Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the connection-reset-by-jury-of-peers dept.

Media 335

An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA must be celebrating. According to the BitTorrent news site Slyck.com, the Department of Justice is proclaiming their first P2P criminal copyright conviction, against an Elite Torrents administrator. The press release notes, 'The jury was presented with evidence that Dove was an administrator of a small group of Elite Torrents members known as "Uploaders," who were responsible for supplying pirated content to the group. At sentencing, which is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2008, Dove faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.'"

cancel ×

335 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck the MafiAA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975281)

Bunch of fucking crooks [youtube.com] .

Re:Fuck the MafiAA (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975807)

Sir, your video is truly a work of higher art and portrays a clear representation of the relationship between the MPAA and their loyal customers.

Not "really" P2P (5, Informative)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975291)

This was a release group, and altho they were releasing onto p2p, this is NOT the same thing as all those other cases where the **AA is demanding 3000$ tributes to ignore wrongdoings.

Re:Not "really" P2P (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975471)

No he was not. As far as I can understand it he leaked material from the warez scene onto P2P.

Most (except probably a few unrespected crap groups) do not upload their material to P2P networks and don't want their material getting there. It is a security risk and it is exposing the scene.

These so called Uploaders on P2P torrent trackers are mostly people who have access to scene material in one way or another. Maybe just a crappy courier that isn't contributing or maybe someone who pays for leech or is hosting a server. Anyhow they are usually not respected individuals within the scene and upload things to P2P for either ideological reasons or just to get a bigger epenis.

Sorry for my rant but someone had to say it.

Re:Not "really" P2P (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975501)

my buddy ibslice sells axx. bmtv ftw!

wareze 'scene' (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975641)

I have seen the obscene scene on mah screen. First it was green, then tangerine, or I might have been foreseen a mean, lean pirating teen.

Re:Not "really" P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975965)

Thanks for the interesting post.

Re:Not "really" P2P (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975523)

In other words... these guys were using P2P at the technical level, but they were really doing the uploading of the content. **AA has a long win streak against uploaders, it's downloaders that they've had so much problems with.

Re:Not "really" P2P (2, Interesting)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975721)

How easy for the **AA's to stretch this win to make it P2P itself to be the crime?

Re:Not "really" P2P (3, Informative)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975931)

Seems like quite a stretch, considering that rounding them up en masse [wikipedia.org] didn't have such an effect. Also, I can't be the only one disturbed that so many resources went to that.

Re:Not "really" P2P (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975951)

How easy? Are you a lawyer? No. so STFU. Seriously. It is not an easy leap to go from an ACTUAL copyright infringer, i.e. an uploader of copyrighted stuff, to someone who is just downloading. For example, someone who just downloads from a Usenet account.

How many DOWNLOADERS from a Usenet account have you heard being sued? None.

P2P is going to die unless it can be made more secure. A paid Usenet account is the way to go. alt.binaries.* gives you what you want.

Re:Not "really" P2P (2, Insightful)

againjj (1132651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976147)

Agreed, this is not the same as what all those other cases are, but you can be pretty sure that the MPAA is going to try and make it look like it to the general public. Unfortunately, I must agree with the conviction -- this really is clearly wrong (I am not commenting on the sentencing). It was being distributed before the movie was even showing in theaters! This clearly crosses the line of copyright law in both spirit and letter, unlike those other cases.

Insanity (5, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975317)

10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.

This hangup about defending our bullshit economy which truly only services the "haves" in the first place is being taken to extremes and I'm getting tired of it.

I say pirate everything, convince your friends, family, etc. Let's see what they do when EVERYONE is downloading their shit. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Then where will they be?

Fuckers.

Re:Insanity (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975383)

I can see how you got the flambait mod, mainly for the last sentence.

However, you do have a valid point about just what danger to society this person poses and whether or not 10 years is a punishment that fits the crime.

It would certainly seem that the powerful in this country are pushing for stronger and stronger criminal punishments for what would otherwise be a civil matter between 2 entities.

Re:Insanity (5, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975453)

A stiff fine would seem to be in order, and civil damages. Jail time is pretty harsh for this kind of IP crime though.

Re:Insanity (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975651)

Jail time is pretty harsh for any kind of IP crime. That's just it though; It's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY crime. It's not tangible.

A copyright defines rights which are granted to somebody from the government. They use these rights to diminish competition and allow them to have an advantage to collect profits for a reasonable period of time. The period of time is certainly no longer reasonable IMO, but that is up for debate.

What is not really up for debate, is that violating these rights falls within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. It was never supposed to be a matter for criminal courts. The GP of your post tried pointing out that seemingly corrupt government entities have been responsible for turning into a criminal matter, what has always been a civil matter. Simply to give them the upper hand. They don't need to spend money in the court systems defending their intellectual property against minor violations.

