Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media The Courts The Internet

MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction 335

Posted by Soulskill
from the connection-reset-by-jury-of-peers dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA must be celebrating. According to the BitTorrent news site Slyck.com, the Department of Justice is proclaiming their first P2P criminal copyright conviction, against an Elite Torrents administrator. The press release notes, 'The jury was presented with evidence that Dove was an administrator of a small group of Elite Torrents members known as "Uploaders," who were responsible for supplying pirated content to the group. At sentencing, which is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2008, Dove faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction

Comments Filter:
  • Not "really" P2P (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gewalt (1200451) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:02PM (#23975291)
    This was a release group, and altho they were releasing onto p2p, this is NOT the same thing as all those other cases where the **AA is demanding 3000$ tributes to ignore wrongdoings.
    • Re:Not "really" P2P (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:19PM (#23975471)

      No he was not. As far as I can understand it he leaked material from the warez scene onto P2P.

      Most (except probably a few unrespected crap groups) do not upload their material to P2P networks and don't want their material getting there. It is a security risk and it is exposing the scene.

      These so called Uploaders on P2P torrent trackers are mostly people who have access to scene material in one way or another. Maybe just a crappy courier that isn't contributing or maybe someone who pays for leech or is hosting a server. Anyhow they are usually not respected individuals within the scene and upload things to P2P for either ideological reasons or just to get a bigger epenis.

      Sorry for my rant but someone had to say it.

    • by LostCluster (625375) * on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:25PM (#23975523)
      In other words... these guys were using P2P at the technical level, but they were really doing the uploading of the content. **AA has a long win streak against uploaders, it's downloaders that they've had so much problems with.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Gerzel (240421)

        How easy for the **AA's to stretch this win to make it P2P itself to be the crime?

        • Re:Not "really" P2P (Score:4, Informative)

          by Nullav (1053766) <moc@NosPAm.liamg.valluN> on Friday June 27, 2008 @08:06PM (#23975931)

          Seems like quite a stretch, considering that rounding them up en masse [wikipedia.org] didn't have such an effect. Also, I can't be the only one disturbed that so many resources went to that.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by againjj (1132651)
      Agreed, this is not the same as what all those other cases are, but you can be pretty sure that the MPAA is going to try and make it look like it to the general public. Unfortunately, I must agree with the conviction -- this really is clearly wrong (I am not commenting on the sentencing). It was being distributed before the movie was even showing in theaters! This clearly crosses the line of copyright law in both spirit and letter, unlike those other cases.
  • Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aztektum (170569) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:04PM (#23975317)

    10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.

    This hangup about defending our bullshit economy which truly only services the "haves" in the first place is being taken to extremes and I'm getting tired of it.

    I say pirate everything, convince your friends, family, etc. Let's see what they do when EVERYONE is downloading their shit. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Then where will they be?

    Fuckers.

    • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EdIII (1114411) * on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:11PM (#23975383)

      I can see how you got the flambait mod, mainly for the last sentence.

      However, you do have a valid point about just what danger to society this person poses and whether or not 10 years is a punishment that fits the crime.

      It would certainly seem that the powerful in this country are pushing for stronger and stronger criminal punishments for what would otherwise be a civil matter between 2 entities.

      • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dreamchaser (49529) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:18PM (#23975453) Homepage Journal

        A stiff fine would seem to be in order, and civil damages. Jail time is pretty harsh for this kind of IP crime though.

        • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)

          by EdIII (1114411) * on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:38PM (#23975651)

          Jail time is pretty harsh for any kind of IP crime. That's just it though; It's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY crime. It's not tangible.

          A copyright defines rights which are granted to somebody from the government. They use these rights to diminish competition and allow them to have an advantage to collect profits for a reasonable period of time. The period of time is certainly no longer reasonable IMO, but that is up for debate.

          What is not really up for debate, is that violating these rights falls within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. It was never supposed to be a matter for criminal courts. The GP of your post tried pointing out that seemingly corrupt government entities have been responsible for turning into a criminal matter, what has always been a civil matter. Simply to give them the upper hand. They don't need to spend money in the court systems defending their intellectual property against minor violations.

          I recently watched a special about prison systems. I am 32 years old right now. I can remember being 22 years old, but that seems to be as far away from me now as being 11 years old. 10 YEARS is a very LONG time. Assuming that you get 60 years of adult life in this world, 1/6th of that being taken away is a huge punishment.

