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!

33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the know-when-to-fold-'em dept.

Piracy 465

An anonymous reader writes: Philip Danks used a camcorder to record Fast & Furious 6 in a U.K. cinema. Later, he shared it via bittorrent and allegedly sold physical copies. Now, he's been sentenced to 33 months in prison for his actions. "In Court it was claimed that Danks' uploading of Fast 6 resulted in more than 700,000 downloads, costing Universal Pictures and the wider industry millions of pounds in losses." Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities.

cancel ×

465 comments

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

The real crime here (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47729359)

Is bothering to upload a camrip. Just wait for a DVD release or at least a leaked screener copy!

Re:The real crime here (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729489)

No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

Re:The real crime here (4, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 months ago | (#47729579)

Actually, they should have caned him. 33 months in prison is stupid. Beat him 40 times and send him home.

Re:The real crime here (5, Insightful)

mlookaba (2802163) | about 2 months ago | (#47729623)

the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage)

Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

Re:The real crime here (3, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about 2 months ago | (#47729653)

In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.

This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen. The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or bankruptcy.

Re:The real crime here (5, Insightful)

mlookaba (2802163) | about 2 months ago | (#47729795)

You're arguing about something unrelated to my comment. My point is that sometimes the physical "violence" of being incarcerated is justified for non-physical crimes. That's all.

Re:The real crime here (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729985)

And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

Re:The real crime here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729809)

Monopoly? There is no monopoly. If you want to use that word I dare you to articulate your ideas. Too many people around here throw crap like that out with no backing at all. I'm surprised you didn't scream some nonsense about a free market at the same time.

Re:The real crime here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729979)

Yeah, it is a crime. That lobbying you're talking about was ten years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can argue all you like about if it should be a crime, fact is, it is a crime, according to law, which is where crime is defined (you don't get to make up your own definition, sorry).

Re:The real crime here (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729779)

Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

Putting him in jail doesn't solve the problem with my parents retirement.
Anything that doesn't refund my parents plus something extra for the trouble would be an injustice.
Whatever, if any, punishment is suitable on top of that is not really my concern. Whatever prevent the financial advisor from doing it again works fine.
If someone can get away with 6 month for assault and battery then I certainly think that anything above that is way excessive for a white collar crime if it has been repaid.

Re:The real crime here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729843)

The reason it "seems reasonable" (to you) to lock a non-violent offender in a cage with violent offenders is that you know nothing else. This is exactly the same process that leads the majority of people in the US to automatically assume that recreational drug use should be a crime. They know nothing else.

The way to change your viewpoint is through imagination and critical thinking. Look to yourself for the answer, not the status quo. The "way the world works" is often wrong.

Re:The real crime here (5, Insightful)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 2 months ago | (#47729657)

I think it's impossible for a government to do anything without at least some real threat of violence behind it. How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?

Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

Offender: "No."

Government: "You're a poo-head."

Offender: [sobs pathetically] "Ok, ok, I'll pay! Just please, please don't hurt my feelings again."

Re:The real crime here (3, Insightful)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 2 months ago | (#47729829)

How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?

Easy: By ordering a more compliant entity that has a financial relationship with you to comply on your behalf.

Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

Offender: "No."

Government: “Offender’s Bank: Give us $1000 from Offender’s account (by seizing every penny deposited for the next 10 years immediately in priority over EVERY other debit if necessary) plus an extra penalty for non-compliance.”

Offender’s Bank: “Okay, here’s your money, and BTW we’re taking our own fee for enforcing this, and of course we’ll charge them for every overdraft fee that results from draining their account.”

Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now?"

--- Or alternatively if no bank accounts: ---

Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”

—-

See: Civil compliance and no truncheons necessary. There will almost always be someone with more to lose than you and less desire to stick it to the man. They’ll comply so you don’t have to.

Re:The real crime here (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47729899)

That is an excellent idea. I just hope the unthinkable never happens, and somebody who doesn't have a legitimate bank account and job suddenly decides to be a ciminal!

Re:The real crime here (1)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about 2 months ago | (#47729911)

Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”

Bender the Offender: Hmm, there's no point in working if they take all my earnings, I think I'll just go on the dole.

Taxes will end up paying for the crime no matter if it is jail or fines.

