Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Who Uploaded Deadpool To Facebook May Get Six Months In Prison (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the don't-do-the-crime-if-you-can't-do-the-time dept.

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."

102 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. prison by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the first time I've heard of someone going to prison for a copyright violation.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:prison by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they ask for their usual 6,386,456 * $250,000 = $1,596,614,000,000, call it $1.5 trillion, in fines?

    2. Re:prison by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Because he'd just declare bankruptcy and his assets won't even pay the lawyers fees.

    3. Re:prison by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Copyright violations are a felony, and can carry fines of up to $250,000 or five years in prison for a first offense -- as you'd know if you've ever actually read the text that displays when you pop a DVD into a drive.

      Now it's actually rare to pursue criminal charges against copyright infringers. Usually it's a civil suit. Fewer than two hundred criminal prosecutions are undertaken against all kinds of IP violators in the entire US each year. Given the frequency at which copyright infringement occurs, your chances of facing criminal prosecution at all is close to zero.

      But it's not quite zero, and if you *do* end up facing prosecution, yes you can go to jail. In this case the reason is probably that the guy didn't make any money that could be recovered. He just did it to be a dick, and pretty much dared prosecutors to throw him in jail. That said, six months seems pretty excessive; that Stanford swim team rapist got six months in prison for three convictions on felony sexual assault.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:prison by LordKronos · · Score: 2

      But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain, and I didn't see that mentioned here. There's also the exception that applies to distributing a work that hasn't yet been released yet, but since the movie had already been in theaters for a week, that wouldn't apply either.

      What other cases can criminal copyright infringement be applied to that is actually applicable here? My guess is none, but I suppose that doesn't really matter if they just scared him into accepting a plea.

    5. Re:prison by hey! · · Score: 2

      Nope, it doesn't require financial gain on the part of the infringer. Felony copyright infringement requires distribution including by electronic means of works where the net retail value of all the copies distributed over a period of up to 180 days is at least $2500.

      That said, given that this particular act is so common and its prosecution as a crime is so rare, you have to assume there's something capricious in the application of the law. For practical economic purposes nothing would change if this crime were never prosecuted, so why have the law at all?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:prison by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You missed the bit about ... for financial gain
      The only ones who profited from the distribution are Facebook

    7. Re:prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If individuals can go to prison for copyright violations, then so can the people making, marketing, and distributing movies.

      Think about that next time you see a movie where the hacker's laptop screen quickly flashes with all sorts of Python code.

    8. Re:prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For practical economic purposes nothing would change if this crime were never prosecuted, so why have the law at all?

      That is definitely NOT true. If the crime were never prosecuted, every shady business operator would be selling pirated copies of everything he could just to make an easy buck.

      We know this because it's happened in the past with books. It's even easier to do now, so of course it would happen.

      Prosecutions have to happen just often enough to keep the commercial operators in line.

      This guy's mistake was being a defiant loud mouth. If he'd just shut up about it, the prosecutor's wouldn't have wanted to waste their time.

    9. Re:prison by piojo · · Score: 2

      Uploading the movie to a public post on Facebook somehow doesn't count as distribution?

      You only got through the first half of one sentence of the above comment?

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    10. Re:prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Time served in prison instead won't pay the lawyers fees either. In fact, that'll actually cost more.

    11. Re:prison by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. When a person or company invests time (money) and effort (also money) into creating something, they should be compensated for their time and effort. That's how economics work, I do something, someone else gives money for my time and effort, so I can use that to buy other people's time and effort. Intellectual property is no different than anything else. It's tangible, and people have shown time and time again to be willing to trade some of their time and effort for such works. Just because you don't doesn't mean others feel the same way. The majority of human civilization feels intellectual property does have value.

      Copying is stealing someone's time and effort, copying and giving it away is no different. Just because I didn't lose something you think I didn't deserve in the first place changes nothing about what has occurred. I have lost something, someone elses time and effort I could have traded for mine, you took it away.

      Do you realize that education is a massive copying of knowledge into children's memories?

      This is the most retarded argument for stealing IP I've seen in a while. You do realize we have two separate concepts of intellectual property: Public and private. Of course things like language, math and history, that's public knowledge. Hell, even a lot of 'public knowledge' isn't free. I suggest you head down to your town hall or records department to see that even public knowledge housed within will cost you to have copies made of, for you. Now what happens in the next episode of Game of Thrones, you need to give up some time and effort to find out.

    12. Re:prison by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:prison by terrycarlino · · Score: 4, Informative

      All this ignores the basis of copyright law. That is, creators are given an exclusive right to profit off of their works in exchange for it's eventual inclusion in the public domain. Society only enforces an exclusive license to distribute because culture benefits over the long term.

      However the compact has been corrupted because creators have colluded with government to prevent any transfer of material to the public domain. Even now industry is attempting to extend the embargo on the transfer of material to the public domain yet again.

