Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

BitTorrent Pirate Loses His Last Appeal

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 18, 2007 07:53 PM
from the no-more-second-chances dept.
Vix666 writes with a link to a ZDNet article on the final chapter of a story we've discussed before: the first user convicted of piracy for using BitTorrent to download a movie has really, finally, lost his case. Chan Nai-ming was sentenced in November of 2005, lost an appeal in December of last year, and appears to have once again failed to convince a judge to let him out. "The Hong Kong government welcomed the judgment, saying it clarified the law regarding Internet piracy. 'This judgment has confirmed that it commits a crime and violates copyright laws for the act of using (BitTorrent) software to upload and distribute,' said customs official Tam Yiu-keung in a written statement. He added the judgment would have a deterrent effect, a view endorsed by industry watchdogs such as the Hong Kong branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Entertainment: World's First Jail Sentence for BitTorrent Piracy 280 comments
Rob T Firefly writes "Hong Kong newspaper The Standard reports on what seems to be the world's first case of a BitTorrent movie pirate being sent to jail. (Others have been jailed for related crimes.) After losing his appeal against a November 2005 conviction, Chan Nai-ming, a 38-year-old BitTorrent user known as 'Big Crook,' has begun serving a prison sentence for making the films 'Daredevil,' 'Miss Congeniality,' and 'Red Planet' available for download via BitTorrent. His appeal was based on the fact that he did not profit from the piracy." From the article: "[Appeals Judge] Beeson noted [convicting magistrate] MacIntosh, in handing out the sentence, was fully aware of the noncommercial nature of the case, but measured the seriousness of the case by the harm done to the moviemakers — not by the gain made by the offender. Chan, and those in the chatroom, 'were aware of the possible criminal implications of uploading films to the system,' Beeson wrote. She also noted the sentence was already drastically reduced, from a maximum of four years, to three months, in order 'to reflect the novelty of the conviction.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by brxndxn (461473) on Friday May 18 2007, @07:58PM (#19186971)
    How about the death penalty for downloading mp3s? Also, we should definitely kill the family members of people that download movies illegally.

    • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:39PM (#19187261)
      And since we know how well the death penality worked as a determent for murder...

      Seriously, it does not matter at all what's the threat when you get caught. Whether it's just a slap on the wrist and probation or death by hanging, the people committing this "crime" are not ghetto gang members who don't care about another sheet in their file. They're usually normal, law abiding people who have fairly normal jobs or, if younger, go to school or college, often rather good schools or colleges, and plan to have a normal life with a normal job.

      When you criminalize those people, all you get is a criminal who wouldn't have been one. Because what's the next thing happening? He's got a file, he's on probation, he probably won't get a good job. What is he gonna do? Commit more crimes. And since he's a criminal already anyway, why not break a real law? Does it matter?

      When you go to jail for longer for copyright infringment than for robbery, do you think people who already got jail time for copying would care about what's happening when they sap that old lady to get her purse? Hey, it's a lesser crime, he's getting better!

      Folks, something's running REALLY wrong here. With laws like this, we create more criminals but not more faith in the laws.

      Why do people usually not murder or steal, rob a bank or kick old nannies off the curb? Because you simply don't do that! Do you really think about the possible jail sentence when you decide NOT to roll your car over that asshole who just gave you the proverbial finger? No, you don't kill him because that's simply something you don't do.

      Because, quite frankly, if the law's the only thing that keeps you from going on a killing spree, something's very wrong with you!

      People usually abide to the law not because they fear jail, but because of their moral code. Why are there more people speeding than shoplifting? The sentence for either is about the same (for a first time violation) here, still, we have a ton of speeders and rather few shoplifters, compared to it. Why? Because one is negligance and the other is stealing.

      And you simply don't steal.

      The danger I see is that people get used to breaking the law. When you simply continue what you have been doing for years and suddenly it becomes a crime, will you stop or will you ignore the law? And when you ignore one law, how far is it to ignoring the law altogether and just relying on your code of morals?

      Will your morals stay the same? Or will you question them as well? Will you start wondering whether not only the law but also the morals you have been brought up with are wrong?

      Scary, if you ask me.
      • by Rojo^ (78973) * on Friday May 18 2007, @10:39PM (#19187943) Homepage Journal

        When you go to jail for longer for copyright infringment than for robbery, do you think people who already got jail time for copying would care about what's happening when they sap that old lady to get her purse? Hey, it's a lesser crime, he's getting better!