Re:The real crime here (3)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47729935)

What if the offender's employer refuses? What if the offender's employer doesn't have a bank account? What if the offender's employer's customers refuse? What if it's turtles all the way down?

Physical confinement is a good deterrent for white collar crime - far better than it is as a deterrent to violent crime, in my opinion, because the type of people who use violence tend to have minds better able to shut off emotions and critical thought as needed, whether than need is for 10 minutes while shooting and robbing someone or 15 years behind bars.

Re:The real crime here (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#47729833)

They have this program by where they can remove the money directly from your check.

Re:The real crime here (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47729715)

Unfortunately, financial harm is a real thing. And it can, thanks to how we run our economy, result in physical harm to real people.

That doesn't mean that this case represents real financial harm, or even if it did, that someone might go hungry as a result. But in our world, you need money to survive.

I'm always wary for this quid pro quo notion of justice that you're implicitly backing, because harm can be difficult to both quantify and qualify, and retrobution doesn't achieve nearly as much as we think it does. Let me restate that I'd almost certainly agree with the conclusions of the argument you presented, but I don't necessarily endorse the argument itself.

Re:The real crime here (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729729)

The dude made the choice. No one put a gun to his head and told him to patiently hold the camcorder up for 2 hours then go home and post the video online.

If you shoplift, also a non-violent civil offense, you similarly get the opportunity for a few weeks or years of unwanted butt-fucking.

"The punishment is too harsh for the crime" is your opinion.

That the man in question made the choice to commit a crime that has an economic impact on a 3rd party is a fact. (Whether he's directly stealing food from the mouths of orphans or just cutting down on some studio exec's blowjob money is irrelevant).

That the law allows a person who commits a crime to be punished, also a fact.

What you should really be arguing for is prison reform. My solution would be to create more minimum security arrangements for this kind of crime. Personally I think we should ship anyone who does this kind of crime off to local landfill and make them sort garbage. Pay them minimum wage, require them to work 40 hours a week. Throw them in jail if they don't come to work on time. Be a lot cheaper than putting them in a prison and we get the benefit of more recycling.

Re:The real crime here (4, Funny)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47729941)

"The dude made the choice. No one put a gun to his head and told him to patiently hold the camcorder up for 2 hours ..."

Are you 100% certain about that? This is Fast & Furious 6 we're talking about here.

Re:The real crime here (4, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 months ago | (#47729823)

Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.

Re:The real crime here (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 months ago | (#47729903)

Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.

Not at Slashdot...

People seem to miss the point that this was a criminal activity for profit.

But of course here, entertainment that cost millions of dollars to create must be free.

Re:The real crime here (4, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 2 months ago | (#47729977)

No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

no, the real crime here is a misleading title that implies he was given 33 months solely for the act of filming a movie with a camcorder.

Re:The real crime here (5, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47729513)

No the real crime is that he encouraged people to watch Fast & Furious 6 .

Re:The real crime here (5, Interesting)

tgeek (941867) | about 2 months ago | (#47729535)

Nah, the real crime here is . . . STUPIDITY:

1. He failed to sufficiently anonymize his upload and got caught (I'm unclear if he was caught from his p2p or physical sales though).
2. When he DID get caught, he didn't cease doing something that would land him in jail
3. We can (and have!) debated all day long about the morality of p2p sharing . . . but he went a step further and was monetarily profiting from his acts (albeit via physical media as opposed to p2p sharing). I think it's safe to say most people don't agree with this.

Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

Re:The real crime here (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47729629)

Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

Fair? Put fair aside a moment. What will the result of putting him in prison be? Will it improve society in any way? Odds are sharply against it.

Re:The real crime here (1)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 2 months ago | (#47729859)

Ahh, but you have to consider who’s perspective of improving society really matters here. If it scares more people into not eroding the *AA’s business model, then it’s a win for the groups that are *really* buying the laws.

Re:The real crime here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729805)

Nah, the real crime here is "not good looking'. Bear with me, hear me out:

Attractive people are known to get a lot of breaks in life, higher wages, etc. Philip Danks [dailymail.co.uk] was just a guy who was not too easy on the eyes, scrabbling to earn a living.

