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!

FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the free-isn't-free-anymore dept.

The Courts 352

luigi6699 writes "The BBC reports that 'the US authorities have charged eight people in connection with the illegal trading of copyrighted films, music, games and software over the net.' According to Acting Assistant Attorney General John C Richter, 'cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce.'"

cancel ×

352 comments

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

i must have been arrested (0, Redundant)

stinkynathan (732161) | about 9 years ago | (#13201284)

/. says there's nothing to see here and to "please move along" /me moves along

Article is kinda skimpy on details (0)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 9 years ago | (#13201285)

ANybody have a better link? The BBC article is a bit light on the details. 8 People, Fifteen countries, and that's about it.

Re:Article is kinda skimpy on details (3, Insightful)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13201300)

Try RIAA/MPAA.com.

You didn't hear? Yeah, they run the government now.

Priorities! (5, Insightful)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | about 9 years ago | (#13201287)

If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

Re:Priorities! (5, Insightful)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13201290)

But they protected the most important thing of all, the profits of media conglomerates.

Not to mention people's identities and pedophiles (2, Insightful)

Travoltus (110240) | about 9 years ago | (#13201316)

There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.

Priorities? We're the FBI, we don't need no steeeeeeeenkin priorities!!!

Re:Priorities! (4, Insightful)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 9 years ago | (#13201342)

I think they consider that, and probably spike our taxes so they can hire more and more FBI agents and such. 'Gotta get them all' so-to-speak.

I think there are two main issues. People who freely share copyrighted material, and people who SELL copyrighted material. Personally, I see the latter as being flagrant theft.

Re:Priorities! (1)

obarel (670863) | about 9 years ago | (#13201446)

It's theft, but I'd like to see the FBI arresting the bastard who stole my bike!

Since when is theft considered a federal offence?

Re:Priorities! (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 9 years ago | (#13201465)

Where in Article I, Section 8, does it give Congress that authority? Cause I can't find it. And don't say regulate commerce cause I think that's something different.

If anything, digital piracy should be done at the State level. Maybe tried in both States the crime has been committed in.

Murderers... (5, Insightful)

John Seminal (698722) | about 9 years ago | (#13201361)

If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

#1) Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity, without allocating many law officers. All the FBI has to do is make an example of one person, charge him with everything, throw the kitchen sink at the guy and make sure he never gets outside of a jail, and that might stop other people from doing the same act.

#2) Follow the money. There would be no FBI without money, and they get their money from congress. Members of congress get elected, and that takes lots of money. I can't give/donate nearly as much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me. If the RIAA wants music file sharers chased, arrested and prosecuted, and members of congress want money for the next election, guess what the FBI will be doing?

#3) Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks. Whenever there is an attack, the people collectivly lose more rights. Police put up camera's in cities to videotape everyone (chicago and boston both have over 3,000 each). Libraries require fingerprints (Naperville). Gas prices soar. Companies like Halliburton get rich. I also noticed a direct relationship between acts of terror and rednecks getting very patriotic, which means they vote republican. For some reason, people in the south think democrats are pussies because we want to understand a problem before shooting at it.

I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills? The terrorists target public trains and busses which the avarage joe takes to work. The rich live in gated communities, they have private security in addition to the police. And when the rich call the police, the police know to anwser quickly and with their best officers. The last thing the police departments want is a millionaire with lawyers pissed off at them.

Re:Murderers... (4, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 9 years ago | (#13201456)

About number three, no kidding on the millionare with lawyers angry at the police department. But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

I don't like the concept of requiring fingerprints unless someone is convicted of a crime. People not convicted of their first offense ever should have their fingerprint copy destroyed. What if someone has no fingerprints for whatever reason?

About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.
-
Personally I think they should never be lively monitored. Just review the tapes when necessary. Delete footage after 30 days. But still require voter approval every 4 years.

About the terrorist attacks, namely September 11th, let us think about that for a second. What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?

By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things. But more often than not in our federal Congress we see them voting for stupid things, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.

Re:Murderers... (2, Interesting)

dhasenan (758719) | about 9 years ago | (#13201532)

But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

Bah, that takes too much effort. It wouldn't happen often at all--maybe once every five years at the inside. The poor person in question would have to win the lottery or something similar (saving money and working doesn't cut it, and county/state/federal law enforcement officers don't generally harass college students in my experience, so that way's out); they'd have to remember the officer's name; they'd have to be the sort to hold grudges and vendettas; and the whole deal would have to transpire within the statute of limitations.

About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.

I strongly disagree with that. I want an electorate that will defend my rights even more than I will.

What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?

Osama bin Laden would have benefitted greatly from those attacks. Think about it--he was fighting a nation that didn't want to actively and openly confront him. By attacking that nation, he could force a fair and open confrontation; once that was given, international coalitions against the US could be formed.
The trouble was, none of the Arab nations were willing to go against the US. Had bin Laden's plan worked, no doubt, every Muslim and Arab nation from Morocco to Lebanon to Iran would have joined together to fight the US as soon as the latter set foot on Arab soil.

I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.

Get farking references. The incident in question was an appropriations bill for the war in Iraq--voting against it would be political suicide. There was a rider on that bill in the form of the REAL ID Act.
But there's little difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. It's mainly a question of who to tax more and how much to spend on public services (health care, welfare, etc).

Re:Murderers... (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 9 years ago | (#13201555)

The problem with trying to reference it is taking hours of trying to find the exact vote. The government site seems a huge mess to me.

I don't care if they think it would be political suicide. They lost my vote. They really should have the courage to vote for what's right.

