'Wolverine" Pirate To Serve Year In Prison

[Vibranium]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/wolverine-pirate-to-serve-year-in-prison/


LOS ANGELES – A New York man who admitted illegally uploading to the Internet a pirated, nearly final “workprint” copy of the movie “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was sentenced this afternoon to one year in federal prison.

Gilberto Sanchez, 49, who resides in The Bronx and who used screen names that were variations on “skillz,” was sentenced by United States District Judge Margaret M. Morrow, who described the offense as “extremely serious.” In addition to the prison term, Judge Morrow imposed one year of supervised release and numerous computer restrictions.

“The federal prison sentence handed down in this case sends a strong message of deterrence to would-be Internet pirates,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. “The Justice Department will pursue and prosecute persons who seek to steal the intellectual property of this nation.”

Sanchez “uploaded the workprint more than one month before theatrical release, he has a prior conviction for a similar offense, he had been regularly uploading pirated movies for four or five years, and did not appear remorseful after charges were brought,” prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memorandum.

Sanchez pleaded guilty in March to one count of uploading a copyrighted work being prepared for commercial distribution. When he pleaded guilty, Sanchez admitted that he uploaded a “workprint” copy of the copyrighted “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” to www.Megaupload.com in March 2009, about one month before the motion picture was released in theaters. After uploading the Wolverine movie, Sanchez publicized the upload by posting links on two publicly available websites, so that anyone who clicked on the links would have access to the movie and be able to download it. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation owns the copyright to the movie.

“Although Fox was able to get defendant’s Wolverine Workprint removed from his Megaupload account within approximately one day, by then, the damage was done and the film had proliferated like wildfire throughout the Internet, resulting in up to millions of infringements,” prosecutors said in court documents.

This case is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[RolandJP]

Dirty Sanchez.


There. I was the first to post it.

[coveredinbees]

Margaret M. Morrow

haha

[Aubergine~!]

Wait, he posted high profile material he'd stolen on his own account?

Wow.

[dupont2005]

I know a guy who did a year in prison for selling bootleg CD's

[kalorama]

Seems a bit harsh, but if he was a repeat offender with a prior conviction, it's not really surprising.

[Hiromi]

A year for a repeat offender in a felony offense is harsh?

[Cavemold]

Nope and what a terrible movie to pirate..

[DonC]

You would think he would be smart enough to stop after getting caught that first time. I know a guy at work who was always downloading movies. He got a cease and desist email and, man, did he cease and desist.

[Iangould]

I was expecting to read about some guy trying to take over a boat armed with a tiger's claw punch dagger.

Once again, reality let's me down.

[Jabare]

This is sad. I have to give my thanks to Gilbert though, for putting the movie out in advance so I could hear how terrible it was and wouldn't go out and waste money on it.

[Vibranium]

and he's going to federal poundtown prison

[Cthulhudrew]

This is sad. I have to give my thanks to Gilbert though, for putting the movie out in advance so I could hear how terrible it was and wouldn't go out and waste money on it.

"My only regret is that I'm not going to jail for a better quality film."

[Royal]

"My only regret is that I'm not going to jail for a better quality film."

That's pretty much my jail speech.

[Nick Soapdish]

I was expecting to read about some guy trying to take over a boat armed with a tiger's claw punch dagger.

Once again, reality let's me down.

You weren't the only one. This is much less entertaining.

[Xiroteus]

was sentenced by United States District Judge Margaret M. Morrow, who described the offense as “extremely serious.”

I do not think anything like this can be labeled "extremely serious".

[Vibranium]

its thievery on a large scale....id say its serious

[mailedbypostman1]

its thievery on a large scale....id say its serious

No, it's copyright infringement. There is a difference.

[Vibranium]

fancy term for stealing....that and copyright infringement is a violation of federal law

He's a witch.....BURN HIM!!!

[kalorama]

A year for a repeat offender in a felony offense is harsh?

A year in federal prison for pirating a movie is harsh. Not all felonies are created equal. But, as I said, the fact that he's a repeat offender makes it unsurprising.

[kalorama]

You would think he would be smart enough to stop after getting caught that first time. I know a guy at work who was always downloading movies. He got a cease and desist email and, man, did he cease and desist.