Seems like they found something (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 months ago | (#47729373)

“Also what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome. Is it simply going to be a waste of everyone’s time?” he concludes.

Re:Seems like they found something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729509)

âoeAlso what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome. Is it simply going to be a waste of everyoneâ(TM)s time?â he concludes.

So now he has free lodging too.

This is as low-level crime as there is. Community service would have been better option, IMHO. There are people that murder others on the road in "accidents" because they are high or drunk and these people get much less punishment. Unless you live in a warzone, drinking under influence or distracted driving or dangerous driving is the leading cause of non-medical death. Maybe if these crimes included some jail we'll see a lower mortality rate than 1% of the population per lifetime.

Re:Seems like they found something (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 months ago | (#47729601)

Vehicular collision, you functional retard. An "accident" implies it's nobody's fault: it disclaims moral responsibility while accepting physical culpability. It's not as if you did it by intent, so you have no moral impetus to change your behavior, and you are a victim of circumstance.

Re:Seems like they found something (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about 2 months ago | (#47729735)

Yes, people who are reckless and dangerous seem to certainly have no moral impetus. IMO people shouldn't be let off easy for those kinds of mistakes. Then again, it shouldn't be governments passing judgement on them IMO either. But that's a whole other ideological ballgame.

Re:Seems like they found something (1)

Aaden42 (198257) | about 2 months ago | (#47729933)

I think the “irony quotes” on “accident” were enough to imply GP didn’t intend to suggest DUI is actually an accidental occurrence where nobody is at fault.

That said, agreed that community service or something that actually contributes to society makes a lot more sense than having society pay to house & feed him for (near enough to) three years, followed by pretty much ruining his ability to ever be a contributing (IE job holding & tax paying) member of society.

You like hanging out at the movies so much? Fine. Ten hours a week scraping chewing gum off the floors and seats of every theater in town for the next three years. Seems like it should do the trick.

Re:Seems like they found something (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47729515)

The MPAA can sue you, but they cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. That's just civil court though.

Problem with this guy's story is that what he did was illegal too. It was the illegal part that got him the jail time.

If he sold phyiscal copies (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729377)

If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729395)

Why should anyone have control over the copying industry? Free market here would be great IMO.

Of course noooo one would be motivated to distribute anything right...

fuck that distributers don't need monopolies to pay artists. artists can get payed better when not bottlenecked by shitty distributors with monopolies.

time and history has proven so

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (5, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 2 months ago | (#47729621)

Why should anyone have control over the copying industry? Free market here would be great IMO.

I'm all for the free market but it's not the copying that is the problem. The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours
to produce a movie and all those people want to get paid. If you made copying legal then one of 3 things happen:
1) Noone produces movies anymore
2) They figure out another way of paying for the movie (merchandise tie-ins, product placement, etc..)
3) Metal detectors, etc... at the movie theatre and/or some other way of preventing copying.
Copying is too hard to enforce and we need a better way. I don't think swat teams and prison is the answer but I
don't really like the idea of movies being even more corrupted with advertisement either.

artists can get payed better when not bottlenecked by shitty distributors with monopolies

That might be so but if copying is legal then the indie film producer has the same problem. They can only sell 1 copy.
How do you fairly compensate the people who spend the many man hours producing the movie? The movie industry
isn't perfect by any means and there are plenty of people getting rich who maybe shouldn't but removing all copy
protection would require movies as we currently know them to cease to exist.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (3, Interesting)

ruir (2709173) | about 2 months ago | (#47729771)

I would be fine with metal detectors at theatres. While you are at it, besides shoving down their throat one hour of adverts as it already happens, whip them too. I am not going to theatres anyway, these people do not deserve our hard earned money. As for the proceedings of the movies trickling down to actors or people, or the actual book writers, dream on, Hollywood accounting makes sure they only get a pittance.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 2 months ago | (#47729811)

removing all copy protection would require movies as we currently know them to cease to exist

"as we currently know them" is the key phrase here. No one in the current production chain has any right to keep their job at everyone else's expense, any more than blacksmiths and farriers did. Now, would movies, good and bad, still get made if copying was perfectly legal? Yes, although the field would no doubt be very different than what we currently know.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729863)

The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours to produce a movie and all those people want to get paid.