Someone can hold a grudge that long. And so what if it goes beyond the statute of limitations. I would think it would still be possible to sue the specific judicial system for corruption. Well, by sue, I don't mean for any monetary compensation. I mean sueing to get one's good name back. If someone is willing to spend thousands upon thousands just trying to get the specific judicial system (city, county, state, whatever) to apologize, and nothing more. There are some people that obsessive compulsive enough to do that type of thing.

Re:Murderers... (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about 9 years ago | (#13201460)

Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity

Some. Not terrorists, typically. For that, you have to just plain remove them, their backers/resources, and try to deal with the underlying culture clash that fuels them. People who are too cheap to pay for movies, on the other hand, already know all of the ground rules, and are just assuming that they won't get caught. It's not like they don't know they're no better than a standard shoplifter, they just figure that since there are millions of them they have a shot at continuing to enjoy the work of their favorite band without actually paying what the band asks. The people who facilitate that on a large scale are truly low hanging fruit for law enforcement, though - they can't really get the stuff they pirate into a lot of their buddies' hands without, by definition, exposing what they're doing. That little bit of deliberate, very public nose-thumbing is pretty much asking for it.

much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me

So why are you not forming the National Pirate's Association? Groups of teachers, gun owners, auto workers, environmentalists... they all form large groups and leverage that so that they can make a bunch of noise and fund campaigns. What do you think MoveOn.org is? It's rich people backing Democrats with millions and millions of dollars. Poor people can throw in a dollar, too, and say they think the same thing. Do you really think that the trial lawyer associations, the NEA, and other extremely well funded left-of-center groups don't have every bit of an audience in political circles as a particular trade association in the entertainment biz? Spend a little more time on K Street in DC - the noise from the well funded left is very, very loud. The problem is that it doesn't resonate with most voters because all it ever is is against things, and not constructive. That's getting pretty old.

Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks.

Not a high priority? How do you figure? We've got an unprecedented number of people working on the intel, interdiction, and counter-terrorism side of things. We're in the middle of re-building a seriously gutted intel capacity that suffered for years under enormous budget cuts. It takes time to hire, train, and embed the sort of people needed to head this stuff off at the source. Until then, we're treating the symptom, not the problem. But that doesn't mean that other crime should just be ignored.

Gas prices soar.

Because no one will tolerate the building of domestic refining capacity. We haven't added refineries since the 1970's, even as the population using the fuel has grown hugely. But that's only part of the picture - the main component is demand pressure because of hugely growing markets in China and India. There are simply more people trying to buy the same gallons of gas. So, if your personal favorite politicians were in office, how would you reduce the competition for oil? Would you drill for more? Build new refineries (in which state/city - have fun getting approval!)? Subsidize fuel with tax dollars? The point is, you toss gas prices into the conversation as if your distaste for the FBI busting flagrant copyright violators is all part of giant tinfoil hat conspiracy that also includes somehow fooling the Chinese into using more oil so that we have to bid up our purchases from suppliers.

I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills?

Who do you think had their offices in the top floors of the World Trade Center, a bunch of living-on-Velveeta 20-year-olds starting up a lost cause web site? No, it was bankers, traders, law firms, accounting firms - "rich" people. Who do you think lost a fortune when those attacks clobbered the economy? Anyone with serious investments. If the rich people who live in Beverly Hills are your notion of where the investment, business ownership, and financial horsepower in this country is based, then you must get all your news (and world view) from MTV.

The terrorists target public trains and busses which the avarage joe takes to work

Sure, because it's easy, and because it accomplishes what they want: chaos and fear. If they attacked a high-end restaurant in Beverly Hills (to cite your favorite example), they'd get less play on Al Jazeera. There is absolutely nothing stopping a car bomber from taking out a row of limos at a red carpet event, or from ramming a vehicle into some celebrity shindig. If the paparazzi can be there taking pictures, a determined suicide bomber sure can. But they know that they'll produce more shock by killing kids on the way to school, and moms on the way to work. That's their whole purpose - to make as many people as possible feel that someone just like themselves could be next. The world is mostly populated with Average Joes, so that's where the death goes.

Re:Murderers... (1)

Travoltus (110240) | about 9 years ago | (#13201470)

>

So, exactly how many rich people wound up on the list of WTC dead? Have you heard of any?

The rich wouldn't be found in the WTC, they'd be found in their mansions out on the plantation watching the immigrants pick grapes for their wine. The middle class and investor-wannabes would be found in the WTC.

Re:Murderers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201534)

I know it is hard to believe, but wealthy people actually work. Sometimes they even come into contact with common people. Some of them even worked in the WTC. Why do you hate people who have been successful? I suspect it is because you have programmed yourself to be poor and know that you are a complete and total loser. Since you are incompetent and unable to be successful, then no one else should be successful. Poverty is primarily a mental disease. Poor people stay poor because they keep doing what made them poor.

Re:Murderers... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 years ago | (#13201467)

I can't give/donate nearly as much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me

Why not? The RIAA members contribute a very small amount of their earnings to lobbying, and their entire earnings come from people buying their products. Why don't you start a PAC. Every time you are thinking about buying an RIAA product, remember where the money would go and donate it to the PAC instead. Publicise this and get other people to do the same. If you did this between now and the next election, I suspect you could raise enough to buy a significant amount of government.

Re:Priorities! (2, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | about 9 years ago | (#13201409)

Every time this happens, someone says "What, have they caught all the terrorists?". Believe it or not, the ideal method of law enforcement is not to deal with one type of crime at a time...

"Theft? Err, no, we're still working through all the murders, try again in a few months"

Seriously here people, you may think the copyright holders are big evil faceless corps, but that doesn't make copying their material right. If you object to the companies, don't play their games, listen to their music, watch their videos. Yeah, sure, it'll be tough, you'll miss this stuff, but that's what making a stand is all about.

