Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Crime Movies United Kingdom

33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater 465

Posted by Soulskill
from the know-when-to-fold-'em dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Philip Danks used a camcorder to record Fast & Furious 6 in a U.K. cinema. Later, he shared it via bittorrent and allegedly sold physical copies. Now, he's been sentenced to 33 months in prison for his actions. "In Court it was claimed that Danks' uploading of Fast 6 resulted in more than 700,000 downloads, costing Universal Pictures and the wider industry millions of pounds in losses." Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

Comments Filter:
  • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@gmaiWELTYl.com minus author> on Friday August 22, 2014 @09:56AM (#47729359) Journal

    Is bothering to upload a camrip. Just wait for a DVD release or at least a leaked screener copy!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:06AM (#47729489)

      No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

      • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:15AM (#47729579) Journal
        Actually, they should have caned him. 33 months in prison is stupid. Beat him 40 times and send him home.
        • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:59AM (#47730121)

          I agree, it's cheaper and does not encourage prison corporations to side with the copyright lobbies.

        • by Sarius64 (880298) on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:54AM (#47730629)

          Damn! If only he had bankrupt an energy conglomerate, dissolved hundred of millions of dollars in pension funds, and legally embezzled 9 figures into personal accounts! He'd have received no punishment at all!

          The fall-out from Enron [economist.com]

          • by Obfuscant (592200) on Friday August 22, 2014 @12:39PM (#47731159)
            So you're referring to Ken Lay [wikipedia.org] the weasel who was convicted on ten felony counts for his acts as the head of a corporation, but managed to avoid 20-30 years in prison as punishment for his crimes by having a heart attack and dieing. That's the guy you're unhappy got "no punishment at all"? The sneaky bastard planned all along on having a massive heart attack if he was ever convicted of anything as a way of avoiding a prison term, you bet.

            Even though the criminal justice system had to vacate the convictions because he died before his appeals were exhausted (and he couldn't very well assist in his own defense at this point), "civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate." In other words, you can't imprison the dead man to punish him (or you could, but it wouldn't be a very effective punishment, deterrent, or rehabilitation effort), but his family can be punished by having money and property taken away from them through the civil courts.

            Nice try.

            At the bottom of the reference I linked to, they mention that there are conspiracy theorists that say that Lay faked his death and he's still alive. Are you one of them? Of all the people who saw his dead body, not a single one of them would come forward to tell his story for the probable six figure payment he'd get? Sure.

            When I saw the headline for this article I could guess that it was biased and incorrect, and I was right. The guy got 33 months in prison not for recording a movie in a theater, he got the criminal sentence for distributing copies for sale. The former could have gone unnoticed and would have harmed nobody, had he not continued to distribute even after he was warned about it.

            • by nukenerd (172703) on Friday August 22, 2014 @02:31PM (#47732155)

              "civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate." In other words, you can't imprison the dead man to punish him .. but his family can be punished by having money and property taken away from them through the civil courts.

              It is not punishing his family. It is restoring them to the status they would have been in if the culprit had not committed his crime. Which is as it should be.

      • by mlookaba (2802163) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:18AM (#47729623)

        the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage)

        Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by flayzernax (1060680)

          In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.

          This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen. The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or ba

          • by mlookaba (2802163) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:33AM (#47729795)
            You're arguing about something unrelated to my comment. My point is that sometimes the physical "violence" of being incarcerated is justified for non-physical crimes. That's all.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:47AM (#47729985)

              And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

              • by Jhon (241832)

                "And what benefit does jail time give the public? "

                That the threat of jail prevents many crimes. Point is that the "benefit" is not zero.

                GENERALLY, (at least in the US) jail isn't automatic on a first time offense -- or even second or third. The courts bend over backwards trying to give the defendant a chance to change. And if jail wasn't a decent enough threat, why do so many criminals flee from the cops?

                • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:41AM (#47730523)

                  Actually most crimes are not prevented or thwarted by jail or excess sentencing. The reason is that those committing crimes aren't considering the risk or consequence of their actions. The line of thinking that jailing, violence toward (physical abuse, caning, etc), etc will reduce crime is naive, but it is also the line of thinking most people have grown up with and been taught. Other solutions may not necessarily have a significantly better outcome, but without different approaches being attempted its we're probably not going to see a significant reduction in crime.

                  What we know has had major impacts in different parts of the world:

                  1. Advancements in medicine (drugs) have reduced crime (they have almost eliminated the need for insane asylums)
                  2. Banning certain chemicals from gas (has resulted in significant reductions in violent crime)
                  3. Reducing the wage disparity between classes (particularly reducing poverty, educational opportunity, and enabling advancement)
                  4. Focusing on rehabilitation facilities for drug offenders rather than jail
                  5. Legalization of at least low-impact recreational drugs

                  • by xevioso (598654)

                    None of this is relevant. You are forgetting that there are victims of crimes, and those victims have a right to justice, and part of justice involves incarcerating people for certain crimes.

                    Perp A breaks into my house because he is looking for jewelry, which he then pawns for money to fuel his "victimless" meth habit. Incarcerating that person has two effects: It removes him from the street, where he can get access to drugs that harm himself and society, and removes him from the street where he can no lon

                  • by Amtrak (2430376)

                    Advancements in medicine (drugs) have reduced crime (they have almost eliminated the need for insane asylums)

                    Tell that to all the homeless schizophrenics on the street due to deinstitutionalization. [salon.com] We have not eliminated the need for forced institutionalization we have limited it some but mental health is a seriously neglected part of american society. Here's a less sensational article [healthaffairs.org] if you don't like the other one.

              • by SternisheFan (2529412) on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:06AM (#47730197)

                And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.

                Agreed, though this sentence is meant to dissuade other would be uploaders from copyright infringement. That is the point of the sentence, for others to think twice before uploading. Much like not all tax evaders in the U.S. are caught, the IRS will make an example of high profile celebrities.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Anonymous Coward

                  Which is why it is unjust. Punishing someone as an example to others is reprehensible.

                • by Ichijo (607641)

                  Surely community service would create the same deterrence and benefit society more than rewarding him with free room and board and medical care at the taxpayer's expense?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.

          Putting him in jail doesn't solve the problem with my parents retirement.
          Anything that doesn't refund my parents plus something extra for the trouble would be an injustice.
          Whatever, if any, punishment is suitable on top of that is not really my concern. Whatever prevent the financial advisor from doing it again works fine.
          If someone can get away with 6 month for assault and battery then I certainly think that anything above that is way excessive for a white collar crime if it has been repaid.

        • by westlake (615356) on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:37AM (#47730483)

          Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement?

          The financial advisor isn't a geek ---

          and the geek should never have to serve hard time.

          That is the argument as it usually plays out on Slashdot.

          Prison sends the message that the white guy with a six or seven figure income will be treated the same as the poor and the black.

          It sends the message that intangible property is still property.

          Something that the geek --- who spends his entire working life inside a digital universe defined by the value given to endless streams of ones and zeroes --- ought to be applauding,

          • by Kjella (173770)

            It sends the message that intangible property is still property.

            Work is still work even if the result isn't property, if somebody wants software to do X which doesn't exist they have to either pay someone to write it or write it themselves. My current job would still exist if copyright disappeared tomorrow. As would any other system built for internal use or one particular client, all the consulting services around making it work and so on. Or that are centered around controlled services like an MMORPG. Yes, COTS software as we know it would basically implode but I'm gu

      • by Cajun Hell (725246) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:22AM (#47729657) Homepage Journal

        I think it's impossible for a government to do anything without at least some real threat of violence behind it. How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?

        Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

        Offender: "No."

        Government: "You're a poo-head."

        Offender: [sobs pathetically] "Ok, ok, I'll pay! Just please, please don't hurt my feelings again."

        • by Aaden42 (198257) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:35AM (#47729829) Homepage

          How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?