        It's not a lesser crime. It's just a crime with fewer corporate-funded lobbyists pushing for disproportionate punishment. Your sig is probably unintentionally but ironically relevant to this discussion.

        In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.
      • Why do people usually not murder or steal, rob a bank or kick old nannies off the curb? Because you simply don't do that!

        The reason is that society has had years of conditioning that tell us these actions are wrong. We don't do these things because we decided a long time ago that we didn't want that in our society, that our society would be better off without such actions happening, We then solidified that into written law. The pro-copyright lobby is trying to do the same thing with piracy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          And that doesn't work, writing laws before common consensus supports them. A law that is resisted by the majority of people will be ignored.

          The only way to enforce a resisted law is by brute force. And behond, we're heading that way. That doesn't lead to more law and more support for the law. Rather, it breeds resistance, not only against this single law but against the whole legal apparatus.
      • by EsbenMoseHansen (731150) on Saturday May 19 2007, @02:04AM (#19188807) Homepage

        Copyright infringement is a economic crime. So, the punishment should be of an economic nature --- a fine. No reason to put anything in his criminal record either. For downloading, I suggest 2*(price of movie at time)/(chance of discovery). For uploading, I'd suggest a very similar amount... the damagde to the "victim" is greater, yet his personal gain is less. So, same fine.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I agree with you.

          But let us just do a little comparison here.

          Let's say a guy with a decent job in America (the US) is downloading movies using BitTorrent software. The thing is that this way he gets the movie for free, he only pays for internet connection, which he would pay already. A recent movie release in the US is something between $10 and $40 (I'm not a US citizen, so I looked at WalMart's prices). What is the average monthly sallary for an average guy? $2500 to $5000? http://www.worldsalaries.org [worldsalaries.org]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Unless it has changed drastically in the last couple of years, Hong Kong is a place where it is often times easier to get an illegal bootleg of a movie or album than it is to get a legitimate copy of it from a store.

          Rubbish. I live in Hong Kong. Bootleg media have always been around, but there are legit music and DVD shops in every shopping mall. Bootleg shops were concentrated in a few areas, and temporary street stalls, but there are perhaps a fewe dozen outlets in the whole territory at any time, under

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Yes, it really isn't stealing, but that really doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal. In countries like the US where for the most part piracy is pretty low, making it illegal is almost entirely counterproductive. In countries like China making it illegal is probably the only way that there is going to be progress on getting people to actually purchase the media that they are wanting to have.

          This case is just a joke. The dude is a sacrificial lamb to help convince American media interests that China i

  • wtf (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:08PM (#19187045) Journal
    the punishment seems a bit extreme for one movie but where do they draw the line? what do you do when people simply dont intend to pay for something that took alot of cash to make to begin with- especially when every protection scheme fails horribly? make better movies? how exactly does that solve the problem of people in effect stealing movies? [if thats the case why are pirates getting the crappiest movies?]
    • If they lose money by making movies, then they made a foolish investment.

      Stop making movies if it costs too much. Nobody is entitled to guaranteed profit.

      • Your logic also backfires.

        Nobody is entitled to someone else's hard work for free.
        • No business on earth survives on "the honor system".

          They were fools to produce something they knew (or should have known) would be copied by millions.

          • And you're a fool for having glass windows, I may just steal your TV tomorrow.
            • Glass windows are a suitable barrier in most places. But if I leave my door unlocked, there is a very good reason that insurance won't pay me for anything you steal.
              • You're trying to weasel out of your own point. If I -can- do it then by gum I will. Your fault if you have glass windows instead of steel shutters.
                • You're trying to weasel out of your own point. If I -can- do it then by gum I will. Your fault if you have glass windows instead of steel shutters.
                  The US Constitution guarantees the natural right of freedom of expression. Theft of real property is not a natural right.
                  • Re:wtf (Score:5, Informative)

                    by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Friday May 18 2007, @09:19PM (#19187493) Journal
                    The story is about a guy in HONG KONG. Hiding behind the US Consitituion does you no favours in this debate.