As it is, I'm fed up of this general attitude of "The company is evil, so I'm going to copy their stuff illegally, that'll teach them!". No, all it does it give them support to the idea they need stronger laws to deal with copyright infringers.

Pfft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201437)

The stupidity needed to mod something like this 'insightful' is incredible

Greatest.Troll.EVAR. (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 9 years ago | (#13201452)

If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

This is the single best slashdot troll I have ever seen. Bravo, sir.

Consumer (4, Funny)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13201289)

Glad to see our government is looking out for the consumer.

Arresting teens for committing the hideous crime of downloading music and stopping monopolies right in their tracks.

Ok, maybe not the second part, but 1/2 isn't that bad.

Re:Consumer (1)

sound+vision (884283) | about 9 years ago | (#13201324)

TFA says they were "key members of online piracy networks", meaning someone running a huge torrent site, or members of a cracking crew. TFA also says it wasn't just music piracy, but games, movies, and apps.

Re:Consumer (1)

iamplasma (189832) | about 9 years ago | (#13201398)

stopping monopolies right in their tracks

Umm... yeah, because only one company makes movies, one company makes music, and one company makes computer games, and they're all using predatory tactics to prevent anyone else from entering the field. For crying out loud, not one of those industries is close to a monopoly, having many players in each in competition. I'm sure it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to be anti-corporation (because it's just so cool and rebellious), but can't you at least try to make it plausible?

Why is this under "Your rights online"? (3, Insightful)

kronocide (209440) | about 9 years ago | (#13201293)

Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

Its rights online, just not YOUR rights (1)

bubbaD (182583) | about 9 years ago | (#13201338)

logically, this can refer to the rights of the copyright holders. It is the copyright holders "rights" that are being upheld. Not only are you self-righteous, but self-centered, too. This has everything to do with "rights," you just have to consider it applies to copyright holders.

Re:Its rights online, just not YOUR rights (1)

kronocide (209440) | about 9 years ago | (#13201381)

It is the copyright holders "rights" that are being upheld.

Well, that's a bit strained. The category header is obviously addressed to the readers of Slashdot, who judging by the responses here are not holders of copyrights, or care much for them. I think my interpretation is more likely, that some feel that free copying of copyrighted material is their right. And I don't believe that makes me "self-righteous" and certainly not "self-centered" (this isn't about me either way).

Re:Its rights online, just not YOUR rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201418)

People keep forgetting there are 3, yes 3 groups in this whole debacle.

The 3 main groups are:

(1) Artists
(2) Customers
(3) middlemen, uh, I mean RIAA / MPAA

(1) needs (2). And (2) would like to have (1) around.

But, you see (3) is NOT NEEDED or WANTED by either (1) or (2).... ....mmmm, that means RIAA / MPAA can fuck off so that customers won't be ripped off anymore (by price-fixing) and artists will receive MORE money (rather than the couple of quarters from each CD sold -- plus, they DON'T have to give the middlemen the MAJORITY of the hard-earned cash from CONCERTS).... .... hahaha MPAA / RIAA you SUCK!!!

Re:Its rights online, just not YOUR rights (2, Insightful)

iamplasma (189832) | about 9 years ago | (#13201484)

But, you see (3) is NOT NEEDED or WANTED by either (1) or (2).... ....mmmm, that means RIAA / MPAA can fuck off so that customers won't be ripped off anymore (by price-fixing) and artists will receive MORE money (rather than the couple of quarters from each CD sold -- plus, they DON'T have to give the middlemen the MAJORITY of the hard-earned cash from CONCERTS).... .... hahaha MPAA / RIAA you SUCK!!!

Umm.. while you appear to have completely discredited yourself at the end there all on your own, I thought I may as well reply anyway. While people don't realise it, they do definitely want the middlemen, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, they provide the music in what is a more useful form (eg CDs), this is the one and only aspect which may be partially obsoleted by MP3s and P2P. Secondly, they see that the music is actually produced to the best quality possible, by helping provide recording and postproduction facilities. After all, music is more than just a guy in front of a microphone. Thirdly, they provide the commercial infrastructure to make sure music is paid for, and artists get paid. Fourthly, they find good (in the sense "popularly demanded", not necessarily "talented") musicians, preventing people having to wade through as much crap as they might. Fifthly, they help cultivate those particular musicians, by ensuring they continue to make music in the way people want. Lastly, and most obviously, they provide the marketing and advertising that commercial success requires. Of course, there's more than just those factors, but they'd be the main ones. Also, I'd love to know how you think the MPAA are anything like that, given that major films are produced and marketed by the same firms.

The point is, there's a lot more to mass music than a guy with a guitar and someone who wants to listen, and these "middlemen" provide all those things. Perhaps a good analogy would be stores, should you steal milk because supermarkets pay farmers a fraction of what they sell the milk for? After all, all we need is farmers and people to drink milk, how dare those supermarket assholes get in the way!

If you don't like the RIAA/MPAA, don't buy their stuff, but the fact that so many people do want their product, compared to buying music/movies online, is economically speaking plain proof that they do serve a huge role in the value of their products, otherwise the market would have eliminated them naturally long ago.

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"? (2, Insightful)

joebutton (788717) | about 9 years ago | (#13201408)

Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

The whole concept of rights a bit nebulous. Having a "right" to something could mean

a) Being permitted to do something

or b) Being entitled to something

You are confusing the two meanings. The general guiding principal is that you should be permitted to do anything that does't impact on anyone else's "rights". If two set of rights come into conflict things get more complicated and a balance has to be struck.