      People can see that not only is industry preventing materials from going into the public domain they are also making those materials unavailable at any price. Try to find a legal source for a great amount of content produced in the past. Classic and not so classic movies, out of print books and so forth. Illegal to distribute and unavailable at any price legally.

    14. Re:prison by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "> 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."

    15. Re:prison by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Copying is stealing someone's time and effort, copying and giving it away is no different.

      1. You keep using this word "steal". It doesn't mean what you think it does. The original author STILL has their effort.

      2. FTFY: Copying is DUPLICATING someone's effort for almost zero time. Whether it is LEGAL or ILLEGAL depends.

      3. /sarcasm Who knew that copying Linux was stealing Linus' time ! Oh wait, you meant "illegal copying", because LEGAL COPYING granted by GPL, BSD, Public Domain, etc. is perfectly fine.

      4. Furthermore, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act., one IS allowed to backup their software until the DMCA hijacked that right.

      5. /sarcasm Wait till you find out about Project Gutenberg -- one can read over 57,000 books! /sarcasm Look at ALL that IP theft!

      > Intellectual property is no different than anything else.

      FALSE

      Copyright is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly; it was created BY publishers to stop OTHER publishers from profiting.

      > The majority of human civilization feels intellectual property does have value.

      Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Quantity != Quality.

      The majority of human civilization also tolerated slavery, racism, and prohibition at one time. That doesn't imply the majority was right.

      e.g. Billions are served at McDonalds; that doesn't imply that McDonalds serves gourmet food. They served cheap, crap food, until recently.

      This is the most retarded argument for IP I've seen in a while. You do realize we have ONE concept of imaginary property: delusion thinking. Of course things like language, math and history, that's FIRST private knowledge, then EVENTUALLY becomes public knowledge.

    16. Re:prison by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Indeed. God have mercy on his still tender rectum.

    17. Re:prison by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they ask for their usual 6,386,456 * $250,000 = $1,596,614,000,000, call it $1.5 trillion, in fines?

      Because statutory damages are _per work_. How many works were copied? One. The number of copies doesn't matter. So statutory damages are up to $150,000.

    18. Re:prison by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Funny

      You only got through the first half of one sentence of the above comment?

      IMHO his getting past the post's title at all places him on the high side of the bell curve here on Slashdot.

      Just sayin'...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    19. Re: prison by Chas_Smith · · Score: 1

      Guy streams a movie not out to retale. 600,000 pepole see it. Of the 600,000 would any of them bought a legit copy when avaliable? Would they ha e gone to the thither? Impossible to tell. Did this guy knowly throw up a copy of this movie ? YUP was there a potential losse to revenue? YUP. should you feel sorry for some 2 bit ass clown that thought he was above the law? There is a huge problem, and this sets an example. *note i understand the ins and outs and have used torrents a ton but.. 8 dont go Hay guy look here and post to FUCKING facebook. I had the stewy Griffin story 8 months before it was even show as a thing to the press. But yeah did not make a deal about it and run my mouth i watched laughed and enjoyed

    20. Re:prison by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain,

      Then your understanding if the opposite of what it is. Or at least what the warning states on any disks that I have. It specifically states that it's a violation even if not for financial gain.

    21. Re: prison by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)d like to hear more about this please.

    22. Re:prison by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      The guy suddenly had millions of people seeing his facebook page... seems to me even if there wasn't a direct financial windfall from this act he could stand to benefit from the increased publicity in the future.

      He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong and it simply wasn't him downloading the movie to watch by himself at home.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    23. Re:prison by DrXym · · Score: 1

      If he does go to prison, I will regard him as a political prisoner, same as Phillip Danks and the founders of the Pirate Bay.

      I'll regard him as a dumbass who openly broke the law, bragged about it, was arrested, indicted and will soon be sentenced for his troubles.

    24. Re:prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    25. Re:prison by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      That is definitely NOT true. If the crime were never prosecuted, every shady business operator would be selling pirated copies of everything he could just to make an easy buck.

      We know this because it's happened in the past with books. It's even easier to do now, so of course it would happen.

      It *does* happen. In many countries, it's actually difficult to find an honest copy of a movie or software. They're massively outnumbered by the pirate sellers.

    26. Re:prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    27. Re:prison by geggam · · Score: 1

      This is the most retarded argument for stealing IP I've seen in a while. You do realize we have two separate concepts of intellectual property: Public and private. Of course things like language, math and history, that's public knowledge. Hell, even a lot of 'public knowledge' isn't free. I suggest you head down to your town hall or records department to see that even public knowledge housed within will cost you to have copies made of, for you. Now what happens in the next episode of Game of Thrones, you need to give up some time and effort to find out.

      What happens when you point out the content is actually a mathematical formula using a shared algorithm to render the content into a video ?

      Math being public.