                    Will Americans PLEASE get it into their heads that NATIONAL LAWS ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          "Hard work" isn't something that can be stolen except through slavery or fraud. You're probably talking about the fruits of hard work, in which case there would be plenty of exceptions to your statement. Modern science and mathematics were built on the labors of many, and yet the fruits of these labors cannot be owned.

          Hard work, by itself, guarantees nothing. I can spend thousands of hours building model planes, grinding through MMPORGS, or trying to woo a crush, only to be left with little or nothing to sh
        • http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US _ 340.htm [cornell.edu]

          This was already ruled upon in the US Supreme court. Feist vs Rural Telephone Company (over a telephone book). They rejected any argument that right t of control (copyright) would be granted based on 'sweat of the brow' or the hard work in creating an uncreative or unorigional work.

          They explicitly said that creativity is required to grant copyright. As alphabetizing names and putting them into a book is not creative, the result was not copyrightable,
          • Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:39PM (#19187275) Journal
            Public domain does not allow you to pirate blockbuster movies the day they come out.
            • Public domain does not allow you to pirate blockbuster movies the day they come out.
              1. So what? Time does not effect the fundamental truth that we are all entitled to the results of that hard work.
              2. It could in any country which defines all creations to be public domain, it even used to be so in the USA for any foreign produced works
                • Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday May 19 2007, @06:04AM (#19189783) Homepage Journal
                  It's a false dichotomy. People make this argument ("You are not entitled to anyone's hard work without cost to you.") and invite you to argue the opposite. The problem is not a question of entitlement.. the problem is a question of control. By making this argument, people are trying to make the argument that they should be able to control the actions of everyone to protect their hard work. They are demanding that everyone be their agent in defending their work because it is impossible for them to defend it themselves. Not surprisingly, it seems the only people willing to do this are the people who are in the same boat.

                  In any case, this argument is easily seen as false.. just go out in public. You will find plenty of people doing hard work and not getting paid for it. You'll even find plenty of musicians.. playing a whole lot of music.. doing this supposed "hard work" that most people who make this argument are suggesting must be paid for. Do you feel you should give them money? Or do you just feel they are begging. How about those assholes at the lights who clean your windshield with a dirty squiggy? Do you feel you should give them money because they did a service for you.. even though you didn't ask them to? Even though it was useful because your windshield was dirty?

                  No. People who do work for hire without first securing someone to hire them are just confused.. or deliberately trying to invoke an obligation in others when none should exist.
          • Nobody is entitled to someone else's hard work for free.
            1. They were not forced to work.
            2. Yes we are ALL entitled to the results of such work for free.
              It's called the public domain.
            1) you were not forced to leave your house this morning 2) Yes we are entitled to beat you with a pool cue in an alley
            it's called I can do whatever I want because I say so.
            • Wonderful! So what's the URL for EVERY SINGLE THING you've EVER written? All of it - it's public domain, right?
              Hey, if you can find the URLs in google, go for it.
              Being in the public domain also means the author has no other obligations with respect to the work either.
            • Copyright and other intellectual property mechanisms exist to promote the sharing of novel and other valuable works. Passage into public domain is in exchange for protection, not some natural state of things.

              No now you are being insane. Public domain is PRECISELY the natural state of things. Freedom of expression is a natural right, copyright is defined as a temporary exception to that right. It certainly is not a natural right on its own.

              Meanwhile, wrt your point about not publishing the work prevents it from entering the public domain. Well, no effing duh. Yer a bril genius with that. If you don't show the creation to anyone else, it really doesn't matter now does it? It's like the tree falling in th

            • Re:wtf (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Convergence (64135) on Friday May 18 2007, @10:04PM (#19187749) Homepage Journal
              The public domain is the natural state of things. You have it reversed.

              Copyright is a right, granted by the government, to enter into my house or my business and forbid me from copying a work for a friend or creating a derivative work. Generally in american jurisprudence, we frown upon the government infringing into people's private homes and businesses unless the government has an overriding interest otherwise.