As a general rule, I don't think most criminals are that smart, esp. ones who are deluded or self-righteous enough to believe that what they're doing isn't/shouldn't be a crime, which seems to be the case with most people who engage in this kind of thing.

[Vibranium]

As a general rule, I don't think most criminals are that smart, esp. ones who are deluded or self-righteous enough to believe that what they're doing isn't/shouldn't be a crime, which seems to be the case with most people who engage in this kind of thing.

that whole self serving thing....people think if they can't afford it, its ok to download it because you're not taking a physical item

if you can't afford your entertainment, you do without.....not so hard, if you ask me

[Xiroteus]

its thievery on a large scale....id say its serious

fancy term for stealing....that and copyright infringement is a violation of federal law

So they say, on a personal level it is wrong yet not "that" serious, I would leave that for crimes that truly hurt people, a film studio possibly loosing a little money is not among my list of serious crimes. Sure it does not make it right, serious? Not really.


that whole self serving thing....people think if they can't afford it, its ok to download it because you're not taking a physical item

if you can't afford your entertainment, you do without.....not so hard, if you ask me

No, it is not so hard really, we are not entitled to anything.

There is still a difference between tangible goods and digital goods, if someone came into my home and made a copy of all my belongings that would bother me far less then if someone just stole everything out right because with the first I at least still have my stuff. Does not make the first one right just NOT as bad as the taking everything outright.

[Royal]

if you can't afford your entertainment, you do without.....not so hard, if you ask me

I would love to, but the kind of entertainment I collect doesn't always get a format transferal and I'm pretty sure I no longer own a VCR/Betamax.

or is believed so nitch by DVD companies that they don't pick up the distribution rights from overseas.

or is forgotten

or were public domain until criminal gangs abused the ContentID function over at Youtube (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/12/pirates-of-youtube-cory-doctorow)and now are making money of things they do not own.

BTW.....shouldn't the RIAA gang be serving time too? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57345342-245/bittorrent-downloads-linked-to-riaa-dhs-ip-addresses/)

[kalorama]

There is still a difference between tangible goods and digital goods, if someone came into my home and made a copy of all my belongings that would bother me far less then if someone just stole everything out right because with the first I at least still have my stuff. Does not make the first one right just NOT as bad as the taking everything outright.

That doesn't really apply here. The primary harm created by the piracy wasn't the physical theft of the digital print. It was uploading onto the web where people could see it for free, which created the possibility of costing the movie company profit into the millions.

In other words, it may not bother you if someone made a copy of your stuff, but if that stuff included the manuscript for a novel that you spent ten years writing and were in the process of negotiating with a major publishing house to sell only to have the deal fall through because someone posted copies of the entire book on the web for people to read for free . . . I'm guessing you'd be pretty pissed then.

[kalorama]

I would love to, but the kind of entertainment I collect doesn't always get a format transferal and I'm pretty sure I no longer own a VCR/Betamax.

or is believed so nitch by DVD companies that they don't pick up the distribution rights from overseas.

or is forgotten

or were public domain until criminal gangs abused the ContentID function over at Youtube (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/12/pirates-of-youtube-cory-doctorow)and now are making money of things they do not own.

None of which justifies breaking the law to get it.


BTW.....shouldn't the RIAA gang be serving time too? (http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57345342-245/bittorrent-downloads-linked-to-riaa-dhs-ip-addresses/)

Not based on this they shouldn't.

[Royal]

I forgot to mention properties that have been sait on by major studios to the point of ridiculousness.

I'm looking at you Disney.

[Xiroteus]

That doesn't really apply here. The primary harm created by the piracy wasn't the physical theft of the digital print. It was uploading onto the web where people could see it for free, which created the possibility of costing the movie company profit into the millions.

Even though it is different, in some ways it can be more harmful then stealing tangible goods just harmful to different people in different ways.


In other words, it may not bother you if someone made a copy of your stuff, but if that stuff included the manuscript for a novel that you spent ten years writing and were in the process of negotiating with a major publishing house to sell only to have the deal fall through because someone posted copies of the entire book on the web for people to read for free . . . I'm guessing you'd be pretty pissed then.

