BitTorrent Pirate Loses His Last Appeal

Vix666 writes with a link to a ZDNet article on the final chapter of a story we've discussed before: the first user convicted of piracy for using BitTorrent to download a movie has really, finally, lost his case. Chan Nai-ming was sentenced in November of 2005, lost an appeal in December of last year, and appears to have once again failed to convince a judge to let him out. "The Hong Kong government welcomed the judgment, saying it clarified the law regarding Internet piracy. 'This judgment has confirmed that it commits a crime and violates copyright laws for the act of using (BitTorrent) software to upload and distribute,' said customs official Tam Yiu-keung in a written statement. He added the judgment would have a deterrent effect, a view endorsed by industry watchdogs such as the Hong Kong branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry."

Copyright law is a farce..

How about the death penalty for downloading mp3s? Also, we should definitely kill the family members of people that download movies illegally.

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

And since we know how well the death penality worked as a determent for murder...

Seriously, it does not matter at all what's the threat when you get caught. Whether it's just a slap on the wrist and probation or death by hanging, the people committing this "crime" are not ghetto gang members who don't care about another sheet in their file. They're usually normal, law abiding people who have fairly normal jobs or, if younger, go to school or college, often rather good schools or colleges, and plan to have a normal life with a normal job.

When you criminalize those people, all you get is a criminal who wouldn't have been one. Because what's the next thing happening? He's got a file, he's on probation, he probably won't get a good job. What is he gonna do? Commit more crimes. And since he's a criminal already anyway, why not break a real law? Does it matter?

When you go to jail for longer for copyright infringment than for robbery, do you think people who already got jail time for copying would care about what's happening when they sap that old lady to get her purse? Hey, it's a lesser crime, he's getting better!

Folks, something's running REALLY wrong here. With laws like this, we create more criminals but not more faith in the laws.

Why do people usually not murder or steal, rob a bank or kick old nannies off the curb? Because you simply don't do that! Do you really think about the possible jail sentence when you decide NOT to roll your car over that asshole who just gave you the proverbial finger? No, you don't kill him because that's simply something you don't do.

Because, quite frankly, if the law's the only thing that keeps you from going on a killing spree, something's very wrong with you!

People usually abide to the law not because they fear jail, but because of their moral code. Why are there more people speeding than shoplifting? The sentence for either is about the same (for a first time violation) here, still, we have a ton of speeders and rather few shoplifters, compared to it. Why? Because one is negligance and the other is stealing.

And you simply don't steal.

The danger I see is that people get used to breaking the law. When you simply continue what you have been doing for years and suddenly it becomes a crime, will you stop or will you ignore the law? And when you ignore one law, how far is it to ignoring the law altogether and just relying on your code of morals?

Will your morals stay the same? Or will you question them as well? Will you start wondering whether not only the law but also the morals you have been brought up with are wrong?

Scary, if you ask me.

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

When you go to jail for longer for copyright infringment than for robbery, do you think people who already got jail time for copying would care about what's happening when they sap that old lady to get her purse? Hey, it's a lesser crime, he's getting better!

It's not a lesser crime. It's just a crime with fewer corporate-funded lobbyists pushing for disproportionate punishment. Your sig is probably unintentionally but ironically relevant to this discussion.

In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce.

Re:

Why do people usually not murder or steal, rob a bank or kick old nannies off the curb? Because you simply don't do that!

The reason is that society has had years of conditioning that tell us these actions are wrong. We don't do these things because we deci

Re:

And that doesn't work, writing laws before common consensus supports them. A law that is resisted by the majority of people will be ignored.

The only way to enforce a resisted law is by brute force. And behond, we're heading that way. That doesn't lead to m

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

Copyright infringement is a economic crime. So, the punishment should be of an economic nature --- a fine. No reason to put anything in his criminal record either. For downloading, I suggest 2*(price of movie at time)/(chance of discovery). For uploading, I'd suggest a very similar amount... the damagde to the "victim" is greater, yet his personal gain is less. So, same fine.

Re:

I agree with you.

But let us just do a little comparison here.

Let's say a guy with a decent job in America (the US) is downloading movies using BitTorrent software. The thing is that this way he gets the movie for free, he only pays for internet connect

Re:

Unless it has changed drastically in the last couple of years, Hong Kong is a place where it is often times easier to get an illegal bootleg of a movie or album than it is to get a legitimate copy of it from a store.

