Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

DoD Warez Leader Faces 10 Years in Jail 339

Posted by CowboyNeal from the hard-times dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After spending nearly 3 years in a detention center fighting his extradition from Australia, a leader of notorious warez group 'DrinkorDie' was yesterday arraigned before a U.S. District Court to face charges of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of actual criminal copyright infringement. If found guilty he faces 10 years in jail & a $500,000 fine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DoD Warez Leader Faces 10 Years in Jail More

DoD Warez Leader Faces 10 Years in Jail

Comments Filter:

  • MAFIAA gets their way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:48AM (#18119062) Homepage
    to face charges of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of actual criminal copyright infringement. If found guilty he faces 10 years in jail & a $500,000 fine.

    Meanwhile, a drunk driver who kills someone can get off scott free, with no jail time at all. [digg.com] Sweet.

    • Re:MAFIAA gets their way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Crunchie Frog ( 791929 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:54AM (#18119090)

      to face charges of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and one count of actual criminal copyright infringement. If found guilty he faces 10 years in jail & a $500,000 fine.

      Meanwhile, a drunk driver who kills someone can get off scott free, with no jail time at all. [digg.com] Sweet.
      Ah you've made the oft repeated mistake of assuming laws are created to protect people, rather than protect profits.
      • You're assuming uniform malice when stupidity usually suffices. Copyright law is obviously mostly malicious, but I don't think you can make that claim for drunk driving laws (to use the two examples here). DWI is definitely harmful to society and to individuals, and I think most people who have all the information available to lawmakers would support bans and strict punishments on it. If you want to put a cynical spin on it, which I most certainly do, they're protecting their lives, not profits.
      • Unfortunately the kin of murder victims don't have lobbyists working for them.

      • Think of the undertakers... (Score:5, Funny)

        by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @02:26AM (#18119584)
        Of course. We have a God given right to make a profit. Salaries are paid from profits. Think of all the little children who went hungry because this jackass disrupted our profits.

        Now think of the drunken driver incident. The undertakers have to make a profit too. The drunken driver facilitated undertaker profits and that is an attenuating circumstance.

    • Re:MAFIAA gets their way (Score:5, Informative)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:01AM (#18119132) Journal
      Or compare to average sentences for violent crimes [usdoj.gov] such as rape and kidnapping.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sshore ( 50665 )
      You're comparing maximum sentence to an actual sentence. The accused probably won't get anywhere near 10 years in jail or $500,000 fine.

      Also, though it's light, 10 years probation is not scot free. The infotainment blurb linked doesn't cover the circumstances around the accident nor the mitigating factors that led to the sentence.

  • RUN from the MAFIAA! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:49AM (#18119068)
    Run everyone! They'll come for you no matter which country you're trying to live in... totally disregarding the sovereignty of your own countries laws.

  • Why the US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeevesbond ( 1066726 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:50AM (#18119072) Homepage
    Why is this person being tried in the US? He's a British citizen living in Australia, what does this have to do with the US?

    • Re:Why the US (Score:4, Funny)

      by datafr0g ( 831498 ) * <[datafrog] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:55AM (#18119106) Homepage
      Team America: World Police!

      America! Fuck YEAH! Comin' again, to save the motherfuckin day yeah!

    • Re:Why the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:59AM (#18119126)
      If the US wants to extradite someone in another country, they waltz over and get them. If another country wants to extradite someone from the US, it never happens. This double standard has got to stop.

      • Re:Why the US (Score:5, Informative)

        by pryonic ( 938155 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @04:55AM (#18120252)
        I couldn't agree more. I'm a Brit and our Government has recently ratified an extradition treaty with the USA. It's meant to be a mutual two way thing to help prevent everyone's favourite buzzword terrorism. Except the USA didn't ratify the bill [bbc.co.uk], it's still pending. The USA has extradited a number of UK citizens (including a computer hacker [bbc.co.uk])using the UK ratified treaty, but we can't extradite the USA citizens who we suspect of supporting the IRA (who commited terrorist acts on the British mainland) who SHOULD stand trial.

