$180 Million for Piracy Conspiracy 734
theCoder writes "According to an AP story printed in the Orlando Sentinel, Steven R. Frazier has been ordered to pay $180 million restitution for attempting to sell a device that would decrypt the satellite signals sent into everyone's homes. In addition to spending the next 5 years in Federal prison, Frazier will have to pay $500 a month for the next 30,000 years, though no one really expects him to live long enough to make all the payments. That value is based on estimated loses DirectTV and Echostar may have incurred had Frazier been able to sell his devices. Being ordered to pay restitution for actual damages is one thing, but paying for some made up number of future damages? Maybe if I catch someone trying to break into my car, I can sue him for the damage he would have caused if he succeeded..."
too harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
they don't put people to death for attempted murder, do they? that seems a little harsh to me.
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Funny)
No, but sometimes they do issue more than one death sentence. I guess they do that just in case being dead once already isn't enough.
On that subject... (Score:3, Funny)
What a great line for chicks at parties:
You know, I just got out of prison....
Really? What was your sentence?
*Pause for effect, then grin* Death....
Re:too harsh (Score:4, Informative)
Another reason for this is making the sentence stick. If one of the crimes was successfully appealed, the sentence for the other(s) would still stand.
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Funny)
What, you haven't heard of refried beings?
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, there was a trial, and the guy was planning to sell a device. Maybe what he was doing was illegal, and maybe he deserves a jail sentence.
But the court stopped him before any damages were incurred. The actual damages to the satellite companies is zero. Being ordered to pay $180 million in "potential damages" is absurd.
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
Where you get punished for doing things you MIGHT have done, if the superior police force hadn't nabbed you before your little malicious ideas came to fruition!
100% Accurate!
Gah, it's always scary when a movie plot comes true in real life....
OK So maybe the guy "deserved" to get punished, because he was "intentionally" building a device that was designed to "hack" into signals, but the fact is he's being held accountable for things that never happened, except in The Magical Fairyland of DirectTV's wild imagination.
Re:too harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
A man who schemed to steal satellite television signals now has something much bigger than a cable bill to pay -- a whopping $180 million restitution order on which he is to make $500 monthly payments.
He's not being charged the full $180 million (which is probably excessive, but it really doesn't matter) he's being charged $500 a month for life. That charge really isn't inflated.
It costs Dish Networks around $500 to aquire a single new customer. That $500 represents the cost of advertising, instalation (which is done for free), discounts on equipment, and other incentives. Since most Dish and DirecTV plans involve your ownership of the equipment once you're on the plan the companies have no way to recoup that cost if you can pirate the signal.
This guy is being charged the rather reasonable amount of $500. If that means his device ends up being used by one new Dish or DirecTV customer every month, they will break even.
He got off easy.
As a disclaimer, I am currently an employee of Echostar Dish Networks. As my views are not necessarily those of my employer I am posting this anonymously.
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
And a common theory is that the people who would have used that device will find alternatives and wouldn't have signed up with Dish/DirectTV anyway. Granted, that's just speculation, but then again so is their $900million number.
And while he won't ever actually pay out $180 million at $500/month, its still on the books. It still sets a ridiculous precedent, and might encourage other industries to use this sort of business model.
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
What business model? The "vigorously-defend-our-intellectual-property" business model or the "get-criminal-restitution-of-$6000-per-annum" business model? If they bust 10 or 11 more people, they might even be able to pay the salary and benefits of one employee. This guy, who'd been arrested for the same thing before, was planning to sell devices to allow people to steal satellite TV signals. I
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not suggesting that he not be punished. He gets a j
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, lets send the cops out, and just give out speeding and parking tickets at random. 'cause, everyone was planning on speeding that day, and everyone will at some time park illegally.
You'll be first in line to pay your thoughtcrime fines right?
Re:too harsh (Score:4, Interesting)
This "potential" damage crap is just ludicrous. I don't give a rat's ass what some employee from one of the Dish companies thinks to the contrary.
Anything else takes us down the path to thought control.
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
This will be reduced, at least, on appeal. It's like many of the multi-million dollar judgements (ie, the MacDonald's too hot coffee) that make the headlines, but they end up being awarded a fraction of the original amount.
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not like someone sued because they saw steam coming out of the cup and were concerned that there was potential to get burned.