And how many of those people are actually being paid by a percentage cut from ticket/dvd sales?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729409)

because freedom?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (1)

TWX (665546) | about 2 months ago | (#47729417)

That depends on how one defines selling a physical copy. If he was basically just recouping the cost of the physical media and providing to known associates then it's different than if he was selling them for-profit on the street to random strangers.

Even recouping media costs should be frowned upon. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729529)

Any financial transaction whatsoever technically makes it a commercial venture. Why do you think all the old tape swappers usually had you give them a tape to copy their mixes onto?

As above, I have no sympathy for the guy. Additionally, willfully doing it AFTER getting swatted for it is just asking for trouble.

Re:Even recouping media costs should be frowned up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729751)

What about some sympathy for the taxpayers who are going to have to pay about GBP100000 for locking him up, despite him being no danger to society whatsover?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729541)

Given the price [officedepot.com] of the physical media, if he charged more than 15 cents each, he was making a profit off of unlawfully obtained copies of someone else's work. I do not know anyone who would demand a 15 cent compensation from friends, most people would accept it as a trivial cost between friends who probably offered more expensive resources in the past with no effort to recover the costs.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 2 months ago | (#47729801)

And was ripping off people, oh yeah. I completely agree with you that a 15 cents a piece, buying a DVD for between 20 - 40 Euros is a huge rip-off.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (5, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 2 months ago | (#47729519)

I agree he deserves to be punished and I get that he probably doesn't have enough money to pay a fine so it's off to the joint he goes but is 33 months really a fitting punishment here? That's almost three years of this guy's life. And the claim that "millions were lost" has been proven to be exaggerated over and over again. A download does not equal a lost sale; those that download do not buy, they simply go without. I'm not saying that makes it OK, I'm just saying the punishment does not fit the crime.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729799)

I agree the claim "millions were lost" is bullshit. Let's assume his physical copies he sold were valued at something reasonable, 1,000$ This would be selling 100 DVDs at 10$ each, hardly a stretch. Picking a random jurisdiction, anything over 950$ is called grand theft, which is punishable with a sentence of up to 3 years in jail. Don't get me wrong, I don't think what he was doing is stealing, I think it's criminal copyright infringement. The point is the punishment isn't out of line from what we hand out for other crimes of similar severity. Now, if it's appropriate to hand out jail time for crimes of that severity, that's a debate for another time.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 2 months ago | (#47729915)

Fair enough, still think it's too harsh. But, no, I did not realize the threshold for grand theft was so low. Never really thought about it but if someone had asked me to guess what the threshold was I would have probably started at at least 10,000.

Oh man, this guy is an idiot!

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729593)

This.

If you are going to pirate something, release it for free.

But if you are going to be a total scummy fuck and make money off some other persons work like that, all sympathy lost.

The legality and morality situation of the recording in the first place is still up for debate. (as is the whole of Hollywoods legacy, but who cares about international laws)

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729765)

Wait, you mean he stole the distributor's copies and sold them? Or wiped the original copies then sold his own?

Or do you mean that he put a sequence of 0s and 1s in a particular order, and other people freely gave him money in exchange for a physical representation of that sequence? OH THE HUMANITY! Let's lock up the bastard and produce a costly, bitter individual, institutionalised and well-trained for real crime.

Since we're making stupid, arbitrary protectionist laws, can we lock you up? I have no sympathy for loud idiots.

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729831)

Why is releasing it for free better?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (2, Interesting)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 months ago | (#47729929)

"If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

33 months prison for 'violating' an imaginary right invented by a foreign industry to increase their profits?

What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for, just because the water company invented an unlicensed water drinking offense?

Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 months ago | (#47729961)

"If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

He had to watch Fast and Furious 6 in its entirety?

Don't mess with the bread and circuses (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729379)

This is what you get if you do.

"millions and millions" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729401)

Yet the banksters who cost the public billions and TRILLIONS have yet to spend a single day behind bars.

Not smart (5, Insightful)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#47729405)

"Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

Re:Not smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729475)

"Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

And ran a few red lights as well.

Re:Not smart (1)

jonr (1130) | about 2 months ago | (#47729917)

"Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

And ran a few red lights as well.

And stole policeman's helmet.