I recently watched a special about prison systems. I am 32 years old right now. I can remember being 22 years old, but that seems to be as far away from me now as being 11 years old. 10 YEARS is a very LONG time. Assuming that you get 60 years of adult life in this world, 1/6th of that being taken away is a huge punishment.

It's easy to forget that. I'm all for the death penalty and harsh criminal convictions, but only for violent crime. IP infringement is not a crime that we need to take 10 years from somebody for. Let's not forget that we will spend anywhere between 300K and 400K as taxpayers to do it too. Is is really that cost effective for us to do this? To protect big media companies? To protect society, or our values?

I just don't think so. Maybe huge fines and 6 months in jail or prison might be adequate.

I am more concerned by the fact that turning this into a criminal matter has provided government and corporations the impetus to do away with our privacy and rights altogether simply to provide protection for a few companies profit margins.

Re:Insanity (4, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975885)

Well, if someone steals the secret designs for the new Widget(tm) that a company has then they should get jail time and that is an IP crime, although you could argue it's industrial espionage. We agree on this matter though. I would think probation would be enough even (plus a fine), not even six months. Six months in jail can totally ruin a person's life, whereas if they get probation they might just be able to keep their job/house, etc.

Re:Insanity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975957)

I've got to agree; while pirating anything certainly costs *someone* *some* business, it's *definitely* not worth TEN YEARS of someone's life! That's absolutely ridiculous!

That being said, i'm currently *absolutely smashed* and my opinions not worht taking into account.

sorry -_-

Re:Insanity (3, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976073)

It's easy to forget that. I'm all for the death penalty and harsh criminal convictions, but only for violent crime. IP infringement is not a crime that we need to take 10 years from somebody for. Let's not forget that we will spend anywhere between 300K and 400K as taxpayers to do it too. Is is really that cost effective for us to do this? To protect big media companies? To protect society, or our values?

Copyright laws have a huge cost to society, I think they should be abolished then we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

Re:Insanity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23976091)

I agree that 10 years is absurd, maybe 1 year and a boatload of community service.

As for your assertion that this shouldn't be a matter for criminal courts, well, the law disagrees with you:
copyright.gov [copyright.gov]
Title 17 Chapter 5 506.a.1.B was probably violated, though not mentioned in DOJ press release.
Title 17 Chapter 5 506.a.1.C was definately violated.

Re:Insanity (1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976185)

Imaginary Crime would be a better name than IP Crime [fsf.org] . Imaginary property theft should lead to imaginary punishment. It would be more proper for the MPAA to prove real losses in civil court, which would be hard to do seeing as the movies in question all had record breaking revenue. Criminal copyright laws are absurd.

Re:Insanity (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976183)

It would certainly seem that the powerful in this country are pushing for stronger and stronger criminal punishments for what would otherwise be a civil matter between 2 entities

When you can buy the laws, and are called by the house 'the most important industry in this country' what do you expect?

Re:Insanity (4, Insightful)

Cocoshimmy (933014) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975385)

I totally agree, the punishment does not fit the crime. 10 years in prison should be reserved for things like rape, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon and other crimes of similar severity. Music/Movie/Software piracy should not be put in the same category.

Re:Insanity (3, Funny)

deathcow (455995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975455)

Sounds nice.. if it was people versus people... this is corporations versus people though, I'm surprised they don't have roving death squads.

Re:Insanity (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975723)

I'm surprised they don't have roving death squads.

I think those are reserved for treacherous staff of said organizations.

Re:Insanity (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975487)

Clearly it already is in that category -- as "pirates" are regarded to have committed "assault with a deadly modem".

Re:Insanity (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975583)

"Should not be put in the same category."

Agreed. So why is it?

Realistically, the "problem" is that there is no billion dollar industry bent on expanding control in the name of profit that wants to lobby and shell out insane amounts of $$ in "campaign contributions" to give long jail terms to rapists, killers, and other violent offenders.

Re:Insanity (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975751)

So what do you consider the prison industry?

Re:Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975731)

What about a gang that stole your credit account data and purchasing history, along with that of thousands of others, then sold them to a fence which sold it to yet another gang which eventually used it to turn your life (and those of many others) into hell for 2-3 years? You could argue the first gang didn't perpetrate much of anything, they just copied some bits that were incompetently protected by a clueless organization headed by greedy executives who earn way too much money. Therefore these mere enablers of "identity infringement" (not "theft"... this is Slashdot!) should be let off after a short sentence, especially if they are under age 30 in which case what they did was obviously part of growing up.

Re:Insanity (4, Interesting)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976219)

Huh? Your not even CLOSE in your stupid analogy.

First, someone uploading a copyrighted item is NOT the same as "turning someones life upside down". Sorry, it is just not even close. Can you tell me that one high-paid exec of the RIAA/MPAA has had their "life turned into hell" because someone uploaded "Spiderman 3"? No.

Please get some perspective.

Oh, and spare me the "little artist" crap. The MPAA/RIAA take away the copyrights of those "little artist" and then do "creative accounting" to basically pay them shit for their works of art while trying to maximize their profits.