              You are perfectly free to leave a piece of beautiful music unrecorded, but you won't convince me that the natural state of things includes the ability to, with the power of the government, coercively forbid me from transcribing that overheard music. Of course, copyright does give you the right to enter my private home or business to enforce your will, because public policy has judged that the public benefit --- the production of creative works --- justifies the infringement on personal liberties.
              • Re:wtf (Score:4, Insightful)

                by rook2pawn (1104379) on Saturday May 19 2007, @07:06AM (#19189979)
                Lets not forget the spirit of copyright. It is actually a beautiful instrument as the earlier poster had mentioned : "Copyright and other intellectual property mechanisms exist to promote the sharing of novel and other valuable works". According to Wikipedias History of Copyright Law [wikipedia.org], England's Statute of Anne (1710) promotes the author not distributor. The RIAA says it lobbies for the artist, but "The recording industry is able to pay exploitatively low percentages as all the record companies pay artists very similar amounts. Therefore if an artist wants to release their music there is no viable alternative other than to sign away their music to these organisations. This might eventually change in the future with the advent of web based music sales. Services may evolve to allow musicians to sell their music via the web without the need for a record company in its present form and consequently reap a fairer share of the profits from their music." (quote from the Record Industry wiki) [wikipedia.org] Clearly this means the RIAA lobbies for the distributor, hence, this practice is in direct violation of the spirit of copyright, which on that alone, discredits any moral authority from the RIAA (aside from their already heinous behavior). There is no reason why we should not jail the RIAA. The RIAA is an active participant in corporate bought law, which comes down to bribery, a violation of United States Code, Title 18 (Criminal), Chapter 11, Section 201. Mitch Bainwol should be able to get sentenced from anywhere from 0-12 months, unfortunately, but its not in the realm of impossiblity. There is also a stautory maximum fine of $10k or $20k. Right from RIAA's About Us [riaa.com] is the quote "The Washington Post has called Bainwol a "Top D.C. Lobbyist and Man in Demand."".
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            sure, after all, he has been dead for a looooong time, and easily recouped his investment from public performances of his plays (which were not free). Now exlain how that translates into torrenting the new spiderman movie, for which hundreds of people worked for years, and are currently using the fruits of their labour to pay their grocery bills and rent?

            yes, copyright periods should be shorter. Ignoring all copyright and taking all copyrighted works (including very recent ones) works AGAINST this argument,
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      He did not own the right to distribute the film. That right is available and he could have purchased it. Instead he stole them. Why is this difficult to understand?
    • what do you do when people simply dont intend to pay for something that took alot of cash to make to begin with

      Work only on commission. That way you get paid before it is possible to "pirate" the creation. The internet is great at distributing information in the form of media, it ought to be great at distributing information in the form of debts too, making the pooling of commissions by groups of millions of patrons feasible to pay for even the most crazy expensive productions.

      • Work only on commission. That way you get paid before it is possible to "pirate" the creation.

        Hey I'm so glad you have agreed to commission my upcoming movie. What's your paypal ID?

        • Hey I'm so glad you have agreed to commission my upcoming movie. What's your paypal ID?
          Just like any other artist working on commission, you have to sell your customer on the idea.

          Let's hear your sales pitch - what's the plotline, who do you expect to star and direct, who is the writer, do you have examples of previous productions? If your pitch is good enough I'll paypal $10 to your escrow account.
        • but it's plainly obvious what's going on when people distribute and download verbatim copies of full movies.

          You don't have to use verbatim. There's memorex, imation, philips....
  • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:13PM (#19187075) Homepage Journal
    Chan had posted a message inviting BitTorrent users to download a movie on an Internet movie forum called "bt.movie.hk" using his "Big Crook" alias.

    Thats similar to the motorbike guy who gave loads of speed cameras the bird because he thought he was safe.
    Had it just occurred quietly no-one would have batted an eyelid.
  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BalaClavaChord (686030) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:16PM (#19187099)
    aXXo is that u?

    Please tell me your ok!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2007, @08:20PM (#19187115)
    the first user convicted of piracy for using BitTorrent to download a movie has really, finally, lost his case.

    No, he could have used any other protocol. He was not convicted for using Bittorrent to do anything. He was convicted for uploading a movie without having a license to do so.
    • But it's important because it shows that lawfully, bittorrent's uploading counts as distribution so you could be charged in the same way as a site hosting movies.
  • by BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:23PM (#19187139) Journal
    This comes a week after Australia extradited to the US an Australian Citizen who never stepped foot in the US for a similar offense [theage.com.au]. Australia's excuse is it's sycophantic Prime Minister it'll do anything the US Government tells it to. What's China's Excuse?