This story is about whether the balance of rights is struck in favour of the consumer or the copyright holder. Unless you produce more copyrighted material than you consume, this is a story about your rights being negatively impacted by the FBI upholding the copyright holders'.

Nobody owns anything anymore... (5, Insightful)

John Seminal (698722) | about 9 years ago | (#13201412)

Everything is becoming rented and licensed.

Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

The problem with the system is I can't own a damn thing anymore. There was a time if I wanted to tape something off TV, I would have used a VCR. Now people are paying a monthly fee for TiVo. 20 years ago, people could buy a satelite dish and get all the channels for free on C-band. And back then cable was fairly inexpensive. Today, a "basic" subscription to cable can cost over $60 a month. AND back then there were not as many commericals on television as today. What has changed? Did these companies hire specialists to determine just how much bullshit people can take before they break?

And it is not good enough to have a phone in the house, now everyone needs a cell phone. I had one employer ask me to update my file with my second phone number, a cell phone number. I did not have one. My boss gave me one hell of a look.

And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.

Every buisness is figuring ways to not sell a product, but to sell a reoccuring service. One day, people won't be able to buy underwear, they will have to buy a license from fruit of the loom. Perhaps washing machines will need to call fruit of the loom before you can wash underwear.

And the music industry and movie industry is doing the same thing. It is not bad enough that they want $10 to see a movie, after half an hour of commericals (what is the point of paying $10 if they will force people to watch commercials anyways, isn't that just like TV?). In addition to the $10 ticket and forced viewing of commercials, the theater has a monopoly on snacks, and they use that monopoly to charge $5 for a soda that probably costs them a thin dime. One year later, the movie gets released on DVD for $29.99. The movie quality is so-so. Three years later a nicer version comes out for $29.99.

And If I want to back up my copy, in case it gets scratched so I have a working copy, the movie industry won't let me. They shut down DVD Decryptor.

And about the music industry. Remember, they kept prices inflated to over $15 a CD. They were sued and they lost. They were ordered to give free CD's to libraries and what did they do? 100 different CD's that would be interesting? NO. They gave 100 identical copies of Christmas songs.

So, no, sharing is not theft. What is theft is what the corporations are doing to people.

Re:Nobody owns anything anymore... (1)

jtwJGuevara (749094) | about 9 years ago | (#13201486)

The problem with the system is I can't own a damn thing anymore. There was a time if I wanted to tape something off TV, I would have used a VCR. Now people are paying a monthly fee for TiVo.\

No one is keeping you from using a VCR still. You still have the right to choose with your dollar. Just because Tivo charges a monthly description and cable charges an inordinate amount of money for their service does not mean you have to buy it. If VCR's are a bit archaic for you, there are DVD recorders that can record straight from TV

And it is not good enough to have a phone in the house, now everyone needs a cell phone. I had one employer ask me to update my file with my second phone number, a cell phone number. I did not have one. My boss gave me one hell of a look.

I feel your pain. I work at a university and sometimes I think I'm the only person under the age of 30 without a cell phone. I like the idea of being able to call someone from wherever I'm at and have one in case of an emergency, but not for $40 a month.

And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.

I agree, but that is Microsoft's EULA which is legally binding when you buy their software. Again, you can speak with your dollars.

It is not bad enough that they want $10 to see a movie, after half an hour of commericals (what is the point of paying $10 if they will force people to watch commercials anyways, isn't that just like TV?). In addition to the $10 ticket and forced viewing of commercials,

To be honest, virtually everyone I know actually enjoys the commercials before a movie. It's been my experience the movies will show one generic commercial (like Coke or something) and then show oodles of movie previews. People in love with movies always want to see the trailer for what is coming out so they know what they want to watch 3-9 months out from now.

And about the music industry.

The music industry is a bastion of poor business practices and I refuse to support them. My radio dial stays on NPR and my music at home always comes from http://www.digitallyimported.com/ [digitallyimported.com] .

So, no, sharing is not theft. What is theft is what the corporations are doing to people.

Corporations and businesses have one job - to create profits for shareholders. They are obligated to do nothing else, as long as what they do is within the confines of the law. With that said, the only way corporations and other businesses can make money is by meeting the demand of the consumer. The consumer is the one demanding these products. As such, business will sell/license their goods or services at the price that believe will return the highest margin. If the consumers don't want the service or don't agree with the way a product is licensed or sold, then they will stop buying it and the product or service will cease to exist or will be sold/license difference.

Re:Nobody owns anything anymore... (1)

nkh (750837) | about 9 years ago | (#13201513)

I like the idea of being able to call someone from wherever I'm at and have one in case of an emergency, but not for $40 a month.
Is it really still that expensive? In my country I only pay $20 for 3 hours of communication every month and they automatically give me one hour as a bonus if I have more than one hour left at the end of the month. My parents pay more than 3 times this price for their landline.
but that is Microsoft's EULA which is legally binding when you buy their software.
Are you sure it's legally binding? I've heard so much "random thoughts" that I don't know what's the truth on EULAs...

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"? (1)

spdt (828671) | about 9 years ago | (#13201427)

I think that at least one of the exact "rights" that are being referred to is the assumed right to anonymity online. What the Slashdot reader might be concerned about are the processes that the FBI used to track and gather evidence on the suspects. It is supposed to make you wonder how much of your online activity is being watched by the government.

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201439)

Might not be at your place. In Spain (and many other coutries) it *is* a right.

Re:Why is this under "Your rights online"? (2, Insightful)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | about 9 years ago | (#13201444)

but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

Doing what you want with your own private property, including making copies of it available for other people, _IS_ a right. That's why they call them "private property rights". "Intellectual property laws" put restrictions on everyone's normal private property rights, supposedly to encourage innovation in the society (although all the anecdotes I've seen lately seem to indicate that they're used primarily to retard innovation).