    28. Re:prison by swillden · · Score: 1

      But I thought the law stated that criminal copyright infringement requires distribution for financial gain

      No. Copyright infringement only requires distribution of a copyrighted work without permission. However, there is an escape hatch: "Fair Use". If you can show that your distribution fell into this category, then it's legal. The category is kind of fuzzy, though. The law specifies four factors to be considered when Fair Use determination is made:

      1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
      2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
      3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
      4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

      Factor 1 is what you're thinking of. Use that is clearly non-commercial in nature but is for nonprofit educational purpose can be Fair Use. "Can be" because the other factors also have to be considered. In this case, it wasn't ordinary commercial use, but it wasn't for "nonprofit educational" purposes either. Looking at factor 2, this work is clearly intended to be used commercially by the copyright holder for commercial gain. Regarding factor 3, the doofus posted the entire thing. Regarding factor 4... it's hard to say whether this really resulted in fewer theater visits, rentals and sales but absent any other evidence the court is probably going to assume that at least some significant percentage of people who watched it on Facebook didn't pay to see it and otherwise would have. Given the very large number of views, that translates into a negative effect on the market value of the work.

      Also, the doofus' comment that this was going to make him famous shows that he was expecting some sort of gain from it, which could potentially be characterized as commercial.

      Bottom line, if he'd tried to argue Fair Use, I don't think there's a judge in the country who would have bought it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:prison by houghi · · Score: 1

      Probably he did not agree with the extortion, er, plea bargain.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    30. Re:prison by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Actually you did give up your right. It's in the terms and conditions of sale, it's written into the laws of this nation. Your natural rights are non-existent. They don't exist. If we revert to this idea of natural rights, we must logically revert to the natural right I have to murder you and your whole family for my own selfish gains. Otherwise it's an artificial restriction akin to the laws of society today. Be very careful with the idea of natural rights - those rights are simple: the right to eat or be eaten and the right to end your own life. Beyond that there's nothing. Society denotes laws and rights so that a collection of intellectual animals can live and work together in as close to harmony as possible.

    31. Re:prison by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      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

      Found the libertarian.

      By this definition, any law requires 'violence' to enforce it, as the penalty for breaking a law has to involve some form of constraint on property or person.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:prison by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, but what professional wedding photographers don't do is spend several hours of their own time at the wedding using equipment that they've had to pay for, then give you a copy of all the photos on a memory stick and rely on your goodwill to pay them for copies of any you like.

      And in reality, there's no difference between paying (made up figures) five hundred quid for the photographer's time and getting 'free' prints, or paying him nothing and spending five hundred quid on a reasonable choice of photos.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:prison by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Isn't Facebook the one doing the distribution? Shouldn't it be Zuckerberg going to prison?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    34. Re:prison by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Apparently he was bragging about how it was going to make him famous. That statement may count as him pursuing financial gain for himself.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    35. Re:prison by greythax · · Score: 1

      This used to be the case, before the DMCA was passed, attaching criminal sentencing to infringement, and more draconian measures (criminalizing education on the circumvention of copy protection). One could argue fair use as a defense, but I don't think that has been very successful in the last 18 years, on the rare occasion one can afford to plead innocent.

    36. Re:prison by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      1. You keep using this word "steal". It doesn't mean what you think it does. The original author STILL has their effort.

      Of course. But you did steal something from me, by copying and distributing my work without my permission. You stole the time and effort that I could have gotten from others by giving them my hard work to enjoy.

      I'm sorry you can't seem to wrap your head around the value of intellectual property, and the time and effort that goes into creating content, like books, movies, television, games, or whatever other entertainment work you have decided shouldn't have value because you think I've done my work and now that I've finished it, I no longer deserve any further compensation. Bullshit.

      The only thing that's truly broken is the constantly extending copyright protection that is prohibiting older works from falling into the public domain. It was never meant to last forever, that was how it was supposed to work, you pour your heart and soul into a work, and you get exclusive rights to distribute it for I think the original term was 20 years. But now everything is fucked up cuz the term is now what, death of the author + 70 years or someshit? This is what's broken, not the fact intellectual property has value and we should pay for it. If copyright law was working as intended, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

    37. Re:prison by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      You do realize the word 'steal' has no context in discussions about infringing copyright? Calling it stealing means you dont know what you are talking about, and have no place in this discussion. Infringement is never theft, its infringement. We make this distinction as to remind everyone that we are talking about ephemera, not actual tangible goods.

      It's theft. It's theft of time and effort. When a person or company invests time, money and effort into creating something people will want to see, read, or play, they don't get compensated as their creation is created. They get compensated when the work is complete and they begin to sell copies of it to interested people. You stole that compensation I would have gotten if you hadn't stolen it. Doesn't matter if the person getting the copy could or couldn't actually purchase the copy. Every copy made is a potential compensation I lost. You stole it.