I have an idea, how about no corp can buy a copyrighted work from someone, they can only exclusively lease it for a period of no more then 5 years. This way the TRUE artist still holds the copyright. If the work is great and makes great money, THEN the real ARTIST has the corps by the balls after 5 years and can get a real fair deal for their work.

Not this "creative accounting" deal where a popular artist seems to have made NEGATIVE money in the first few years.

Yeah, this will never happen as long as the MPAA/RIAA are allowed to bribe our "representatives". Mickey Mouse needs another 200 years!

Re:Insanity (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975791)

Let me start by saying that I do not agree with the punishment, but take a step back and examine the basic issue. The issue at hand is theft. It is summer time and a lot people in my neighborhood (including myself) are doing yard work. So lets say you are in your backyard in the middle of the day mowing your lawn. You left the garage open and the garage door unlocked because after all you are outside your residence and plan on entering in an hour or two. While you are mowing your grass someone walks into your house, takes that brand new 52" LCD tv, your xbox 360 (or PS3), your library of games and movies, and your laptop. Now lets say this person is caught. What type punishment would you suggest for this individual? Just a slap on the wrist?

I do not know about the other folks on here, but I would want the most severe punishment possible.

Re:Insanity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975461)

> Are they going to throw us all in jail?

Of course not. Only those with enough money to pay, but not to defend themselves.

Re:Insanity (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975479)

Goddamn selfish people trying to earn a living producing music, art, software, games, etc! Who do they think they are?

Look, I'm not a huge fan of the MPAA/RIAA tactics. But I AM someone who makes their living making software. Good software. Software I'm proud of. And while I get some satisfaction from my work, I need to make a living here. I work for a company that charges for software. I'm not ashamed of that, and I don't feel I should be. We charge reasonable fees for a superior product and good support.

So when someone feels there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking my work and making it available for free on the internet, well, I'd kind of like to punch them in the face. I'm not a millionaire rock star. My company isn't a huge billion dollar corporation. We still struggle to make payroll sometimes.

"Pirate everything! What are they going to do?" Well, here's what WE'RE going to do with your ridiculous philosophy. We'll go out of business, and stop making good products for people to use. So will a lot of other small software houses.

I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but you're not somehow magically ENTITLED to enjoy whatever you want whenever you are for free. Things cost money. Deal with it.

Re:Insanity (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975653)

Free Software will be produced even without copyright law. So will music, novels, and games. Maybe not at the same rate it is now, but that's a small price to pay for every human having complete access to every existing game/movie/music recording/novel/textbook/scientific paper/etc. With the rapidly decreasing price of computer hardware and improving communication infrastructure I do mean *every* human. Poverty can be eliminated, and without intellectual monopoly everyone can have unimaginable intellectual wealth. Imagine a global filesharing network that gives everyone access to knowledge far exceeding their own personal Library of Congress. Everyone with access to a good private torrent tracker has already had a taste of how good it could be. There's already enough good entertainment out there to last your entire expected lifetime, and useful software and research will continue to be produced because of the productivity benefits. Complaining about slightly reduced production is distracting from the real issue of just how enormous the cost of all this artificial scarcity is.

Re:Insanity (-1, Troll)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975773)

Does water taste like fine wine in your little dream-world, too? Stallman's old, tired line that people will continue to produce high-quality projects "because they love it" is idiotic. That may fly for what are largely single-creator or small-group projects, so you [i]might[/i] see some projects emerge in the realm of music and novels. But anything large-scale that isn't infrastructural (meaning recreational software) is going to essentially die in your sick little fantasyland.

Take games for example. You say that it'll still be produced, except "maybe not at the same rate it is now"--are you really so dense as to think that you'll get games of the same quality as you do now? Do you seriously think that there's any way that something like Half-Life 2 would be produced among the open-source community? Look at the not-entirely-shitty F/OSS games out there--Nexuiz et al. are based on an originally closed-source engine. For an example of the "quality" of entirely open-source engines, go look at something like Cube. Decent-for-free, but shitty in comparison to something commercial. Or compare Civilization 4 to FreeCiv; if you say FreeCiv isn't lacking you're deluded.

How dare those people expect to make a living out of their work. It should all be free for you to use, and god [i]damn[/i] the whole "making enough money to eat" thing. Or is it just that now they've [i]already[/i] made the games, it's okay in your entitlement-based mind to say "oh, fuck you, we're going to take it and make it free for everyone, and too bad for you if you relied on it for income"?

Fucking GNUtards need to get a job in the real world.

Re:Insanity (3, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975995)

But anything large-scale that isn't infrastructural (meaning recreational software) is going to essentially die in your sick little fantasyland.

No, it'll just need to be paid for differently: by charging for the programmers' labor instead of charging for copies of the files they produce.

How dare those people expect to make a living out of their work. It should all be free for you to use, and god [i]damn[/i] the whole "making enough money to eat" thing.