If a carpenter spent a lot of time and money creating a fancy piece of furniture, and sold it to someone else, they wouldn't expect to be able to control how that buyer (or any future buyers) used that piece of furniture. How does it provide a net benefit to society to allow "intellectual property" owners that kind of control over other peoples' private property rights?

Neither is price fixing (1)

HangingChad (677530) | about 9 years ago | (#13201543)

recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

You're right but that's only one side of the equation. You want consumers to follow the rules but corporate empires can continue to fix prices, gouge the consumer, whittle away at our fair use rights and we're just supposed to take it?

cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce.

Amazing how much you can accomplish with a few million in PR money and a high profile K Street lobbyist. Copyright infringement is not theft. No, that doesn't make it okay, but it is most definitely not theft. The manufacturer may have lost sales and be owed money, but no one stole anything from them. What irks me is that no one got up in arms about copyright infringement, so RIAA and groups like them started lobbying the public consciousness and change the definition to "stealing" because that's a better inflamatory term for a call to action.

Now we see someone who should be smart enough to know the difference parroting the RIAA party line. What happens when the same person decides the definition of "terrorist" includes anyone Turd Blossom doesn't like?

I wonder (2, Insightful)

mocm (141920) | about 9 years ago | (#13201294)

how someone can be an Acting Assistant Attorney General and not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

Re:I wonder (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 9 years ago | (#13201303)

I wonder, how can someone who posts on slashdot not understand a 'Figure of Speech'

I'm sure he knows it's not theft, but all the sheeple reading the article wont know the difference between copyright infringement and theft, much less what copyright infringement is.

Re:I wonder (4, Funny)

phobos13013 (813040) | about 9 years ago | (#13201330)

I LIKE this logic!
Now if we could only get Bush to misrepresent the truth in only the way he can under grand jury proceedings about say weapons of mass destruction in Iraq... we could arrest him for LYING UNDER OATH by the Figure of Speech conversion.

Re:I wonder (1)

DebianDog (472284) | about 9 years ago | (#13201434)

In the famous words of Billy Boy Clinton, "Depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201517)

Or in the famous words of Tom DeLay, "An admonishment is not a sanction". Clinton would be proud.

Re:I wonder (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201305)

how someone can be an Acting Assistant Attorney General and not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

Because I love Ayanami Rei, you insensetive clod.

Re:I wonder (2, Funny)

mboverload (657893) | about 9 years ago | (#13201306)

The RIAA offered to take up his propagand...er...I mean, speech writing department.

Re:I wonder (1)

serialdogma (883470) | about 9 years ago | (#13201321)

By being paid to forget the diffenrence?

Re:I wonder (1)

Scott Swezey (678347) | about 9 years ago | (#13201337)

I wonder, how can someone who posts on slashdot not understand a 'Figure of Speech'

RTFP, First they state the arrests are ppl who were trading copyrighted files, then it talks about theives who download it and then sell the software(/games/movies/etc).

In my opinion, those are two completely different things. Sure, everyone "Trade's" Music, but downloading it, then selling it to someone is, in my opinion, a lot worse.


how someone can be an Acting Assistant Attorney General and not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

Sorry for the troll flaimbait here, but obviously you have no clue how our government works here in the Mighty USA. Look at George Bush... ('nuff said)

Re:I wonder (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 9 years ago | (#13201353)

It's a soundbite. It's meant to be short, snappy and to the point, not necessarily legally accurate.

If the case goes to court with these people charged with theft, then you will have reason to complain, but that's unlikely (because they'd be aquited, at least on that charge)

Re:I wonder (2, Interesting)

Uber Banker (655221) | about 9 years ago | (#13201369)

To copy and share copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. To sell copy and sell copyrighted materials in a market/environment where legal copies are also for sale is theft of a revenue stream. TFA refers to organised criminals conducting not only copyright infringement, but theft of revenue. These were not nice people benevolently running a backwater torrent site, they were copying and selling copyrighted materials.

Yes theft is an often misused concept in regards to copyright infringement, but in this case it wasn't.

Re:I wonder (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201410)

Nope.

If I took the money you earned by selling something, that would be theft of revenue. But the act of selling something is never theft. You might feel deprived of an opportunity, but the criminal act is the creation of the copy, which reduces the value of your copy. This act is called copyright infringement because it has unique properties which make it very different from theft.

I know, it's tempting to label something which you dislike "theft", because theft is pretty much universally accepted as "bad", unlike copyright infringement, which is not. That however doesn't make it right to call things what they're not. Copyright infringement, even professional production of physical media, is not theft.

Theft? Do the photo test. (1)

MarkByers (770551) | about 9 years ago | (#13201420)

Yes theft is an often misused concept in regards to copyright infringement, but in this case it wasn't.

In terms of law: no it's not theft. (It's not stealing either). No physical objects were removed from anyone's possession. It's not theft!

A simple test for theft: take a picture of the object before it is stolen, then take another picture after the crime. You can see that the object is gone! If you cannot do this, then it's not theft!

What were you arrested for, kid? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201295)

Copyright Infringement [arlo.net]

And they all moved away from me on the bench

Re:What were you arrested for, kid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201302)

And they all moved away from me on the bench

not the father rapers, the father rapers moved in

Re:What were you arrested for, kid? (2, Funny)

Nirvelli (851945) | about 9 years ago | (#13201539)

And creatin' a nuisance!