          It's easy to forget that. I'm all for the death penalty and harsh criminal convictions, but only for violent crime. IP infringement is not a crime that we need to take 10 years from somebody for. Let's not forget that we will spend anywhere between 300K and 400K as taxpayers to do it too. Is is really that cost effective for us to do this? To protect big media companies? To protect society, or our values?

          I just don't think so. Maybe huge fines and 6 months in jail or prison might be adequate.

          I am more concerned by the fact that turning this into a criminal matter has provided government and corporations the impetus to do away with our privacy and rights altogether simply to provide protection for a few companies profit margins.

          • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dreamchaser (49529) on Friday June 27, 2008 @08:01PM (#23975885) Homepage Journal

            Well, if someone steals the secret designs for the new Widget(tm) that a company has then they should get jail time and that is an IP crime, although you could argue it's industrial espionage. We agree on this matter though. I would think probation would be enough even (plus a fine), not even six months. Six months in jail can totally ruin a person's life, whereas if they get probation they might just be able to keep their job/house, etc.

            • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)

              by GigaplexNZ (1233886) on Friday June 27, 2008 @09:09PM (#23976687)

              Well, if someone steals the secret designs for the new Widget(tm) that a company has then they should get jail time

              I disagree. If they are in jail they are costing society money. If they are given a massive fine that won't go away with bankruptcy then their life will be dedicated to contributing money back into society in one way or another. They might not like it, but it sure beats jail time, and it's not like they are at a high risk of hurting anyone.

          • Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Dan541 (1032000) on Friday June 27, 2008 @08:17PM (#23976073) Homepage

            It's easy to forget that. I'm all for the death penalty and harsh criminal convictions, but only for violent crime. IP infringement is not a crime that we need to take 10 years from somebody for. Let's not forget that we will spend anywhere between 300K and 400K as taxpayers to do it too. Is is really that cost effective for us to do this? To protect big media companies? To protect society, or our values?

            Copyright laws have a huge cost to society, I think they should be abolished then we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Mjec (666932)

              Copyright laws have a huge cost to society, I think they should be abolished then we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

              For those who haven't seen the argument a million times before, I feel compelled to post it again. Copyright law is a benefit to society.

              The whole point of IP law is that innovation can be protected for a short period of time (sufficient to guarantee a worthwhile return on investment) and then remove that protection to allow the advancement to be used by society.

              In other words, IP laws both reward innovation and encourage openness that wouldn't otherwise be viable. In theory at least. Good principle, shitty

          • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

            by clang_jangle (975789) * on Friday June 27, 2008 @09:19PM (#23976743) Journal
            Maybe we should just build Imaginary Prisons for those who "steal" Imaginary Property? Then the punishment could truly fit the crime. :)
          • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

            by suck_burners_rice (1258684) on Friday June 27, 2008 @11:06PM (#23977489)
            Ok let's think about this. What was the Constitution and the Bill of Rights supposed to defend? Your rights, right? Ok, now that we've established that, from whom is this Bill of Rights defending you, the individual? Mainly from the government. Now you need to realize that the government is not some ephemeral entity that determines the order of the universe. It's a bunch of dudes who happened to get elected and happen, therefore, to have power to make things happen. It is from THOSE DUDES that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect you. Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights is only a piece of paper. It is YOU who must always monitor what is happening and to fight violations of your rights. I believe that in that Bill of Rights somewhere, it says something to the effect that:

            Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

            Now don't you think that getting the kind of sentence that a rapist might get is a tad bit CRUEL AND UNUSUAL for downloading or uploading some worthless garbage?

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Kjella (173770)

              Now don't you think that getting the kind of sentence that a rapist might get is a tad bit CRUEL AND UNUSUAL for downloading or uploading some worthless garbage?

              Unfortunately, the eight amendment is rarely used to find whether a crime is comparable to the punishment, but rather on the punishment as such. This is more like the classic eight amendment stuff: "In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878) the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive and disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment"

              Jailtime is not normally cruel or unusual punishment for a crime. In 1983 they found that "life imprisonment without p

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Lord Flipper (627481)

            I am more concerned by the fact that turning this into a criminal matter has provided government and corporations the impetus to do away with our privacy and rights altogether simply to provide protection for a few companies profit margins.