          Easy: By ordering a more compliant entity that has a financial relationship with you to comply on your behalf.

          Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."

          Offender: "No."

          Government: “Offender’s Bank: Give us $1000 from Offender’s account (by seizing every penny deposited for the next 10 years immediately in priority over EVERY other debit if necessary) plus an extra penalty for non-compliance.”

          Offender’s Bank: “Okay, here’s your money, and BTW we’re taking our own fee for enforcing this, and of course we’ll charge them for every overdraft fee that results from draining their account.”

          Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now?"

          --- Or alternatively if no bank accounts: ---

          Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

          Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”

          —-

          See: Civil compliance and no truncheons necessary. There will almost always be someone with more to lose than you and less desire to stick it to the man. They’ll comply so you don’t have to.

          • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:41AM (#47729899) Homepage
            That is an excellent idea. I just hope the unthinkable never happens, and somebody who doesn't have a legitimate bank account and job suddenly decides to be a ciminal!
          • Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."

            Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”

            Bender the Offender: Hmm, there's no point in working if they take all my earnings, I think I'll just go on the dole.

            Taxes will end up paying for the crime no matter if it is jail or fines.

          • by SydShamino (547793) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:43AM (#47729935)

            What if the offender's employer refuses? What if the offender's employer doesn't have a bank account? What if the offender's employer's customers refuse? What if it's turtles all the way down?

            Physical confinement is a good deterrent for white collar crime - far better than it is as a deterrent to violent crime, in my opinion, because the type of people who use violence tend to have minds better able to shut off emotions and critical thought as needed, whether than need is for 10 minutes while shooting and robbing someone or 15 years behind bars.

          • by shadowrat (1069614) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:50AM (#47730027)

            Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now? I guess i'll have to start mugging people."

            FTFY

        • by thaylin (555395)
          They have this program by where they can remove the money directly from your check.
      • Unfortunately, financial harm is a real thing. And it can, thanks to how we run our economy, result in physical harm to real people.

        That doesn't mean that this case represents real financial harm, or even if it did, that someone might go hungry as a result. But in our world, you need money to survive.

        I'm always wary for this quid pro quo notion of justice that you're implicitly backing, because harm can be difficult to both quantify and qualify, and retrobution doesn't achieve nearly as much as we think i

      • by dave420 (699308) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:34AM (#47729823)
        Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.
        • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:41AM (#47729903)

          Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.

          Not at Slashdot...

          People seem to miss the point that this was a criminal activity for profit.

          But of course here, entertainment that cost millions of dollars to create must be free.

      • by shadowrat (1069614) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:46AM (#47729977)

        No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.

        no, the real crime here is a misleading title that implies he was given 33 months solely for the act of filming a movie with a camcorder.

      • by StikyPad (445176) on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:05AM (#47730185) Homepage

        He's not in jail for recording a movie; he's in jail for distributing copies and selling them. Selling copies isn't a civil offense; it's a crime. And did you miss the part where he kept selling and distributing even after his arrest? I have pretty liberal views on file sharing, but this guy was asking for it.

    • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:08AM (#47729513)

      No the real crime is that he encouraged people to watch Fast & Furious 6 .

    • by tgeek (941867) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:10AM (#47729535)
      Nah, the real crime here is . . . STUPIDITY:

      1. He failed to sufficiently anonymize his upload and got caught (I'm unclear if he was caught from his p2p or physical sales though).
      2. When he DID get caught, he didn't cease doing something that would land him in jail
      3. We can (and have!) debated all day long about the morality of p2p sharing . . . but he went a step further and was monetarily profiting from his acts (albeit via physical media as opposed to p2p sharing). I think it's safe to say most people don't agree with this.

      Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .

        Fair? Put fair aside a moment. What will the result of putting him in prison be? Will it improve society in any way? Odds are sharply against it.

        • by Aaden42 (198257)

          Ahh, but you have to consider who’s perspective of improving society really matters here. If it scares more people into not eroding the *AA’s business model, then it’s a win for the groups that are *really* buying the laws.