      You do realize, if the world worked the way you imagine it working, no one would create anything of interest. There's no motivation to do so. Why would anyone pour their heart and soul into some creative work when they're starving and living on the street cuz no one wants to pay for it?

      What is really needed here is for copyright law to return to it's original format, where the author of a creative work is granted exclusive distribution of that work for I believe the original term was 20 years. This is fair compensation for the author's effort. But now, it's completely broken cuz copyright protect is far far too long (it's basically endless, thanks Disney!), works are never going into the public domain like they used to, and authors are abusing their exclusive distribution rights they've bribed our government to grant indefinitely.

    38. Re:prison by clovis · · Score: 1

      I didn't read past the OP's "Copying is a natural right". It appears you did, and you have my sympathy.

    39. Re:prison by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The legal system spent millions of dollars tracking this guy down, trying him and imprisoning him. Why? To protect the profits of this movie.

      Use your imagination. Not only the profits, but cost recovery. Not only for this movie, but for other movies and art that are covered by copyright law. Hint: deterrent.

      Why are people compelled to pay taxes to enforce this business model?

      Because it isn't a "business model".

      Since Deadpool will NEVER in OUR LIVES enter the public domain,

      You don't know that, and it is irrelevant to begin with. If you don't value the work enough to pay the producer for his work and effort, then why are you so interested in watching it in the first place? I wouldn't pay anyone for a copy of Deadpool, but I also don't give a damn about watching it.

      Disregard copyright and let the business die.

      There are some theories that altruism is a valid "business model", where companies pay people to produce art (movies, TV, etc) and then never expect any money in return. This is the business model you would force upon businesses by disregarding copyright -- and you admit that it would result in businesses dying.

      If you value the content enough to spend your time viewing it, you should value the time of the producers enough to be willing to pay for it. The claim that it will never see public domain is a juicy rationalization of criminal behavior, as is the complaint that the company may not sell the content to you in the form that you demand it be made available.

    40. Re:prison by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      now that I've finished it, I no longer deserve any further compensation

      No one said that. You exaggerated.

      I agree that artists deserve compensation. I would suppose that nearly everyone agrees with that. Where we disagree is the means, and the quantity. Copyright is a terrible system for compensating artists. There've been many cases in which copyright was used against the very artist it was supposed to help. A big media corporation has a lot more power than a lonely artist, and they use that power to dictate terms, terms which are extremely unfair. They know they have artists over a barrel, know they can make or break an artist. Artists can too easily be pushed into selling all rights to their own works for pennies, actually lose the right to use their own work.

      In addition to doing a poor job of ensuring that artists are fairly compensated, copyright has all kinds of negative side effects. Copyright is the biggest reason our public libraries can't be a lot more digital. That would vastly increase their usefulness through increasing our access to knowledge, and at the same time save a great deal of money.

      You stole the time and effort that I could have gotten from others by giving them my hard work to enjoy.

      This kind of talk illustrates why copyright is so enduring. It pushes our buttons. It frames the debate in terms of property and loss, and people really, really hate suffering losses, hate being the victims of theft. But that is the wrong way to think of it. Set aside your emotions, your desire to see a thief get his hand or even his head cut off. And then, maybe you can acknowledge that there are significant differences between these kinds of products. Material goods are scarce, and theft of those should be strongly discouraged for that reason. The immaterial, however, is not scarce. This difference is extremely important. It's fundamental. The vested interests have done a thorough job of befuddling and confusing the public on this point. But they're fighting a losing battle, and less and less of the public is fooled as the years roll by.

      Offering a torrent of Beatles albums is not at all the same as claiming to be the actual composer of those songs, trying to take credit for them. Taking credit, plagiarizing, that's real theft. Merely copying is not. That's just copying.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    41. Re:prison by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "You do realize Heinlein supported copyright and all his works are copyrighted, correct?"

      So what? That his quote could be used even against him makes it more valuable if anything.

    42. Re:prison by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Found the libertarian."

      I'm not.

      "By this definition, any law requires 'violence' to enforce it"

      Not by that definition, it's simply a stated fact. Goverment retains the privilege of violence monopoly for a reason.

      But, even then, here I'm not talking about the State violence to restore a legit state of affairs, i.e.: the implied violence required to put you in jail after you commit a felony, but violence to avoid the fact itself. A simple example: you own a rubber duck and I ask you to give me your rubber duck. You don't want to. Then, the only means I have to get the rubber duck is exerting violence against you one way or the other. This is what makes obvious that you are the practical owner of the rubber duck. Now, you tell me a joke and, after the fact, you ask me not to tell that joke to anyone, but I tell you I don't want the joke to stay secret. Now it is *you* the one that needs to exert violence against me in order to avoid me spreading that joke. Just like in the case of the rubber duck, the direction of violence makes factual that it is *me* the owner of my "mental copy" of that joke, so it is only natural for me to do whatever I want with my ownership. That you and I, by means of copyright laws, agree on telling the joke only under your restrictions, makes obvious that this is not a right but a privilege I grant you against the natural state of things.

