Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Piracy Movies Entertainment Technology Your Rights Online

X-Men Origins Pirate Draws a 1-Year Sentence 341

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from geek.com: "In 2009, a copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine found its way on to Megaupload a month before it was due to appear in movie theaters. The so-called 'workprint' copy was unfinished — so unfinished in fact, anyone viewing this copy saw green screens and wires attached to actors used to help with the more acrobatic movements during action scenes. Hugh Jackman even commented on the leak, describing it as like getting a 'Ferrari without a paint job.' The person who decided to share the movie illegally was tracked down, however. He is a 49-year-old New Yorker by the name of Gilberto Sanchez, and he's just been prosecuted." The New York Times' 2010 interview with Sanchez is a good read, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X-Men Origins Pirate Draws a 1-Year Sentence

Comments Filter:
  • by alen ( 225700 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:09PM (#38437376)

    not like he was ripping DVD's to play on his ipod or iphone because the digital copy thing for blu ray is a scam. not like he only watched the stolen copy in his home. he uploaded it so it could be downloaded by others

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:10PM (#38437380)

    Sooo, instead of imposing a fine, we'll let the taxpayer foot the bill for a year's incarceration. Brilliant.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:11PM (#38437418)

    I think the punishment here is perhaps disproportionate, but I agree with the sentiment. It's far better to go after the people who knowingly share things with widespread audiences than anyone else in the infringement set-up.

  • by DaveV1.0 ( 203135 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:21PM (#38437584) Journal

    You do know that he can still be sued by the studios for copyright infringement, right? This was a criminal action. The studio can still take civil action against him if it so desires.

  • by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:23PM (#38437616)

    So the question becomes... why does a guy that intentionally uploaded this for others, a month before the movie comes out (where I would expect the studio to make a huge chunk of its profit on the movie) only get a year in prison when someone who accidentally shares a few crappy songs gets a financial punishment that makes a year in prison look quite tame?

    Judges often don't have leeway in sentencing; Whether it's a "crappy" song or a pre-release of a highly-anticipated motion picture, the law says the punishment is the same. Don't blame the judges for the seemingly random or harsh sentencing... blame the politicians. I mean, I can come over to your house and beat the snot out of you on the way in to work with my bare hands and get less time than this guy did for posting some crappy "work print" movie. Which crime do you think is worse? Worse, downloading that same crappy movie can cause civil penalties far in excess of what I would get if I broke into your house and did something horrible to you (use your imagination)...

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:25PM (#38437674) Homepage

    Jokes aside, it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.

    And are policed by the FBI and ICE and Homeland Security ... pretty sweet deal, make the government responsible for policing your profits, and at their expense.

    The police (and the government) now officially work for the corporations. It's amazing the laws you can buy.

  • obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:25PM (#38437676)

    Here's the obligatory proportions post. How many people have been arrested for the housing market crash thus far? How much monetary damage did those people actually do in comparison to this guy?... yeah.

  • by nschubach ( 922175 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:25PM (#38437680) Journal

    I don't think it matters. The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."

    I wouldn't call it a Ferrari either. Maybe a Pinto without a paint job.

  • by Sir Realist ( 1391555 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:37PM (#38437858)

    Look, I don't really follow the Slashdot party line on this one; I think stealing from artists you respect is stupid, because they won't make you more stuff. And Sanchez was an idiot for uploading this thing from the illegal pirated copy he bought. But his punishment does seem disproportionate, and they still got the wrong guy.

    This guy bought stolen goods, and made illegal copies of copyrighted materials. Somebody, somewhere, actually stole the proof from the studio. That is the real crime they should be punishing if they want to stop pre-release pirates. And I won't even bother to point out how effortlessly easy it would be to track copies and identify leaks in this technical audience, because I'm sure you can all come up with half-a-dozen schemes yourselves. If the studios can't be bothered to prevent the leaks or identify and punish the leakers in the first place, why should we care what happens to the leaked materials?

  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:39PM (#38437902) Homepage

    > Whether it's a "crappy" song or a pre-release of a highly-anticipated motion picture, the law says the punishment is the same.