            Don't Forget

            These companies are also either in, or connected to businesses (Visa, MasterCard, Amex, Honeywell, Wackenhut, etc) that are in the prison business for profit. So, it is in the corporate ruling class interest to criminalize as many people as possible, for l

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jonaskoelker (922170)

            A copyright defines rights which are granted to somebody from the government.

            Almost true.

            A copyright defines a set of rights which is temporarily given up by everybody except one entity, for the benefit of that entity. The giving up of those rights is mandatory, in the sense that the law says you have to, and voluntary in the sense that The People (in theory) chooses what the law says.

            I think the generally accepted philosophical POV on /. is that when you're born, you're granted some set of rights. No more rights can come into existence, but they can be taken away or not. The gov

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        It would certainly seem that the powerful in this country are pushing for stronger and stronger criminal punishments for what would otherwise be a civil matter between 2 entities

        When you can buy the laws, and are called by the house 'the most important industry in this country' what do you expect?

    • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cocoshimmy (933014) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:11PM (#23975385)
      I totally agree, the punishment does not fit the crime. 10 years in prison should be reserved for things like rape, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon and other crimes of similar severity. Music/Movie/Software piracy should not be put in the same category.
      • Re:Insanity (Score:4, Funny)

        by deathcow (455995) * on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:18PM (#23975455)

        Sounds nice.. if it was people versus people... this is corporations versus people though, I'm surprised they don't have roving death squads.

      • Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:21PM (#23975487)

        Clearly it already is in that category -- as "pirates" are regarded to have committed "assault with a deadly modem".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Goddamn selfish people trying to earn a living producing music, art, software, games, etc! Who do they think they are?

      Look, I'm not a huge fan of the MPAA/RIAA tactics. But I AM someone who makes their living making software. Good software. Software I'm proud of. And while I get some satisfaction from my work, I need to make a living here. I work for a company that charges for software. I'm not ashamed of that, and I don't feel I should be. We charge reasonable fees for a superior product and good s

      • by Mprx (82435)
        Free Software will be produced even without copyright law. So will music, novels, and games. Maybe not at the same rate it is now, but that's a small price to pay for every human having complete access to every existing game/movie/music recording/novel/textbook/scientific paper/etc. With the rapidly decreasing price of computer hardware and improving communication infrastructure I do mean *every* human. Poverty can be eliminated, and without intellectual monopoly everyone can have unimaginable intellectua
        • by PylonHead (61401)

          Someone should point out to you that Free Software is currently produced even *with* copyright law.

          This way authors have the freedom to choose. Do I want to give my work away, or do I want to charge for it?

          This way users have a choice: is the current open source solution the best choice, or would I like to pony up for a commercial product?

          Why should we force everyone down one path, when clearly there is a place for both options?

          • by Mr2001 (90979)

            Why should we force everyone down one path, when clearly there is a place for both options?

            Because copyright laws affect everyone, not just the people who choose to use a copyright-based business model. Web hosts have to police their users' content. Electronics manufacturers have to restrict what their equipment can do. Average folks have to restrict what they say to each other because some pieces of information are off-limits.

            A copyright-based business model would be fine if it were opt-in for everyone, not just the copyright holders, but of course then copyright would be toothless.

            • by Jason Earl (1894)

              Oh please. Most people are not effected by copyright law in the slightest. Sure, someday black helicopters might swoop down every time someone sings "Happy Birthday" at their backyard birthday party, but I personally doubt it. Until that time, please check the histrionics at the door.

              The reality of the situation is that you really have to work at it to run afoul of copyright law. This particular individual basically ran a commercial bootlegging operation. He paid for and administered a server and rec

        • I suggest you pick a few good games, and a few good movies, and take a good hard look at the complete credits.

          It takes millions of dollars to get that many skilled people together for the time it takes to make a game or move. Can you make a concrete suggestion as to where the money for this would come from if every movie and game were immediately available for free to everyone? By concrete I mean an actual mechanism that would lead to anyone being willing to put up the tens of millions of dollars to produ

      • Sorry, Richard Stallin says you're a criminal. Software must be free.

      • by Mr2001 (90979)

        Look, I'm not a huge fan of the MPAA/RIAA tactics. But I AM someone who makes their living making software. Good software. Software I'm proud of. And while I get some satisfaction from my work, I need to make a living here. I work for a company that charges for software.