More like god damn the people who are too blind, or too attached to a broken business model, to realize that you don't need copyright to get paid for working. People in most other industries manage to get paid for their work without any special monopoly protections like copyright.

You tell those "fucking GNUtards" to "get a job in the real world", but maybe you should follow that advice yourself. You'll find that in the real world (i.e. industries that haven't become addicted to copyright), people don't do the work first, for free, and then spend months or years trying to get people to pay them for the work they've already done. They find customers first, and do the work once those customers have agreed to pay them for it.

Or is it just that now they've [i]already[/i] made the games, it's okay in your entitlement-based mind to say "oh, fuck you, we're going to take it and make it free for everyone, and too bad for you if you relied on it for income"?

If your income depends on people not being allowed to share information with each other, then you're doing it wrong.

Re:Insanity (-1, Flamebait)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976169)

No, it'll just need to be paid for differently: by charging for the programmers' labor instead of charging for copies of the files they produce.

Oh, sure! Programmers are totally going to be able to make a livable wage off a product that isn't made first! Look at the fucking game market and see how realistic that is. Put down the bong first.

More like god damn the people who are too blind, or too attached to a broken business model, to realize that you don't need copyright to get paid for working. People in most other industries manage to get paid for their work without any special monopoly protections like copyright.

Because the people in other industries are producing physical objects. When your creation (and it is as manifest a creation as anything physical) is easily copied, the framework of copyright ensures that you as a creator get a fair shake.

But no, you quite plainly don't give a fuck about the rights of creators. You and your GNUtard friends (and keep in mind, I write open-source code) plainly don't give two shits about the rights of those who are actually making things.

(And you're utterly, factually wrong about businesses "doing the work once those customers have agreed to pay them for it." Never fucking heard of retail, dipshit? Software development's profit cycle is essentially retail, not service-based, because service-based doesn't work for mass-market software one fucking bit.)

Re:Insanity (1)

PylonHead (61401) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975855)

Someone should point out to you that Free Software is currently produced even *with* copyright law.

This way authors have the freedom to choose. Do I want to give my work away, or do I want to charge for it?

This way users have a choice: is the current open source solution the best choice, or would I like to pony up for a commercial product?

Why should we force everyone down one path, when clearly there is a place for both options?

Re:Insanity (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976053)

Why should we force everyone down one path, when clearly there is a place for both options?

Because copyright laws affect everyone, not just the people who choose to use a copyright-based business model. Web hosts have to police their users' content. Electronics manufacturers have to restrict what their equipment can do. Average folks have to restrict what they say to each other because some pieces of information are off-limits.

A copyright-based business model would be fine if it were opt-in for everyone, not just the copyright holders, but of course then copyright would be toothless.

Re:Insanity (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975747)

Sorry, Richard Stallin says you're a criminal. Software must be free.

Re:Insanity (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975907)

Look, I'm not a huge fan of the MPAA/RIAA tactics. But I AM someone who makes their living making software. Good software. Software I'm proud of. And while I get some satisfaction from my work, I need to make a living here. I work for a company that charges for software.

Making a living by writing software doesn't mean you have to charge for copies of that software. If copyright didn't exist, you could still make a living as a programmer (or an artist, etc.) by charging for your labor.

Re:Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23976103)

There's no market for labor unless someone is willing to pay for it. If anyone who wanted to could enjoy the fruit of my labor for free, who has incentive to pay me? Who, pray tell, do I charge for my labor?

I'm sure someone will throw the notion of "well, some open source companies charge for support contracts. So that's a business model. Nyeah nyeah." Yes, some do. But I want to make software, not support it. I HATE doing production support, and most other programmers do too.

Plus, if I don't have copyright and everything's open source and freely available, the model will fall down, because someone else is perfectly free to offer support services for my software too. Now I have no incentive to offer new features, because someone else will leach half my profit away without lifting a damn finger to improve the product.

Believe it or not, there are real problems with OSS business models. Most contributors to OSS projects have day jobs, and in a large number of cases, they're people who either a.) pay the bills writing proprietary software or b.) work for companies that make most of their money from proprietary software.

I love that passionate, interested people have built things in their spare time that rival what larger behemoth companies couldn't do. But without for-profit software companies, a majority of the labor behind FOSS would be unemployed, and have more pressing concerns than creating new Firefox plugins.

Re:Insanity (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975503)

Ten years for copying a fucking movie, well a bunch of fucking movies? Sounds like a good excuse to become a citizen of Canada to me.

Re:Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975691)

Bye have a nice time. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Write if you get work, oh wait, I don't actually care if you get work.

Since I make my living both from the movies that are being pirated and from writing software, I'd rather have paying customers stay here and the dead beats go away. So again BYE!

Re:Insanity (2, Insightful)

HockeyEngineer (991023) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975993)

Not if Bill C-61 (aka the Canadian DMCA) becomes law.

