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.

Comments

The real crime here

[GameboyRMH]

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

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[NotDrWho]

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

Re:The real crime here

[tgeek]

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 . . .

Re:The real crime here

[bluefoxlucid]

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

Re:The real crime here

[mlookaba]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[flayzernax]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Cajun Hell]

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."

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[mlookaba]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[dave420]

Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.

Re:The real crime here

[Aaden42]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Zero__Kelvin]

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!

Re:The real crime here

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[SydShamino]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Zero__Kelvin]

"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.

Re:The real crime here

[shadowrat]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[shadowrat]

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

Re:The real crime here

[NormalVisual]

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

Re:The real crime here

[Austerity Empowers]

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

Re:The real crime here

[Jhon]

"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?

Re:The real crime here

[StikyPad]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[SternisheFan]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The real crime here

[Sarius64]

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

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The real crime here

[xevioso]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[jedidiah]

> 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.

Re:The real crime here

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[Ichijo]

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?

Re:The real crime here

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:The real crime here

[schlachter]

obviously your a shill for the cane industry...

Re:The real crime here

[nukenerd]

"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.

Re:The real crime here

[Amtrak]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[BlackHawk-666]

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

Re: The real crime here

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:The real crime here

[linuxrocks123]

> 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

Re:The real crime here

[Optali]

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?

If he sold phyiscal copies

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[just_another_sean]

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.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[Wycliffe]

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.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[ruir]

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.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[nospam007]

"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?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[Zero__Kelvin]

"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?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[Oligonicella]

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.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[StikyPad]

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.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[sahuxley]

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

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

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.

"millions and millions"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the banksters who cost the public billions and TRILLIONS have yet to spend a single day behind bars.

Re:"millions and millions"

[Jason Levine]

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!

Not smart

[jratcliffe]

"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.

Re:Not smart

[anotheregomaniac]

This is an example of proper use of the automobile analogy.

"Unwisely"

[halivar]

Understatement of the year. This is a sad case of a stupid law intersecting with an incredibly stupid person.

We need to have no laws at all

[gelfling]

All laws are bad.

Re:We need to have no laws at all

[wonkey_monkey]

We need to have no laws at all

Good luck enforcing that!

The main point

[Drethon]

Distributing copies, whatever... "distribution and selling copies for profit" - You screwed.

There are 6 of them now?

[Travis Mansbridge]

I'm just surprised 700,000 people wanted to see Fast and the Furious 6.

Re:There are 6 of them now?

[bobbied]

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?

SOLD them

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Seems like they found something

[bobbied]

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.

Even recouping media costs should be frowned upon.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Nature of tort reform

[TWX]

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.

Re:Nature of tort reform

[JustNiz]

>> 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.

Re:Nature of tort reform

[galabar]

The drug machine is caused by government prohibition. No innocent people would be hurt if the government stayed out of these personal decisions.

Re:Nature of tort reform

[TWX]

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.

Re:Thirty-three months?

[SydShamino]

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.

Just as well the UK has lots of spare prison cells

[Serif]

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/

This is Bull Shit

[Hillgiant]

There is no way there were 700,000 people who wanted to watch Fast & Furious 6.

Re:If you start making money off it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:instead of..

[omnichad]

Our Constitution's Bill of Rights has a provision against cruel and unusual punishment.

Not my kind of person.

[westlake]

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,

Re:Not my kind of person.

[Kjella]

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.

Easy Lesson Here: Don't Piss Off The Judge

[WheezyJoe]

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.