Hell, I'm gonna start suing cars that pass me on the highway, because they potentially could have run into me, causing an accident which could have injured me to the point that I could no longer work. There's go
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Informative)
Mickey D's had the temperature of their coffee for years at over 180+ degrees...at least that is what they served it at. At that temperature, a third degree burn occurs in seconds if the coffee is spilled on someone
The million dollars the plaintiff was awarded in that case was the amount McD's made on coffee in one day. The whole issue was that because of the temperature of McD's coffee (which is hotter that Starbucks), there were somewhere in the ballpark of 600 to 800 severe burns.
The theory is, if punishing McD's finacially causes them to either make better spill proof lids or but coffee cups that keep the temperature hot enough for a long time without having to make the temperature so hot, then this would prevent 600 to 800 severe burns a year
And yes, it worked, McD's improved their lids, their cups, and decreased the temperature of the coffee. I don't remember how much this cut down on severe burns a year, but its was over an 80% decrease.
Additionally, because of this case, other fast found joints, i.e. BK lounge, also changed their coffee lids, cups, and temperature....Starbucks and Caribou coffee then implemented the policy of never giving a drink to a patron unless the top is on it...
So, because of the McD's coffee case, which seemed completely ridiculous to me too at the time...actually had a greater impact in saving money in medical cost and other social cost from severe burns by getting those that serve coffee to implement some preventive measures.
A lot of severe burns caused by accidents have been prevented because of that one case....Don't always think a case that sounds absurd doesn't have some other positive impact...
Re:too harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
also, its not a fine, but a "retribution payment", payed to the satellite networks. But since they didn't lose anything, they aren't owed anything. any amount is excessive in this case.
Re:too harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's *REALLY* fucking difficult to pay 500 bucks a month on top of rent, bills, etc., when all you have is a job at mcdonalds.
I find that cruel, and excessive.
Re:too harsh (Score:2)
Re:too harsh (Score:3, Insightful)
This is my favorite part. It could have just as easily read something like "Frasier was arrested in October 2002, when Customs agents tracking his operations found a microscope and test tubes in his luggage on a flight from Canada"... or maybe "a drill and a hammer"... or "linux CD's and network gear". Seriously, I wonder how many people thin
punishment fitting the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:punishment fitting the crime (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:punishment fitting the crime (Score:5, Funny)
I take it you're not familiar with divorce settlements?
Re:punishment fitting the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe for you in your nice cushy job, but some of us barely make that at all much less being able to pay bills/buy food/etc after that. Think before you speak asswipe, there are people a lot worse off than you and if 500 a month is change for you there's a lot of us.
Maybe this'll make people think before they steal IP in future.
Except he didn't steal any IP, nor did he even plan to. He had plans to potentially release a device that potentially allowed others to steal access to satellite TV. Maybe we should just go ahead and declare marshal law since everyone could potentially be a murderer.
what theft? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why people consider decrypting signals broadcast into their homes theft.
In any case, this supposed crime has been unusually punished. Confiscations, judicial extortion, banishments, these are the hallmarks of tyrany.
Re:punishment fitting the crime (Score:3, Interesting)
It's $500 a month. Chump change.
You should move out of your parents basement.. $500 a month ain't chump change when you have real bills to pay.
Re:punishment fitting the crime (Score:4, Informative)
Well don't we all wish we could abdicate [reference.com][dictionary.com] the death penalty. Now if you were advocating [reference.com][dictionary.com] the death penality I'd have issues.
Sorry. I just couldn't resist being a grammer snob. This is gonna cost me some karma...
Re:punishment fitting the crime (Score:3, Informative)
How? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How? (Score:2, Funny)
He can always... uhm.... pick up soap for money.
remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you don't agree with the sentence doesn't make what he did legal.
Re:remember... (Score:2, Interesting)
The OP point was you can legally own a decoder though some argue you cannot legally operate it without a license [I'd argue the opposite].
Just like you can legally own a cell scanner, operate it, but you cannot use the info to defraud people.
You have to actually *commit* a crime before you arrest people. Otherwise you wind up on the slippery slope where kitchen knifes are al
Re:remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are getting out of fucking hand.
Attempting to commit a crime is not a crime... (Score:5, Informative)
Read this [ncwc.edu] explanation from a political science professor, for instance, and try not to be confused. The author, in attempting to reconcile the absurd acts of modern legislatures with actual legal theory, has even managed to confuse himself:
What? He admits that a crime of omission cannot exist because it is an oxymoron. This conclusion is dependent upon the basic definition of crime that has existed since time immemorial: crime requires injury. An injury is an act committed against someone that results in harm to them.