I think my example fits better when thinking of a one for one, one download per item, otherwise does not hold up with information to giving away or to others. Yes, I could say that I would not be happy about my book being given away after putting that much work into it.

[Royal]

None of which justifies breaking the law to get it.


I'm breaking the freaking law anyway. It's a lose/lose situation for people like me.

Let's say I'm a law abiding citizen and I would like to buy a copy of Polish Robin Hood. I can't find a copy of it in the American market, so I hit the source, the euro markets. I find me a nice copy (say for the sake of argument, let's say it came with Eng Sub) and purchased it and paid postage. But then I realize some when I receive the DVD. It's R2 in a PAL format and my setup runs R0/1 in a NTSC format.

What to do? What to do?

I could buy some software and burn a zero copy to run on my players. But I can't do that. The DMCA prohibits burning of any sort, including material you bought.

The other thing that could be done is to save up and buy an all region/all format player. Nope. Can't do that either. I'd be breaking the law again. DMCA deems those players "paraphernalia" (unless I live in Asia, then it's just product).

So I spent 3 to 4 days and possibly over $150 to not watch a movie I wanted to see because anyway I could make it accessible would be considered "piracy".

[dupersuper]

Wolverine should totally be in a story in which he goes back in time and becomes a pirate.

[Royal]

Wolverine should totally be in a story in which he goes back in time and becomes a pirate.

I think the actually did that.

[kalorama]

Even though it is different, in some ways it can be more harmless then stealing tangible goods just harmful to different people in different ways.

Not really, at least not as it applies to this case. It's not just about the theft of the print, it's about using the stolen item in a way that damaged the rightful owner's profit potential. If someone steals something someone else uses to earn a living, then they're (potentially) depriving the owner of earning said ,living. That makes the cost of the harm greater than the tangible cost of the individual stolen item.




I think my example fits better when thinking of a one for one, one download per item, otherwise does not hold up with information to giving away or to others

Which isn't at all what this case is about.

[kalorama]

I'm breaking the freaking law anyway. It's a lose/lose situation for people like me.

Let's say I'm a law abiding citizen and I would like to buy a copy of Polish Robin Hood. I can't find a copy of it in the American market, so I hit the source, the euro markets. I find me a nice copy (say for the sake of argument, let's say it came with Eng Sub) and purchased it and paid postage. But then I realize some when I receive the DVD. It's R2 in a PAL format and my setup runs R0/1 in a NTSC format.

What to do? What to do?

More/better research to determine the suitability of what you're paying for before actually spending the money?


I could buy some software and burn a zero copy to run on my players. But I can't do that. The DMCA prohibits burning of any sort, including material you bought.

The other thing that could be done is to save up and buy an all region/all format player. Nope. Can't do that either. I'd be breaking the law again. DMCA deems those players "paraphernalia" (unless I live in Asia, then it's just product).

So I spent 3 to 4 days and possibly over $150 to not watch a movie I wanted to see because anyway I could make it accessible would be considered "piracy".

Not to be mean about it, but whose fault is that?

[Royal]

Not to be mean about it, but whose fault is that?

The asshole congressman who listened to MPAA and RIAA reps instead of doing some actual research with people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Xiroteus]

Not really, at least not as it applies to this case. It's not just about the theft of the print, it's about using the stolen item in a way that damaged the rightful owner's profit potential. If someone steals something someone else uses to earn a living, then they're (potentially) depriving the owner of earning said ,living. That makes the cost of the harm greater than the tangible cost of the individual stolen item.

I just noticed I killed my own statement, I meant to say "more harmFUL"

There are times when I can see UPloading media could be far more harmful then just stealing one copy of any given item. It does not mean it will effect all sales, yet it will effect it to some degree.



Which isn't at all what this case is about.

True enough, it does apply to simple one for one, not so much for this type of case. If your book was not yet released yet printed and someone stole one copy and another person posted it online, I feel the later would be more damaging.

[Pól Rua]

“The Justice Department will pursue and prosecute persons who seek to steal the intellectual property of this nation.”

So you guys have basically come out and admitted you've sold the country lock stock and barrel to Rupert Murdoch and FOX.
Bully for you!

[Ilash]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Wolverine, a frankly terrible film by any measure, make a bajillion dollars at the box office anyway? I mean, I'm not saying he was right but how "serious" was his crime really?

