copies he sold were valued at something reasonable, 1,000$ This would be selling 100 DVDs at 10$ each, hardly a stretch. Picking a random jurisdiction, anything over 950$ is called grand theft, which is punishable with a sentence of up to 3 years in jail. Don't get me wrong, I don't think what he was doing is stealing, I think it's criminal copyright infringement. The point is the punishment isn't out of line from what we hand out for other crimes of similar severity. Now, if it's appropriate to hand out jail time for crimes of that severity, that's a debate for another time.

    9. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by ruir · · Score: 1

      And was ripping off people, oh yeah. I completely agree with you that a 15 cents a piece, buying a DVD for between 20 - 40 Euros is a huge rip-off.

    10. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      removing all copy protection would require movies as we currently know them to cease to exist

      "as we currently know them" is the key phrase here. No one in the current production chain has any right to keep their job at everyone else's expense, any more than blacksmiths and farriers did. Now, would movies, good and bad, still get made if copying was perfectly legal? Yes, although the field would no doubt be very different than what we currently know.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    11. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is releasing it for free better?

    12. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours to produce a movie and all those people want to get paid.

      And how many of those people are actually being paid by a percentage cut from ticket/dvd sales?

    13. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, still think it's too harsh. But, no, I did not realize the threshold for grand theft was so low. Never really thought about it but if someone had asked me to guess what the threshold was I would have probably started at at least 10,000.

      Oh man, this guy is an idiot!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    14. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

      33 months prison for 'violating' an imaginary right invented by a foreign industry to increase their profits?

      What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for, just because the water company invented an unlicensed water drinking offense?

    15. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

      He had to watch Fast and Furious 6 in its entirety?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    16. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      No. They would not. Not unless you count shitty little hand held movies thrown together by a group of friends as being the best you want. The creation of good movies is simply a very expensive endeavor and even college films cost more than someone not actually in the class underwritten by the college can afford to do it. And *those* are almost exclusively horrid crap.

    17. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      I'll admit that Noone's work hasn't exactly been Oscar material, but she's pretty hot, and her producing skills might not be bad. I say it's worth a try, at least.

    18. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 1

      Nobody builds pyramids to house the bodies of dead monarchs anymore, but thousands of people flock to Egypt every year to see the old ones. I don't know about you, but I quite like big budget science fiction, fantasy and action movies. The stories are a bit dumb, but I have no doubt that without the million dollar budgets, the effects that these movies rely on to function would not be possible. Cutting out copy protection would hurt these movies the most, and I've seen indie attempts at making science fiction and fantasy movies. The writing is normally better, but the effects are almost hilariously bad, and the actors are pretty iffy as well.

    19. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by omnichad · · Score: 1

      buying a DVD for between 20 - 40 Euros is a huge rip-off.

      Not necessarily. I understand theater tickets might cover most of the costs, but a lot of movies cost $100 - $150 million to produce (sorry for USD numbers). To recoup that and then be rewarded for taking such a financial risk is not such a bad thing. Especially since you also have to cover the cost of all the flops that had to be made along the way.

    20. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The laws aren't indexed to inflation, I don't think. So it's going to be even more silly one day.

    21. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Or do you mean that he put a sequence of 0s and 1s in a particular order, and other people freely gave him money in exchange for a physical representation of that sequence?

      I hope you don't write software for a living.

    22. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      While a download might not equal a loss, a download does not therefor equal an inspired buyer. If even 1/7 of the people who got the film from him didn't see it in theatre, that would by $1million in lost revenue for the movie, but let's be honest, we all know the number of people who watched the pirate-version but not the theatre-version is much higher than 1/7.

    23. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever watched a cam copy of a movie, particulalry a fast paced action movie? They are nearly useless, at best they give you a preview of what to expect from the film (in this case the 5 previous ones from the series should have given you an idea), or let you rewatch a scene you missed when you were in front of the high res real thing the night before. Otherwise the video sucks, is blurry, lacks contrast and the color balance is off, and the sound is like listening to music over a speaker phone.

    24. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the claim that "millions were lost" has been proven to be exaggerated over and over again. A download does not equal a lost sale; those that download do not buy, they simply go without.

      Careful. You're citing U.S. court decisions that have established these precedents. This guy was in the U.K.

    25. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for the free market but it's not the copying that is the problem. The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours
      to produce a movie and all those people want to get paid.

      Whoa, brakes. You are presenting an assumption that is not true. The people that made the movie (actors, crew, etc.) got paid for that project while working on it. DVD sales and the like profit the Studios and Executive Producers (or investors) in the film and help to recoup studio costs for initial promotion of the film, producing reels for theatres (digital files now), infrstructure, etc.. Actors and some higher ups in the crew (directors, line producers, etc.) have now constructed contracts to get in on the money the Studio and Producers make off those DVD sales in order to make even more money than they did for the project itself. It's greed. Plus, the actors receive royalties every time a disc is sold or a license fee is paid for a public performance (on TV or the like) based on the number of lines they had in the film and some other criteria laid down by SAG. Trust me, they don't make a movie and not pay everyone while the movie is being made. Where do you think the budget goes for a film? Most of it goes to pay people, like any other business venture. If you're going to comment on how damaging something is to a system (like movie making) then you better have a basic understanding of how that system *actually* works.

    26. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think the real reason for jail time is that they tried to get him to stop and he just kept on with it. If he had quit it was probably only a slap on the wrist. He pissed them off and they showed him how bad it could get. I'd bet they could have gone farther if they had wanted to.

    27. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a problem with the arguments presented in this thread: existing laws against copying are almost universally ignored, so any hypothetical hand-held movie world should have already come to pass. Instead, we see that people are still paying for these movies to be made (judging by the industry's growth and continued profits), despite rampant illegitimate digital distribution. From this, we can speculate that the only real effect of legalizing digital copying would be to create fewer felons from otherwise-normal people.

    28. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by machineghost · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the only way to make money from movies is the current business model, which is a false assumption.

      If copyright in it's current form went away, movie producers would just change their business model. Maybe they'd still show movies in theatres, but they'd charge a lot extra to see the movie on the opening weekend (since after that anyone could just watch them at home). Maybe they'd add interactive features to movies so that you had to use their server to watch the movie properly. Maybe they'd just give up on making money off the movie itself, and instead make money off all the toys and McDonald's promotion deals and other tie-ins. Or maybe they'd do something entirely different that I can't think of in the two minutes it's taking me to write this.

      The point is, they'd still make money, just probably less than they do now. Would we see as many big budget films? Probably not, but who knows? After all, necessity is the mother of invention, and the safe profits of the current business model might be preventing the studios from realizing even greater profits from a future business model.

      But would the end of copyright as we know it mean the death of movies? Absolutely not: as long as their's still ways to make money off movies, and their still would be, movies would still get made.

    29. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours to produce a movie

      Hundreds of thousands, actually. Millions, in some cases. High-end movies are enormous affairs. Each of those hundreds of names in the credits got $20-$50 per hour (less for the interns) for one to two months of full time work (and often with a fair bit of overtime). It's an insane amount of work, but it's the difference between a cutesy indie film (which will still take several thousand man hours) and the real slick look of a big Hollywood movie.

    30. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the illegally-made copies have DRM, or were customers able to play them easily and legally? If he added significant value to the product (turning something useless into useful) then I could have some sympathy.

      I can work like a dog to get crude oil out of the ground, but if you need gasoline for your car, then you're going to pay a refinery, not me. And if say you shouldn't be allowed to do business with refineries, and that you should have to put crude oil into your gas tank instead, I am going to come in last place in a who-gets-sympathy contest. Both the drivers and the refineries are going to beat me.

    31. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "buying a DVD for between 20 - 40 Euros is a huge rip-off."

      Yeah. Because naming your own price is a morally acceptable argument.

      Car buyer: That mercedes S-Class sedan only cost $10,000 to make including material and labor. I'll give you $10,001.

      Car dealer: Um, no.

      Car buyer: Sweet, thanks for denying me so I can justify stealing it and sending a check for $10,000 to Mercedes Benz. Oh and I'm taking this pen too. That still leaves you guys with a 95 cent profit. Nice doing business.