Not doing something is not a crime; it isn't even an act. Yet, implicit also in the acceptance of "prescribed" rules of conduct being punishable as "crimes" is the acceptance of "crimes of omission," which he himself states is an oxymoron.
Thinking about doing something isn't an act, either. It would be more properly termed a thought crime, regardless of what Mr. Gates [slashdot.org] says.
It should be obvious that even the intellectual charlatans who affix themselves to the coattails of oppressive governments and attempt to explain logically it's actions cannot, in the process, help but become confused themselves.
The Lawnmower Man (Score:5, Interesting)
The Shire of Kalamunda [holiday-wa.net] (satellite city in Perth, Western Australia) has (or had) a bizarre law on its books that specified a fine for operating a two or four stroke motor between midnight and midnight on Sundays. Why so specific? Why only Sundays?
It turns out that this particular law is due to a single councilor [wa.gov.au] who lived in sunny Bickley, in Kalamunda's East Ward. Said Councillor was in the habit of going out and "raging" (nightclubbing, partying etc) every Saturday night, coming home at silly- o'clock on Saturday morning (or sometimes holding the party at his house and keeping his neighbours up to silly o'clock), and expecting to sleep in until the sun was over the crow's-nest.
The sand in this particular vaseline was his many Seventh-day Adventist neighbours [wa.gov.au], who after enjoying a refreshingly restful Sabbath day between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday would get up early on Sunday morning, full of beans, vim vigour and vitality, and start doing stuff. Like mowing their lawns not before 07:00 as per the excessive noise laws.
Three or more neighbours running two-stroke mowers was not exactly what Mr I-went-to-bed-at-04:23 wanted to hear at 07:00, so he acted. He went out and talked to his neighbours about it - not. Instead, he talked the Shire into enacting a "Blue Law [wikipedia.org]" prohibiting the operation of two-stroke motors throughout the Shire between midnight and midnight on Sundays.
Not to be outdone in the lets-resolve-this stakes, and of course turning their collective backs on 1Thessalonians5:14-15 [gospelcom.net], the dawn chorus in Bickley the following Sunday included a four-stroke-mowers section from all of his neighbours. Taking care not to abuse his position as Councillor, Mr I-went-to-bed-at-04:23 then had the law amended to include four-stroke motors.
The consequences included that as he was driving his car home at 04:07 on Sunday morning, he broke his own law. Any propellor-driven aircraft flying over the Shire were in violation, and so on. I don't think he realised how lucky he was that turbine-driven mowers are still hard to buy. (-:
Land of the free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Land of the free? (Score:5, Funny)
Man this dude's gonna be pissed when we discover the secret to immortality in 50 years time!
Maybe Steven wasn't so wrong? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe Steven wasn't so wrong? (Score:2)
"computer chips and hacking gear" (Score:2, Interesting)
it was a laptop and quartz crystals last I looked, but they might have changed it...
Re:"computer chips and hacking gear" (Score:2)
An axe and safety goggles (just in case).
To a Certain Extent It Makes Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Murder or robbery is a bad example. Everyone knows how to do it, there isn't much special knowledge involved.
It's very, very apples to oranges.
Re:To a Certain Extent It Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Did the information get free? Did the [sarcasm]poor corporations[/sarcasm] lose a lot of money? You don't put people to death if they don't actually kill someone. similarly, you ought not be fined for money that could have been lost, but wasn't.
food for thought: cable descramblers aren't that hard to come by, yet cable companies, cable networks, etc. seem to be doing just fine. I doubt that had this information gotten out that it would have spelled the end of DirecTV, or even cost them that much.
They're already spreading it around (Score:4, Interesting)
A device like this should be completely legal. Apples to apples? It's like me reciting my own copyrighted poetry in France and then suing any bilingual Frenchman for not paying for my official translator.
Re:To a Certain Extent It Makes Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Put a free can of stew every day in every mailbox in North America and sell can openers.
Note that this business plan only works if the government imprisons everyone who tries to use their own can opener. The law does NOT exist to fix broken business models. DirectTV has absolutely no right to expect people to be put in prison for decryption. Hell, with enough effort I can do the decryption calculations purely mentally. The law therefore makes it a crime to think certain thoug
Does this make anyone else sick? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the people that were part of this scheme dont have the money to pay for satellite legally. They chose the illegal option because it was what they can afford. Thus it is not lost revenue to the companies since these people would never have paid full price.
The same goes with things like.... ohh.. say mp3's. I would not go out and buy a cd. I have a perfecty good radio and am happy to listen to that.