      • Having said all that, the MAIN problem with this man is stupidity.

        If the point is deterrence and something FOR SOCIETY, than I can't see why any more than 6 months is reasonable. Prison is horrible and nobody in their right mind wants to be there -- despite the blather of people who don't expect to go who are "tough on crime".

        I want crazy people who are going to kill me and rich people who abuse power in prison -- that's it. If we closed half of them this country would be headed in the right direction.

        If th

  • “Also what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome. Is it simply going to be a waste of everyone’s time?” he concludes.

    • by bobbied (2522392)

      The MPAA can sue you, but they cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. That's just civil court though.

      Problem with this guy's story is that what he did was illegal too. It was the illegal part that got him the jail time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2014 @09:57AM (#47729377)

    If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?

    • by TWX (665546)
      That depends on how one defines selling a physical copy. If he was basically just recouping the cost of the physical media and providing to known associates then it's different than if he was selling them for-profit on the street to random strangers.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Any financial transaction whatsoever technically makes it a commercial venture. Why do you think all the old tape swappers usually had you give them a tape to copy their mixes onto?

        As above, I have no sympathy for the guy. Additionally, willfully doing it AFTER getting swatted for it is just asking for trouble.

    • by just_another_sean (919159) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:09AM (#47729519) Homepage Journal

      I agree he deserves to be punished and I get that he probably doesn't have enough money to pay a fine so it's off to the joint he goes but is 33 months really a fitting punishment here? That's almost three years of this guy's life. And the claim that "millions were lost" has been proven to be exaggerated over and over again. A download does not equal a lost sale; those that download do not buy, they simply go without. I'm not saying that makes it OK, I'm just saying the punishment does not fit the crime.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nospam007 (722110) *

      "If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

      33 months prison for 'violating' an imaginary right invented by a foreign industry to increase their profits?

      What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for, just because the water company invented an unlicensed water drinking offense?

      • by DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) on Friday August 22, 2014 @01:22PM (#47731559) Homepage

        What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for

        I don't think I'd be particularly concerned, assuming:

        • He was also charging people for that same puddle of water
        • The puddle of water was created by the water industry at great expense
        • The industry had a legal right to the puddle of water, with precedents going back centuries.
        • Drinking the water was purely for entertainment, and not a requirement for continued living

        I'm not saying 33 months isn't an excessive sentence, but you just sound dumb when you make these comparisons.

    • "If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"

      He had to watch Fast and Furious 6 in its entirety?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2014 @09:59AM (#47729401)

    Yet the banksters who cost the public billions and TRILLIONS have yet to spend a single day behind bars.

  • Not smart (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jratcliffe (208809) on Friday August 22, 2014 @09:59AM (#47729405)

    "Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."

    In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.

    • This is an example of proper use of the automobile analogy.
    • by fermion (181285)
      Clearly he is engaged in unlawful behavior, and is does not seem to make rational decisions, but there are other ways to handle this that would not incur a great cost on society. For instance,ban him from seeing movies. Ban him from logging onto the internet. Put him under house arrest. Yes, he would fight against this, because clearly he wants to escalate. But then he would be put in jail for being a bad citizen, not because some corporation feel they have an entitlement to profit.

      In the US we are

    • Dude. Maybe you've failed to watch Fast and Furious 1 through 5, but you suck at car analogies.
  • "Unwisely" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halivar (535827) <bfelger@gmail.cERDOSom minus math_god> on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:00AM (#47729411) Homepage

    Understatement of the year. This is a sad case of a stupid law intersecting with an incredibly stupid person.

    • Seems really sad. It's not like these people make a HUGE difference to profits. Only companies can charge for "potential damages" and have to show real damages.

      However, if you went blind because of Core Exit in the Gulf, you better keep your doctor's receipts.

  • All laws are bad.