[Iangould]

The other thing that could be done is to save up and buy an all region/all format player. Nope. Can't do that either. I'd be breaking the law again. DMCA deems those players "paraphernalia" (unless I live in Asia, then it's just product).


Seriously?

I think virtually every DVD player on sale here is multiregion.

[Vibranium]

I would love to, but the kind of entertainment I collect doesn't always get a format transferal and I'm pretty sure I no longer own a VCR/Betamax.

or is believed so nitch by DVD companies that they don't pick up the distribution rights from overseas.

or is forgotten

or were public domain until criminal gangs abused the ContentID function over at Youtube (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/12/pirates-of-youtube-cory-doctorow)and now are making money of things they do not own.


and that is no one elses problem but yours.....


I forgot to mention properties that have been sait on by major studios to the point of ridiculousness.

I'm looking at you Disney.

and? a studio has the right to purchase or option a script or property and either shelve it or develop it....they have PAID for the right to do so

[Nick Soapdish]

Seriously?

I think virtually every DVD player on sale here is multiregion.

You can probably still find some of the older ones on eBay or something. Or he might have an older one. It's only been in the last five years or so that they all went multiregion. I know that my first one wasn't, but that was nearly a decade ago.

Still, it's not that expensive to buy one now. You can buy a Blu-ray for $60 or less.


Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Wolverine, a frankly terrible film by any measure, make a bajillion dollars at the box office anyway? I mean, I'm not saying he was right but how "serious" was his crime really?

That's kinda like saying that stealing from Wal-Mart isn't stealing because they make tons of money anyway. Same with the "RIAA is evil" argument. I agree that RIAA and Wal-Mart are both evil (or close enough), but that doesn't justify theft.

[Ilash]

You can probably still find some of the older ones on eBay or something. Or he might have an older one. It's only been in the last five years or so that they all went multiregion. I know that my first one wasn't, but that was nearly a decade ago.

Still, it's not that expensive to buy one now. You can buy a Blu-ray for $60 or less.



That's kinda like saying that stealing from Wal-Mart isn't stealing because they make tons of money anyway. Same with the "RIAA is evil" argument. I agree that RIAA and Wal-Mart are both evil (or close enough), but that doesn't justify theft.

But the question is, was it actually theft. It's only theft if this guy really cost them actual revenue. Wolverine was a fairly middle-weight blockbuster so the amount they made actually seem about right to be.

Actually, though, I think there is a much bigger question here: is legal litigation or prosecution really the answer to the problem of piracy? Broadband internet has made it a vastly different world from just fifteen years ago and easy transfers of huge digital files is a part of that and it's not going away any time soon. At this point, it's really up to the entertainment industry to a) make use of the new medium and b) get people to pay for what they can otherwise get for free. The ball is very much in their court right now.

[Nick Soapdish]

If anybody that saw the uploaded copy that was originally distributed by himself didn't spend money at the theatre as a result, then it cost them revenue. I'm sure that a lot of the people that saw it wouldn't have paid to see it anyway and would've either found something completely free to do or paid to do something else. But some would.

I'm not sure if we want to get into the debate about whether or not it's theft again. Or the debate about a better distribution model.

[Royal]

Seriously?

I think virtually every DVD player on sale here is multiregion.

Top of line reliable multi region, multi format blu ray goes at least for 400 clams in the US.

[Nick Soapdish]

Top of line reliable multi region, multi format blu ray goes at least for 400 clams in the US.

You must be paying a pretty big premium for top of the line then. I saw some multi-region, multi-format Blu ray players for $60 at Best Buy last weekend. Most were about $100 though.

[kalorama]

The asshole congressman who listened to MPAA and RIAA reps instead of doing some actual research with people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

Hmmm . . . I'm sensing a theme to your comments.

[kalorama]

Top of line reliable multi region, multi format blu ray goes at least for 400 clams in the US.

Well, now you're just outright contradicting yourself. First you said you couldn't "save up and buy one" because that would be somehow "breaking the law." But now you're saying the price is the issue? Well, if the price is the only issue . . . what's stopping you from saving up and buying one? Which you already said you'd be willing to do if they were available which, apparently, they are.