Does this really solve the problem (3, Insightful)

theamazingflyingshee (900968) | about 9 years ago | (#13201296)

Well think about this, if they are taken to court or pay an out of court settlement then they might not have enough money to feed them selves (etc.) as they might me heavily i debt(etc.), so then they might turn to crime as means of income. There must be a better way.

Re:Does this really solve the problem (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | about 9 years ago | (#13201355)

There must be a better way.

Shoot to kill on first sight!

this just in from marketing (1)

CloudDrakken (582681) | about 9 years ago | (#13201298)

another reason to buy an FBI teeshirt, they'll NEVER KNOW WHAT TO DO

anyone remember in once upon a time in mexico when jdepp is wearing the CIA shirt and he's actually in the CIA?

that was awesome.

Once again (1)

epcraig (102626) | about 9 years ago | (#13201301)

Heinous news is released late on a Friday so that American reporters may be scooped by the BBC.

Why don't they go after GPL violators? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201309)

Or do they only serve the rich?

Re:Why don't they go after GPL violators? (2, Informative)

Xugumad (39311) | about 9 years ago | (#13201450)

So far GPL violations tend to be sorted out amicably, with the company in question kicking the programmer who thought they could slip GPL code in, without anyone noticing, and either releasing the source code or fixing the problem...

Selling or Trading? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201310)

The article says that they were trading copyright material, but the Assistant Attorney General says that they were selling it... so which one is it?

Re:Selling or Trading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201329)

The *Acting* AAG also used the words "thieves" and "steal" when talking about copyright infringement, so I think it's safe to assume he has no clue.

Re:Selling or Trading? (0, Flamebait)

markdavis (642305) | about 9 years ago | (#13201422)

Does it really matter? Both are illegal and WRONG. Selling it is worse, but I have no sympathy for people being fined or arrested for "sharing", which is still stealing. As long as the methods for catching them are not violating privacy.

Re:Selling or Trading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201458)

If you can get past all the porn and the spawning of multiple browser windows you'll find that Warez sites just give it away. I've never seen a Warez site that sold anything, they usually try to make enough money off of pay per click porn links to keep the site alive.
My guess is like everyone else in the Bush administration the Assistant Attorney General is a fuckin liar.

Makes me sick (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 9 years ago | (#13201313)

I never thought I'd ever live in a time where something that is so clearly a civil issue would be come a criminal charge. What's next, arresting people for slander or violating a contract?

Re:Makes me sick (1)

makomk (752139) | about 9 years ago | (#13201348)

Possibly. [slashdot.org]

Re:Makes me sick (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 9 years ago | (#13201360)

I'm guessing that you must be the oldest /. poster around, since there have been criminal penalties for some copyright infringement since 1897. It's a dumb idea, but it's not new.

Re:Makes me sick (4, Insightful)

Saeger (456549) | about 9 years ago | (#13201394)

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore, "intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity. Copyright infringement, then, is "economic terrorism" and a threat to national security. </idiot devil's advocate>

Re:Makes me sick (2, Informative)

Ingolfke (515826) | about 9 years ago | (#13201419)

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore

Not true. Ford, GM, and many other manufacturing corporation. What is true is that a large part of the U.S. economy is a service economy and also is based on revenues from Intellectual Property. So for the U.S. there is a real value in ensuring that each copy of a product is purchased.

"intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity.

As before, "all" is wrong. IP revnues are important, because if the U.S. lost major corporations that created IP hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens would be unemployed. Including those that made the IP, worked for the companies that distributed the IP, all the supporting companies (legal, healthcare, etc.).

Scarcity isn't part of a capitalistic system, it's a general state of things. There are only some many of any one thing to go around. Capitalism is the best method for allocating scarce resources.

Copyright infringement, then, is "economic terrorism" and a threat to national security.

Now you're just rambling and exagerating. Organized and major copyright infringement should be stopped. But it's not "economic terrorism" and anyone who tries to use that type of wording in any legitimate way is spouting off non-sensical rhetoric.

Re:Makes me sick (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201436)

COPYRIGHT is economic terrorism. And the USA, through WIPO, is guilty of it.

Scarcity is not the "general state of things" - information is nonrivalrous. What is scarce is the labor to produce new information patterns. People should be paid for making NEW information patterns. They should never have a monopoly on their duplication.

Re:Makes me sick (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | about 9 years ago | (#13201488)

Time is scarce. If you didn't have copyright/patents and protections for control of the distrubiton of the output from your time then you would have very little incentive to invent, or would have very little time to invent because you'd have to be working somewhere else to sustain you.

People should be paid for making NEW information patterns.

How would you propose this happen? It's a nice idea, but I don't see how it actually could be implemented. Who would pay for the new idea? Why would they pay for it, when someone else may pay for it and then they could use it for free? Would you pay for all ideas regardless of their value? How would you determine value?

Re:Makes me sick (1)

shawn443 (882648) | about 9 years ago | (#13201471)

Resource management sure, but in terms of wealth, I thought capitalism was about making money out of thin air, attaching to it a perceived value, and protecting that perception misconception with the power of courts. Now if you will excuse you me, I must run along and slave away for some ink and paper only because I haven't yet found a better way not to starve. Trading my system admin skills for wheat was a bust. (Only kind of kidding which makes ME kind of sick) (Um,, er,, just totally kidding invisible hand) (Damn, I shouldn't have said any of this)

Re:Makes me sick (1)

kesuki (321456) | about 9 years ago | (#13201494)

Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore,

In 2004, U.S. agricultural exports to China totaled a record $6.5 billion, an increase of five percent over the previous year. China is now the fourth largest market for U.S. agricultural exports, surpassed only by Canada, Mexico and Japan. cite:http://www.ncfb.com/mediaC/accent/accent_0516 05.html [ncfb.com]

We are still the number 1 exporter of tobacco products around the world. American cigarettes are highly reguarded as the best quality one can buy. And frankly we export at least $35 billion dollars a year worth of agracultural goods globally.

