US Government's Pirate Movie Bootlegger Gets 24 Months Probation

Solandri writes: Ricardo Taylor, a former supervisor at the U.S. Department of Labor, ran a bootleg DVD operation for seven years, copying DVDs and selling them to other employees via the Department's internal email system. You know — exactly the sort of thing our draconian copyright fines were meant to prevent. He made more than $19,000 from these pirated movie sales in 2013 alone. His punishment? 24 months probation. Apparently, using the Internet to share Copyrighted materials at no personal profit is a more serious crime than selling copyrighted works for profit on physical media. More details on this local NBC site with auto-playing video.

Comments

It is not what you did ....

[Alain Williams]

it is who you know, who you work for. If laws exist the have got to be applied consistently. I wonder if the RIAA will appeal for a tougher sentence ?

It would be interesting to see those apprehended in the future for piracy use this as part of a plea for clemency.

Re:It is not what you did ....

[devman]

The article is comparing apples and oranges. What happened in the above article was a criminal prosecution brought by the Government, what happened to Thomas-Rasset was a civil action brought by Capital Records. The government employee may still be sued by the actual rights holder. Thomas-Rasset, to my knowledge was not prosecuted, for her copyright violations.

Re:It is not what you did ....

[tomhath]

If laws exist the have got to be applied consistently

This guy pleaded guilty, admitted that what he did was wrong, and faced the consequences. It was apparently his first offense so the punishment was essentially a slap on the wrist and warning to not do it again.

Compare that to someone who ignores repeated requests to stop distributing, claims there was nothing wrong with what he did, shows no remorse, etc. That person will likely face a much stiffer punishment. Nothing inconsistent about that.

Re:It is not what you did ....

[MrL0G1C]

" It was apparently his first offense"

He must of committed the offence thousands of times, so clearly, not a '1st offense' but the first time he was caught for the thousands of offences.

Re:It is not what you did ....

[dreamchaser]

The legal definition of 1st offense is the first time one is caught and prosecuted.

Re:It is not what you did ....

[Applehu Akbar]

What accounts for the difference in punishments is that criminal procedure requires a much higher standard of evidence than the junky stuff allowed under civil procedure, and subject to an overall "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, rather than "preponderance of evidence." Then to arrive at a judgment requires a unanimous jury, not just a majority.

Civil procedure is specially designed to make lawyers rich and extort large amounts of money out of people by intimidation.

Re:It is not what you did ....

[Theaetetus]

What accounts for the difference in punishments is that criminal procedure requires a much higher standard of evidence than the junky stuff allowed under civil procedure, and subject to an overall "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, rather than "preponderance of evidence." Then to arrive at a judgment requires a unanimous jury, not just a majority.

And they had all that and this guy was convicted, so the punishments are equal, right? No. What accounts for the difference is that this guy faced jail time and is now a convicted felon, while Thomas-Rasset did not and is not. And, as others noted, this guy could still be sued and face the same penalties as Thomas-Rasset did.

*Holds up hand...*

[magusxxx]

So why, exactly, does the DoL have 5-tray DVD burners in the first place?

Re:*Holds up hand...*

[Anonymous Coward]

Because politicians watch porn just like the rest of us but don't want their names on any lists at the adult movie store.

Re:*Holds up hand...*

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the Department of Labor. You don't think anyone there actually does any useful work do you? Get real.

Re:*Holds up hand...*

[Opportunist]

I highly doubt that most politicians have arrived in the technological world of 1993 already.

Re:*Holds up hand...*

[nbauman]

As for the auditing of private business, I disagree that it should be permitted. The issue you're describing occurs as a result of a lack of competition, either through a monopoly that has arisen from acquisitions or competitors failing or a government-granted monopoly such as a utility. Competition is extremely effective at reducing prices for consumers, improving the quality of service, and eliminating waste by businesses. Deregulation of utilities is a better solution than audits. However, anti-trust laws must be strongly enforced to ensure a persistent state of competition, or else the market will move toward a monopoly that may not be in the interest of consumers.

Every private business that is large enough to have stockholders is audited. Otherwise, how do you know that the CEO of the business isn't pocketing cash, or putting his daughter in a do-nothing job? How do you know the bookkeeper isn't stealing?