[sandwich eater]

One year seems excessive for what he did. Would he get a year in prison if he stole a Wolverine DVD?

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Since the movie was still profitable it's hard to show that this guy actually harmed anyone.

I bet the children of judges, congressmen, and lawyers download illegal movies. So their work on these cases and relevant laws is hypocritical to say the least. I'd say that the situation is analagous to speeding. Almost everyone commits this crime, but only a few people get caught and punished as a deterrent to everyone else.

Prohibition could be another analogy. It was an unrealistic law that everyone from the poorest laborers to the sitting president of the United States broke on a regular basis. If the studios want to minimize piracy they need to alter their business model, and stop charging more for their content than it's worth.

Although, the situation differs from my analogies in one important way. Both speeding laws and prohibition didn't have large wealthy corporations with unlimited resources supporting them.

[Royal]

You must be paying a pretty big premium for top of the line then. I saw some multi-region, multi-format Blu ray players for $60 at Best Buy last weekend. Most were about $100 though.

I like to know my electronics won't break down after five years. Plus, I like bells and whistles. If Corinthian Leather is offered, I'm getting that shit.


Well, now you're just outright contradicting yourself. First you said you couldn't "save up and buy one" because that would be somehow "breaking the law." But now you're saying the price is the issue? Well, if the price is the only issue . . . what's stopping you from saving up and buying one? Which you already said you'd be willing to do if they were available which, apparently, they are.

No. I made a statement on the median price on a really good player. I was making an arguement that, if I was a law abiding citizen (which I am not) that even if I had the means to purchase such a player, it would still be deemed 'illegal" by the letter of the law. Has that law been enforced yet? Not right now. But it is in the books to be exploited when one wants to.

[Nick Soapdish]

I like to know my electronics won't break down after five years. Plus, I like bells and whistles. If Corinthian Leather is offered, I'm getting that shit.


But that's not a requirement to buy a machine. You can get a good one for about a hundred. Bells and whistles are what you're paying extra for, not multiplayer or multiformat. That's a throw-in on even the cheap players.

[kalorama]

I like to know my electronics won't break down after five years. Plus, I like bells and whistles. If Corinthian Leather is offered, I'm getting that shit.



No. I made a statement on the median price on a really good player. I was making an arguement that, if I was a law abiding citizen (which I am not) that even if I had the means to purchase such a player, it would still be deemed 'illegal" by the letter of the law. Has that law been enforced yet? Not right now. But it is in the books to be exploited when one wants to.

That's a lot of tap dancing there, but no matter how you slice it your argument still doesn't wash. The fact remains that there are all-region DVD players you can acquire, quite legally, to view your precious foreign video booty. If you (or you hypothetical "law abiding citizen") choose not to do so, that's your/his choice. But the law is in no way impeding the "citizen" from watching that Polish DVD he worked so hard to acquire. At worst (and even this part of your gripe is highly suspect/debatable at best, because even you admit that this "law" you keep referencing isn't actually being enforced) it simply doesn't allow "citizen X" to do whatever he wants, when he wants, exactly the way he wants free from any6 and all restrictions and/or consequences. Well, guess what? That's part of the price we all pay for being adults. Deal with it.

[The Watcher]

One year seems excessive for what he did. Would he get a year in prison if he stole a Wolverine DVD?

Depending on the jurisdiction, he could get life for that, due to Three Strikes Laws.

[kalorama]

Depending on the jurisdiction, he could get life for that, due to Three Strikes Laws.

I'm pretty sure the 3 strikes law only applies to felonies. Stealing a single DVD from a store would probably count a s misdemeanor, assuming it was shoplifiting. Now if he held the place up at gunpoint or drove a truck through the window after closing to get the DVD he'd probably get a felony charge. But in that case, the actual DVD would be pretty much irrelevant.

[The Watcher]

I'm pretty sure the 3 strikes law only applies to felonies. Stealing a single DVD from a store would probably count a s misdemeanor, assuming it was shoplifiting. Now if he held the place up at gunpoint or drove a truck through the window after closing to get the DVD he'd probably get a felony charge. But in that case, the actual DVD would be pretty much irrelevant.You're probably right. I seemed to remember someone in California getting life for something involving pizzas, but I guess there could have been extenuating circumstances like those you've mentioned that made it more serious.