        The hypocrasy and general one sided "we're the best, do as we say not as we do" attitude of the US Government stinks to high heaven, and the UK Government really needs to grow a pair and stand up to the one sided "special relationship" we supposeldly have with the USA.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OakLEE ( 91103 )
        Double standard. Hardly, countries such as Mexico regularly refuse to extradite persons to the US if that persons faces the death penalty. Source 1 [senate.gov], Source 2 [wikipedia.org], Source 3 [bbc.co.uk]. The Wikipedia article also points out that many European countries regularly refuse to extradite their own citizens. The most famous case is that of Roman Polansky, whom France refused to extradite to the US after he fled the country following a conviction on the charge of child rape.

        As for you assertion that the US disproportionately de

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because all your base are belong to U.S.
    • For the same reason that, if you come to the US, kill someone, and then flee to Australia, the United States will attempt to extradite you to face charges of murder. Yes, I know it's not "the same thing" -- software piracy & murder are vastly different. But the legal processes involved are exactly the same. You violate a US law in some way, if the US tracks you down in Australia, it will ask the Australian police to arrest you, and then extradite you to the US to face charges.

      FTFA, the initial arr

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        if you come to the US, kill someone, and then flee to Australia

        This guy was never in the US, though.
      • Yes, I know it's not "the same thing" -- software piracy & murder are vastly different.

        Give it time. Many already refer to copyright infringement as theft.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tftp ( 111690 )
          IANAL, but the word "theft" probably has a very well defined legal meaning, and so the prosecution would be asked to present the $500,000,000 worth of loot confiscated from the accused, along with the police reports from the scene of theft. Can't do that with a moderate stack of DVD-Rs for which the accused has a store receipt (and who had never been at the "scene of the crime".)
      • Yeah, it's not the same thing. It's like if you lived in Australia, bought a Cuban cigar, and got extradited to the US to face trial.

    • Americo-Australianian relations are at an all-time low. As I'm sure you remember, in the late 1980s the US experienced a short-lived infatuation with Australian culture. For some bizarre reason, the Aussies thought this would be a permanent thing. Of course, it wasn't. Anyway, the Down Under fad fizzled and the diplomatic climate turned absolutely frosty.

      Anyway, Australia wanted to put him in stern for 5 years, but the diplomats had another option. They said the US would drop the charges if he made a publ

  • The fundamental question: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:55AM (#18119100) Journal
    Is a man's freedom itself really only of equivalent value to the artificially created rights in a creative work?

    It's time that copyright infringement, and all intellectual property offences, returned to the purely civil arena. Pecuniary penalties are one thing: bankrupt them with fines and damages, by all means. To do so is consistent with the justifications for having intellectual property rights in the first place, which are either related to innovation, commerce, or artistic integrity depending on where you come from historically.

    But no-one should be imprisoned for copying information.
    • You believe that copyright fulfills it's premise, namely bettering society by encouraging creative works. I'm not going to voice my opinion on that, but if you do, then you would regard him as a destructive force, and harmful to society. Not much different than locking up a vandal. Or a thief. Not because the crime is overly similar (don't lecture me on it I already know), but because the end result _is_ the same. Economics are important. Remember that the only reason you have that nice computer to po

      • Re:Unless (Score:5, Interesting)

        by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:43AM (#18119386) Journal

        but because the end result _is_ the same
        I take your overall point, but I strongly disagree that the end result is the same. Copyright infringement and other IP 'crimes' arguably destroy the incentive to create new works by removing the economic incentive to innovate/create. However, in this context a copyright infringer merely makes the overall environment a tiny, tiny fraction less conducive to innovation for the hypothetical individual who is considering whether to pursue the development of new works (which I would argue is a fundamentally flawed connection to draw, but that's another argument).

        You also liken it to 'stealing' or vandalism, but I don't think that's right. Those crimes have victims who suffer directly, and more importantly, are deprived of the enjoyment of their property in respect of any possible use of it, whether in relation to the person committing the offence or any other person. If I smash your shop window, your shop is closed to me and to anyone else who might have come in that day. Copyright infringement is fundamentally different in that it deprives the copyright holder only of enjoyment of their property insofar as the infringement leads someone who would have paid to use the copyright to use an infringing copy free of charge. But it does not prevent the copyright holder from selling licenses to other potential users of their work. In other words, the effect of the 'crime' is heavily diluted, and there is no direct deprivation of enjoyment.

