Slashdot Mirror
Four Year Sentence For Running Piracy Streaming Site
An anonymous reader writes: A 29-year-old man from Northern Ireland has been sentenced to two years in jail and another two "on license" for running a website from his bedroom that streamed pirated content. (Being on license is similar to a strict parole in the U.S.) Police say the man made over £280,000 from ads on the site . Law enforcement was put on the case by an anti-piracy group in the UK. Between 2008 and 2013, users of the site streamed approximately 12 million movies, which prosecutors say caused £12 million in damages. The judge in the case said time in jail was necessary "to show that behavior of this nature does not go unpunished."
Prison is never 'reasonable' for petty shit like this.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Is he a danger to society? If not, he shouldn't be in prison.
I never defend piracy. And if a person isn't dangerous, you don't lock him up!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Copyright infringement is not really, not morally a crime, just contractual infringement based upon a very questionable law. However, crime was the individuals choice and the likelihood is, if streaming content and promoting the worst likely products was not available, alternate criminal activity would have been undertaken. The question is though, what kind of bandwidth did the individual have to make those numbers real, bandwidth going to his bedroom presumably in a residential area. How accurate was the number of streams and was it hugely inflated. So did they actually measure them all or did they just do statistical non evidenciary bullshit, so you should only get convicted for the crimes you did do and not the crimes you might have done. So I would have to call bullshit 12 million movies streamed.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"He's shown a willingness to harm others for profit."
Who was harmed, then?
Please note that I'm not asked who *claimed* to be harmed but who was *actually* harmed.
The people who saw the films? I don't think so.
The advertisers that voluntarily for showing their ads? I don't think so.
The companies that produced the films under distribution? Well, they claim to be damaged but, how? Can they show that anybody stopped paying a ticket or a licensed streamer because of that? I don't think so. And then, even if that could be demonstrated, what about the pub I went this evening? Me being at the pub certainly avoided me going to the cinema and paying them a ticket. Maybe we should also fine the pub.