[dupersuper]

I think the actually did that.

Any one have a pic? :biggrin:


You're probably right. I seemed to remember someone in California getting life for something involving pizzas, but I guess there could have been extenuating circumstances like those you've mentioned that made it more serious.

You may be thinking of that guy who killed those people with poison pizza. :cool:

[sandwich eater]

I'm pretty sure the 3 strikes law only applies to felonies. Stealing a single DVD from a store would probably count a s misdemeanor, assuming it was shoplifiting. Now if he held the place up at gunpoint or drove a truck through the window after closing to get the DVD he'd probably get a felony charge. But in that case, the actual DVD would be pretty much irrelevant.

I don't know anything about law, but I don't think someone would get a year in prison for shoplifting, especially if it's a first offense. They might even get off with just community service.

I just think it's absurd for media companies to equate downloading movies with stealing and then lobby for far harsher punishments for uploaders/downloaders than actual thieves get.

[Dracon]

Through human history, musican and actor has been extremely low-status professions. There have been a few exceptions, wunderkids playing for courts, or bards and skalds in some cultures.

But in the main, entertainers either had a rich patron, or were poor and unappreciated. If not despised.

Technology changed that. Around the start of the 20th century, recording technology allowed performances to reach much, much larger audiences. An entertainment was no longer a performance for a small number of people, but a recording that could be sold for vast sums of money. And suddenly, entertainers started becoming stars. Not just the ones that performed for royalty, but sufficient numbers of normal fans could make anyone a star. And we started getting people like Valentino, Chaplin, and later, Elvis and the Beatles.

We all grew up with the assumption that entertainers could be megastars. And for got that this was very much the exception, historically. A technology-sustained bubble.

And if technology advances make the bubble unsustainable, we return to the regularly scheduled program. Really, no matter what the industry lawyers say, if laws proved unenforceable, morals will follow technology, not the other way around.

[Iangould]

There's at least one case of a guy getting 50-life under Three Strikes for stealing video tapes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leandro_Andrade)

[Shellhead]

Through human history, musican and actor has been extremely low-status professions. There have been a few exceptions, wunderkids playing for courts, or bards and skalds in some cultures.

But in the main, entertainers either had a rich patron, or were poor and unappreciated. If not despised.

Technology changed that. Around the start of the 20th century, recording technology allowed performances to reach much, much larger audiences. An entertainment was no longer a performance for a small number of people, but a recording that could be sold for vast sums of money. And suddenly, entertainers started becoming stars. Not just the ones that performed for royalty, but sufficient numbers of normal fans could make anyone a star. And we started getting people like Valentino, Chaplin, and later, Elvis and the Beatles.

We all grew up with the assumption that entertainers could be megastars. And for got that this was very much the exception, historically. A technology-sustained bubble.

And if technology advances make the bubble unsustainable, we return to the regularly scheduled program. Really, no matter what the industry lawyers say, if laws proved unenforceable, morals will follow technology, not the other way around.

Do you see a lot of plays? You know, live theater? Sure, it doesn't have any great stuntwork or special effects, but people can put on a play without investing $100 million dollars or more. If the laws prove unenforceable, if morals follow technology, then only a complete fool would invest in a big action movie in the coming years. Internet piracy could kill the movie industry, and then we are stuck with the movies that have already been made, plus live theater.

Think I'm joking? 9.3 million people have illegally downloaded a torrent of Fast Five:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=692131

Let's say a typical movie-goer pays $10 to see a movie in the theater. Then the movie theaters and the producers of Fast Five just missed out on $93 million worth of box office receipts. That's pretty serious, for a movie with a $125 million budget. Fortunately, global box office for Fast Five was $626 million, according to IMDB. But who says that 9.3 million is the limit? There were even more illegal downloads of Avatar. And not everybody on the planet has a computer yet. Eventually, we will have enough selfish assholes abusing the internet to the point where big budget movies can't break even.

[Donald M.]

You know what would be awesome? If this guy got shanked while in prison. Because God makes the best pop culture references.

[Vibranium]

I was hoping he gets pirated....and by pirated, I mean he becomes someone else property

and by that....I mean unwelcome buttsecks and having to do another mans laundry

[Donald M.]