        Making a living by writing software doesn't mean you have to charge for copies of that software. If copyright didn't exist, you could still make a living as a programmer (or an artist, etc.) by charging for your labor.

      • We'll go out of business, and stop making good products for people to use. So will a lot of other small software houses.

        Good. Go out of business, and take your culture of victimhood with you. We'll get along fine without you.

        I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you, but you're not somehow magically ENTITLED to enjoy whatever you want whenever you are for free.

        You have the gall to accuse file-sharers of a sense of entitlement, when your entire business model is based on government-granted monopolies?

    • Ten years for copying a fucking movie, well a bunch of fucking movies? Sounds like a good excuse to become a citizen of Canada to me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bluefoxlucid (723572)

      Clinton signed in a law making copyright infringement a felony. He also passed the DMCA, and a bill that withheld all federal funding to any group working on embryonic stem cell research. He also fucked a 19 year old in the Oval Office when he was supposed to be working on his presidential duties -- which is legal, but we got a bitch match over it and then he lied in court and almost got impeached for perjury.

      Clinton is a remarkable man as president; he seems to have caused all kinds of economic and legis

    • by JimDaGeek (983925)

      10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.

      ...

      This hangup about defending our bullshit economy which truly only services the "haves" in the first place is being taken to extremes...

      Umm. the "haves" are the ones bribing our so called "representatives", until that changes, nothing else will. Your preaching to the quire brother!

    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      10 years in prison? I realize that's a maximum, but the reality is he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society.

      Thats twice the penalty for murder.

      Shows where our priorities are.

      • by Rudolf (43885)

        Thats twice the penalty for murder.

        Must depend on where you live.

        Around we have the death penalty or life imprisonment for murder.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      he's done nothing that should be even closely considered to being a danger to society

      Ah, but you forget piracy funds terrorism...

      I say pirate everything, convince your friends, family, etc. Let's see what they do when EVERYONE is downloading their shit. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Then where will they be?

      The government would love this, as the entire populace could be stripped of most their constitutional rights and be easily controlled and turned in to virtual serfs as 'restitution'.

    • by stinerman (812158)

      10 years? We should be so lucky.

      We'd get sent to a white-collar, minimum security resort!

    • I say pirate everything, convince your friends, family, etc. Let's see what they do when EVERYONE is downloading their shit. Are they going to throw us all in jail? Then where will they be?

      How about we start voting for people who are more concerned with citizens than lobbyists for big corporations? With the economy in the dumps, states are going to be looking for new ways of getting people in jail for the nearly free labor (as far as state budgets are concerned) they provide at taxpayer expense.

  • Not that bad... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:04PM (#23975319)
    Despite how bad it may sound, this is more or less not a big deal for the average person. It is like video game companies going after people who host ROMs of copyrighted games... Not that bad. Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader... That would be different.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by plover (150551) *

      Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader

      Define "innocent" uploader. Do you mean "uploader of copyrighted content who has not been arrested, given a jury trial, and convicted?" Or do you mean "uploader of uncopyrighted content"? Because there's a lot of legal difference between the two.

    • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:35PM (#23975623) Homepage Journal
      Despite how bad it may sound, this is more or less not a big deal for the average person. It is like video game companies going after people who host ROMs of copyrighted games... Not that bad. Now if they won for a downloader or innocent uploader... That would be different.

      No this is horribly bad. First, it is a basic travesty of justice. Prison time for P2P? Unless he was putting nuclear weapon designs on P2P, there is no reason for this. lets put people in jail for twenty years if they steal a loaf of bread. That's progressive thinking!

      Second, the legal system loves basing later decisions on prior landmark cases. this has just told every judge for the next fifty years that criminal punishment id ok for civil infractions.

      Third, the economy is in the dumps, and every peerson we imprision for piddly ass crap like this is costing taxpayers $$$. Ten years is not cheap. The people responsable should be dragged into the street and tarred and feathered for such frivilious use of taxpayer money.

      Finally, bad laws erode respect for good laws. The more people become acoustom to breaking laws that are poorly written, the more acoustom they become to breaking laws in general.

      Very bad ruling.
      • We established 30 years ago that you can freely distribute designs for nuclear weapons. There's books out on how to build an atomic bomb, come on.