Rubbish. I live in Hong Kong. Bootleg

Re:

Yes, it really isn't stealing, but that really doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal. In countries like the US where for the most part piracy is pretty low, making it illegal is almost entirely counterproductive. In countries like China making it illeg

Re:Copyright law is a farce..

Ok, I've been wrong before, but I think he was being sarcastic...

wtf

the punishment seems a bit extreme for one movie but where do they draw the line? what do you do when people simply dont intend to pay for something that took alot of cash to make to begin with- especially when every protection scheme fails horribly? make better movies? how exactly does that solve the problem of people in effect stealing movies? [if thats the case why are pirates getting the crappiest movies?]

Re:

If they lose money by making movies, then they made a foolish investment.

Stop making movies if it costs too much. Nobody is entitled to guaranteed profit.

Re:

Your logic also backfires.

Nobody is entitled to someone else's hard work for free.

Re:

No business on earth survives on "the honor system".

They were fools to produce something they knew (or should have known) would be copied by millions.

Re:

And you're a fool for having glass windows, I may just steal your TV tomorrow.

Re:

Glass windows are a suitable barrier in most places. But if I leave my door unlocked, there is a very good reason that insurance won't pay me for anything you steal.

Re:

You're trying to weasel out of your own point. If I -can- do it then by gum I will. Your fault if you have glass windows instead of steel shutters.

Re:

You're trying to weasel out of your own point. If I -can- do it then by gum I will. Your fault if you have glass windows instead of steel shutters.

The US Constitution guarantees the natural right of freedom of expression. Theft of real property is not a natural right.

Re:wtf

The story is about a guy in HONG KONG. Hiding behind the US Consitituion does you no favours in this debate.

Will Americans PLEASE get it into their heads that NATIONAL LAWS ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL.

Re:

"Hard work" isn't something that can be stolen except through slavery or fraud. You're probably talking about the fruits of hard work, in which case there would be plenty of exceptions to your statement. Modern science and mathematics were built on the lab

Yes you are. Supreme court: Feist vs RTC (1991)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US _ 340.htm [cornell.edu]

This was already ruled upon in the US Supreme court. Feist vs Rural Telephone Company (over a telephone book). They rejected any argument that right t of control (copyright) would be granted based o

Re:wtf

Public domain does not allow you to pirate blockbuster movies the day they come out.

Re:

Public domain does not allow you to pirate blockbuster movies the day they come out.

1. So what? Time does not effect the fundamental truth that we are all entitled to the results of that hard work.
2. It could in any country which defines all creations to be public domain, it even used to be so in the USA for any foreign produced works

Re:wtf

It's a false dichotomy. People make this argument ("You are not entitled to anyone's hard work without cost to you.") and invite you to argue the opposite. The problem is not a question of entitlement.. the problem is a question of control. By making this argument, people are trying to make the argument that they should be able to control the actions of everyone to protect their hard work. They are demanding that everyone be their agent in defending their work because it is impossible for them to defend it themselves. Not surprisingly, it seems the only people willing to do this are the people who are in the same boat.

In any case, this argument is easily seen as false.. just go out in public. You will find plenty of people doing hard work and not getting paid for it. You'll even find plenty of musicians.. playing a whole lot of music.. doing this supposed "hard work" that most people who make this argument are suggesting must be paid for. Do you feel you should give them money? Or do you just feel they are begging. How about those assholes at the lights who clean your windshield with a dirty squiggy? Do you feel you should give them money because they did a service for you.. even though you didn't ask them to? Even though it was useful because your windshield was dirty?

No. People who do work for hire without first securing someone to hire them are just confused.. or deliberately trying to invoke an obligation in others when none should exist.

Re:

Nobody is entitled to someone else's hard work for free.

1. They were not forced to work.
2. Yes we are ALL entitled to the results of such work for free.
   It's called the public domain.

1) you were not forced to leave your house this morning 2) Yes we are entitled to beat you with a pool cue in an alley
it's called I can do whatever I want because I say so.

Re:

Wonderful! So what's the URL for EVERY SINGLE THING you've EVER written? All of it - it's public domain, right?

