First Guilty Verdict In Criminal Copyright Case 278
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A Brooklyn man has been found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement by a federal jury in Virginia. He now faces up to five years in prison, a quarter-million-dollar fine, and three years of parole, not to mention the 'full restitution' he has to make to the RIAA. The charges against him stem from his role as 'Dextro,' the administrator of one of the Apocalypse Production Crew's file servers — APC being one of the release groups that specialize in pre-release music. While he's the 15th member of APC to be charged under the US DOJ's Operation Fastlink, he's the first to be convicted. He will be sentenced on August 8th. For those wondering when infringement became a criminal matter, you can thank the NET Act, which was signed into law in 1997 by Bill Clinton."
Well, okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Further proof that even politicians you like (I voted for Clinton in 1996, the first presidential election I was old enough to vote for) can do foolish things.
Cry me a river... please. (Score:5, Insightful)
This group are hell-bent on obtaining pre-released music (that the companies have not yet had a chance to recoup their investment on) and making it available for free.
Whether you believe copyright terms should be 99 years or 7 years is immaterial here. Whether you believe an individual should be able to rip their CDs is immaterial here. Whether you believe in teh doctrine of first sale for copyrighted materials is immaterial here. Put aside your hatred of the RIAA for a second and see this for what it really is - one of the few occasions where they have a point.
Re:Well, okay then... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, okay then... (Score:0, Insightful)
There, they like the "Fuck the RIAA!" comments. Just saying.
Re:Criminal downloading (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Criminal downloading (Score:4, Insightful)
The key here was that he got paid for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river... please. (Score:5, Insightful)
1 less danger to society (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a trade secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Criminal downloading (Score:2, Insightful)
How does it compare to... (Score:2, Insightful)
another nonviolent offender behind bars... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The key here was that he got paid for it (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. I mean, I didn't RTFA, so I'm assuming you're right that he got paid for it, but I agree that it makes a world of difference.
To me, copyright law's original intent is valid. The system was set up in a time when making copies and distributing them on a wide scale took serious money. So the problem was that a book publisher, for example, might front a writer development costs for writing a book. Then the publishing house prints up copies and starts selling them. Without any laws in place, another book publisher could then buy a copy of the book, print their own copies, and sell them at a discount. This second book publisher would necessarily be at an economic advantage because their production costs would be the same, but they had no development costs. Copyright protection was created specifically to stop that sort of poaching by competing commercial entities.
The problem with copyright law now is that it has become trivially easy for private individuals to create copies of large works and distribute on a wide scale for free. Individuals have been accustomed to sharing content, e.g. loaning a record to your friend, and in fact this behavior has always been to the benefit of creators/distributers. However, once the "record" is a computer file, the line between "loaning" and "making a copy" becomes a bit blurred, and so the difference between "sharing with friends" and "copyright infringement" is also blurred. We haven't yet adjusted fully to this development.
However, a professional "pirate" who *sells* copies in violation of a copyright is a pretty unambiguous case. i have no problem with those cases being prosecuted in civil court, and in serious enough situations, criminal court.
Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now (Score:3, Insightful)
Like those fuckers who STOLE my camp fire last weekend. I put a lot of effort into making that fire, then these clowns come over when I'm not looking, put a stick in MY fire and STEAL it. I deserve money!
Re:Criminal downloading (Score:3, Insightful)
But we ALL know that won't happen.
In my eyes, until the rich and politically powerful are held to the same laws that govern us little people -- jail time for something like this is insane.
You DO realize that there are cases where people have been murdered, which did not net as much jail time as we are talking about this?
Re: Slow down, Cowboy (Score:4, Insightful)
Short and sweet:
Criminal misdemeanors have been part of american copyright law since 1897.
The reach of the criminal law was extended and harsher penalties made available as early as 1909.
In 1982 first-time offenders could be convicted on a felony charge.
As for the NET act of 1997:
The ease of infringement on the Internet was the primary reason for criminalizing noncommercial infringement as well as recognition of other motivations a nonprofit defendant might have such as anti-copyright or anti-corporate sentiment, trying to make a name in the Internet world and wanting to be a cyber renegade. Criminal Copyright Infringement [unc.edu]
Re:Well, okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, the moderations here aren't always great, but generally, if you can speak thoughtfully on an issue, you'll get modded up even for going against the "herd" - Slashdot is made up of individuals, not clones, and there are plenty of people who'll agree with whatever beliefs you might have.
But if you're going to respond with insults instead of arguments, or if your arguments are facile ones that everyone who's been around the site for a while has already discarded, expect to get modded down.
Re:Prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
It is hard to design laws to be adaptable to every possible situation. They had to pick a point and
If you are driving period, you are risking your life and the lives of others. Adding further impairment to the situation (such as drinking, drugs, being tired, distractions) makes the risk even worse.
DUI laws are not prohibition. They are a deterrent for hazardous behavior. If you think you're over the limit, take a cab. Its easy and safe. Plus you can have another drink and not have to worry that you might get pulled over for some minor infraction and have a "DUI" charge stacked on top of it.
BUT in this case, the guy hosting audio files isn't a danger to anyone's life. His actions are not criminal, except in the view of an overbearing law payed for by an industry desperate to maintain their anachronistic revenue streams. Contrary to the scientific evidence that alcohol impairs judgement and motor skills, scientific evidence shows that file sharing actually increases music sales.
The NET law really is out of control.
OK (Score:2, Insightful)
The more you learn about the RIAA, the more sense a simple FU makes.
NET Act redefines "financial gain"! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to be fair, the NET Act also redefines "financial gain" to include a laundry list of things. One of those things that laundry list covers is receiving other copyrighted works in return.
Yes, that's right. In theory, joining a torrent could be "financial gain" so long as the contents were valuable enough.
In practice, we don't have full-fledged copyright cops (yet), so they don't bother with small fry. But that WILL change [slashdot.org] if they can get the PRO-IP Act through congress. My sincere hope is that it never gets that far.
Re:Fsck the engieer! They do no work!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. If I take your car and blow it up, your car is permanently gone, and there's no way to get it back. If I distribute copies of your copyrighted work, once you stop me from doing so, your rights have been fully restored.
2. If I take your car, you cannot use it while I have it. If I make unauthorized copies of your copyrighted work, you can continue making your own copies while I do so.
Now, because I can tell you're the kind of person who will think that the above means I think that copyright infringement is acceptable, I'm going to try to emphasize that THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I'm merely pointing out that copyright infringement is NOT theft (aka larceny), not by any legal definition and not by common usage. They are different beasts, which is why we have entirely separate bodies of law covering them.
Re:Well, okay then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather classify this particular case as unfair trading practice and trade secrets stealing. (You see, until they're released, the albums' content is supposed to be secret).
So partially you're right, regarding zero day warez and similar stuff. But after the albums are released, it's the same monopolistic crap we've had.
Re:They are coming for the virtual priates now (Score:3, Insightful)
Portraying an action as something it isn't going to help your case and it might make you look like a kook. It's really the proponents of strong copyright infringement penalties who should be pedantic about proper nomenclature.