    32. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours to produce a movie

      For a top-line move, this is off by several orders of magnitude.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the artists and the writers for selling themselves into the industry for that mere pittance. They didn't have to. No one forced them to go out and be actors and writers.

    34. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Instead, we see that people are still paying for these movies to be made (judging by the industry's growth and continued profits), despite rampant illegitimate digital distribution. From this, we can speculate that the only real effect of legalizing digital copying would be to create fewer felons from otherwise-normal people.

      Except that I know tons of people that don't download illegal movies. If downloading illegal movies became safe, legal, and easy then
      why would I spend $20 on a movie at walmart? The current market only continues to work because *most* people buy the majority of
      their movies. It might be "rampant" in some circles but the average person by and large still pays for movies.

    35. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by sahuxley · · Score: 2

      So we're throwing a man in prison to keep one form of entertainment flowing? That seems backwards.

    36. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for

      I don't think I'd be particularly concerned, assuming:

      • He was also charging people for that same puddle of water
      • The puddle of water was created by the water industry at great expense
      • The industry had a legal right to the puddle of water, with precedents going back centuries.
      • Drinking the water was purely for entertainment, and not a requirement for continued living

      I'm not saying 33 months isn't an excessive sentence, but you just sound dumb when you make these comparisons.

    37. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I think you are wrong to suppose you are capable of predicting what is or is not possible. History is full of examples of people figuring out ways to do things that many others dismissed as impossible. I don't know what the field might look like either.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    38. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is my point. The current business model is not the only one. Who knows, maybe they would finance the things with different merchandising deals. No single person is capable of knowing everything that is or isn't possible. How much of the cost goes into the actors salaries? I don't know, but I'll bet there is a whole lot of wiggle room there.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    39. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

      33 months prison for 'violating' an imaginary right invented by a foreign industry to increase their profits?

      What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for, just because the water company invented an unlicensed water drinking offense?

      Laugh all you want, but in the midwest that is a crime since the "Water rights" are spoken for if that isn't naturally occurring puddle. Put a bucket out in a rainstorm and you are violating water laws.
      http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html

    40. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The stories are a bit dumb, but I have no doubt that without the million dollar budgets, the effects that these movies rely on to function would not be possible. Cutting out copy protection would hurt these movies the most, and I've seen indie attempts at making science fiction and fantasy movies. The writing is normally better, but the effects are almost hilariously bad, and the actors are pretty iffy as well.

      There would be alternatives. It would be theoretically possible to crowdsource a movie (i.e. kickstarter).
      Someone big in hollywood would probably have enough clout to say "we need 20 million to produce this movie" and
      sell "tickets" on kickstarter. When/if it reaches the $20million then they produce the movie and release
      it for free on the internet. That being said, it actually might be the "little guys" that removing copy protection would
      hurt the most. Someone who already has a name could crowdsource $20million. Someone who doesn't
      have name recognition would have a much harder time "preselling" that many tickets.

    41. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      And how many of those people are actually being paid by a percentage cut from ticket/dvd sales?

      It doesn't matter. It actually makes it worse that they aren't because it increases the risk to the investor if they have to
      prepay all those services. People who invest millions in a movie are taking a risk. If the movie flops (or if everyone
      downloads it for free), then the investor is loses money and will no longer be willing to front the movie for future films
      to be made. Many people behind the scene even if given the option would rather have a steady paycheck than to risk
      working for 6 months for free.

    42. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      While it may not be set as precedent in the UK BS is BS whether it's English or American...

      But I do know what you're saying. Actually in my comment I didn't even mean to suggest the exaggeration claims were a legal defense or had been established as false by courts, I just meant it as more of a "we all know that's not true" statement.

      Do you have any sources you can point to about legal precedent being set so companies have to be more realistic/specific about damages in an infringement claim? I would genuinely be interested in reading that.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    43. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is radical thought: why not teach people that they should pay for things that they like; instead constantly encourage them to "save" money.

    44. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Trust me, they don't make a movie and not pay everyone while the movie is being made. Where do you think the budget goes for a film? Most of it goes to pay people, like any other business venture. If you're going to comment on how damaging something is to a system (like movie making) then you better have a basic understanding of how that system *actually* works.

      Of course that's how it works. I never said it wasn't but do you think the "investors" are going to keep paying everyone to
      make the movies if they don't make money on them?

    45. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fashion industry doesn't get by on copy protection: they rely on the advantage of being first to market. With a new design, you've got a monopoly for as long as it takes the first person to copy you, which is long enough to make a profit.

      Movies often make about half their profit on their opening weekend. If it takes even a couple of days for copies to hit bittorrent, they'll still make half their profit. Downsize Hollywood by a factor of two and ... would there be much difference? Would movies be noticeably less entertaining if the superstars were paid $5m for each appearance rather than $10m?

    46. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      So we're throwing a man in prison to keep one form of entertainment flowing? That seems backwards.

      Seems backwards how? Would you say the same if someone snuck into an amusement park and disabled all the rides?
      What about if that same person broke into your house and stole your dvd collection or stole all the copies of that
      movie from walmart? What about if he decided to start making copies of dollar bills instead of cds?

      Laws are designed to keep order. We have different punishments for different crimes but even "small crimes" like
      speeding can eventually land you in prison if you blatantly disregard the law. Prison is also the ultimate deterent
      for someone like this person who has "nothing to lose". You can't have a civilized society without some form of
      punishment for someone with "nothing to lose". If you don't like a law then you can work to change it or if there
      is enough disagreement then you can actively ignore like in prohibition but even in prohibition plenty of people went
      to jail before the laws were eventually reversed. The best thing to do is obey the laws until you are able to get
      them changed.

    47. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The fashion industry doesn't get by on copy protection: they rely on the advantage of being first to market. With a new design, you've got a monopoly for as long as it takes the first person to copy you, which is long enough to make a profit.

      Movies often make about half their profit on their opening weekend. If it takes even a couple of days for copies to hit bittorrent, they'll still make half their profit. Downsize Hollywood by a factor of two and ... would there be much difference? Would movies be noticeably less entertaining if the superstars were paid $5m for each appearance rather than $10m?

      You're comparing apples to oranges. The "time to market" for the fashion industry copycats is orders of magnitude longer. I can have a copy
      of a movie torrented 2 hours after the first midnight showing long before most people even watch it. To copy a dress would probably take
      several weeks minimum. There are other differences too. Coach has went on record that they don't mind copycats because it just helps
      their brand and the people buying copycats can't afford coach and the people buying coach don't want a knockoff.

    48. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "And now, Mr. Bond, I will show you the power of this fully armed and operational Weimar economy! You stole a stick of gum that only cost 950 DM? 33 MONTHS IN JAIL! Bwahahahaaa!"

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    49. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I see a fuck of a lot more millionaires in the movie industry than I do at my local garage.

      It could be coincidence, or it could be because they're still charging fifteen quid for a film released three decades ago and demanding jail time for anybody that thinks its earned them enough money already and they should be incentivised into producing something worth watching now, not Fast and Furious fucking 6.

    50. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 1

      It takes a shitload more than $20 million to make a AAA sci-fi or fantasy movie. A $20 million dollar movie that relies on special effects to keep suspension of disbelief would look pretty shit, even if bloody Meryl Streep and Colin Firth were the two mains. My point with the pyramids is exactly this, we have become accustomed to a certain level of fit and finish in the media we consume. While a lot of money that goes into the media industry might be "squandered" in the opinion of slashdot geeks, but a lot is still spent on stuff that needs buying or people that need hiring in order to keep the quality up. Like I said, I'm talking strictly about Sci Fi and Fantasy movies, which have a requirement for special effects, both on computers and in the real world, and often film in lots of diverse locations. You can't do that with a $20 million budget and still have a product that looks amazing at the premiere. You're right that the little guys won't derive much benefits from the crowdsourcing model, and that's my objection to the anti-copyright people. So you say the current system is flawed (true enough), and you want to replace it? Fine. What are you going to replace it with? A completely new system that might not even work for the media format in question? Suuuuure.