Hey, if you can find the URLs in google, go for it.
Being in the public domain also means the author has no other obligations with respect to the work either.

Re:

Copyright and other intellectual property mechanisms exist to promote the sharing of novel and other valuable works. Passage into public domain is in exchange for protection, not some natural state of things.

No now you are being insane. Public domain is PRECISELY the natural state of things. Freedom of expression is a natural right, copyright is defined as a temporary exception to that right. It certainly is not a natural right on its own.

Meanwhile, wrt yo

Re:wtf

The public domain is the natural state of things. You have it reversed.

Copyright is a right, granted by the government, to enter into my house or my business and forbid me from copying a work for a friend or creating a derivative work. Generally in american jurisprudence, we frown upon the government infringing into people's private homes and businesses unless the government has an overriding interest otherwise.

You are perfectly free to leave a piece of beautiful music unrecorded, but you won't convince me that the natural state of things includes the ability to, with the power of the government, coercively forbid me from transcribing that overheard music. Of course, copyright does give you the right to enter my private home or business to enforce your will, because public policy has judged that the public benefit --- the production of creative works --- justifies the infringement on personal liberties.

Re:wtf

Lets not forget the spirit of copyright. It is actually a beautiful instrument as the earlier poster had mentioned : "Copyright and other intellectual property mechanisms exist to promote the sharing of novel and other valuable works". According to Wikipedias History of Copyright Law [wikipedia.org], England's Statute of Anne (1710) promotes the author not distributor. The RIAA says it lobbies for the artist, but "The recording industry is able to pay exploitatively low percentages as all the record companies pay artists very similar amounts. Therefore if an artist wants to release their music there is no viable alternative other than to sign away their music to these organisations. This might eventually change in the future with the advent of web based music sales. Services may evolve to allow musicians to sell their music via the web without the need for a record company in its present form and consequently reap a fairer share of the profits from their music." (quote from the Record Industry wiki) [wikipedia.org] Clearly this means the RIAA lobbies for the distributor, hence, this practice is in direct violation of the spirit of copyright, which on that alone, discredits any moral authority from the RIAA (aside from their already heinous behavior). There is no reason why we should not jail the RIAA. The RIAA is an active participant in corporate bought law, which comes down to bribery, a violation of United States Code, Title 18 (Criminal), Chapter 11, Section 201. Mitch Bainwol should be able to get sentenced from anywhere from 0-12 months, unfortunately, but its not in the realm of impossiblity. There is also a stautory maximum fine of $10k or $20k. Right from RIAA's About Us [riaa.com] is the quote "The Washington Post has called Bainwol a "Top D.C. Lobbyist and Man in Demand."".

Re:wtf

Linus releases the kernel free, he has given permission.

Re:

sure, after all, he has been dead for a looooong time, and easily recouped his investment from public performances of his plays (which were not free). Now exlain how that translates into torrenting the new spiderman movie, for which hundreds of people work

Re:

He did not own the right to distribute the film. That right is available and he could have purchased it. Instead he stole them. Why is this difficult to understand?

Re:

what do you do when people simply dont intend to pay for something that took alot of cash to make to begin with

Work only on commission. That way you get paid before it is possible to "pirate" the creation. The internet is great at distributing information in the form of media, it ought to be great at distributing information in the form of debts too, making the

Re:

Work only on commission. That way you get paid before it is possible to "pirate" the creation.

Hey I'm so glad you have agreed to commission my upcoming movie. What's your paypal ID?

Re:

Hey I'm so glad you have agreed to commission my upcoming movie. What's your paypal ID?

Just like any other artist working on commission, you have to sell your customer on the idea.

Let's hear your sales pitch - what's the plotline, who do you expect to star and direct, who is the writer, do you have examples of previous productions? If your

Re:

but it's plainly obvious what's going on when people distribute and download verbatim copies of full movies.

You don't have to use verbatim. There's memorex, imation, philips....

This guy taunted them

Chan had posted a message inviting BitTorrent users to download a movie on an Internet movie forum called "bt.movie.hk" using his "Big Crook" alias.

Thats similar to the motorbike guy who gave loads of speed cameras the bird because he thought he was safe.
Had it just occurred quietly no-one would have batted an eyelid.