    43. Re:prison by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a virtual certainty. Every time Mickey Mouse ...

      No, is not a certainty, neither real nor virtual. It is your prediction. Deadpool is not Micky Mouse.

      Creators deserve to receive compensation for a reasonable period of time for their works, but not for perpetuity, which is what we effectively have now.

      Deadpool is a current product. It has not reached even a 17 year lifespan. Pretending that Deadpool deserves no copyright protection at all because at some time in the far future it might not enter public domain is ridiculous rationalization. Claiming that IT deserves no copyright protection NOW because Disney has been able to get protection for Mickey Mouse is absurd.

      Great, then the work has to enter the public domain within finite time.

      So you would punish every creator NOW because a few of them have been able to get copyright extended on their products? What an absurd concept. Should everyone who uses a computer be punished NOW because a few of them have become criminal crackers, and a few of them might do so in the future?

      This all leaves the main question unanswered. If Deadpool is such critical content to the society as a whole that it must become public domain "within finite time", then how is it that it has so little value that you are unwilling to pay to access it long before it becomes free under any reasonable copyright lifetime? Are you perhaps predicting that Deadpool will become a significant cultural resource in 20 years but that it is worthless now? I find that concept fascinating. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

  2. yes! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can just feel the arts and sciences being encouraged right now!

    1. Re:yes! by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 2

      Darn right. This is all about supporting the arts. That's why copyright laws cover works where the artist has been dead for half a century. You're not sarcastically suggesting that the laws are designed to line the coffers of the corporations who essentially wrote the laws, are you?

    2. Re:yes! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Darn right. This is all about supporting the arts. That's why copyright laws cover works where the artist has been dead for half a century. You're not sarcastically suggesting that the laws are designed to line the coffers of the corporations who essentially wrote the laws, are you?

      I might be ;)

  3. hahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Respect for law? We have sanctuary cities that hide criminals and politicians and corporate thugs get away with everything.

    There is no respect for law. The United States is corrupt from top to bottom.

    1. Re:hahahah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      there's no such thing as a sanctuary city that hides criminals

      Stop trying to conflate legal immigration and illegal immigration. Sneaking into the country illegally, by definition, makes them criminals. The reality is that there is no such thing as a sanctuary city that doesn't protect criminals. Sanctuary cities are not to protect legal immigrants, they are to protect illegal (criminal) immigrants.

  4. Death by torture by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I mean, if the goal is deterrent, then why not? After all, at 6 million views x $10 a ticket he'll never be able to pay back his 'debt'.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  5. Get off my Lawn by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The guy who ran Hanoverfist Enterprises did prison time as I recall. I had bunches of his releases on the C64 when I was a wee lad who didn't know what piracy was, just that I had a stack of disks full of games.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. That's the civil lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    he'll be dealing with that for the rest of his life.

    I wish the industry would just move back into the 21st century and publish movies online within a few weeks
    because people like me don't visit movie theaters anymore.
    Sitting in a cramped room with popcorn throwing noisy scum is not really something like a 'movie experience'.

    1. Re: That's the civil lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given that Europe just decreed that the 21st century must adapt to the 20th, I think asking for reasonability is too much.

    2. Re: That's the civil lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm simply not buying anymore, nor do I download. If movie studios were to publish online I would consider paying a reasonable price.

    3. Re:That's the civil lawsuit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Theaters:
      - You need to go see the movie while it's still in theatres.
      - You need time to go from your home to the theatre.
      - You need to arrive way before the movie start in order to get a good seat.
      - If you want snacks, you'll be forced to pay three to four times the normal price from an extremely limited selection compared to what you'd snack on if you were at home.
      - If you arrived too late, you may be forced to sit too far to the left or right, or too close to the screen.
      - You are forced to watch ads before the movie. Wait, didn't you just pay to watch the movie? Why is there ads?
      - You may be unlocky and sit too close to annoying, smelly, talking, phone-using people. Even if you wanted to change seats and even if you had the time, better seats may not be available anymore.
      - The sound will most probably be way too loud.
      - If you are sitting too close to the screen, you will miss a lot of the action since the display is now larger than your field of vision.
      - Need to go to the bathroom? Good luck with that since unless you're sitting on an end-of-the-row seat you'll have to pass in front how people who are trying to watch the movie. Then you need to get back to your seat. If you had snacks, drinks, a winter coat or anything else and you're alone at the movies, you need to bring it all with you.
      - You need time to go from the theatre back to your home. You then waste more time by being in a traffic jam with everyone else who saw the same movie since you all quit at the same time.