Competition isn't as efficient as you think it is. The coal mining industry is or was a competitive industry. But a lot of coal mines regularly had accidents, workers regularly died, and the managers and owners didn't do anything about it.

The Wall Street Journal used to cover the coal industry, and did a lot of stories about coal mine accidents. When a worker got killed, inevitably it was because the mine owner wasn't following standard safety procedures, like ventilating shafts so they wouldn't have methane explosions.

Since worker's compensation is no-fault insurance, and employees (and their survivors) can't sue the employers in court, mine owners can make more money by skipping safety procedures and letting miners die. So free market competition among mines drives employers to let workers die. If you spend more money on worker safety, your competitor who doesn't will out-compete you.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (which is part of the Department of Labor) keeps after employers to follow safety regulations, but (especially since Ronald Reagan) the budget for workplace inspections, and the number of inspectors, has been cut throughout MSHA and OSHA. That's one of the reasons unions are so popular among coal miners. If your supervisor tells you to work in an unsafe shaft, where the roof isn't supported properly, you can refuse and the union will back you up. Without a union, you'd get fired and replaced with somebody else who is willing to work until the roof caves in on him.

Socialism vs Capitalism!

[Daemonik]

It's because he was selling the movies for profit, of course... the studios can respect some good honest capitalist theft, I mean c'mon, most of the studios have at least a couple of outright thefts of their own.

No no, the REAL threats to the system are those damn pinko socialist commies just GIVING AWAY the studio's "property". We can't let that stand, no sir!

Criminal versus Civil

[dirk]

While I agree he should have probably gotten a more severe penalty, comparing the civil cases versus a criminal case is an unfair comparison. The companies could still pursue a civil case against him and they have an automatic win on their hands because of the criminal conviction. He could end up with what he was sentenced to here PLUS a civil case for a huge amount. This isn't necessarily the end of it, it's just the end of what the government can do.

Also, I can't find anywhere exactly what he was convicted of, but I would guess this was felony level copyright violation, which means he now has a felony on his record which in reality is a much bigger deal than losing a civil case and owing the companies a ridiculous amount of money because it means you basically can't get a decent job anymore.

Re:Criminal versus Civil

[codeButcher]

... it means you basically can't get a decent job anymore.

Well, I guess if you work at the DoL you are already past the stage where "a decent job" is very high on your priorities list.

Re:Criminal versus Civil

[jamesmusik]

I came here to say that. There have been no criminal prosecutions for people who merely share copyrighted material on P2P services. Also, statutory damages aren't available in a criminal proceeding. A fine would have been, but that goes to the government, not the copyright holders. Here is what the United States said about restitution in this case:

The United States does not seek an award of restitution as part of the sentence, due to difficulty determining the amount of actual loss suffered by any victims as a result of the conduct. In a similar circumstance, the D.C. Court of Appeals recently found that a district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution in a copyright infringement case where the evidence was unclear on whether the defendant’s conduct “in fact thwarted actual sales of the victim’s product.” United States v. Fair, 699 F.3d 508, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Court of Appeals noted that “a defendant’s gain is not an appropriate measure of the victim’s actual loss in [Mandatory Victims Restitution Act] calculations.” Id. at 513. Counsel for the United States reached out to the Motion Picture Association of America, a trade group representing the major American motion picture studios, to inform the group of the August 13 sentencing date and that there may be a right to present a Victim Impact Statement if desired.

There would be no such limitations in a civil suit against him.

What about all the buyers?

[alw53]

They had to know what was going on and no-one complained to a manager for 7 years. In addition to file-sharing they are all abusing government computers and networks.

30 Years In The Mail Room

[westlake]

You are 57 years old ---

at an age when most of us are worried about retaining our jobs, retirement benefits and health insurance.

You managed a federal government mail room and a movie theater and are now for all practical purposes unemployable in the only jobs you have ever known.

Out of habit, you retained a full set of account books and ledgers documenting every pirate transaction,

Your guilty plea on the federal criminal charge soon to be followed by a settlement with the rights agencies for the damages they can now claim and win in the federal civil courts.

Re:Does he get to keep the money?

[ChrisMaple]

Our government is not paying people to take probation periods.

Lois Lerner is one of the more recent and egregious counterexamples.