    51. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Movies are expensive to make because movies make gobs of money.

      Before there were movies (and the ability to copy them) we still had performance based entertainment but actors (and musicians) were making the same kind of money as a chimney sweep rather than being the highest paid employees in the world. Special effects used to be expensive but now you can do them on your home PC given the know how and a little time. A movie-quality camera used to be expensive but now we can do motion capture in full HD using the phone in your pocket. In truth, making a movie has never been cheaper than it is right now, unless you factor in all those salaries. The only reason all those salaries are so high is because movies make obscene amounts of money and the workers want a cut.

      Artists don't need gobs of money to produce art. They do it because they 'have to'. Admittedly if movies weren't the money making engines they are, many movies would never have been made and Michael Bay would never have gotten into directing but I don't really think we'd be much worse. Joss Whedon would still be directing. Arnold Schwratzeneger would probably never have acted but Clint Eastwood probably would have. The number and kinds of movies would be different but I'm far from convinced that what we're getting is better than the alternative. It's definitely more expensive, tho.

      "James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does to be James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because he IS James Cameron."

      - 'James Cameron', South Park

    52. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Before there were movies (and the ability to copy them) we still had performance based entertainment but actors (and musicians) were making the same kind of money as a chimney sweep rather than being the highest paid employees in the world.

      The only reason all those salaries are so high is because movies make obscene amounts of money and the workers want a cut.

      That's not exactly true. There are plenty of actors who are still willing to work for chimney sweep wages just as there are
      plenty of musicians, artists, and ball players that are willing to work for chimney sweep wages.
      The reason actors, musicians, artists, and ball players are some of the highest paid in the world is because we as a society have
      decided that we only want to watch the "best of the best". A director would love to film a film with a bunch of "cheap" actors but
      cheap actors don't do as good of a job and the producer can't splash the cheap actor's name on the trailers and posters.
      If people were willing to watch second rate actors and second rate ball players then first rate actors and ball players wouldn't
      be able to demand the huge salaries.

    53. Re: If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >1) Noone produces movies anymore

      How did obviously false statement this get moderated to +5?
      Even if making movies (or music) was illegal people would still do it because they have stories they want to tell or feelings they want to express.

      Allowing copying only makes it less profitable and forces people to find other funding.

    54. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by LienRag · · Score: 1

      How do you fairly compensate the people who spend the many man hours producing the movie?

      Patreon, or a public service equivalent.
      Once one can't find a movie that nobody has pledged for (since it hasn't been shot in the absence of pledges), even the mythical freerider will find a good reason to patron artists and projects...

    55. Re:If he sold phyiscal copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Sweden you would not have gotten 3 years even if you roadkilled someone.

  4. Don't mess with the bread and circuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is what you get if you do.

    1. Re:Don't mess with the bread and circuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what you get if you do.

      You really nailed it. "Bread and circuses", as the Romans called it, explains both of these things: The purpose of the ongoing push for harsh copyright laws, and, the reason multiple governments from various cultures have all been so willing to adopt them. The more you look at events the more you can see a definite pattern most easily explained to someone who understands the game of chess. Like Grupp pointed out, Occams Razor works for physical phenomena; social motives are generally hidden.

      Posting AC so I can mod you up. -- causality

  5. "millions and millions" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet the banksters who cost the public billions and TRILLIONS have yet to spend a single day behind bars.

    1. Re:"millions and millions" by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that just makes sense. Sure, they cost the public billions and contributed to a vast economic melt down, but they didn't violate COPYRIGHT! Priorities, people!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  6. Not smart by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

    In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

    1. Re:Not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

      In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

      And ran a few red lights as well.

    2. Re:Not smart by anotheregomaniac · · Score: 2

      This is an example of proper use of the automobile analogy.

    3. Re:Not smart by fermion · · Score: 1
      Clearly he is engaged in unlawful behavior, and is does not seem to make rational decisions, but there are other ways to handle this that would not incur a great cost on society. For instance,ban him from seeing movies. Ban him from logging onto the internet. Put him under house arrest. Yes, he would fight against this, because clearly he wants to escalate. But then he would be put in jail for being a bad citizen, not because some corporation feel they have an entitlement to profit.

      In the US we are increasingly paying to incarcirate poor people who make one or two poor choices and don't have the money to buy their way out like others. The assumption is increasingly that one can make poor choices, such as drugs, as long as you are wealthy enough to pay for it. OTOH, if you don't have the cash, you go to jail, and incur an average of $30,000 cost to they taxpayer. It is not that there should be no consequences for violating laws, but maybe we should look at other things, like ankle bracelets that only let you go to work and home.

      One big example of this is school truancy. In some states one can be skip as much school as one wants, and long as you have a few hundred dollars to pay for it. Of course if you don't have the cash you are looking at jail time. I am not sure how this helps as kids who skip school probably see no difference between school and jail. I suppose that when they actually go to jail, they may see there is a difference, but some have already been to jail as can make the comparison.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. We're now modding up proper uses of automobile analogies?

      WTF? Slashdot has really gone downhill.

    5. Re:Not smart by jonr · · Score: 1

      "Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

      In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

      And ran a few red lights as well.

      And stole policeman's helmet.

    6. Re:Not smart by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, its eloquent use of car analogies is one of Slashdot's remaining fine points. =p

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:Not smart by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Dude. Maybe you've failed to watch Fast and Furious 1 through 5, but you suck at car analogies.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Not smart by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Just wait until we mod up for pointing out the proper use of an automobile analogy.

      Or even mentioning modding up for pointing out the proper use of an automobile analogy.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Not smart by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Nah.. its the same as always. Those who could actually use an automobile analogy always got modded up.

      Its probably because people could actually understand and relate to the point but the line is more fuzzy than a corvette screaming by at 140mph (~225kph) while you are going slower than traffic in the fast lane.

    10. Re:Not smart by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a proper use of the Slashdot car analogy. Exactly how did he change from going a stable speed in excess of the limit to accelerating as fast as he could, for example?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    11. Re:Not smart by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Something similar happened to a friend. He got pulled over on his motorcycle while clearly drunk, the officer was apparently having a good day and let him go on the condition that he leaves his bike there and picks it up the next day. So, naturally, he goes back less than an hour later, gets his bike, gets pulled over by the exact same cop, charged, fined, jail time, lost his license, lost his job, etc.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  7. "Unwisely" by halivar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Understatement of the year. This is a sad case of a stupid law intersecting with an incredibly stupid person.

    1. Re:"Unwisely" by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Seems really sad. It's not like these people make a HUGE difference to profits. Only companies can charge for "potential damages" and have to show real damages.

      However, if you went blind because of Core Exit in the Gulf, you better keep your doctor's receipts.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  8. We need to have no laws at all by gelfling · · Score: 2

    All laws are bad.

    1. Re:We need to have no laws at all by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      We need to have no laws at all

      Good luck enforcing that!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:We need to have no laws at all by bobbied · · Score: 1

      All laws are bad.

      Especially that one..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:We need to have no laws at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You have won Idiot of the Year award. How do you feel?

    4. Re:We need to have no laws at all by gelfling · · Score: 1

      Good thing this pirate wasn't Michael Brown. Then stealing = empowerment and we'd all have to burn down movie theaters.

    5. Re:We need to have no laws at all by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      All laws are bad.

      Especially that one..

      Well said.

      People who generalize are idiots.

      Wait...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:We need to have no laws at all by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      All generalizations suck.

    7. Re:We need to have no laws at all by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Laws are bad. Lawlessness is worse, thus we have laws. The problem of course is that we've gone overboard. If God was fine with 10 laws why do we need billions of them?

    8. Re:We need to have no laws at all by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Ambiguity: "Thou shalt not murder"? Well, is that killing I just did *really* murder, or just killing? What if it was an accident? What if he was trying to kill me? What if he just threatened to kill me? What if my property (dog) killed him? What if I told my dog to kill him?

      Lawyers: Lawyers are multipliers of ambiguity.