      Netflix/etc:
      - You can watch the movie as long as it's available in the library.
      - No need to go outside.
      - It's much, much cheaper.
      - You can eat and drink whatever you want, even a complete meal if you want to. Great if you have dietary restrictions. Ask someone at the theatre if their popcorn has any dairy products in it and you'll get a blank stare as if you asked a question about temporal physics.
      - You start the movie when you want.
      - You can pause the movie if you need to go to the bathroom.
      - You control the volume of the movie, you control how far away you are to the screen.
      - You can actually enjoy the movie since there's nobody around to fuck up your experience. This is the most important part. Watching a movie at the theatre is like trying to read a book in a busy shopping mall.
      - Once the movie is over, you're already home.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:That's the civil lawsuit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I think what he's saying is that more and more people are not going to theatres anymore and are waiting to watch it on Netflix.

      I think most theatres will be closed in a few decades.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:That's the civil lawsuit by clovis · · Score: 1

      Go on a weekday during the day, and you'll avoid all that.
      I'm aware this advice does not work for wage slaves.

    6. Re:That's the civil lawsuit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You will avoid some of the problems but not all.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  7. Not feeling the least bit sorry for him by CharlesAKAChuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    Normally I'd be totally dead set against prison time for copyright violations (I still am), but it seriously sounds like this guy is so dumb he deserves the jail time. Not for copyright violations, but for being an idiot in general, flagrantly disregarding the law, being stupid enough to upload the whole movie to Facebook, not knowing at all how technology works, and again just for being an idiot. From the full article:

    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." Franklin went on to create a Facebook group called “Bootleg Movies,” posted “EVERYBODY JOIN,” and told people he’d be posting more movies on the page.

    1. Re:Not feeling the least bit sorry for him by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"but it seriously sounds like this guy is so dumb he deserves the jail time."

      +1 Bingo.

      This is not a legal assessment but:

      1) We are not talking about an obscure movie, but something very popular.

      2) We are not talking about some old movie, or something that should have been public domain a decade ago, but something recent produced.

      3) We are not talking about some secret or obscure site, but Facebook, which doesn't get more mainstream and visible.

      4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.

      5) He probably has no money, so there is probably nothing to take from him other than his freedom.

      6) His attitude about it shows he has zero remorse and, instead, actual contempt for the law AND the justice system.

      Keep in mind that I have no love of what "modern" copyright has become- with ridiculously long monopolies, and evil tactics to enforce it. But there is some type of balance that has to remain if we expect any reasonable quality of intellectual property to be developed.

    2. Re:Not feeling the least bit sorry for him by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.

      I take issue with this. It's Deadpool one of the highest rated rated r movies or the recent era. There's no way the six million views on facebook seriously impacted this movie's ticket sales. There's no significant population who saw the movie and decided "ya know what I WAS going to see it in theatres, but now that I've seen it I'm not going."

      You're using Hollywood logic. The one that states dedicated people who pirate movies and never go anywhere would totally have gone out to see Deadpool but darn it they caught it on Facebook so now they're not going. Most people who pirate were going to pirate anyway. Most people who go to movies would have seen it liked it and gone to see it anyway. I've seen Deadpool and Deadpool 2. They're pretty good theatre movies. I know I saw the second in theatres and maybe the first as well.

      --
      Just another second banana
    3. Re:Not feeling the least bit sorry for him by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if the six million views didn't act as advertisement and boosted ticket sales. If it is such a good movie, then people seeing in low framerate, low resolution, and audio channels limited to stereo (at best) would be more likely to want to go have the big screen experience. Or at least pay for a better quality stream.

    4. Re:Not feeling the least bit sorry for him by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      exactly.. that's what the numbers tend to show anyway. Piracy actually increases awareness.

      --
      Just another second banana
  8. Studio by dohzer · · Score: 2

    And how much jail time will the studio get for creating the content?
    Thank you, thank you. Wow, what a great audience!

  9. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anonymous lawyer? Worth exactly nothing.

  10. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    The 6 million views include all the auto-plays that people scroll straight past on their feed.

  11. What are you in jail for? by Layth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "What are you in jail for?" they ask. "I made a facebook post."

    1. Re:What are you in jail for? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      "What are you in jail for?" they ask. "I made a facebook post."

      Ask the guy in England about that ...

    2. Re:What are you in jail for? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How about specific intent to distribute copyright law en mass.

      He will find friends in jail among others who have been prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement.

    3. Re:What are you in jail for? by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      You don't have to go to anti-free speech state like the UK to get jailed for a Facebook post. Just ask this kid about it. Everything you post is a written confession as far as prosecutors are concerned.

  12. That would require Facebook approve all your posts by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If you want social platforms like Facebook and Slashdot to be RESPONSIBLE for what people post, they aren't going to be responsible for stuff they haven't screened and approved. In the US, we don't want Slashdot to only show comments that have been approved by their staff. Thus, they aren't responsible for the content.