      • Second, the legal system loves basing later decisions on prior landmark cases. this has just told every judge for the next fifty years that criminal punishment id ok for civil infractions

        That's not how the law, or precedent, works. This was not a civil infraction.

        Judges cannot impose criminal penalties for civil infraction. And if one did, it would not stand. Furthermore, it would not be precedent, since district courts do not set precedent.

  • by deft (253558) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:05PM (#23975331) Homepage

    ...to NOT name your group on a torrent site something that allows information about structure to be gleaned.

    Sure, uploaders may be only uploading only legal content blah blah blah, but there's no reason to publicize your role in the organization unless you can sure as hell sheild yourself while these lawsuits are bounding about.

    Even the mob knows to call people "freinds of ours", not money launderers, assasins, gun runners etc. Please don't flame me because this is "security through obscurity".... because sometimes it works i.e, I still don't know where angelina jolie lives. Well played angelina, you hot little baby collector.

    • by autocracy (192714)
      It might not be a good idea to tattoo gang signs all over your body. I think that analogy may help make the point in itself.
    • by xx_toran_xx (936474) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:15PM (#23975433)
      "Security through obscurity" is what can sometimes make or break a lawsuit. The ability of a juror to make the connection between what a website might call an "content administration officer" and that user's actual role is what is at stake. The obscurity in a title like that leaves their role at the website open for interpretation. Obviously the plaintiff (MPAA) would argue it for uploader, but the defendent could argue it another way.
      • by deft (253558)

        maybe everyone should just have the title "ascii art guy".

        that'll show em.

    • I still don't know where angelina jolie lives.

      123 Fake Street

      Springfield, Oh-hiya-Maude 90210

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LostCluster (625375) *
      Reminds me of the time the SF Police raided TechTV (while TechLive was on the air) because the company had been associated with something called "CyberCrime". Cops thought they had the dumbest criminals ever, they actually had a canceled investigative news show.
    • by Alsee (515537) on Friday June 27, 2008 @09:04PM (#23976645) Homepage

      Please don't flame me because this is "security through obscurity".... because sometimes it works i.e, I still don't know where angelina jolie lives.

      Ok, I won't flame you. However I will mock you mercilessly.

      If you want to give an example of security through obscurity working, next time you might want to go with something that's obscure, or maybe something that's working, or better yet maybe even go with something that is obscure AND working. LOL.

      Château Miraval. 83570 Correns, France.
      Google Maps Satellite Photo. [google.com]
      Article with close aerial photo. [hollywoodgrind.com]
      The WIKIPEDIA page for Château Miraval. [wikipedia.org]
      Château Miraval's own website. [miraval.com]

      And no, don't even think of suggesting what is Angelina Jolie's bra size? [google.com] as a better example of obscurity than her address. 36-C.

      Ahhhh... yeah.... the next time you want to say security through obscurity sometimes works, you might want to go with a slightly different example. In fact never ever ever again attempt to use Angelina Jolie in the same sentence with the word obscurity. You're punished. Go sit in the corner.

      And no, you can't take pictures of Angelina with you. You're punished means you're supposed to sit in the corner thinking about how bad you've been, not thinking about her being a naughty naughty girl.

      -

  • Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money, and they *are* violating both the spirit and word of copyright law. The maximum possible sentence is definately overkill, but I can't really argue with the conviction itself.

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:35PM (#23975625)

      Sadly, when you are pushing prerelease stuff, you cross a very firm line into illegal territory. There is no grey area. They *are* costing the studios money,

      I don't agree that distribution of pre-release content costs the studios any more than distribution of post-release content. The MAFIAA do not have a business plan that is significantly based on release of content. I.e. they do not use something like the "ransom" model where they charge money for the release of content rather than the distribution of content. Thus illegal distribution of pre-release content is not significantly any more costly to the MAFIAA than illegal distribution of post-release content.

  • A tradeoff (Score:4, Funny)

    by peipas (809350) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:13PM (#23975409)

    Ten years? That could be fair if they show movies to the inmates sans FBI warnings. That way I don't think he would be losing any more of his life than the rest of us.

  • Darknet, GO! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Master Control P (655590) <<ejkeever> <at> <nerdshack.com>> on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:17PM (#23975443)
    The Uploaders have doubtlessly noted that this never would have happened if they were using an encrypted darknet for initial distribution.