Re:Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975581)

Are they going to throw us all in jail?

They'll try.

Then where will they be?

Sitting on top of a lot of cheap labour.

Re:Insanity (1, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975729)

Clinton signed in a law making copyright infringement a felony. He also passed the DMCA, and a bill that withheld all federal funding to any group working on embryonic stem cell research. He also fucked a 19 year old in the Oval Office when he was supposed to be working on his presidential duties -- which is legal, but we got a bitch match over it and then he lied in court and almost got impeached for perjury.

Clinton is a remarkable man as president; he seems to have caused all kinds of economic and legislative nightmares, and spent most of his time stripping the rights of the American People.

Re:Insanity (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976005)

10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.

...

This hangup about defending our bullshit economy which truly only services the "haves" in the first place is being taken to extremes...

Umm. the "haves" are the ones bribing our so called "representatives", until that changes, nothing else will. Your preaching to the quire brother!

Re:Insanity (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976017)

10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.

Thats twice the penalty for murder.

Shows where our priorities are.

Re:Insanity (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976171)

he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society

Ah, but you forget piracy funds terrorism...

I say pirate everything, convince your friends, family, etc. Let's see what they do when EVERYONE is downloading their shit. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Then where will they be?

The government would love this, as the entire populace could be stripped of most their constitutional rights and be easily controlled and turned in to virtual serfs as 'restitution'.

Not that bad... (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975319)

Despite how bad it may sound, this is more or less not a big deal for the average person. It is like video game companies going after people who host ROMs of copyrighted games... Not that bad. Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader... That would be different.

Re:Not that bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975395)

Not too bad? I'm an average person who was a member of the uploader team and now on top of real concerns I have had already I now have this to think about... :(

Re:Not that bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975435)

Then you're not an 'average person' and you are making it harder for real average people by engaging in blatantly criminal activities. I hope they catch you and your new roomate has a taste for geeks.

Re:Not that bad... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975473)

I'm an average person who was a member of the uploader team



Then you aren't average. You were admin. My post was about the average people who download Limewire or hunt on TPB and download warez not the creators of Limewire or the admins of TPB.

Re:Not that bad... (2, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975431)

Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader

Define "innocent" uploader. Do you mean "uploader of copyrighted content who has not been arrested, given a jury trial, and convicted?" Or do you mean "uploader of uncopyrighted content"? Because there's a lot of legal difference between the two.

Re:Not that bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975761)

The innocent uploaders are people who don't know anything about computers and think they are only downloading, they don't realize that they are uploading as well.

Re:Not that bad... (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975817)

While I dislike the **AA's tactics as much as the next guy...you wouldn't cut somebody slack for not realizing that, say, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is illegal, would you? Or that going 105 MPH in a 55 MPH zone was illegal?

Ignorance isn't an excuse.

Worst idea evar!!!!! (4, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975623)

Despite how bad it may sound, this is more or less not a big deal for the average person. It is like video game companies going after people who host ROMs of copyrighted games... Not that bad. Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader... That would be different.

No this is horribly bad. First, it is a basic travesty of justice. Prison time for P2P? Unless he was putting nuclear weapon designs on P2P, there is no reason for this. lets put people in jail for twenty years if they steal a loaf of bread. That's progressive thinking!

Second, the legal system loves basing later decisions on prior landmark cases. this has just told every judge for the next fifty years that criminal punishment id ok for civil infractions.

Third, the economy is in the dumps, and every peerson we imprision for piddly ass crap like this is costing taxpayers $$$. Ten years is not cheap. The people responsable should be dragged into the street and tarred and feathered for such frivilious use of taxpayer money.

Finally, bad laws erode respect for good laws. The more people become acoustom to breaking laws that are poorly written, the more acoustom they become to breaking laws in general.

Very bad ruling.

Re:Worst idea evar!!!!! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975767)

We established 30 years ago that you can freely distribute designs for nuclear weapons. There's books out on how to build an atomic bomb, come on.

It might be a good idea... (5, Insightful)

deft (253558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975331)

...to NOT name your group on a torrent site something that allows information about structure to be gleaned.

Sure, uploaders may be only uploading only legal content blah blah blah, but there's no reason to publicize your role in the organization unless you can sure as hell sheild yourself while these lawsuits are bounding about.

Even the mob knows to call people "freinds of ours", not money launderers, assasins, gun runners etc. Please don't flame me because this is "security through obscurity".... because sometimes it works i.e, I still don't know where angelina jolie lives. Well played angelina, you hot little baby collector.

Re:It might be a good idea... (1)

autocracy (192714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975429)

It might not be a good idea to tattoo gang signs all over your body. I think that analogy may help make the point in itself.

Re:It might be a good idea... (4, Insightful)

xx_toran_xx (936474) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975433)

"Security through obscurity" is what can sometimes make or break a lawsuit. The ability of a juror to make the connection between what a website might call an "content administration officer" and that user's actual role is what is at stake. The obscurity in a title like that leaves their role at the website open for interpretation. Obviously the plaintiff (MPAA) would argue it for uploader, but the defendent could argue it another way.