    A middle ground we're seeing now I when a forum / platform is informed that a particular person has a pattern and practice of posting unlawful or patently offensive content, they can choose not to associate with that user any more. Slashdot could ban user ABC without needing to approve every post everyone makes (if we didn't have ACs).

  13. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    If he uploaded 4GB to Facebook servers and then 6 million viewers downloaded 25 PB from Facebook servers, then FaceBook should be at least partially responsible for enabling this to happen.

    Is Facebook expected to manually vet every video uploaded to it before it is allowed to be viewed by anyone else?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  14. Any banksters in jail yet?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    just saying...

  15. yes!-slippery slide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not as much as you'll feel when people completely disregard every law they can get their hands on.

    1. Re:yes!-slippery slide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

  16. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by PPH · · Score: 1

    then FaceBook should be at least partially responsible

    As should Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. Not being 'telecommunications carriers', but 'information services', they are in part responsible for providing access to that ill-gotten information.

    Vestberg, Stephenson and Roberts get cells next to Franklin. Or perhaps they could get Pai to serve their sentences as a stand-in.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Different culture, same result by Gabest · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can go to prison for your facebook post for many reasons in shit hole countries.

  18. Was never convicted by FeelGood314 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The police took away any means he had to defend himself, threatened him with a ridiculous punishment and he accepted a plea bargain. There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction. Of course going to federal court is also a 99.8% chance of being convicted of something. Some federal districts in the USA actually go more than a year without an innocent verdict. http://justicedenied.org/wordp...

    1. Re:Was never convicted by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The police took away any means he had to defend himself, threatened him with a ridiculous punishment and he accepted a plea bargain. There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction. Of course going to federal court is also a 99.8% chance of being convicted of something. Some federal districts in the USA actually go more than a year without an innocent verdict. http://justicedenied.org/wordp...

      Uh, how can it be justice denied if he's guilty as sin?

      I'm actually with you on procedural protections, but regarding justice, let's get real; the guy was literally bragging about his guilt.

      If he was punished, then justice was done, albeit perhaps not done correctly.

    2. Re:Was never convicted by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The police took away any means he had to defend himself, threatened him with a ridiculous punishment and he accepted a plea bargain. There is only one country in the world that regularly pretends such a thing is a conviction. Of course going to federal court is also a 99.8% chance of being convicted of something. Some federal districts in the USA actually go more than a year without an innocent verdict. http://justicedenied.org/wordp...

      Uh, how can it be justice denied if he's guilty as sin?

      I'm actually with you on procedural protections, but regarding justice, let's get real; the guy was literally bragging about his guilt.

      If he was punished, then justice was done, albeit perhaps not done correctly.

      And just to be clear, I support going back to the Founder's version of copyright (7 years, extendable to 14 max).

    3. Re:Was never convicted by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Uh, how can it be justice denied if he's guilty as sin?

      It's justice denied because he self incriminated to remove himself from the process of justice. Plea bargains in the USA are horribly stacked in the favour of prosecutors. America has jails full of people who plead guilty for the sole purposes of not being dragged through the legal process all while being told when they do go through the process they will go away for life.

    4. Re:Was never convicted by thewolfkin · · Score: 2

      As a conservative, I'll just say the following, "If you can't do the time, then don't be accused of doing the crime."

      FTFY. Because this same pressure appears whether you're guilty or not. Innocent people go to jail all the time. It's all fun and games until you're the one under the microscope.

      --
      Just another second banana
    5. Re:Was never convicted by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if you're being a smart Alec about your use of the word innocent, but the term "innocent" is rarely if ever used in US courts. The term is "not guilty". Only in cases of Perry mason style misidentification might you use the term innocent. But, furthermore, that website conveniently ignores that the vast majority of cases at this level is a result of plea bargaining. It counts as a conviction even if you plea bargain to time served. Does the prosecution push this for non violent offenders? Hell yes. Why would you the tax payer want a 2 month jury trial for a guy charged with felony weed possession during a traffic stop?

      If he didn't get a lawyer, he's an idiot. You don't accept a bargain from anyone without representation. Know your rights.

      can't tell if you're being pedantic or not about obsessing over the word innocent not being a legal term. That said plea bargains don't happen "to save the tax payers the expense of a 2 month jury trial" they happen because the prosecution is allowed to throw all the charges at someone until something sticks via a plea bargain regardless of whether or not there's a reasonable suspicion that they are guilty a LOT of convictions arise from the prosecutors being able to levy charges that there's no way they should be able to levy. If they charge you with Murder in the first when you hit a jaywalker and broke his leg and he got sepsis and your choices are death penalty or 10 years plea bargain. There's a lot of people who take that plea bargain. It also applies on smaller scales when you're faced with 20 years and you plea down to 2. The fact that most cases are plea bargained is a bug not a feature of the current legal system.