      Politicians: Politicians look like they're doing something by passing a law, even if it's a law that doesn't actually do what they hope or claim it will. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

    9. Re:We need to have no laws at all by gelfling · · Score: 1

      I'm just left wondering if we're unclear on what piracy is. We can argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime but .....

    10. Re:We need to have no laws at all by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time they considered it criminal if you received money for copied goods. Just passing stuff to your friends was kind of winked at.

    11. Re:We need to have no laws at all by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      We could just apply common sense but we seem to be all out of that.

    12. Re:We need to have no laws at all by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      He apparently had 700,000 friends. Quite a lot for a nerd.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. The main point by Drethon · · Score: 2

    Distributing copies, whatever... "distribution and selling copies for profit" - You screwed.

    1. Re:The main point by Megane · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if TFA actually went into ANY detail about this. Instead, it's only mentioned in passing.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  10. Real crime by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Real crime was making a crappy, movie theater copy instead of a DVD ripped version.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Real crime by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And how many people, realistically, are going to watch that fuzzy copy instead of waiting a couple of months for it to come out on Netflix?

  11. There are 6 of them now? by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm just surprised 700,000 people wanted to see Fast and the Furious 6.

    1. Re:There are 6 of them now? by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      And a cam rip at that. Well, as the guy in the article goes to show, there is no accounting for stupid.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:There are 6 of them now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wanted to make sure that the money that they are going to spend at the movie is worth it. I bet you out of that 700,000 a 1/8 to 1/4 of them went to the the theater and payed to see it.

    3. Re:There are 6 of them now? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.

      Personally I think the real number is a magnitude or two lower. Did the first movie even do that many copies?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:There are 6 of them now? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.

      Never trust what anyone involved with the movie industry says about profits and losses. I don't necessarily disagree with this individual facing some kind of punishment, as I feel limited and reasonable copyright legislation helps more than it hurts, but I do agree that one needs to take the losses stated with a very large grain of salt.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:There are 6 of them now? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And they may have set up a server farm to download from him to raise the hit count and claim them all as unlawful distribution.

    6. Re:There are 6 of them now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, the cam rip might be more entertaining

    7. Re:There are 6 of them now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like wanting to scratch of the numbers on a lottery ticket to see if it's worth buying

    8. Re:There are 6 of them now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.

      Never trust what anyone involved with the movie industry says about profits and losses. I don't necessarily disagree with this individual facing some kind of punishment, as I feel limited and reasonable copyright legislation helps more than it hurts, but I do agree that one needs to take the losses stated with a very large grain of salt.

      Based on Hollywood accounting, the person who shares 700,000 copies of a movie is saving that movie's producer $3.5 million in losses. HE deserves a medal!

  12. SOLD them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Making a copy for yourself is one thing, but selling them is another. THAT is copyright violation.

    I would say he got 33 months for that, not the act of recording it.

    1. Re:SOLD them by bobbied · · Score: 1

      He got 33 months for being STUPID.... But crime usually is.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: SOLD them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally. I make copies of the movies I'm watching in the theaters all the time.

  13. You could kill someone and get less time than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because it happened on the internet doesn't make it any worse than a physical crime.

  14. Even recouping media costs should be frowned upon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Any financial transaction whatsoever technically makes it a commercial venture. Why do you think all the old tape swappers usually had you give them a tape to copy their mixes onto?

    As above, I have no sympathy for the guy. Additionally, willfully doing it AFTER getting swatted for it is just asking for trouble.

  15. Thirty-three months? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the standard penalty in Europe for genocide?

    1. Re:Thirty-three months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Norwegian guy got 21 years for killing 77 people. That's 3 months, 8 days per person.

      So copying a movie is ten times worse than murdering someone.

    2. Re:Thirty-three months? by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      If you're going to divide sentence by number of crimes, then shouldn't you divide his 33 months by [number of physical sales x scaling factor for profiting + number of downloaded copies]? If the 700k downloads number isn't totally made up by the studio (I'm making no judgement here) and ignoring the physical sales entirely, then he was actually sentenced to less than 2 minutes per infringement. That makes murder about 69 thousand times worse than contributing to copyright infringement.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Thirty-three months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norwegian prisons are for rehabilitation and 21 years is their maximum sentence. It's not a valid comparison.

    4. Re:Thirty-three months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imaginary Property being just that - imaginary, if you divide his 33 months by number of actual crimes he committed, his sentence is infinity per crime.

  16. Where is Paul Harvey when you need him? by chinton · · Score: 1

    And now it's time for the rest of the story...

  17. What? 33 months for uploading a cam...wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[...]and also selling physical copies of Fast and Furious 6."

    Rule 3 of being a pirate (after rules 1 and 2 about not talking about being a pirate) is you do not sell pirated stuff for a profit. He deserves everything he gets.

  18. was he sentenced or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police Raid “Movie Cammer” and Family Twice – Then Drop All Charges

  19. Nature of tort reform by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, this happened in the UK, not the US, but I don't think that the point I'm about to make is invalid...

    Crimes and punishments need to be re-evaluated. No truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example), when being the only crime, should never receive stronger sentences than crimes that don't affect persons directly and only lightly, at best, affect corporations (like this theatre-cam incident), and those types of crimes should never receive stronger sentences than for those where a person is individually victimized or significant chattel property is stolen (mugging, home burglary, car theft, etc), then would come violent personal crimes (any crime involving brandishing of a weapon, battery, threats of a greater harm like using the claim of a planted bomb, etc) and crimes where a person's life-savings were taken putting them into severe hardship, etc.

    The scale should be steep; it should take numerous, numerous counts of the small crimes to even approach the sentences of the next crime up the scale, and the nature of what becomes a count should accurately reflect what's going on. In the case of providing copyrighted material, the law needs to bear in mind that much of the time the material would not have been purchased by the consumer had it not been available for free anyway, so the actual damage to the content creator is lower than usually represented.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example),

      Thats a very naive viewpoint. Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

    2. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've gone all-in with the establishment party line there, huh McGruff?

    3. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so having your own plants is 'funding the entire drug machine' and might 'hurt innocent people'? wtf.

    4. Re:Nature of tort reform by galabar · · Score: 2

      The drug machine is caused by government prohibition. No innocent people would be hurt if the government stayed out of these personal decisions.

    5. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you grow your own. Then it's truly victimless. But this crime did have a victim.

    6. Re:Nature of tort reform by fnj · · Score: 1

      That is circular reasoning. If there were no absurdly unjust law against putting certain substances into your own goddam body, there WOULDN'T BE any "drug machine" being funded by users. Also, how do you know know he didn't grow his own weed or synthesize his own X or oxy?

      What makes you think funding the "drug machine" is worse than what every wage-earning citizen is FORCED to do - fund the fucking "anti-drug machine" with all its injustices?

    7. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Its not circular reasoning at all. I am not disagreeing that if the law was different then my point would be different. I also agree that it is not appropriate for the government to be legislating "morality". i.e. We should not be persecuted for doing WTF we want with our own bodies, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.

      However given that US drug law and therefore situation apparently aren't about to change anytime soon, I stand by what I said:
      Buying drugs IS keeping an evil drug machine going that DOES hurt innocent people.

    8. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> The drug machine is caused by government prohibition.

      Agreed.

      >> No innocent people would be hurt if the government stayed out of these personal decisions.

      Strongly disagreed. I think you're assuming that people live as islands. Others (family, friends etc) actually do get hurt and face real burdens when people they already care about get hooked on hard drugs.

      I for one don't want to live in a society where drugs/drug users are even more pervasive than they already are. I'm not at all sure that legalizing all drugs would be the end to the societal drug problems as most drug users conveniently claim it would be.

    9. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However given that US drug law and therefore situation apparently aren't about to change anytime soon, I stand by what I said:
      Buying drugs IS keeping an evil drug machine going that DOES hurt innocent people.

      By that asinine logic, so is paying your US taxes. That's literally funding the machine.

    10. Re:Nature of tort reform by TWX · · Score: 2

      And if people drink too much then others can get hurt, and if people smoke too much then people can get hurt, and if people go down to the track and go auto racing then people can get hurt, and if people go skiing then people can get hurt, etc, etc, etc.