Re:It might be a good idea... (1)

deft (253558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975571)

maybe everyone should just have the title "ascii art guy".

that'll show em.

Re:It might be a good idea... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975673)

I still don't know where angelina jolie lives.

123 Fake Street

Springfield, Oh-hiya-Maude 90210

Re:It might be a good idea... (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975705)

Reminds me of the time the SF Police raided TechTV (while TechLive was on the air) because the company had been associated with something called "CyberCrime". Cops thought they had the dumbest criminals ever, they actually had a canceled investigative news show.

Re:It might be a good idea... (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975849)

ROFL, seriously? Link please!

(...I miss TechTV. :( )

Re:It might be a good idea... (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976101)

TechTV.com did a full write-up, only to give in to a request to delete it by the cops. CNET's coverage was gone the next day too. MSNBC mentioned the situation on their station as well, pulled in because they had two former TechTVer's on-air. (One was at the anchor desk, and a former host of CyberCrime was working at the Laci Peterson trial.)

Those types of people legitimise the MPAA efforts (3, Informative)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975377)

Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money, and they *are* violating both the spirit and word of copyright law. The maximum possible sentence is definately overkill, but I can't really argue with the conviction itself.

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975541)

How do you prove that the people who downloaded whatever they downloaded would have paid for it if that was the only way they could get it?

Just because someone downloads something for "free" does not mean that they would have purchased that product if the only way to obtain it was from a store.

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975589)

That is absolutely irrelevant. They have still violated the copyright owner's wishes for the movie/software/whatever.

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

roadsider (970039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975843)

It's perfectly relevant when the industry makes its claims and bases its arguments on how much money they're losing. "The record industry has lost a billion dollars this year because of illegal downloading." Bullshit. I always ask myself, if it wasn't available on the Net, would I have bought it? Nine times out of ten, no. Absolutely not. You want to argue the validity and importance of copyrights, then fine, but don't try to frame your argument with dollars lost. The latest success of Radiohead pretty much blows that idea out of the atmosphere.

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976179)

You have to frame the argument with dollars lost to be able to 'win' something in a lawsuit. Even you admitted that sometimes you would have bought something that you downloaded.

(BTW, I do not claim to have never done any of this.. I was on BBSes in the mid 80s... but most people grow up and realize that things need to be paid for.)

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975613)

The concept is that those who downloaded owe more than the purchase price because not only did they get the benefit of whatever they would have needed to buy, they did it illegally and we don't want them doing that again. It's called punitive damages.

But how far should punitive damages go? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975683)

The concept is that those who downloaded owe more than the purchase price because not only did they get the benefit of whatever they would have needed to buy, they did it illegally and we don't want them doing that again. It's called punitive damages.

Say I write and record a song, and then it later turns out to contain a hook that was written by someone else years ago. Are punitive damages warranted in this case?

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1, Interesting)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975633)

Ah yes, the classic counter arguement. I was waiting for this.

Your arguement is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Prerelease stuff is entirely different to already released material. You are, in effect, committing a form of industrial espionage by releasing a product before its release date. The fact that they used p2p as the medium to distribute it does not suddenly make it a p2p arguement.

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975639)

Could you come with me to the Ferrari dealer? Please? I'd like to convince them that since in no way am I ever going to actually purchase a Ferrari they shouldn't mind if I take one of their extras. It wouldn't be a lost sale, because with the gas mileage they get nobody in their right mind is going to buy one today anyway. I don't have the money, so they should just give me one.

Right?

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

whyareallthenamestak (892876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975821)

Are you kidding me? Your analogy is broken. What if I had some sort of duplication machine and went to the Ferrari dealer, pointed my machine at a Ferrari, made a copy and drove off? They lose nothing. There is no way I can afford one but if I can make a copy that costs them nothing where is the crime?

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (4, Insightful)

adminstring (608310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975831)

If you'd like to come over with your car-duplicating equipment and make an exact copy of my Ferrari without damaging it, you're welcome to do so.

:-)

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

dahitokiri (1113461) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975833)

Comparing digital data to real life objects? Seriously? Hasn't this been pounded into the ground by now? Until mass replicators become feasible and cheap, this isn't the same thing. You aren't copying the content then deleting the original copy (essentially what stealing in real life is).