      --
      Just another second banana
  19. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by magarity · · Score: 1

    Anonymous lawyer? Worth exactly nothing.

    An AC lawyer in this case is probably better; his legal strategy according to his own posting was "sitting back smoking out my bong laughing".

  20. Should have lied about conspiring against the US i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    14 days beats 6 months.

  21. Start of a Trend? by Barny · · Score: 1

    I am excited to see this continue, and the FBI start investigating freebooting (companies who cut/copy popular videos from youtube to facebook for ad revenue) and start sending their arses to jail too!

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:Start of a Trend? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and repast get kicked out early to make room.

  22. He only made two copies, Facebook made the rest by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:He only made two copies, Facebook made the rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.

    2. Re:He only made two copies, Facebook made the rest by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Troll

      So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.

      Yeah, if the movie had proposed tax cuts or immigration restrictions, that would be different. Facebook woulda had that thing gone in nothing flat ...

    3. Re:He only made two copies, Facebook made the rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.

      Facebook filtering algorithms can manage to find and ban a breastfeeding clip in about 2 millseconds, but somehow a two-hour full-blown Hollywood production was viewed over 6 million times, and was never caught? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one. You're right. Facebook enjoyed the shit out of that revenue.

    4. Re:He only made two copies, Facebook made the rest by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      Facebook also made some good money on ads for those 6,386,456 views.

      Facebook filtering algorithms can manage to find and ban a breastfeeding clip in about 2 millseconds, but somehow a two-hour full-blown Hollywood production was viewed over 6 million times, and was never caught? Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one. You're right. Facebook enjoyed the shit out of that revenue.

      QFT. They have custom nipple based algorithms alright they can spot the nipple on a titmouse 2 seconds before you hit submit but can't spot a Hollywood watermark until they get that sweet advertiser friendly revenue

      --
      Just another second banana
  23. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by Calydor · · Score: 1

    So every video uploaded by every semi-popular news outlet would need to be vetted before people can watch the news?

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  24. Safe Harbor by swillden · · Score: 1

    So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.

    The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision (one of the few parts of the DMCA that makes sense, IMO), protects site operators from prosecution for infringement for content posted on their sites by users, as long as they take it down promptly upon receipt of a takedown notice. If this didn't exist, basically no site could host user-provided content.

    However, it might be possible to argue that he only made two copies, and should only be prosecuted for those, not for the 6M. That doesn't help him much, though, since the maximum penalty for making those two copies is a $500K fine and 10 years in federal prison.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  25. 6,386,456 views??? by Topmounter · · Score: 1

    6,386,456 views??? How many of those views were by children? How is Facebook not deemed complicit? How many views would he have gotten on YouTube, Vimeo, etc. before it was taken down?

  26. Re:By Neruos by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    You can Kill someone in some states and get less then 5 years.

    let that sink in.

    Um... while that's interesting.. this dude only got six months. Not sure how germane that observation is to the topic at hand

    --
    Just another second banana
  27. Re:Actually UPLOADED? by thewolfkin · · Score: 2

    Can someone confirm if this was actually "uploaded" to Facebook or was it just a Facebook post with embedded video linking to elsewhere?

    Facebook allowed 4gig uploads back then? What kind of connection did this guy have?

    He said he didn't make any copies so it would seem like he just embedded a link... hm.

    the real questions.

    --
    Just another second banana
  28. but...but...but...look how popular by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    He was on Fakebook! Over 6 MILLION likes!! Wow! That's awesome! LOL, building his power base, so he won't get messed with in prison LOL. Then what's he do? He creates ANOTHER fakebook account to share more pirated movies.

  29. Re:You only have to see his name... by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    ... to know that he's not going to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. I supposed we should be impressed he can actually operate a grown up computer, thats an einstein level ability down in da hood.

    dude your racism isn't necessary.

    --
    Just another second banana
  30. Re:Not about him by thewolfkin · · Score: 2

    Tech geeks by and large totally ignore copyright laws, have no idea how they work, have wishy-washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being okay to copy stuff, and go so far as to casually commit felony conspiracy copyright infringement.

    Actually it's more the other way around. Copyright laws and those who control them ignore technology and have no idea how it works. these people have wishy washy hand-wavy ideas they'd never accept in a math proof about it being ok to prosecute people for doing things that are perfectly reasonable^1 and go so far as to casually accused people of felony conspiracy copyright infringement.

    [1] To be clear I'm talking about in general not in this case. In this case the guy is a moron.

    --
    Just another second banana
  31. Re:I'm confused -- what actually happened? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    It might be a sufficient defense against an *alleged* enabling of a crime.

    Destruction of evidence is a crime... should the company that makes the software that deletes contents of devices be charged with a crime if someone uses it to erase evidence of another crime they committed?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  32. Re:You only have to see his name... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Racism? Just stating facts my friend. Not all of us live in a liberal fantasy world.