      Legalizing drugs comes with its own pitfalls, but the militarization of police means that law enforcement and the subsequent criminal justice system is becoming increasingly draconian toward people that aren't causing intentional harm to others. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If drugs had not been made illegal, the drug machine would hurt other people no more than any other legal industry. Making drugs and using drugs are voluntary activities which do not on their own harm anyone, it is the prohibition of organised performing of them that is at the core of the issue.

    12. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

      I'm skeptical that your real objection is this, rather than a moral objection to the use of drugs. Are you prepared to apply the same argument to buying gas? Look at all the suffering caused by the world's demand for oil. It funds terrorism, even!

      Every action you take has *some* negative consequence. The driver whom you let into traffic ahead of you may be on their way to work at an insurance company denying health claims. But, generally, we only apply legal penalties to those actions which *directly* victimise someone.

    13. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. Here in the USA, corporations have been established to be people.

      I can hardly wait for when a megacorp is arrested for driving while incorporated. (I'm not sure if I merit +1 funny or +1 interesting for this.)

    14. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could say the same thing about taxes couldn't they?

    15. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you grew some pot yourself, then you are not funding any "drug machine".

      Of course I disagree with your entire argument. If the guy you buy drugs from then goes on to commit serious violent crimes, that is the dealers crime and shouldn't be somehow show horned on top of your buying of drugs. That's like an employer getting in trouble because the guy they paid a salary to went out and used that money to buy weapons and commit violent crimes. Go catch the real criminals instead of putting the onus on drug users to stop "funding" them.

    16. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you buy in Colorado.

    17. Re:Nature of tort reform by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I buy my cannabis from mom & pop growers who only sell enough to cover their costs of growing their own. I also grow a little (very little.) There is no "black market" or "organized crime" involved at all.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    18. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>Thats a very naive viewpoint. Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

      That's a very naive viewpoint. Just by making drugs illegal you are funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

      If the intention of drugs prohibition was reducing harm to innocents/outsiders/society then the first act lawmakers would bring in would be repealing said prohibition.

    19. Re:Nature of tort reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example),

      Cultivation is usually held as a crime but doesn't support the drug machine. Your logic is lacking.

    20. Re:Nature of tort reform by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Thats a very naive viewpoint. Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

      And your viewpoint is just as naive. By making it illegal, you force the people who want to participate into funding criminal enterprises with all of the associated negative bits that hurt innocent people.

      Is Pfizer creating an outlaw army to assist in distribution and control of sales territories? Yeah... about that naive viewpoint...

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    21. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> you force the people who want to participate

      No one is forcing them to do drugs.

    22. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> And if people drink too much then others can get hurt, and if people smoke too much then people can get hurt, and if people go down to the track and go auto racing then people can get hurt, and if people go skiing then people can get hurt, etc, etc, etc.

      With the possible exception of very excessive drinking (which is basically just another form of drug abuse), none of those things cause the sort of damage to a family that having a hard drug user in your family does. Trust me on this, I've experienced it first hand.

      The fact that drinking is already legal yet alcoholism is still a large problem in society should already show you that the legalisation of a drug isn't a magic bullet to make all the societal problems associated with it suddenly go away.

    23. Re:Nature of tort reform by strikethree · · Score: 1

      No one is forcing them to do drugs.

      Indeed. But YOU and people like you are forcing the money they spend on drugs into criminal enterprises. Which was entirely the point.

      I can already hear you now: "But, but if they did not DO the drugs in the first place, it would not be a problem."

      Carry on with your naivete kind sir. Carry on.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    24. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> "But, but if they did not DO the drugs in the first place, it would not be a problem."

      Tada.

      >> Carry on with your naivete kind sir. Carry on.

      You're just like every other drug user. You all staunchly defend your use of drugs with very colorful and great-sounding arguments that are nonetheless bassd entirely on bollocks.

      The bottom line is that drug abuse causes a LOT of problems to individuals and society, far more than any actual benefit. Thats why its illegal.

      Why don't we both just carry on the way we are. You keep buying illegal substances from random sources and then putting it straight into your body and I won't. Then lets see which of us lives longer/healthier/better lives.

    25. Re:Nature of tort reform by strikethree · · Score: 1

      LOL. You assume that I am a young illegal drug user. Again, you are naive. I am a 47 year old male who makes more than $100k year and I get drug tested regularly.

      Again, if someone wants to do drugs, society is better off not interfering as the interference causes more problems than it solves.

      For some weird reason, you and people like you seem to persist in thinking that outlawing something prevents that something from happening. I think the evidence is in and is very clear: Making drugs illegal does NOT prevent drugs from being used and it does not even significantly reduce the incidence of the usage of drugs (or alcohol, but same difference).

      If you make drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc illegal, you will NOT stop those things from happening, which I am assuming is the end goal of making it illegal. Worse, making those things illegal causes a host of other issues including a much higher incidence of death... but yeah. Keep on keeping on. It is all fun and games until it is your own daughter or son caught up in that shit. Reality may visit you then. Hopefully you will get a more practical viewpoint then... but I am not holding my breath. It is more important to be morally right than to actually care about people.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    26. Re:Nature of tort reform by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> but yeah. Keep on keeping on. It is all fun and games until it is your own daughter or son caught up in that shit.

      Acutally my girlfrineds daughter is a Heroin addict so I think I have some perspective here. I know exactly whats going on and I already see the benefits of it being illegal.

  20. Moral of the Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Moral of the Story, don't steal other peoples stuff. It will get you into a lot of trouble. I would ask the person, was it worth it? Im betting people would howl to the moon if the person got 6 months in jail. 33 Months is a very long time and just knowing that will keep ME from stealing movies.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:Moral of the Story by ruir · · Score: 0

      What did he steal, moron? This thread is full of media shills, gosh.

    2. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He stole the revenue that the movie company would have received had they sold the 700,000 copies.

      Now one can argue that there is not a 1:1 correlation between downloads and units sold... but at that point we are arguing HOW MUCH he stole, not WHAT he stole.

    3. Re:Moral of the Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      "33 Months in Prison for Recording a Movie In a Theater" Now i know its really really hard for morons like you who think its just fine to record a movie in a movie theater without permission and a full warning about copying movies is shown before every movie. But you have to go outside every once in a while instead of wasting away in your basement. So once the idiot stepped outside with hes illegality copied movie that insistently make the Idiot a copyright thief in fact stealing a copy of said movie....Moron ! http://www.merriam-webster.com...

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    4. Re:Moral of the Story by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Moral of the Story, don't steal other peoples stuff. It will get you into a lot of trouble. I would ask the person, was it worth it? Im betting people would howl to the moon if the person got 6 months in jail. 33 Months is a very long time and just knowing that will keep ME from stealing movies.

      We continue to reward Hollywood and Congressional felons with fans and employment.

      Go figure people aren't deterred when lawmakers and celebrities are hardly punished.

      Besides, the largest criminals in the world running the banking industry have already proven how you stay out of jail. Never steal a little. Always think in billions when looking to take. Then you can blame it on tax laws that are far too complex for anyone to understand your tasty recipes for freshly cooked books.

    5. Re:Moral of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you call it when somebody sells goods that he doesn't own and took without the permission of the original owner?

      Piracy is not victimless crime; as some of his "clients" might have otherwise paid to see that movie or buy an original DVD.

    6. Re:Moral of the Story by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      What a stupid reply. Don't waste my time talking stupid.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    7. Re:Moral of the Story by geekmux · · Score: 1

      What a stupid reply. Don't waste my time talking stupid.

      Wow. And here I was wondering what you mean by a stupid reply, but I see you brought one with you.

      Lighten up already. I'm glad you think 33 years is a strong deterrent, but it's not going to do jack shit to impact this. We've been staring at the 5-years/$250,000 fine FBI warning on movies for the last thirty fucking years, and what did that result in?

      The Pirate Bay search engine.

      Oh yeah, great deterrent. Working like a fucking charm. I can tell.

    8. Re:Moral of the Story by ruir · · Score: 1

      The point is that he did not steal physical goods, as much as the media conglomerates spin it.