Oh no!

aXXo is that u?

Please tell me your ok!

Uploading copyrighted works without permission

the first user convicted of piracy for using BitTorrent to download a movie has really, finally, lost his case.

No, he could have used any other protocol. He was not convicted for using Bittorrent to do anything. He was convicted for uploading a movie without having a license to do so.

Re:

But it's important because it shows that lawfully, bittorrent's uploading counts as distribution so you could be charged in the same way as a site hosting movies.

Scapegoats to the slaughter

This comes a week after Australia extradited to the US an Australian Citizen who never stepped foot in the US for a similar offense [theage.com.au]. Australia's excuse is it's sycophantic Prime Minister it'll do anything the US Government tells it to. What's China's Excuse?

(Sadly) this isn't the Chinese government kissing American butt. They've got some "bad" [cnn.com] publicity [reuters.com] last week, so this poor sap is being made an example of.

Meanwhile the RIAA and MPAA continue to lie [ornery.org], cheat [ornery.org] and steal [wikipedia.org] with politicans at their bidding [wikipedia.org] (that's the DMCA Congressman).

In the net balance...

...wouldn't abandoning copyright law entirely ultimately have greater good than what we have now? There are abundant examples that creativity and innovation are not absent where there is not a motive of profit. If I had a machine that could copy food end

Re:

That's a very touching post, it is, but the mafiaa isn't restricting people's access to fire or food, they're restricting access to something that is made entirely for entertainment. The immorality of withholding free food is that a lot of people don't hav

Re:

Seinfeld, yeah.

If someone was to restrict access to Heroes episodes though, I definately WOULD die.

Re:

And no, the world is not a better place with fifty gazillion hacks trying to rework Disney cartoons, we are far richer as a culture when a smalll handful of talented people are rewarded fairly for creating the next Mickey Mouse.

A reworking of a Disney cart

What!??!

Man, at first I read the end of the summary as "the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry".

Well, somehow that would make sense as they are fu*%$ this guy. :(

China's economy

This is just a joke, sure 1 person loses most of his life so china can make an example to the world that "oh we care about piracy". They are a communist nation and as such have sacrificed one life so they can pretend like they care.

Uhhh, yeah, sure, uh huh, china cares about piracy?????

If anything china is the one country on this planet that in general has no respect for any copyright laws of any other nation. Hell, they will pirate anything. You invent and patent invention a (NOT SOFTWARE), the chinese will steal it, remake it out of the cheapest and crappiest components possible and try their hardest to undersell you, effectively causing you, the inventor/artist/producer major damages. What legal repercussions do you have? Don't look at me, I have no clue.

We pirate movies freely in america, in china you pay for pirate copies of movies in retail stores.

Although there are ethical rules against being a pirate, a pirate must also have a code of ethics, and reselling is against that code. They aren't even to be called pirates from now, they do not deserve the honor with the title, from now on chinese pirates are to be known only as software thieves.

Re:come on out trolls

Well, first of all, he's 38. Even if "30 is the new 20" he hardly qualifies as a kid. When I was 38 (but hey, 40 is the new 30, so I can be 38 again ina a few years ), I knew at least a few things. I knew the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, smart and stupid. In the latter category comes the idea that "If my definition of right and wrong differs from the law's definition, I should not do about enacting my definition in a public and noticeable way, lest I get busted." Clearly, he didn't get the difference between smart and stupid.

Secondly, he wasn't imprisoned for copying a file (funny how we expect copyright to be followed when bringing companies to task for violating the GPL but not when some individual violates copyright; the GPL is founded on copyright law, after all, not contract law), he was sentenced for *distributing* the copyrighted content that he copied. That's a far greater transgression under copyright law.

Finally, don't look now, but the only troll in this picture is you.

Re:come on out trolls

There's a reason geeks get up at arms over GPL violations, and it's not because of a double standard.

It's because the GPL (and simmilar) was created to sidestep the problems of copyright. If you think current copyright law is a farse, than you release your work as GPL, not public domain. If you release it public domain, people can use it in copyrighted works, thus (indirectly) copyrighting your work.

The GPL uses copyright law to make sure your work never becomes part of the farse of copyright.

Re:BitTorrent illegal?

It means committing a crime in Hong Kong is now illegal.