    (Sadly) this isn't the Chinese government kissing American butt. They've got some "bad" [cnn.com] publicity [reuters.com] last week, so this poor sap is being made an example of.

    Meanwhile the RIAA and MPAA continue to lie [ornery.org], cheat [ornery.org] and steal [wikipedia.org] with politicans at their bidding [wikipedia.org] (that's the DMCA Congressman).

  • ...wouldn't abandoning copyright law entirely ultimately have greater good than what we have now? There are abundant examples that creativity and innovation are not absent where there is not a motive of profit. If I had a machine that could copy food endlessly with no more work than bringing a bowl to it, would I not be acting immorally to demand as much payment as I could for it and restrict the creation of such a machine by anyone else? The 'right' to property, including ideas and other intangibles as
    • That's a very touching post, it is, but the mafiaa isn't restricting people's access to fire or food, they're restricting access to something that is made entirely for entertainment. The immorality of withholding free food is that a lot of people don't have enough of it. If you restrict access to Seinfeld episodes, there's not a single person who's life will end.

      If you're going to oppose something, oppose patent laws which actually influence what medications and life saving devices people have access to.
      • Seinfeld, yeah.

        If someone was to restrict access to Heroes episodes though, I definately WOULD die.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          And no, the world is not a better place with fifty gazillion hacks trying to rework Disney cartoons, we are far richer as a culture when a smalll handful of talented people are rewarded fairly for creating the next Mickey Mouse.

          A reworking of a Disney cartoon is of equal value to an original cartoon, actually.

          Look at Shakespeare: nearly all of his plays are either based on history, or are based on stories that were already around. He was a thoroughly derivative artist, but a really excellent one. So long as
  • What!??! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tellarin (444097) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:51PM (#19187345) Homepage Journal
    Man, at first I read the end of the summary as "the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry".

    Well, somehow that would make sense as they are fu*%$ this guy. :(
  • China's economy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HaMMeReD3 (891549) on Friday May 18 2007, @11:28PM (#19188195)
    This is just a joke, sure 1 person loses most of his life so china can make an example to the world that "oh we care about piracy". They are a communist nation and as such have sacrificed one life so they can pretend like they care.

    Uhhh, yeah, sure, uh huh, china cares about piracy?????

    If anything china is the one country on this planet that in general has no respect for any copyright laws of any other nation. Hell, they will pirate anything. You invent and patent invention a (NOT SOFTWARE), the chinese will steal it, remake it out of the cheapest and crappiest components possible and try their hardest to undersell you, effectively causing you, the inventor/artist/producer major damages. What legal repercussions do you have? Don't look at me, I have no clue.

    We pirate movies freely in america, in china you pay for pirate copies of movies in retail stores.

    Although there are ethical rules against being a pirate, a pirate must also have a code of ethics, and reselling is against that code. They aren't even to be called pirates from now, they do not deserve the honor with the title, from now on chinese pirates are to be known only as software thieves.
    • by gujo-odori (473191) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:24PM (#19187151)
      Well, first of all, he's 38. Even if "30 is the new 20" he hardly qualifies as a kid. When I was 38 (but hey, 40 is the new 30, so I can be 38 again ina a few years ), I knew at least a few things. I knew the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, smart and stupid. In the latter category comes the idea that "If my definition of right and wrong differs from the law's definition, I should not do about enacting my definition in a public and noticeable way, lest I get busted." Clearly, he didn't get the difference between smart and stupid.

      Secondly, he wasn't imprisoned for copying a file (funny how we expect copyright to be followed when bringing companies to task for violating the GPL but not when some individual violates copyright; the GPL is founded on copyright law, after all, not contract law), he was sentenced for *distributing* the copyrighted content that he copied. That's a far greater transgression under copyright law.

      Finally, don't look now, but the only troll in this picture is you.
      • by Locklin (1074657) on Friday May 18 2007, @08:36PM (#19187237) Homepage
        There's a reason geeks get up at arms over GPL violations, and it's not because of a double standard.

        It's because the GPL (and simmilar) was created to sidestep the problems of copyright. If you think current copyright law is a farse, than you release your work as GPL, not public domain. If you release it public domain, people can use it in copyrighted works, thus (indirectly) copyrighting your work.

        The GPL uses copyright law to make sure your work never becomes part of the farse of copyright.