  21. lots of good points, but what about... by wbr1 · · Score: 1
    Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

    Perhaps, he should take the most money he made (legally) on any one day of his life, then counter sue for lost wages for every single day incarcerated. I mean if he made 1500 on that lottery ticket one day, then he should have made 1500 every other day including weekends!

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:lots of good points, but what about... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

      There there is also the third catagory those people who would have bought the DVD only because of the seeing the download. This is the number that could meaningfully be compared with "lost sales". Even if "were never a potential customer" covers the vast majority of downloaders.

    2. Re:lots of good points, but what about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you apply a 1/100 factor you still get 7000 units stolen.

      At $10 a pop that is $70,000. (pls excuse the dollar sign, I dont have a pound symbol).

    3. Re:lots of good points, but what about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

      Perhaps, he should take the most money he made (legally) on any one day of his life, then counter sue for lost wages for every single day incarcerated. I mean if he made 1500 on that lottery ticket one day, then he should have made 1500 every other day including weekends!

      But millions would have bought tickets to see it opening night and pre-ordered blue ray deluxe boxed editions ahead of time if the cam rip hadn't shown 700,000 how bad it was which then then tweeted to warn others...

  22. Re:Even recouping media costs should be frowned up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about some sympathy for the taxpayers who are going to have to pay about GBP100000 for locking him up, despite him being no danger to society whatsover?

  23. No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No.. It didn't cost them anything, because you can't prove that those people would've even went out and bought the damn movie to begin with.

  24. White collar crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sneering with limp analogies to liquor store robberies miss the point. This is a white collar crime, not really that different from someone who manipulates a company's books, causing it to lose million of dollars.

  25. instead of.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of time in prison, he should be forced to watch the shitty movie continuously for 33 months

    1. Re:instead of.. by jonr · · Score: 1

      instead of time in prison, he should be forced to watch the shitty movie continuously for 33 months

      ...in his own crappy cam-rip format.

    2. Re:instead of.. by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Our Constitution's Bill of Rights has a provision against cruel and unusual punishment.

  26. More crowded by Hoov7178 · · Score: 1

    The shallower end of the gene pool just aquired a new permanent resident.

  27. Just as well the UK has lots of spare prison cells by Serif · · Score: 2

    Oh... wait...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28810439

    And apparently we're going to need a lot more real soon now

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/22/one_in_three_brits_are_now_terrorists/

  28. If you start making money off it by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    then you got nothing to cry about especially when you got a free get out of jail card and then kept on breaking the law. Even at 33 months I don't feel sorry for the guy if he was making money by selling copies. If he got 33 months for sharing the file that would have been a bit excessive.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:If you start making money off it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and at the same time, you have the police officer that beat my brother into a coma serving no time in prison even though he was found guilty.

      your only a criminal if your crimes are against capitalism and big business.

    2. Re:If you start making money off it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the submission was accurate it would have said "33 months in prison for selling illegal copies and being a repeat offender", but this is slashdot.

      Expecting a rational discussion on intellectual property rights on Slashdot is like expecting a rational discussion on diversity at a klu klux klan meeting.

    3. Re:If you start making money off it by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Or... you are not a criminal no matter how violent you are if you work for the government

  29. This is Bull Shit by Hillgiant · · Score: 3

    There is no way there were 700,000 people who wanted to watch Fast & Furious 6.

    --
    -
    1. Re:This is Bull Shit by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      The movie did $238 million in box office in the US alone. Average ticket price in the US in 2013 was $8.13. So, that means that around 29 MILLION people PAID to see Fast 6 in the theater. Terrifying, I grant you, but true.

    2. Re:This is Bull Shit by Arith · · Score: 1

      Jeez man, everyone else in this thread is saying how harsh the punishment is for the crime comitted (even selling copywritten material)
      Then you two blow in and suggest the worst type of torture.
      You work at gitmo?

  30. Um no. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The sentence was not from recording the movie, it was from SELLING it.

    Even for me, that crosses the line. For profit piracy is wrong.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  31. The role of the UK justice system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is to protect the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. Many violent crimes against ordinary people have earned lesser sentences.

  32. Not my kind of person. by westlake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement?

    The financial advisor isn't a geek ---

    and the geek should never have to serve hard time.

    That is the argument as it usually plays out on Slashdot.

    Prison sends the message that the white guy with a six or seven figure income will be treated the same as the poor and the black.

    It sends the message that intangible property is still property.

    Something that the geek --- who spends his entire working life inside a digital universe defined by the value given to endless streams of ones and zeroes --- ought to be applauding,

    1. Re:Not my kind of person. by Kjella · · Score: 2

      It sends the message that intangible property is still property.

      Work is still work even if the result isn't property, if somebody wants software to do X which doesn't exist they have to either pay someone to write it or write it themselves. My current job would still exist if copyright disappeared tomorrow. As would any other system built for internal use or one particular client, all the consulting services around making it work and so on. Or that are centered around controlled services like an MMORPG. Yes, COTS software as we know it would basically implode but I'm guessing that in its absence we'd see Kickstarter or "hostage" funding, basically it's already written but we want a sum to give it away, probably with a lot of smaller and more incremental improvements. After all, the world won't stop needing software and it won't write itself.

      That's the way other markets work, the electrician is paid for the work not the kilowatts, the plumber as well not by the cubic meter. Being able to shamelessly copy each other has its benefits too, it might curb innovation but it also lets everyone use the best, most popular and easy to use solutions rather than worrying about patent lawsuits and seeking out inferior alternatives to work around them. Actually being the first to sell something tends to give you a pretty good edge even if you have cloners who'll copy your magic, particularly if you're thinking hardware/software combinations. It would be different, but I think we'd be okay. In the vacuum left companies would probably be more willing to spend money on tweaking OSS tools to their uses too.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Not my kind of person. by phorm · · Score: 1

      The financial advisor ruins people's lives by abusing a position of trust he's been given. He's also reaping the benefits of his crime and living high on the hog. Often enough, those that have enabled the advisor to run rampant manage to spew a bunch of B.S. excuses about how "shocked" they were and are unaffected.

      Meanwhile, the guy who recorded in a theatre is an idiot, but he hasn't ruined anyone's life and hasn't really benefited financially from his act. A significant (but not ruinous) fine would accomplish plenty in terms of penalty. The corporations have also successfully lobbied to have what was once a civil offence which could be resolved between two groups (see: lawsuit) into a criminal act.

    3. Re:Not my kind of person. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > It sends the message that intangible property is still property.

      Except it isn't. It's a temporary monopoly grant. It's a temporary license to violate my rights and standing to sue people.

      Real property doesn't have an "expiration date".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Not my kind of person. by tomtomtom · · Score: 1

      No, that's not why people think the two situations are different. The hypothetical financial advisor (a) deprived people of money which they actually did have at some point, and (b) did so on a very large scale, seriously impoverishing the parents. If the financial advisor had stolen a much less meaningful amount, say $50, do you still think prison would be appropriate? I certainly don't. Even more so - if he merely deprived the parents of money they might have made but didn't by not investing quite as well as someone else could have done then I'm not even sure a fine would be an appropriate sanction (in other industries these sorts of practices are sanctioned by poor reviews/bad reputations, not through the law in any way).

    5. Re:Not my kind of person. by taustin · · Score: 0

      The financial advisor isn't a geek ---

      and the geek should never have to serve hard time.

      That is the argument as it usually plays out on Slashdot.

      Close. It's really more like "No crime that I'd like to commit myself if only I had the balls should have any form of punishment at all, especially crimes that let me get free stuff."

    6. Re:Not my kind of person. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Real property has a specific definition that makes it irrelevant to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      I'm going to assume that's not what you meant. But other things commonly viewed as property do have an expiration date. Consider food, or batteries.

      For that matter, consider money. It's intangible property represented at times by dollar bills and coins, but usually by a number in a bank database.

    7. Re:Not my kind of person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sends the message that intangible property is still property.

      This is not a message we should be promoting. Information wants to be free; should be free. As geeks, we know this. The law, in some cases, disagrees, and we respond, as we shoud, by bending, breaking, or repealing it.