    Quite possibly things may evolve to the point where you aren't allowed to join without proving your identity and uploading something illegally. Compare Russian Business Network, who do this for the same purpose: you won't betray the group if they have the dirt on you also.

    Mix that with segmentation among darknets to prevent inevitable compromises from taking everything down and you're golden once you set up trusted peers between different subdarknets to diffuse data between them.
  • NOT P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:23PM (#23975499)

    You gotta love these people. They are trying to make it sound like P2P itself is criminal, or certainly criminal by association.

    This piracy group merely chose P2P as a medium to transfer it's files.

    That would be like government catching a bunch of whatchamacallit smugglers on bicycles and then announcing "the first bicycle whatchamacallit criminal conviction". Ummm, yeah right. What the hell does bicycles have to do it?

    It's not surprising that piracy groups have chose P2P to transfer their files. It is most efficient transfer medium with the highest market share. It used to IRC DCC transfer, and then before that it was FTP. A long time before that, it was file transfers through BBS. Bootleg copies used to be made on cassette tapes as well. Did that mean cassette tapes were also inherently "evil" and predisposed towards piracy? I think not.

    Sorry, I guess I just can't get over how completely full of shit some people are. We can argue about piracy and intellectual copyrights all day long. That's fine. Let's just not be intellectually dishonest doing it.

  • by The Fanta Menace (607612) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:24PM (#23975515) Homepage

    I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

    • I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

      Got any tips?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mashiki (184564)

        How about the 8th Amendment? Or am I going overboard with the interpretation of "cruel and unusual punishments"? It seems 10 years for copy infringement and piracy seems to be overboard in my books.

        I've also seen murders get less then this, so yes. I think 8th might apply.

    • I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

      Money.valueOf() > Life.valueOf()

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper (135110)

      10 years? Please USA, get a grip


      10 years is just the maximum possible penalty. In a few extreme cases, such as, say, the head of a large-scale commercial piracy ring, I could see it occasionally being appropriate.

      I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.


      You've seen murders getting much more than that, too, however.

    • by fnj (64210)

      I've seen cases of murderers getting less than this.

      This is the United States of Corporate Tool America here. Exactly what did you expect?

  • 10 years (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    One of my buddies, who was in Fastlight, got a year in the slammer for running one of the central ftps. 10 years is sorta overkill.

  • P2PJury? (Score:3, Funny)

    by camperdave (969942) on Friday June 27, 2008 @07:59PM (#23975857) Journal
    MPAA Scores First P2P Jury Conviction

    I thought all juries were supposed to be composed of peers.
    • They aren't in France. Many nations have professional jurists. "Jury of peers" is an English idea.

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Friday June 27, 2008 @08:37PM (#23976349)

    banner ads from eharmony
    Dave drop a load on 'em

    P2P, how can I explain it
    I'll take you packet by packet
    To have y'all nattin' while we be seedin' it
    P is for peer, 2 is l33t for "to"
    The last P...well...that's kinda simple
    It's sorta like another way to call a client an equal
    It's the server that be missin' here
    You get on a torrent and be leechin' from the swarm
    And your movies and shows appear gotta start to explainin'
    Bust it
    Hosting movies direct will get the feds to say hello
    They get your IP and address and your knees fee like jello
    And if not for feds, the hosting costs will eatcha alive
    There's gotta be a better way to distribute and survive
    Imagine there's no hardware, hosting or bandwith fees
    just a torrent to download and and trackers to see
    Every peer has a piece to share with every other peer
    Reducing the burden and increasing redundancy without fear
    Who thinks it's wrong 'cos I'm downloadin' and uploadin' at
    Well if you do, that's P2P and you're not down with it
    But if you don't, here's your membership

    Chorus:
    You down with P2P (Yeah you know me) 3X
    Who's down with P2P (Every last IP)
    You down with P2P (Yeah you know me) 3X
    Who's down with P2P (All the IP's)

  • 10 years? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27, 2008 @09:37PM (#23976881)

    So, some pirates can get 10 years, yet we have Massachusetts' representative James Fagan calling a 10 year mandatory sentence for 3 time offending child predators 'draconian'. Ridiculous.

    -Bradley H.

  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Friday June 27, 2008 @10:07PM (#23977091)

    ...somebody should take a close look at the bank accounts of the jurors.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...