        Society has a way of dealing with these types of 'crimes', in which an individual's behaviour is detrimental but only in a very diluted way. Parking fines come to mind. Speeding fines. Fines for failing to pay car registration. Civil offences, in other words.

        I prefer to think of copyright as a mandatory, many-to-one contractual arrangement. If I create something original and subject to copyright, you and the rest of the world has an automatic contract not to exploit it in certain ways without my consent, and that contract expires after a certain amount of time (about 20000 years thanks to Disney and co). If you breach the contract, I think I should be able to pursue you on a civil law basis, but I do not think the cops should be throwing you in prison.
    • I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Seriously though, let me know when you run for office.

      • I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
        I sincerely hope this becomes the next great ./ meme, I have noticed it appearing with increasing frequency and hilarity.

        As for running for office, not likely. But you're welcome to come and feel marginalised and unrepresented with me on my blog.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bataras ( 169548 )
      "a man's freedom" exists in time. So when you ask whether "a man's freedom" is worth something else, you have to indicate time. Is one day of a man's freedom worth leading a huge piracy operation? Perhaps.

      • "a man's freedom" exists in time. So when you ask whether "a man's freedom" is worth something else, you have to indicate time. Is one day of a man's freedom worth leading a huge piracy operation? Perhaps.

        Interesting point. I would agree if prison amounted to nothing more than a temporary deprivation of liberty.

        But do you think that you would feel like that the day after you'd been in prison? A period of incarceration of any length at all has a huge, and permanent, effect on your ability to do many things, both in an institutionalised sense and in an informal, socially driven sense. And that is without adding in a demonstrably large chance of exposing you to rape, violence, other dehumanising experiences

  • It strikes me as unfair... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Virtual_Raider ( 52165 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:55AM (#18119102)
    IMHO this kind of crimes shouldn't be punishable by imprisonment... but I guess indenture isn't such a hot alternative either. Anyway, 10 years for replicating electrical signals in a magnetic medium (nit pickers go away!)... basically he "stole" an idea, hot air. He *should* be punished for breaking the law, but wasn't there something against disproportionate punishment in western codes?

  • Funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThoreauHD ( 213527 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @12:58AM (#18119120)
    If he killed somebody he'd have been out already.

  • They Never Profited .. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pavan_Gupta ( 624567 ) <`pg8p' `at' `virginia.edu'> on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:02AM (#18119138)

    However, its is worth noting that it has never been proven that any member of DoD profited financially from their activities. Indeed, at the trial of other DoD members in the UK in May 2005, Bruce Houlder QC, prosecuting, said he acknowledged that the defendants were not involved in the software piracy scene to make money but rather they saw themselves as latter-day Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

    For many in the warez scene and beyond, this is how DoD will be remembered.
    Yes, I know this doesn't absolve them of their sins... well, I could envision someone making a reasonable argument about how the world isn't on a level playing field and these guys were helping to level things for those that couldn't afford to be recognized... but I digress. I just thought it was worth recognizing that there is something to be said about these characters that isn't completely negative.
  • As I recall, the DoD bust happened almost 8 years ago. (I remember friends throwing harddrives in rivers..)
    Other people from this bust, and from the relating 'fallout' busts have been nabbed, tried and sentances served by now.

    As a cynic, you have to ask: Will he be tried in accordance to the precedents of the others [in a world minus DMCA and 'terroristm', MPAA fury etc], or is a large public justification required for what was by account a deep investment by the US government?

    I'm not sympatheic, I'm just c
    • "(I remember friends throwing harddrives in rivers..)"

      Personally, I think that should be punishable by 10 years in prison, more than any copying of data should be.

  • Jury nullification. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by n17ikh ( 750948 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:14AM (#18119206) Homepage
    To me, there is only one outcome of this case that would truly serve justice. The defendant is most likely guilty of filesharing as charged and can be proven as such. However, this does not mean that because the law says this man should go to jail (U.S. law vs. Australian sovereignty notwithstanding, that's the next episode of Stupid Governments) that the law is right.

