Slashdot Mirror
Man Who Uploaded Deadpool To Facebook May Get Six Months In Prison (gizmodo.com)
A California court may soon sentence a man who posted the entirety of Deadpool on his Facebook page to six months in prison. Gizmodo reports: A week after Deadpool was released in theaters, millions of people watched the film on a viral Facebook post by the account Tre-Von M. King. The FBI found that the account belonged to Trevon Franklin, a 22-year-old in Fresno, California. Franklin had downloaded the movie from file-sharing platform Putlocker.is, then uploaded the movie to his Facebook page, where it garnered 6,386,456 views, according to court documents. He was indicted and arrested in June 2017. In May, Franklin made a plea agreement with the government. Franklin pled guilty in exchange for authorities agreeing to recommend a reduced sentenced. Last week, the government filed its sentencing recommendation. As TorrentFreak originally reported, authorities suggested a prison sentence of six months. The government argues that the sentencing "is both necessary and sufficient to address the nature of circumstances of the offense and to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense."
This is because Franklin publicly disregarded the law in a number of posts. In one such post he wrote: "I got the ultimate way out of this, yall might be surprised on how I won't go to jail but just become more famous." In another he wrote, "I'm just sitting back smoking out my bong laughing at these mfs who think they know what they talking I haven't sold shit to anyone, or made copies."
This is because Franklin publicly disregarded the law in a number of posts. In one such post he wrote: "I got the ultimate way out of this, yall might be surprised on how I won't go to jail but just become more famous." In another he wrote, "I'm just sitting back smoking out my bong laughing at these mfs who think they know what they talking I haven't sold shit to anyone, or made copies."
"What are you in jail for?" they ask. "I made a facebook post."
You make a decent point here, just not the one you meant to make.
When we make laws that are so hard to respect, and so blatantly against the spirit of what the original law was meant to "enshrine", it makes disrespecting the law a little more common-place. With enough silly not-respected laws on the books, people just stop respecting the law in general. This is bad for the overwhelming majority, but a non-issue for the very few.
The simple half of the solution is just to make laws that actually make sense. Laws that benefit everybody, not just the few who had the means to buy them in the first place. The hard half of solution is getting rid of the bought and paid for laws that benefit the very few at the expense of the majority, especially the ones that are enabling the very few to buy new laws in their favor at the expense of the majority of the population. A good place to start is public debate, and a excellent way to get that going is civil disobedience, and blatantly thumbing nose at the very few.... which this poor dumb pirate has inadvertently done..... see how we are discussing?
People go to prison for copyright violation all the time. This case is just unusual because the guy didn't pirate the movie for personal financial gain. That's an important distinction which I feel needs to be retained in the law. If you violate copyright for personal gain, then I'm ok with the possibility of prison time. But if you violate it for no benefit to yourself, then I believe the penalty should be limited to fines. Maybe with a provision for prison time for repeat offenders.
The issue isn't that people are all too willing to violate copyright. The issue is that technology has advanced to the point where copyright is all too easy to violate. This suggests that copyright is outgrowing its usefulness, and we need to sit down and consider replacing it with a different model. The reduction in cost of duplication and distribution to near zero means it's becoming more and more expensive to enforce copyright. Meanwhile, the benefit to the copyright holder has held steady, while the potential benefit to society from just giving everyone a free copy has grown. So as a whole, the cost of copyright is increasing while its benefit is holding steady. We may soon reach a point where the cost of copyright exceeds its benefit to society. So the role of copyright may be better served in the future by the way artistic works were created in the past.
Centuries ago since it was nearly impossible to enforce copyright. So a rich patron would hire artists to create works. That's how artists got paid, and works got created. Once created, there was no copyright so anyone could copy the work. You'll notice that wedding photography has already reverted to this model. In the 20th century, the photographer shot your wedding for free or for a token fee. You then paid for copies of the photos. The increasing quality of scanners and color printers forced wedding photographers to abandon this model. Nowadays, you hire the wedding photographer for a large enough fee to cover all their costs (the "patron" model). The prints (or digital copies) are given to you for a token sum, or even for free.
"> Copying should not be a crime. Copying is a natural right, it does a great deal of good and the so-called harm it causes is a figment of delusional thinking
This is where you are wrong"
Not at all. He is, in fact, absolutely right. Copying is, in fact, a natural right: you need to exert violence to avoid it. Copy rights are in fact not rights but a privilege: you apply state violence against those that otherwise could freely copy/distribute what they know/they have, purportedly for the greater benefit of society (...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts).
"Copying is stealing someone's time and effort"
It is fuckingly obvious that's not the case. After such "stealing" the copyright holder is neither older, nor more tired, nor poorer than right before the act. Because of the government granted privileges, the producer has the *expectation* of recovering his *already* expended time/effort/money, but that's all: an expectation. Following your path of thought, simply *not* going to see your film should be a felony since that also goes against the copyright holder's expectation of recovering his investment to become true.
Now: it is obvious that things can't change overnight. One of the pillars of a mature society is stability and no one should change the legit expectations of those that have founded a career or an industry on top of them. But this doesn't mean things shouldn't change *at all*. Going back to origins, copy privileges are still privileges and are still there in order "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Any state-granted privilege must be reconsidered or even abolished (on proper time/pace) when either:
* The purported goal is not considered valuable enough anymore.
* The privilege fails to achieve the purported goal.
* There are other means, not involving special privileges, to achieve the desired goal.
I would say the first point is still valid but the current means miserably fail for the other two, so it's time to reconsider the situation.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute not common law. Neither individuals not corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
"None of your points are relevant to copying a brand-new movie."
Use your imagination.
The legal system spent millions of dollars tracking this guy down, trying him and imprisoning him. Why? To protect the profits of this movie.
Why are people compelled to pay taxes to enforce this business model?
Because "... creators are given an exclusive right to profit off of their works in exchange for it's eventual inclusion in the public domain"
Since Deadpool will NEVER in OUR LIVES enter the public domain, and likely never in our children's lives enter the public domain, the social contract is broken.
Disregard copyright and let the business die.
Yep, content creators reneged on their side of the bargain. Why should we still be expected to uphold ours?
Copyright law is null and void until such time as public domain is reinstated.
I feel no guilt at all about pirating.