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (1)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976081)

Not exactly. People want to purchase a Ferrari. They generally don't steal one through P2P. Should you take one of their vehicles, someone else who was willing to purchase that vehicle will be prohibited from claiming that it was worth the price. Furthermore, the price of a Ferrari is negotiable. The price of media is not. Distributors say buy this product at this price, or dont use it. With a Ferrari, you at least get a test drive, and information about what the car is, and quite frankly, it is a purchase that will affect other purchases in your life. Not buying a movie or a song isnt necessarily a lost sale. Maybe a consumer hasnt heard of the movie, or hasnt heard the song. Maybe its played so much on the radio that buying it seems stupid at the time. Maybe they can download a higher quality version than is for sale, or maybe they can't transfer the purchased version to a purchased media player. In these cases, downloading the media isnt a lost sale. I would not buy something I can't use. If I cant transfer it to another media player, Im not buying it. I will do my research to make sure that something I want to purchase is something I want to purchase. If I download something and then decide it isnt worht the purchase price, I will not buy it. I will delete it from wherever I have it saved. Before I used the internet, I bought maybe 2-3 cds a year, at concerts I attended, because I knew that I wanted the media. I never bought movies because going to a theatre isnt worth the cost, so bringing it home isnt worht 4 times the cost. Since I started downloading, I have introduced to movies that arent in theatres, and have purchased them in multiple formats. Same for music that isnt on the radio. But if I dont feel that the cost is worth the purchase, I dont purchase. Bonus features arent worth the money unless Im a collector. My viewpoint as a consumer is will I use the media enough to warrant the purchase price. I even give the benefit of will the purchase price include the value of everyone I invite over to enjoy the media with me. Even the most moronic of media moguls has to admit that 95-100% of the time, this just isnt true. Change the business model where I can pay based on use and make it reasonable. I should be able to watch a movie whenever the hell I want for $1. I can do this buy renting a movie from the grocery store, and can create theatre conditions by investing in hardware. The media itself doesnt create my speakers, or my projector television, or my electricity to run these things, or my rent to pay for a place to keep everything, or my insurance to protect myself in case something happens to my items. My dvd/blu-ray/cd/cassette tapes arent worth the insurance premiums. I work for a living, and thus I dont have time to watch a movie enough times to pay for it. Or listen to a song enough times to pay for it. Often, Im in the mood for a specific genre, but not a specific song. Honestly, the proper business model is that of XM and sirius: to provide continuously updated content for an ongoin fee, so that I get something for my money, without the interferance of things I dont want. There are very limited exceptions to these economic and social rules. I will download movies I havent seen, and when I find one worth its market price, I will buy it. If not, I will get rid of it. But unlike a ferrari, society doesnt have the option of paying what we think media is worth (at least not on a large scale). This "illegal downloading" is simply civil disobediance. Society values a ferrari not because of the software running its gps and the dashboard showing the low mileage, but because of the hardware allowing the vehicle to perform the value added basis of driving fast with control, the sleek looks, and the ability to get laid by owning it (women like expensive cars, men like sex, therefore men will pay for it. Women still like the cars for the hardware, not the software. They also like the pretty color, but that isnt a purchase/"steal" factor). Dont get me wrong, I do not agree with outright theft. I just think that people should have the ability to test drive their media the same way they test drive a car. If you are interested, you can borrow a car from a dealer for the weekend, no questions asked. The relevant cost is here gas vs electrity/batteries, which the consumer still has to pay to test it out. If you really want to be cheap you can test it from multiple dealers, and get them haggling against each other. I used this tactic (haggling, not borrowing from multiple dealers) to get my car for 40% below MSRP, paying less than I actually valued the car. Thats called exploiting the free market. I wont pay more than I value something, and if I thought a ferrari should be free, I would probably download one, test it out, and determine if it was worth. Then I would offer that amount to whoever would sell me a ferrari at that the price I was willing to pay. I wouldnt keep a ferrari without paying for it. Try making a reasonable argument, and I wont have to waste half an hour explaining why you dont understand capitalism. People dont buy things that arent worth the cost. That is the only reason that people need to test drive media.

Re:Those types of people legitimise the MPAA effor (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975625)

Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money,

I don't agree that distribution of pre-release content costs the studios any more than distribution of post-release content. The MAFIAA do not have a business plan that is significantly based on release of content. I.e. they do not use something like the "ransom" model where they charge money for the release of content rather than the distribution of content. Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.

Bad reviews? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975971)

> Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more
> costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.

It seems to me that it would be more costly if it generates a lot of bad third-party reviews before the movie hits the theaters. Maybe the **AA are worried that the content is getting to people over whom they have no control? And no, I don't believe they actually control the professional movie reviewers; however, they have much more of a chance of swaying their opinions via lobbying and other tools, if only because they know who they are.

A tradeoff (3, Funny)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975409)

Ten years? That could be fair if they show movies to the inmates sans FBI warnings. That way I don't think he would be losing any more of his life than the rest of us.

Darknet, GO! (4, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975443)

The Uploaders have doubtlessly noted that this never would have happened if they were using an encrypted darknet for initial distribution.

Quite possibly things may evolve to the point where you aren't allowed to join without proving your identity and uploading something illegally. Compare Russian Business Network, who do this for the same purpose: you won't betray the group if they have the dirt on you also.

Mix that with segmentation among darknets to prevent inevitable compromises from taking everything down and you're golden once you set up trusted peers between different subdarknets to diffuse data between them.