    It seems obvious, then, that the jury trying this case should use one of the rarely-used options available to them: Jury nullification.
    In this case, it seems that the jury would have to consider the case as a whole - not merely the facts presented by the prosecution, not merely the letter of the law. They must consider this man's motives, and the motives of the government that is bringing about this case. Is the government being driven by a corporation known for its bullying thuggishness and its lawsuit-happy executives? Is copyright law fundamentally wrong? I look forward to this jury's answer to these questions and I hope that it is the answer I expect from conscionable human beings.

    • Unfortunately, juries are often not informed of their rights to nullification. The presiding judge rarely tells them it's an option.
      • Not only that, judges generally tell juries that it is not an option. In fact, letting a judge know that you're aware of the concept is a good way to get out of jury duty.

         

  • i'm sure it is the "principal" of the thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by atarione ( 601740 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:16AM (#18119208)
    but from TFA... his cohorts were sentenced to 46 and 33 months respectively ...... he has apparently spent 3yrs in a detention facility (36mos) and now could get up to 10yrs...(in theory).

    one might think that it would have been better to just waive extradition and come fight his case here....3yrs ago...cause he'd be about out by now... even if he was convicted. =p (based on the other sentences)

    I'm glad for my part that I don't like people enough to be a "robinhood" cause I'm not going to jail for a bunch of poor bastards that can't buy software...but can mysteriously afford shinny new PCs to run softwarzes on???

  • Italy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DreamerFi ( 78710 ) <john.sinteur@com> on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:35AM (#18119322) Homepage
    I'm sure the US is more than happy to extend the same courtesy to Italy [yahoo.com], right?

    Right?

  • What annoys me the most about this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frogbert ( 589961 ) <frogbert@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday February 23, 2007 @01:46AM (#18119404)
    What annoys me the most about this is that Australia has perfectly good laws under which to charge him. Why aren't they good enough?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 ) *
      Do you seriously not know?

      The supposed victim, the copyright holder, in this victimless crime is located in the US. What are you going to do? Tell the victim that they need to come here to Australia to have a trial? Or are you suggesting that it should be ok to convict people for crimes when the victim can't even be bothered coming to the court room?

      Of course, the fact that the laws where the victim lives are much harsher than the laws in Australia.. ah, that's just a co-incidence.. it has nothing to do
  • I don't know about you, but when manslaughter is 8 years, I have to question weather the cruel and unusual punishment clause holds any weight what soever.

  • Its interesting to think about this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @02:07AM (#18119502) Journal
    Issues of copyright in regard to software infringe on the issues of free speech. Yes, I said that. If someone were to decry the evils of BMW, or publish how to make them more gas efficient there would be no foul. When it comes to copyright, there seems to be no justice.

    Even if a person is guilty of helping people download movies for free, they should not be punished for the following reasons:

    1 - you cannot help someone break the law if the act is committed without your presence.
    2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.
    3 - Even if you send them the file sharing program, you did not commit the act.
    4 - If you complain to the police that someone stole your paper bag of money containing $50,000 dollars that you left on some street corner, they will laugh at you and tell you that you are stupid.
    5 - Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues. There is no proof that any 'illegal' activity caused known damage to revenues in a quantitative way.
    6 - Current legislation doesn't provide protection or compensation for all copyright holders, only the very few and very rich corporations with copyrights. The law is not being applied equally.
    7 - The reasonable doubt that 'fair use' implies means that most copyright litigation is of questionable nature to start with.
    8 - There is NO proof that pirated copyright materials deprive the artist of what they would have received anyway.
    9 - The US entertainment industry is not the lawmaking body for ALL of the world. Resist now.
    10 - Punishing hackers does not protect the children, nor does it stop terrorism.
    11 - Copyright infringement is not theft, but copyright infringement for profit is. See number 5.
    12 - Australia is not a US state, nor is any other sovereign country. Any country that gives up sovereignty to the US over copyrights is seriously sucking ass...

    13 - you make up your own for this one

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by senatorpjt ( 709879 )
      Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues.

      Well, obviously if you pirated it, you needed it, and you would have bought it if you couldn't have pirated it.

      For instance, I use a program at work that costs $30,000 a copy. I made $20K last year. Obviously, if I couldn't have pirated it, I would have eaten garbage, lived in an alley, and sold all my plasma to buy it.

    • Re:Its interesting to think about this... (Score:4, Informative)

      by grantsellis ( 537978 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @08:26AM (#18121226) Homepage
      IANAL, just a law student, but this is just retarded.