      I'm down with commercial sanctions against this guy if he actually sold physical copies. That's commercial activity, and regulating commercial activity is half of what government is for. But uploading on bittorrent is doing the world a favour.

    8. Re:Not my kind of person. by medusa-v2 · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you agree, you've totally missed the point.

      We don't like artificial scarities imposed on activities which ought to be the norm. Duplication for a networked computer is about as natural to that medium as breathing for a person, insofar as it is technically impossible to watch a movie on your computer without duplicating the data, even with only a single machine. Regardless of whether you agree with the "Geek" conclusions, a person who does not understand that is simply not qualified to make policy decisions.

      We *really* hate it when people who don't understand basic realities about a given technology or situation take it upon themselves to throw people in jail and ruin their lives rather than put in the time and effort it would take to develop a reasonable solution. We'd prefer they just butt out and allow the people who have the problem work through it until we can find something that works, which is how most of us Geeks actually spend our lives.

      This becomes even more true when you see one story after another about some broke but talented college kid being put on the chopping block to protect the bank account of a multimillionaire whose only contribution to society was to "discover" some other broke but talented artist and take him for everything he had. The one area where we have real room for disagreement is whether or not the artist would have been better off at the "mercy" of the college kid, and even that's been shaping up with actual data to favor the Geek perspective. Which makes sense, when you consider that most of us build our entire careers on a willingness to change our opinion as soon as the data proves us wrong.

      "Intangible property" is not property. That's not a philosophical claim, that's an engineering reality. We're not arguing about that because we desperately want to watch a shitty handy-cam remix of Guardians of The Galaxy (or whatever) for free. We're arguing about that because we're tired of seeing real people's lives destroyed by legal fiction and non-reality-based government (management) intrusion.

    9. Re:Not my kind of person. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      My paycheck comes almost entirely from people paying for software, but I don't think that someone "stealing" that software - i.e. infringing copyright - deserves jail time. Make him liable for damages, sure. Force him to pay them out from the part of his paycheck for a while - sufficiently long to make a point - sure. But there's no justice nor value to be had from putting him behind bars.

    10. Re:Not my kind of person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could, y'know... try treating the poor and the black better.

      (I know, I know... this is an unpopular suggestion)

    11. Re:Not my kind of person. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice argument. I guess that Women's Sufferage should have been about taking the vote away from the men and that the whole slavery thing should have been about allowing people to take white people as slaves.

      Here's an idea, why don't you treat the poor and the black as we do the white-collar criminal and administer fewer crazy punishments.

  33. Bonded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were no penalties for stealing money, then my parents would have insisted on a bonded financial adviser.

  34. The title is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He was not sentenced to prison for recording the film, but for distributing the copies.

  35. "Recording a movie in a theater" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, he was evidently arrested for sharing a movie he recorded via bittorrent and for selling copies of it. It says NOTHING of him being arrested for simply recording it. Misleading headline aside, it just shows you that breaking the law will eventually catch up to you. ( I'm not getting involved in the morality of it, just that what he is doing is technically illegal )

  36. Pardon my ignorance by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    but isn't a camrip the same thing as a screener?

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Pardon my ignorance by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No, a camrip is pointing a camera at the screen. A screener means a pre-release DVD/BR version of the movie distributed to movie festivals, celebrity reviewers, etc, usually these have identifying information overlaid at some position on the screen (which the ripper can blur out).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  37. You children have forgotten the "Golden Rule" : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He who has the GOLD makes the RULES.

    You whiners will whine and moan and nothing will change.

    Idiots will make copies of copyrighted works and will get caught distributing those copies
    and then be forced to pay horrendous fines and perhaps also do time in prison.

    None of this is rocket science.

    The rules are very clear and the penalties have been known for years.

    The stove is hot, touch it and it will BURN you.

    ==

  38. He was even given a 2nd chance by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    He was even given a 2nd chance, instead of knocking it off he took it further and distributed and sold it. He very much deserved prison, as gentler warnings didn't work.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  39. What is Justice? by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    When we speak of justice as a virtue, we are usually referring to a trait of individuals, even if we conceive the justice of individuals as having some (grounding) reference to social justice. But Rawls and others regard justice as “the first virtue of social institutions” (1971, p. 3), so “justice as a virtue” is actually ambiguous as between individual and social applications. This essay will reflect and explore that ambiguity, though the principal focus will understandably be on the justice of individuals.

    However, even the idea of individual justice seems ambiguous in regard to scope. Plato in the Republic treats justice as an overarching virtue of individuals (and of societies), meaning that almost every issue he (or we) would regard as ethical comes in under the notion of justice (dikaosoune). But in modern usages justice covers only part of individual morality, and we don't readily think of someone as unjust if they lie or neglect their children--other epithets more readily spring to mind. What individual justice most naturally refers to are moral issues having to do with goods or property. It is, we say, unjust for someone to steal from people or not to give them what he owes them, and it is also unjust if someone called upon to distribute something good (or bad or both) among members of a group uses an arbitrary or unjustified basis for making the distribution (this last aspect of individual justice obviously has reference to social or at least group justice). Discussion of justice as an individual virtue standardly (at least) centers on questions, therefore, about property and other distributable goods.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

  40. At these cocksuckers are commiting suicide: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MARCH 12: Kenneth Bellando, 28, an investment banker at Levy Capital, was found dead on the sidewalk outside his building on Manhattan’s East Side, after allegedly jumping from the sixth-story roof, sources said.

    MARCH 11: Edmund (Eddie) Reilly, 47, a trader at Midtown’s Vertical Group, jumped in front of an LIRR train near the Syosset, NY, train station.

    FEB. 28: Autumn Radtke, CEO of First Meta, a cyber-currency exchange firm, was found dead outside her Singapore apartment. The 28-year-old American jumped from a 25-story building, authorities said.

    FEB. 18: Li Junjie, a 33-year-old JPMorgan finance pro, leaped to his death from the roof of the company’s 30-story Hong Kong office tower, authorities said.

    FEB. 3: Ryan Henry Crane, 37, a JPMorgan executive director who worked in New York, was found dead inside his Stamford, Conn., home. A cause of death in Crane’s case has yet to be determined as authorities await a toxicology report, a spokesperson for the Stamford Police Department said.

    JAN. 31: Mike Dueker, 50, chief economist at Russell Investments and a former Federal Reserve bank economist, was found dead at the side of a road that leads to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington state after jumping a fence and falling down an embankment, according to the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department.

    JAN. 28: Gabriel Magee, 39, a vice president with JPMorgan’s corporate and investment bank technology arm in the UK, jumped to his death from the roof of the bank’s 33-story Canary Wharf tower in London.

    JAN. 26: William Broeksmit, 58, a former senior risk manager at Deutsche Bank, was found hanged in a house in South Kensington, according to London police.

    We can only hope many many more kill themselves.

  41. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to themselves, rich people produce more for society. According to the rules on drugs, they cause people to become unproductive. Therefore the loss of the "more productive job creator" becoming unproductive is greater than that of a "lowlife Jenny Housecoat" becoming unproductive.

    Ergo, the punishment should me more to cover the higher loss.

    Done.

  42. Easy Lesson Here: Don't Piss Off The Judge by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ars Technica has more on the story, and links to actual news sites covering the mess. And as many insightful Slashdot commentators have surmised, there's more to the story than a lousy cam-rip of a lousy movie.

    Copyright silliness may have led to him being caught, but Danks got his 33 months all by himself.

    Danks was arrested only six days after he'd uploaded the video, and two days later he wrote on Facebook, "Seven billion people and I was the first. F*** you Universal Pictures."

    Danks had also sold DVD copies of the movie for £1.50 each. He said his total profit from the scheme was about £1,000.

    To who? Who buys these things? Why would anyone spend money and time to suffer through a cam-rip?
    how much of this was earned after he was arrested?

    The prosecuting and defending attorneys both seemed to agree that Danks' motive for the piracy of Fast and Furious 6 was “Street Cred.” His defense attorney told the court, "He has no substantial assets of any sort, and his financial gain has been extremely limited, but he was obviously aware that it was a popular film that would be of interest."