  • by Drethon (1445051) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:01AM (#47729433)
    Distributing copies, whatever... "distribution and selling copies for profit" - You screwed.
    • by Megane (129182)
      It would be nice if TFA actually went into ANY detail about this. Instead, it's only mentioned in passing.
  • Real crime was making a crappy, movie theater copy instead of a DVD ripped version.
    • And how many people, realistically, are going to watch that fuzzy copy instead of waiting a couple of months for it to come out on Netflix?

  • by Travis Mansbridge (830557) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:03AM (#47729453)
    I'm just surprised 700,000 people wanted to see Fast and the Furious 6.
    • And a cam rip at that. Well, as the guy in the article goes to show, there is no accounting for stupid.

    • by bobbied (2522392)

      That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.

      Personally I think the real number is a magnitude or two lower. Did the first movie even do that many copies?

  • SOLD them (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Making a copy for yourself is one thing, but selling them is another. THAT is copyright violation.

    I would say he got 33 months for that, not the act of recording it.

  • And now it's time for the rest of the story...
  • by TWX (665546) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:25AM (#47729697)
    Yes, this happened in the UK, not the US, but I don't think that the point I'm about to make is invalid...

    Crimes and punishments need to be re-evaluated. No truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example), when being the only crime, should never receive stronger sentences than crimes that don't affect persons directly and only lightly, at best, affect corporations (like this theatre-cam incident), and those types of crimes should never receive stronger sentences than for those where a person is individually victimized or significant chattel property is stolen (mugging, home burglary, car theft, etc), then would come violent personal crimes (any crime involving brandishing of a weapon, battery, threats of a greater harm like using the claim of a planted bomb, etc) and crimes where a person's life-savings were taken putting them into severe hardship, etc.

    The scale should be steep; it should take numerous, numerous counts of the small crimes to even approach the sentences of the next crime up the scale, and the nature of what becomes a count should accurately reflect what's going on. In the case of providing copyrighted material, the law needs to bear in mind that much of the time the material would not have been purchased by the consumer had it not been available for free anyway, so the actual damage to the content creator is lower than usually represented.
    • by JustNiz (692889) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:45AM (#47729955)

      >> truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example),

      Thats a very naive viewpoint. Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.

  • Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

    Perhaps, he should take the most money he made (legally) on any one day of his life, then counter sue for los

    • by mpe (36238)
      Industry math? 700k downloads does not equal 700k movie tickets or DVD purchases or rentals. Some significant portion of that number would never have bought the movie, whether available for download or not. Regardless of your views on criminal/violent punishment for non-violent IP crimes (I disagree on that level personally), basing any punishment on a false metric is the worst kind of injustice.

      There there is also the third catagory those people who would have bought the DVD only because of the seeing th
  • by Hillgiant (916436) on Friday August 22, 2014 @11:13AM (#47730247)

    There is no way there were 700,000 people who wanted to watch Fast & Furious 6.

  • by WheezyJoe (1168567) <fegg@@@excite...com> on Friday August 22, 2014 @02:03PM (#47731897)

    Ars Technica has more on the story, and links to actual news sites covering the mess [arstechnica.com]. And as many insightful Slashdot commentators have surmised, there's more to the story than a lousy cam-rip of a lousy movie.

    Copyright silliness may have led to him being caught, but Danks got his 33 months all by himself.

    Danks was arrested only six days after he'd uploaded the video, and two days later he wrote on Facebook, "Seven billion people and I was the first. F*** you Universal Pictures."

    Danks had also sold DVD copies of the movie for £1.50 each. He said his total profit from the scheme was about £1,000.

    To who? Who buys these things? Why would anyone spend money and time to suffer through a cam-rip?
    how much of this was earned after he was arrested?

    The prosecuting and defending attorneys both seemed to agree that Danks' motive for the piracy of Fast and Furious 6 was “Street Cred.” His defense attorney told the court, "He has no substantial assets of any sort, and his financial gain has been extremely limited, but he was obviously aware that it was a popular film that would be of interest."

    The judge was particularly harsh on Danks because of his cavalier attitude."This was bold, arrogant, and cocksure offending,” he said to Danks, as Sky News reports.

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Working...