Re:Not smart (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729551)

Well, At least he didn't bum rush the cop... That could have been dangerous.

Re:Not smart (2)

anotheregomaniac (1439993) | about 2 months ago | (#47729599)

This is an example of proper use of the automobile analogy.

Re:Not smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729701)

Wait. We're now modding up proper uses of automobile analogies?

WTF? Slashdot has really gone downhill.

Re:Not smart (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47729963)

On the contrary, its eloquent use of car analogies is one of Slashdot's remaining fine points. =p

Re:Not smart (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 months ago | (#47729683)

Clearly he is engaged in unlawful behavior, and is does not seem to make rational decisions, but there are other ways to handle this that would not incur a great cost on society. For instance,ban him from seeing movies. Ban him from logging onto the internet. Put him under house arrest. Yes, he would fight against this, because clearly he wants to escalate. But then he would be put in jail for being a bad citizen, not because some corporation feel they have an entitlement to profit.

In the US we are increasingly paying to incarcirate poor people who make one or two poor choices and don't have the money to buy their way out like others. The assumption is increasingly that one can make poor choices, such as drugs, as long as you are wealthy enough to pay for it. OTOH, if you don't have the cash, you go to jail, and incur an average of $30,000 cost to they taxpayer. It is not that there should be no consequences for violating laws, but maybe we should look at other things, like ankle bracelets that only let you go to work and home.

One big example of this is school truancy. In some states one can be skip as much school as one wants, and long as you have a few hundred dollars to pay for it. Of course if you don't have the cash you are looking at jail time. I am not sure how this helps as kids who skip school probably see no difference between school and jail. I suppose that when they actually go to jail, they may see there is a difference, but some have already been to jail as can make the comparison.

"Unwisely" (5, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | about 2 months ago | (#47729411)

Understatement of the year. This is a sad case of a stupid law intersecting with an incredibly stupid person.

Re:"Unwisely" (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 2 months ago | (#47729871)

Seems really sad. It's not like these people make a HUGE difference to profits. Only companies can charge for "potential damages" and have to show real damages.

However, if you went blind because of Core Exit in the Gulf, you better keep your doctor's receipts.

We need to have no laws at all (2)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 months ago | (#47729413)

All laws are bad.

Re:We need to have no laws at all (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47729451)

We need to have no laws at all

Good luck enforcing that!

Re:We need to have no laws at all (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47729565)

All laws are bad.

Especially that one..

Re:We need to have no laws at all (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 months ago | (#47729931)

Good thing this pirate wasn't Michael Brown. Then stealing = empowerment and we'd all have to burn down movie theaters.

Re:We need to have no laws at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729815)

Congratulations. You have won Idiot of the Year award. How do you feel?

The main point (2)

Drethon (1445051) | about 2 months ago | (#47729433)

Distributing copies, whatever... "distribution and selling copies for profit" - You screwed.

Re:The main point (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 months ago | (#47729745)

It would be nice if TFA actually went into ANY detail about this. Instead, it's only mentioned in passing.

Real crime (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47729445)

Real crime was making a crappy, movie theater copy instead of a DVD ripped version.

Re:Real crime (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 2 months ago | (#47729607)

And how many people, realistically, are going to watch that fuzzy copy instead of waiting a couple of months for it to come out on Netflix?

There are 6 of them now? (5, Funny)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 2 months ago | (#47729453)

I'm just surprised 700,000 people wanted to see Fast and the Furious 6.

Re:There are 6 of them now? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 2 months ago | (#47729547)

And a cam rip at that. Well, as the guy in the article goes to show, there is no accounting for stupid.

Re:There are 6 of them now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729569)

They wanted to make sure that the money that they are going to spend at the movie is worth it. I bet you out of that 700,000 a 1/8 to 1/4 of them went to the the theater and payed to see it.

Re:There are 6 of them now? (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47729597)

That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.

Personally I think the real number is a magnitude or two lower. Did the first movie even do that many copies?

SOLD them (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729459)

Making a copy for yourself is one thing, but selling them is another. THAT is copyright violation.

I would say he got 33 months for that, not the act of recording it.

Re:SOLD them (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47729603)

He got 33 months for being STUPID.... But crime usually is.

You could kill someone and get less time than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729501)

Just because it happened on the internet doesn't make it any worse than a physical crime.