Since we export food to many countries, but food has a low margin, it is only because of our highly advanced agracultural technology (better, 'safer' pesticides/fungicides, better equipment, better educated farmers who have more advanced crop rotations, better irrigation techniques etc etc) and vast tracts of unpopulated land (ever been to the dakotas ;) that make us able to produce food for 'less' money than many nations can produce there own..

Re:Makes me sick (1, Redundant)

markdavis (642305) | about 9 years ago | (#13201426)

So we shouldn't press civil charges on THEFT? You want to leave it up to each business or individual to sue every shoplifter, car theif, or white collar crime?

Osama who? (1)

talipdx (891867) | about 9 years ago | (#13201314)

Atleast the lobbyists have America's priorities straight.... And Zonk what's with the callus post, you almost make it seem like they don't have our best interests at heart. :*[

Re:Osama who? (2, Funny)

phobos13013 (813040) | about 9 years ago | (#13201334)

Dont you GET IT man?! If we put going after and arresting the terrorists over propping up American Corporate culture... THEY WIN!!!!!!

The question now is... who are THEY?!?!!!

Where is my local FBI office? (3, Interesting)

speights_pride! (898232) | about 9 years ago | (#13201336)

Oh that's right, I don't live in America. I wonder if these other countries will actually extradite people to the US? I doubt theyt would in New Zealand as copyright infringement isn't a serious enough crime and imagine the outrage if you got 30 years jail in the US, when convicted killers often get away with 10 years here.

Shoplifting VS Copyright Infringement (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201347)

One actually deprives people of something that they possesed, the other doesn't. Yet which is more heavily punished? It's just crazy.

I had an arguement about copying vs sharing, the guy was saying that copying software isn't the same as sharing, he said if you gave away your copy to the person then that would be sharing. I guess that he also thinks that someone writting down a copy of a recipe for a friend isn't sharing either.

There are many methods that could be used for allowing artists to make money and allowing people to share. One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art (instead of the big labels soaking it up and dripping a little down to the artists) and more people would have access to the music. The only people that don't like this seem to be those that think 'why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free'.

Re:Shoplifting VS Copyright Infringement (2, Interesting)

Ingolfke (515826) | about 9 years ago | (#13201379)

One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art

Stupid blind consumers will buy a product sight unseen. I read reviews, try to find legal samples on the Internet, maybe here it on the radio, ask friends or people w/ similar musical tastes about the band. I would never pay in advance for disc that wasn't actually even recorded yet. You've probably already plunked down $50 for Duke Nukem Forever. Even the best artists produce crap sometimes, or at least music many people will not like. And what incentive would they have to make a really great disc?

why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free

No, many of the people who don't like your idea realize it would never work.

Re:Have a reality check (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about 9 years ago | (#13201375)

Don't I wish I was born in China, and never came to the US?

Re:Have a reality check (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | about 9 years ago | (#13201463)

Living in China is probably great _IF_ you are one of the _RICH_, well-connected people.

If you're a poor person - well, let's just say that poor people in China are an object lesson about what you get when you let pure, undiluted capitalism run amuck.

Yes, China's economic system is a lot more capitalistic than any other First World country's economic system right now - the U.S.'s economic structure is positively socialistic compared to China's (although I'm sure the U.S. rightwing-nuts are trying hard to fix that - apparently by looting the U.S. government until it financially collapses).

Operation FastLink (1)

Scott Swezey (678347) | about 9 years ago | (#13201376)

The eight men were charged with copyright infringement in Charlotte, North Carolina, following two FBI investigations known as Operation FastLink and Operation Site Down.

Didn't opertion FastLink deal with child porn websites? I don't see what it has to do with the "warez scene"...

Re:Operation FastLink (2, Funny)

01000011011101000111 (868998) | about 9 years ago | (#13201417)

Ah, but the child porn they were distributing had been released by the FBI as part of an entrapment plan - therefore the feds had the copyrights to it... And the FBI know full well they stand a better chance of getting you to serve a long term with Copyright breach charges than with child porno charges :( (Note: This is intended as a joke... not too sure if it isn't true tho :'( )

trading? (1)

retzwerx (899989) | about 9 years ago | (#13201377)

now that's new. hehe.

The article says... (3, Interesting)

Neticulous (900423) | about 9 years ago | (#13201393)

that sweden was one of the countries involved, does this mean swedish law is changing? Will we soon see the ever popular piratebay being closed down? I know they have always taunted in their legal threats [thepiratebay.org] section about how swedish law keeps them running. Curious to know how far the grasp of the DoJ reaches on this.

Re:The article says... (1)

Stanneh (775821) | about 9 years ago | (#13201425)

yes it seems swedish law is going through some change at the moment im not sure that its to popular though im quite sure foreign/US influence is involved wit hthe pushing of new laws there. heres a lil article about the new laws from the 2nd of july 05 http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6595.cfm [afterdawn.com]

Re:The article says... (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about 9 years ago | (#13201477)

IANAL, but I don't think it will change anything in Sweden. I think the Pirate Bay will just cling to the fact that it only distributes torrents, not the actual files containing the infringing material.

Even if the law changed, I think the guy who runs the pirate Bay is going to be a good captain and stay up as long as possible until he goes down with his ship.

Wow, that's some upload. (1, Redundant)

SynapseLapse (644398) | about 9 years ago | (#13201411)

From TFA "It said that once a film or game is copied, the pirated material is sent to servers throughout the world in minutes and then makes its way to file-sharing networks." I usually get a max of 50 k/s upload max!