Just my $0.02
Re:Does this make anyone else sick? (Score:3, Informative)
The companies say (in the article) that 3million people cost them about $4Billion per year. That's about $1,300/year/person. This guy was supposedly arranging to deliver his kit to about 5000 people, so that would come to about 6.5million per year... Thay'd have to amortize that kit over about 150 years to get a $900million price tag. More likely than not, the kit would only be good for abou
Re:Does this make anyone else sick? (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI caught the guy with the goods. They stopped the devices from reaching the intended users before they started "stealing money" from the Sat companies. Go FBI! You saved Echostar+DirecTV from a potential $900million loss!
Now Echostar and DirectTV can continue operating and earn that $900million through their continued service.
Further, the guy is in jail for 5 years for what he did (ie. develop that de
Re:Does this make anyone else sick? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking about that $1300/year figure.
I subscribe to Dish Network. I forget which plan I have but I get the basic 150 channels and a bunch of movie channels. I pay about $75/month. So every year, I pay Dish 12*75 = $900.
So by your number, they're losing $400 a year on me? I highly doubt that. If that were the case, they'd NEVER earn $900 million.
(by that reasoning, the 5000 devices would have kept 5000 people from signing on with Dish, saving them $200,000 a year ;)
Wasn't smart enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
And why should we feel sorry for Mr. Frazier? The man probably tried to sell his findings for a profit. I say good riddance. I would feel more sympathetic towards him have he GPL'ed the decryption method.
Re:Wasn't smart enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't smart enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in a highrise apartment next to Comiskey Park. I look out my window; I see an ongoing ballgame. I sit down and watch the game. I didn't pay for the right to see the game, but due to the nature of the "content", I am able to view it anyway.
Am I a criminal?
Re:Wasn't smart enough. (Score:5, Funny)
"Anyone trying to steal satellite feeds deserves to rot in jail.
Especially if he doesn't tell me how to do it too."
Re:Wasn't smart enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome! (Score:2)
Step right up and take your ticket.
$500/mo. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, This still seems ridiculous. I'm guessing that the $180 million figure was what would have happened if every single person who has DSS right now switched to the illegal free system. That's like Eli Lilly suing a company that made Ecstasy, based on the argument that everyone taking Prozac might switch to Ecstasy. The only way that they would have lost all of that money is if the DMCA had been repealed (although, I think decrypting satellite data may have been illegal before the DMCA, not sure though) and the devices were made legal.
Even then, they could have simply switched to a new encryption standard. Just mail out new access cards and that would be it.
(btw, I wonder how these systems work. I have a friend who's been getting free DSS TV for a couple years now, the feild is intresting)
Then MS owes me big time... (Score:2)
All we have to do is tally up the greatest possible value of alternative actions we could have taken instead of working through problems created by their junk. Alternatively, I don't have that much spare time to waste on 20 years worth of calculations.
DTV are hounds (Score:2, Informative)
Can anyone say... (Score:2, Funny)
attempt to decrypt? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean with Cable at least you have to *physically* hookup to their drop boxes [re: their property]. That at least counts as theft of services.
But with satelite they beam the RF to your house regardless. I mean I'm bathing in 30 different versions of friends right now [stupid time shifting].
It seems that if the satelite companies don't want non-customers to receive service they shouldn't beam to non-customers. Otherwise b
Re:attempt to decrypt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is exactly my point. The technology is flawed. I mean if I mailed a book to everyone in the US just because sorting addresses is too hard can I sue you for reading the book?
*They* beam data into *my* house. Tough cookies if I examine it.
Tom
Score... (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if I was create a new file sharing program, and then I was to be forced to pay restitution of $1000 a month for enternity because it could be used to illegaly distribute material (movies, software etc)
Will I create this software? Hell no. With the imaginary axe of potential damage looming over the heads of would be programers and developers, its going to become a gamble for any individual to try and develop any type of new software.
What if you build a new OS, MS or someone claims that you stole part of their code, or claims that it poses a massive security threat or whatever, use your imagination, and proactively sues you for a few billion in damages that might be caused by your software. Now your company is gone, and the big kids keep ruling the block. Where the hell is due process?
From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that right? Satellite TV costs well over $1000 a year? No wonder people don't want to pay for it.
They can't possibly be worried about lost ad revenue, because those people are all watching the ads.
Weasel maths, I'm guessing.
Re:From the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Weasel maths, I'm guessing.