    The judge was particularly harsh on Danks because of his cavalier attitude."This was bold, arrogant, and cocksure offending,” he said to Danks, as Sky News reports.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:Easy Lesson Here: Don't Piss Off The Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, I wouldn't have given him more than a couple months. Just a couple months there is fucking enough for anyone to loose their cavalier attitude, and that's all they needed to do.

      33 months was probably overkill. Overkill here creates hard criminals.

    2. Re:Easy Lesson Here: Don't Piss Off The Judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cocksure? foul mouth judge, he is.

    3. Re:Easy Lesson Here: Don't Piss Off The Judge by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      The prosecuting and defending attorneys both seemed to agree that Danks' motive for the piracy of Fast and Furious 6 was “Street Cred.”

      I know -- let's put him in jail, that'll teach him to not to do illegal things for street cred.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  43. The You Tube Cam by ChadSmith4920 · · Score: 0

    Why not build You Tube like content filtering into video recording devices. If a Camcorder records and detects 30 seconds or more of copyrighted material, the user is given a choice to delete all content or else.

  44. Biased post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title says he was sentenced for "recording a movie" when in actuality he was sentenced for distributing and bootlegging. Funny how these anti-copyright trolls feel a need to twist words around to try to make their case. Next time, try a dose of reality.

  45. It sounds more like he was sentenced to 33 months by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    for being a dope.

  46. another slap on the wrist. by Cammi · · Score: 1

    A slap on the wrist for his kind? Perhaps the UK should get some real laws and judges ...

  47. Not this shit again by Falos · · Score: 1

    While I think the idea of imaginary property is in need of complete rehaul, camrips won't help bring about enlightenment. Bad idea, sir. Also, you're an idiot for persisting. Now...

    >> 700,000 downloads, costing Universal Pictures and the wider industry millions of pounds in losses
    Oh no you don't. OH NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. Do not claim that equivocation. Do NOT equate those. I will not tolerate that bullshit. Shame on editors/journalists that indulge it, shame on all of you for letting it fly. Shame on your honor, shame on your family, shame on your horse.

  48. 700 000... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no way to prove any of those 700 000 downloads would have resulted in 700 000 purchases. I speak for myself, i have no interest in purchasing dvds, and the digital market is still overpriced and don't provide a service where I can just download the movie any time i want to watch it rather than once and then i'm responsible for it. People that download movies have a tendency to download it only cause its _free_, if it isn't free they would just find some other single.

  49. Must have smoked weed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a pothead would do something this stupid. It takes a special kind of person to have impaired morality, impaired intelligence, and impaired reasoning, a trifecta which drug addicts, notably marijuana addicts, have.

    Guess Danks loved the dank too much.

  50. Stupidity has its price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am totally fine with a moderate jail sentence for this type of crime. Hard to believe this person did not know the consequences.

  51. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's already a sixth installment of the crap? I thought there are two? Anyway, I'd round it up to full three years and throw in the producers, director and screenwriter to keep him company.

  52. How many of you would be out of a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if everything your company produced and wantd to sell could be pirated and was taken by people without paying ??

    Usually its people who dont actually work for a living who havent a clue about this.

  53. Right on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    even if the guy didn't sell copies of the camcord, 33 months sound fitting to me.

  54. This needs some perspective. by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    TWENTY-SEVEN months for 27 offences — that was the prison sentence handed to Perth pervert Stuart Arthur Clarke yesterday morning.

    It’s a sentence that has upset one of his repeat victims.

    Clarke, 52, was caught in January following two years of reports to police of a man appearing at homes at night and committing an obscene act in full view of female occupants in Maylands and West Perth.

    For each of seven indecent act charges and one obscene act charge, Clarke was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

    There were an additional eight obscene acts and one indecent act which each received a punishment of five months prison.

    Clarke was also sentenced to 14 months prison for two trespassing charges, 18 months for two stalking charges, and 12 months for a 1997 burglary.

    However, all of those sentences are to be served alongside a head sentence of 24 months for two burglaries and three months for an assault on a man who confronted Clarke during a flashing incident.

    With parole, Clarke could be out in 15 months.

    -- Victim of serial sex pest Stuart Arthur Clarke shocked by his prison sentence

  55. Hollywood Gonorrhea by TheP4st · · Score: 1

    So. He is getting punished for infecting hundreds of thousands innocents with cerebral gonorrhea for free. I saw it and agree with the verdict. Hang the evil bastard!
    Can we now see Diesel, Morgan, Johnson, Thompson and Lin dangle next to him?
    No? Didn't think so. Fuck you Hollywood!

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  56. No, this was a financial crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theft is a denial of the basic right to property, and often ends up in loss of life.

    Financial crimes are crimes of violence.

    To put it in perspective, suppose your employer, instead of paying you your monthly paycheck, forwarded it to RIAN support services.

    Do you think that blood might flow?

    And if it was you attacking him, do you think that the police wouldn't give you more than a year in jail? Now, THAT would be injustice.

    Theft is violence.

  57. Owww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well. That's the last time I'll take advice from you. Your advice didn't work.

  58. "stealing" propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people in power must be laughing about this stuff.
    People think this brainwashing propaganda is "valuable" enough to "steal".
    Even this meme is useful to those in power.
    Turn it off. It's crap. Live in the real world.
    These violent movies are meant to induce anxiety and make people beg their masters for "protection".

  59. misleading subject line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't get "33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater", it was because he was selling it and giving it away. If he'd shared with a few friends, he'd be free.

    The guy is an ass and a thief.

  60. a bit harsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jail time for this is not exactly fair however 33 months is extreme. if jail time is perceived as deserved by the court maybe a month. anytime in the cage for a s***** cam rip is nuts.

  61. Harsh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe 33 months seems harsh to you.
    But "Mother Nature's" punishment for stupidity is Death or Maiming!
    Compared to that it's not so bad...
    ( spoken as an Electrical Engineer who has worked on High Voltage radar equipment.)

  62. The real crime here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be fair to this guy: 700,000 downloads from the cam recording once he put it online to be downloaded. So 350K times, say, just $3.00 per download (75% discount on the $12 movie ticket price...) plus 350K times the $2.00 for each video rental it replaced. No jail needed...

    That makes a cheapo $1,750,000 instead of the violence of jail, and he has compensated the industry...

    Now that is fair?

  63. Despicable Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's impressive the amount of energy Justice and Police dispense to jail such kind of monster who rape, kill and slauthg Copyrights. Ten men to arrest one guy. Is it fear?

  64. I would rejoice the day it happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I'm not holding my breath. You know they would retaliate by screwing with the system if they actually had to go to jail... Uh, wait... haven't they already screwed us over just by the insinuation that they did something illegal?

  65. Don't steal by daniel.lynn.mills · · Score: 1

    Nuff said.

  66. ...because giving them a hardwired unique ID... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    ...that enables the thief to be arrested and the phones returned to their actual owners the first time the miscreant tries to connect the phone to a service provider, that would be, I dunno, undemocratic. Un-amurrican. Besides, it would undercut the important corporate businesses that insure phones, make new phones, sell you upgraded phones, and they employ a lot of people. If we actually arranged it so that phone theft is impossible because stolen phones could always be traced the first time the non-owner tried to register to use them anywhere in the world, how would poor people and unemployed teenagers ever get smartphones?

    No, it makes much more sense to completely rearrange it so that the phones can automatically be turned off when they are stolen (or whenever some official wants to violate your civil liberties without a warrant) and not even try to arrest the criminals. Our police are too busy busting pot smokers, underage beer drinkers, and giving out citations for expired boat trailer license plates -- y'know, keeping those streets safe -- to bother to run down actual theft, even when it is impossible to use the stolen device without connecting it to a network that can locate it to within a meter or so almost anywhere in the world at will.

    This makes complete sense. Go California!

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  67. The real crime here is by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

    this brainiac went through hell and learned nothing from it. Dodged a billet and went right back to what brought five cars around in the first place. 33 months well deserved for failing Darwin's test.

    --
    --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.