Re:Wow, that's some upload. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201490)

well, your upload rate doesnt matter as people who put the things on the server have higher upload rates. and in the case of bit torrent u dont even need that. just put it on your computer and the parts of the file the other people have downloaded from you also get shared for other people to download(all over the world). so its a simultaneous upload/download. i think thats what it is.

Re:Wow, that's some upload. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201501)

Not so much really.
(4 gigabytes) / (100 (megabit / sec)) = 5.46133333 minutes

And thats just if nobody's racing.

What, you thought they used residential connections?

Worked so hard? (5, Insightful)

Icicle509 (895174) | about 9 years ago | (#13201424)

"......online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce......'" Im sure they work REAL hard, maybe 1% as hard as the average blue collar american? and they make more a minute than I make an hour..... Sorry guys, Not only do I think your grossly overpaid, I have a hard time swallowing calling what you do "Hard work"

New thoughts on the GPL (-1, Troll)

Ingolfke (515826) | about 9 years ago | (#13201449)

The GPL is a flag for Open Source software developers to rally around, but it has no teeth and anyways by violating the GPL no one is actually harmed in any way. In fact, much of the software that is developed by violating the GPL is in fact useful to end users so they're more likely to use a FOSS product in the future.

I have heard that there is a small startup (in Oakland?) that is developing software that will take source code and manipulate it so that source code and compiled output are different enough from the original to be nearly undetectable. In addition to this software I believe they're planning on providing consulting and development services to take the Open Source code and manipulate it even further to obfuscate the code.

This is exciting, because most FOSS software isn't accessible to the general public, but by reducing the costs required to produce software by using an existing code base we should see many new products that are actually afordable and useable by the end user population. Of course, I'm sure some people will copy and distribute this software over the Internet, but that's not a big deal either as we've already established.

I was talking with a good friend of mine from Bratislava about this a couple weeks ago and he was pretty angry. He thought this violated the rights of the people who wrote the code and the end-users because the software wasn't free as in speech. I argued that this may be the case, but it doesn't really matter because the producers would have developed the software anyways, and the end-users are in 99% of the cases not going to even want to manipulate the source code. Furthermore this is a civil issue, so if there is a coypright violation that has real impact on a developer then they'll just take it to the courts. My friend couldn't argue with this one. He agreed that many open source developers, particularly in the U.S., have day jobs that pay them 10x what he makes and are so wealthy that they can easily hire a lawyer to defend their IP rights. He was concerned about the rights of the myriad of developers around the world who don't make as much as the uber-rich American developers. I agreed that it would be very very hard for the "little guy" to properly defend his IP, but suggested that by using GPLed code and releasing it as a closed source product, they could in fact create a small revenue stream that would help them advance their education, research, or general standard of living. He liked that idea a lot.

It's a very exciting time.

Re:New thoughts on the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201485)

I have heard that there is a small startup (in Oakland?) that is developing software that will take source code and manipulate it so that source code and compiled output are different enough from the original to be nearly undetectable. In addition to this software I believe they're planning on providing consulting and development services to take the Open Source code and manipulate it even further to obfuscate the code.

Othes have tried this (Kiss Technologies) [slashdot.org] ) They still got caught based on text strings embedded in the binary.

Re:New thoughts on the GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201521)

Mod the damned troll down.

FBI Quote Ad-Libs (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | about 9 years ago | (#13201469)

"cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce."

Wouldn't it be nice if it instead read:

"cases like these, (x="IBM, HP, APPLE"), are part of (y="Open Source")'s coordinated strategy to protect online theives from the copyright owners who then sell the products thousands work so hard to produce."

Have fun modifying the quote yourself. Here's an exciting example to get you started!

x="Garage Bands, Indie film makers, story writers"
y="Creative Commons"

why is this on here? (2, Interesting)

EuphoricaL (567958) | about 9 years ago | (#13201482)

I'm wondering why this story is posted on slashdot. It's simply the FBI enforcing the law. Apart from it being nothing new it makes me instantly think that this is relavent because of the assumption that the majority of slashdot readers take part in illegal download activity. I understand that any interesting changes to copyright law in any country or a big new itunes-style movie store might be worthy news, but why this?

If there arrests... (2, Insightful)

NoMercy (105420) | about 9 years ago | (#13201483)

These people were likely the old fassioned type of copyright theft, where you make money out of selling illegal copies, or producing good quality counterfiets and selling them to legitimate retail outlets as if they were the real thing.

They definately do need to be locked up, if I pay for software I at least expect it to be legit :)

GET A DICTIONARY! (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 9 years ago | (#13201489)

Jeeeeeebus christ this crap keeps going on and on. Doesn't the Justice Department know the meaning of the word "thieves" or "steal"? Clearly not, as copyright infringement, even for commercial gain, is NOT theft. It's NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. Just like how it's not murder or grand theft auto, it's not stealing by any legal definition.

Re:GET A DICTIONARY! (1)

LividBlivet (898817) | about 9 years ago | (#13201514)

Copyright infringement is theft. Copyright infringement is theft. Copyright infringement is theft. Repeat it often enough and make it so. Orwell and Hitler would be proud.

Fr15t stop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13201507)

desp17e the [goat.cx]

Two questions (1)

herve661 (885842) | about 9 years ago | (#13201520)

The police officer said the "thieves" made money with the illegal trading, but the BBC article said the films were sent to P2P networks. So how do they make money from things that can be downloaded for free? The police also say those 8 people were the primary source of illegal trading. Is that really serious, just 8 people and that's it?
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>