I was hoping he gets pirated....and by pirated, I mean he becomes someone else property

and by that....I mean unwelcome buttsecks and having to do another mans laundry

Even as a joke I wouldn't wish rape on a man just for pirating a bad movie.

Getting stabbed though? That's always funny. Always.

[Jorriss]

Even as a joke I wouldn't wish rape on a man just for pirating a bad movie.

Getting stabbed though? That's always funny. Always.
Even prison rape can be funny!

[zami77]

I'd say a year isn't ridiculously harsh, especially for a repeat offender. It's not like him stealing one copy of the movie. For it to be analogous to that, he would've had to download ONE copy of the movie. He didn't do that. He uploaded it online for MILLIONS to download. So essentially, he helped "steal" millions. Try getting one year in jail for stealing millions of a product.

When you break it down, piracy isn't right. The majority of the time, it's people being greedy, and downloading whatever they want, because they can and it's free. These people then put themselves on a pedestal (instead of just saying what they do is wrong) and claim they're fighting "corrupt corporations". You can pirate, but please don't act like you're a hero for getting FREE S***! Then there's the "I can't afford it" defense. Well I'm sorry, but entertainment isn't necessary to living. You will be able to wake up the next morning without seeing that new movie. Plus if you can afford a computer with internet connection, you can afford an acceptable amount of entertainment. (and lets not forget movies aren't the only form of entertainment. a 6-8 buck paperback can provide hours of entertainment.)

Obviously there are some grey areas, such as if you own a movie on dvd, why should you have to pay again for a digital copy? It's techinically legal to burn it, but you can't break the encryption code, which is kinda bs. I found a workaround would be to get a screen capture program and just play the video on your comp and record.

Same thing for comics, if I own it, why should I pay for a digital copy? and the thing is, you don't have to. You can scan in your own comics, but when you download a copy off the internet, its not "your" copy.

[Dracon]

Do you see a lot of plays? You know, live theater? Sure, it doesn't have any great stuntwork or special effects, but people can put on a play without investing $100 million dollars or more. If the laws prove unenforceable, if morals follow technology, then only a complete fool would invest in a big action movie in the coming years. Internet piracy could kill the movie industry, and then we are stuck with the movies that have already been made, plus live theater.

I do, yes. But then I work on a contract basis for the local theatre, and get a lot of free tickets. My girlfriend likes this.


Think I'm joking? 9.3 million people have illegally downloaded a torrent of Fast Five:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=692131

Let's say a typical movie-goer pays $10 to see a movie in the theater. Then the movie theaters and the producers of Fast Five just missed out on $93 million worth of box office receipts. That's pretty serious, for a movie with a $125 million budget. Fortunately, global box office for Fast Five was $626 million, according to IMDB. But who says that 9.3 million is the limit? There were even more illegal downloads of Avatar. And not everybody on the planet has a computer yet. Eventually, we will have enough selfish assholes abusing the internet to the point where big budget movies can't break even.

Please don't think I am making a moral judgement. When technology passes an indutry by, it dies. This is independent of how you and I feel about it. I worry this might happen to books soon. But someone probably missed the huge passenger lines when airplanes took over the transatlantic travel. My nostalgia won't change anything.

[RoboShark]

No one puts Hugh Jackman in a corner.

[Tommy]

fancy term for stealing....that and copyright infringement is a violation of federal law.

No, it's not. As per the Supreme Court of the United States of America:


Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud

[dupont2005]

No, it's not. As per the Supreme Court of the United States of America:

This doesn't say it isn't a violation of federal law, it says they call it something other than theft.

[Cavemold]

No one puts Hugh Jackman in a corner.

AND I MEAN NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

[Tommy]

This doesn't say it isn't a violation of federal law, it says they call it something other than theft.

No, it is a violation of federal law. Protecting copyright is right in the Constitution (although I think our current copyright laws are unconstitutional, they are effectively infinite rather than the limited time that the constitution requires). However anyone who claims "digital piracy is stealing" or "digital piracy is theft" is either lying or ignorant. If you have to lie in order to make your case, you have already lost it.

[dupersuper]

Oh good...this thread is back.