10 years for bullshit, nothing for sendin thousand (0, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975451)

to death in goddamn desert.

HOW ?

corporate america. thats how, and why.

Re:10 years for bullshit, nothing for sendin thous (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975595)

to death in goddamn desert.

Wah? I don't.... Are you trolling or are you really that fucked up in the head?

corporate america

Uh.

thats how, and why.

you have a computer? Yeah, we know. Damn you, Dell! See what happens when you let anyone buy your products?! DAMN YOU!

I'm not even going to use my karma bonus. The parent just isn't worth it.

NOT P2P (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975499)

You gotta love these people. They are trying to make it sound like P2P itself is criminal, or certainly criminal by association.

This piracy group merely chose P2P as a medium to transfer it's files.

That would be like government catching a bunch of whatchamacallit smugglers on bicycles and then announcing "the first bicycle whatchamacallit criminal conviction". Ummm, yeah right. What the hell does bicycles have to do it?

It's not surprising that piracy groups have chose P2P to transfer their files. It is most efficient transfer medium with the highest market share. It used to IRC DCC transfer, and then before that it was FTP. A long time before that, it was file transfers through BBS. Bootleg copies used to be made on cassette tapes as well. Did that mean cassette tapes were also inherently "evil" and predisposed towards piracy? I think not.

Sorry, I guess I just can't get over how completely full of shit some people are. We can argue about piracy and intellectual copyrights all day long. That's fine. Let's just not be intellectually dishonest doing it.

Re:NOT P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975829)

Sorry, I guess I just can't get over how completely full of shit some people are.

You are obviously not a gastroenterologist. Some people are still full of shit even after a double dose of bowel prep.

10 years? Please USA, get a grip (5, Informative)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975515)

I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

Re:10 years? Please USA, get a grip (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975649)

I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

Got any tips?

Re:10 years? Please USA, get a grip (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975739)

I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

Money.valueOf() > Life.valueOf()

Deep conflicts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975605)

Obviously this brings out the deep conflicts within the geekoid community. On one hand we have a group of people doing something illegal (stupidly) and getting caught (obvious). On the other, this does not fit well with the everything-digital-should-be-free-now mindset.

My experience says that the folks that believe digital==free are going to win in about 30 years. At that point there will be few left in mainstream life that have not been downloading whatever they could get their grubby little hands on since childhood. It is also a fairly common view that a "creative work" is the same as clicking a few times with a mouse and nobody needs to get paid for clicking.

This view of "creative works" comes as part-and-parcel of a view that pretty much everything that could be culturally expressed has been done sometime in the recent past and therefore everything is a derivative of a previous expression. When most of your music consists of "samples", "mix tapes" and "mashups" this is an easy view to adopt and is pretty seductive. Hollywood and the major record companies outputting recycled pablum and new P.C. versions of older successes just encourages this view.

This probably means that in 30 years all media will be exactly that - recycled versions of past successful works. Creativity, true creativity, will be gone. Originality will be drowned at birth because it might be either offensive or unsuccessful and either is a sin in the new world.

Re:Deep conflicts (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975847)

Originality will be drowned at birth because it might be either offensive

South Park says you can suck my fucking balls.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975617)

Let the capitalist mind police snag the occasional foolhardy/stupid individual. It will make them think their tactics are actually effective. hahahahahahaha

Uploader Vs Downloader (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975783)

How does one distinguish between an uploader and a downloader? If someone seeds a torrent, they're an uploader. Yet, if someone downloads a torrent, and lets it seed for a while, are they an uploader? Can we distinguish uploader versus downloader with P2P? I don't think the distinction is clear enough, except in cases like this, where the person's purpose was explicitly to distribute pirated content. Overall though, i think the server, not the p2p is what brought him down. The seeding might be an issue as well as the group classification, but still, the server would be a hub for piracy.

10 years (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975793)

One of my buddies, who was in Fastlight, got a year in the slammer for running one of the central ftps. 10 years is sorta overkill.

P2PJury? (2, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975857)

MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction

I thought all juries were supposed to be composed of peers.

The sad case of Hew Griffiths (1)

Hackerlish (1308763) | more than 6 years ago | (#23975925)

> Dove faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

The power the MPAA greasers have over government is amazing. Here an Australian who never made a cent from and had never stepped foot in the US was arrested by the Australian Police and extradited to the US where he now sits in prison. Australia is famous for not looking after their citizens, but extraditing someone for something like this is insane. His name is Hew Griffiths.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/australia-hands-over-man-to-us-courts/2007/05/06/1178390140855.html [theage.com.au]

Knowing how corrupt the *AA is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23975935)

Is it possible that they paid the jury and/or judge? Yeah it's illegal, but of course, in the good ol' US of A, the law only applies if you are not a corporation.

Re:Knowing how corrupt the *AA is (2, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#23976131)

Well they are involved with organised crime groups such as "Media Defender".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>