    No. Usually not. The law and judges actually have a wide degree of leeway. They have it because typically no two sets of facts are quite alike and they can be often quite different.

    The judge could have suspended the sentence entirely.

    The judge isn't just an automaton despite the fact that some people like to pretend that they are or should be.

    The ability to adapt to different circumstances is actually a good thing.

  • by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:44PM (#38437954) Homepage

    It's possibly worth noting that that version was actually more interesting than the final cut.

  • by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [ayertim]> on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:45PM (#38437972)
    lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies ... he uploaded it so it could be downloaded by others

    There is one more lesson we have learned. The world is full of assholes who seem to agree with this punishment!
    So you do think that 1 year in federal prison after being hunted by FBI is an appropriate punishment for buying a bootleg movie and uploading it? Really? If he at least stole the copy during his employment - there would be a breach of trust/contract violation (why, yes, I read TFA). But he bought and uploaded a bootleg movie.
    Only in a cruel asshole world is 1 year in prison plus another year of limited computer access an appropriate punishment for uploading/sharing a movie he didn't even steal. We can argue about some fines (he's not right or anything), but the punishment is very clearly out of proportion. And those cheering it on are part of the problem!

  • by Ravon Rodriguez ( 1074038 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:46PM (#38437980)
    If that's true, then it's one of the biggest perversions of justice I've seen in a long time; I'm not a lawyer, and I realize double jeopardy laws may not cross over from civil to criminal cases, but it's ridiculous to be able to send somebody to jail for stealing your imaginary property, and then be able to sue in another court for the same reason.
  • by Imagix ( 695350 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @02:52PM (#38438076)
    I disagree. I think they got one of the right guys. (Note "one of", not "the" right guy). I don't think anybody could reasonably expect that the guy was dealing with an above-the-board transaction. This guy was willfully distributing stuff the he knew (or any reasonable person would have known) wasn't legit.
  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:02PM (#38438238) Homepage

    Thank it's not a person, and shouldn't have the rights of one.

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:09PM (#38438334) Homepage

    Recently, a Social Security employee was robbed and shot. The shooter, recently released from prison after 9 months "time-served" of a 10 year sentence for armed robbery.

    So armed robbery, and you can be out in less than a year. Upload an unfinished video of a film and it's a year in prison.

    The avg person's well being is meaningless to the Law. But the profits of a stealing mega-corporation, now that the Law is concerned with.

    There is a point where the Sheriff is corrupt, and his badge is nothing more than a bully pulpit.

  • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo ( 1000167 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:09PM (#38438342)
    There were also laws in the books prohibiting alcohol, interracial marriages, and homosexuality. Not every illegal action is unethical, and not every unethical act is illegal.
  • They're prosecuting the low-hanging fruit. It doesn't matter if he didn't cause as much financial harm, he's easy to prosecute and makes a great example.

  • by ProppaT ( 557551 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:17PM (#38438460) Homepage

    Don't worry, that was an typo on the editor's part. I clearly remember Hugh Jackman describing it like getting a "Fiero without a paint job."

  • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:18PM (#38438478) Homepage

    It is true. The two OJ trials are a well known example. It makes sense because punishing criminals is about some combination of protecting society, rehabilitation, and retribution. It isn't about trying to cure harm caused to the actual victim; whether the victim wants to try that, and whether he'll succeed is up to him, and occurs in a civil trial, and those are all about curing harms (usually via money, for lack of better alternatives).

  • Bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:28PM (#38438598)

    It's more like having a Ferrari with every kind of shielding stripped so you actually get to see how the valves work and how the transmission shifts.

    Personally, I'd almost say that "working copy" is more interesting than the finished movie. But that's the geek in me, I don't like magicians for the same reason: I wanna know how stuff works!

  • by varmittang ( 849469 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @03:30PM (#38438628)
    Hey, sounded like you were entertained by it. So, you paid them a few dollars for the hard work they did, right?
  • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:42PM (#38441404)

    A movie doesn't have to be "pure" (or true) to the comics, it just has to be good. The X-Men movies directed by Bryan Singer were good. After he left, they took a nosedive.

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Working...