Thirty-three months? (0)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 2 months ago | (#47729571)

Isn't that the standard penalty in Europe for genocide?

Re:Thirty-three months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729821)

That Norwegian guy got 21 years for killing 77 people. That's 3 months, 8 days per person.

So copying a movie is ten times worse than murdering someone.

Where is Paul Harvey when you need him? (1)

chinton (151403) | about 2 months ago | (#47729585)

And now it's time for the rest of the story...

#irc.Atrolltalkk.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729605)

and co8Mittees That *BSD is it has to be fun Company a 2

What? 33 months for uploading a cam...wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729643)

"[...]and also selling physical copies of Fast and Furious 6."

Rule 3 of being a pirate (after rules 1 and 2 about not talking about being a pirate) is you do not sell pirated stuff for a profit. He deserves everything he gets.

was he sentenced or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729645)

Police Raid “Movie Cammer” and Family Twice – Then Drop All Charges

Nature of tort reform (5, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about 2 months ago | (#47729697)

Yes, this happened in the UK, not the US, but I don't think that the point I'm about to make is invalid...

Crimes and punishments need to be re-evaluated. No truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example), when being the only crime, should never receive stronger sentences than crimes that don't affect persons directly and only lightly, at best, affect corporations (like this theatre-cam incident), and those types of crimes should never receive stronger sentences than for those where a person is individually victimized or significant chattel property is stolen (mugging, home burglary, car theft, etc), then would come violent personal crimes (any crime involving brandishing of a weapon, battery, threats of a greater harm like using the claim of a planted bomb, etc) and crimes where a person's life-savings were taken putting them into severe hardship, etc.

The scale should be steep; it should take numerous, numerous counts of the small crimes to even approach the sentences of the next crime up the scale, and the nature of what becomes a count should accurately reflect what's going on. In the case of providing copyrighted material, the law needs to bear in mind that much of the time the material would not have been purchased by the consumer had it not been available for free anyway, so the actual damage to the content creator is lower than usually represented.

Re:Nature of tort reform (4, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 months ago | (#47729955)

>> truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example),

Thats a very naive viewpoint. Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

Moral of the Story (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 2 months ago | (#47729699)

Moral of the Story, don't steal other peoples stuff. It will get you into a lot of trouble. I would ask the person, was it worth it? Im betting people would howl to the moon if the person got 6 months in jail. 33 Months is a very long time and just knowing that will keep ME from stealing movies.

Re:Moral of the Story (0)

ruir (2709173) | about 2 months ago | (#47729839)

What did he steal, moron? This thread is full of media shills, gosh.

Re:Moral of the Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729971)

He stole the revenue that the movie company would have received had they sold the 700,000 copies.

Now one can argue that there is not a 1:1 correlation between downloads and units sold... but at that point we are arguing HOW MUCH he stole, not WHAT he stole.

lots of good points, but what about... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 months ago | (#47729727)

Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

Perhaps, he should take the most money he made (legally) on any one day of his life, then counter sue for lost wages for every single day incarcerated. I mean if he made 1500 on that lottery ticket one day, then he should have made 1500 every other day including weekends!

Re:lots of good points, but what about... (1)

mpe (36238) | about 2 months ago | (#47729959)

Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

There there is also the third catagory those people who would have bought the DVD only because of the seeing the download. This is the number that could meaningfully be compared with "lost sales". Even if "were never a potential customer" covers the vast majority of downloaders.

No... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729769)

No.. It didn't cost them anything, because you can't prove that those people would've even went out and bought the damn movie to begin with.

White collar crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729793)

Sneering with limp analogies to liquor store robberies miss the point. This is a white collar crime, not really that different from someone who manipulates a company's books, causing it to lose million of dollars.

instead of.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47729855)

instead of time in prison, he should be forced to watch the shitty movie continuously for 33 months

Re:instead of.. (1)

jonr (1130) | about 2 months ago | (#47729937)

instead of time in prison, he should be forced to watch the shitty movie continuously for 33 months

...in his own crappy cam-rip format.

More crowded (1)

Hoov7178 (628446) | about 2 months ago | (#47729901)

The shallower end of the gene pool just aquired a new permanent resident.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?