      1 - you cannot help someone break the law if the act is committed without your presence.


      Cough. Accomplice? [slashdot.org] Aiding and abetting? [findlaw.com] Cough.

      2 - Telling someone how to break the law is not an illegal act.


      Um, yes, it can be. There are limitations on first amendment rights. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (words causing immediate breach of peace illegal), for instance.

      3 - Even if you send them the file sharing program, you did not commit the act.


      Sounding like a broken record, I know, but this could be aiding and abetting (see above for definition).

      4 - If you complain to the police that someone stole your paper bag of money containing $50,000 dollars that you left on some street corner, they will laugh at you and tell you that you are stupid.


      Oh, brilliant . You know what the equivalent of locking up movie files is, right? You just made the argument for DRM.

      5 - Theft of copyright is not possible, the premise is theft of 'presumed' revenues. There is no proof that any 'illegal' activity caused known damage to revenues in a quantitative way.


      Looking at the news article tells you he's charged with Criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy [postchronicle.com], not theft.

      The rest of the list has similar flaws, but my patience is at an end. :)
  • I mean if anyone steals the software from me, esp Warez kids I won't care really, because they extend my market share. If my company is public however, I would be stuck between rock and a hard place.Liability to investors for not attempting to get maximum profits is like that. They don't care who, what or at what cost the profit was earned. This sort of logic would hurt small companies, that make limited use small bits of software. But I guess it comes with territory. Instead of software, if you think its t

  • Irony (Score:4, Funny)

    by KoldKompress ( 1034414 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @03:15AM (#18119826)
    Anyone else find it funny that a criminal is being extradited from Australia? Didn't we send those Darn convicts there in the first place?
  • I wonder how many millions of dollars have all ready been spent simply catching,detaining,transporting, legal fees and so on have all ready been spent to get this awful criminal to pay for his crime.
  • Hahaha, "John Sankus and his techno-gang ..."

    Watch out for the techno-gang! At least he didn't use the word 'thugs' to legitimize their ridiculous waste of money on sort-of slowing down the completely victimless crime the 'gang' was committing. Would anybody cheer if they arrested Coca-Cola shareholders for competing with Pepsi? Because this is essentially major tax money going to 'protect' the rights of very very big business, and nothing else.

    Do you think the FBI would start a case on somebody pirating
  • Copyright is now all about protecting the interests of Sony and other mega-corporations. It has ZERO to do with "the public interest" which is NOT served by 95-year copyright terms. Do the corporate-whores go to jail when they steal from us and the authors? No they do not.

  • Does he get credit for the 3 years? Time served? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrnick ( 108356 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @05:13AM (#18120324) Homepage
    He has been in detention for 3 years? If convicted would he get credit for the time he has already spent in an Australia detention center? If so, do the same rules apply for fines as they do here in the US? For those that don't know you get credit for ~50 per day while incarcerated. If so, then he has already earned over $50,000 towards his fine. If they do take in account the time served in Australia I wouldn't be surprised if sentenced, even the maximum amount, that he would not get off for time served.

    If I were him I would discuss this with my lawyer and then in turn with the district attorney to negotiate a Plea bargain to enter a plea of nolo contendere, saving the court the time and expense of a lengthy trial, in return for a sentence of time served and a few years of unadjudicated probation.

    I have seen people get less for worse. I don't see why the taxpayers should have to pay to hold someone like this when they obviously present no danger to society.

    Nick Powers

  • Subject (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Legion303 ( 97901 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @05:42AM (#18120444) Homepage
    "What are you in for?"
    "I raped my grandmother, bludgeoned her to death and ate the corpse. You?"
    "I gave some software away."

  • Misinterpretation (Score:3, Funny)

    by pilotfactory ( 1024667 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @05:51AM (#18120492)
    When reading the headline the first time, I thought the Department of Defense had a warez server. (For playing Age of Empires during boring Pentagon meetings or something.)

  • From the US to the world (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mad-cat ( 134809 ) on Friday February 23, 2007 @07:11AM (#18120830) Homepage
    From the US to the world: OBEY.

    I'll never understand how "theft" of non-physical property with no proveable financial loss can be a crime.
    Civil, sure. Crime? No.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close