Indeed. The $4Billion they calculate is based on what it would cost those 3 million people to subscribe to every single channel available, which is what those people are supposedly watching. At least they're not adding in what it would cost to purchase every single pay-per-view (even the ones running concurrently), like they do when asking for damages in court. Nice logical rationale: "if we don't know what they watched, we must assume they watched everything-- at the same time"
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Better check your math (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are convinced that's the only issue, then having the cable company stop looking for theieves would stop the crime of stealing cable from causing any damage at all.
That would be like the RIAA charging legit customers $1 for every illegal song swapped...
Re:From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Another way it can cause damage is black box descramblers. They got a nasty habit of backfeeding signal up the drop. That can cause reception problems for everything feeding out of the tap(taps in boston tend to serve roughly 8 residences/tap. Though larger taps do exist). Once people start to complain of reception problems(ghosting and humbars are common), cable company rolls out a tech to fix it. Sending techs out is not free.
-Henry
The title is totally wrong. (Score:2, Offtopic)
In case 1 - GOOD. If he was doing some very anti-privacy stuff, then I am glad they made an example of him and fined him so much.
In case 2 - DAMN. I have attempted to pirate satellite signals before too... among other things. If he got fined $180m for damages that "might" have ha
This is nothing new... (Score:2)
How long before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Strong words... Strong words from a strange man ~ Kent Brockman
This is great news! (Score:2)
Wow... this is so cool. This means I can publish a book and sue xerox for producing a product that can copy my book without my permission! Tallent is the thing of the past, I don't even need to produce a good book.
OMG - this is what we have wrought (Score:2)
Can somebody verify the claims of this article? Is this one of those "secret government" articles? Why would someone accused of such not be defended better against a crime that never happened? How do they know he "came withi
Wrong priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in an area which has its share of crime. Not crime like Frazier's, ordinary crime like vandalism, graffiti, burglaries and so on. The police are always hugely overstretched in trying to respond to these things. Now house burglaries cause far more distress than anything that Frazier did. Vandalism and the like take far more out of a neighbourhood than anything Frazier did.
Yet, Frazier is worthy of some massive surveillance operation. We are entitled to ask why limited police resources were used in this way.
Why risk so much (Score:3, Insightful)
I could set up an illegal repository of OCRed books, a la Gutemberg project, but with recent releases, and probably only risk a nasty slap on the hand in court compared to this guy, despite the fact that I would provide content that often requires a lot more work and talent to make, and would give people a lot more culture than, say, Jerry Springer. Funny
Kill Plagiarism Support Piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
I have come around to believing this bumper-sticker philosophy
The fact that such ridiculous court decisions are being made, with nary a chance of ever being realized (like 30,000 years, or in Jordan'case billions of dollars) means that there is a disconnect between the laws of copyright and the reality of digital distribution. Crazy models and interpretations that generally came out of the academic confines of class rooms, are now coming from the real world of the courts.
I fully respect someone's ideas, and completely am against plagarism. But I am starting to differ about how much they should be allowed to profit from them, and am starting to see how the role of piracy is underappreciated in the wide dissemination of ideas.
The decision whether piracy is good or bad must be made based on two factors:
We are in a new world, unimaginable even 10 years ago. We can make infinite and perfect copies of a product, something which we could never could earlier.
And here we are being trapped into artificial market segmentations by middlemen who, thanks to the FCC and Powell, are becoming bigger and bigger and bigger ... This is just pathetic .... (maybe I am a little harsh, but after hearing about the RIAA decision to sue thousands of file-sharers I am not in a very generous mood).
The providers of content that can be digitized, just have to forge a stronger relationship with the audience ... they have to use their static and digitized content as a "marketing and business card" towards the development of a dynamic relationship between the audience and the engines of creation.
I will reverse myself in any court of law, but right now I say Kill Plagiarism Support Piracy ...
The punishment is valid (Score:3, Insightful)
True, he hasn't actually caused all this damage yet, but the article says that he already had 5000 orders for these decryption devices and he was trying to crack the latest DTV cards. Furthermore, this isn't the first time he's been arrested. The article says that he had been arrested in 2000 for the same crime and was let go.
This is not a guy who was just doing this casually. He was trying to make money and already had a warning. Maybe $180 million is too much, but it's not like they expect him to pay it. It's more to make a statement to other pirates who are doing this for profit. Remember that DirecTV is a company that needs to make money. There aren't even moral arguments here like with the RIAA and artists.
Re:The punishment is valid (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh. Huh. And you for some reason think that if he was just giving it away for free Direct TV wouldn't have a problem with it? If you tried cracking it and they found out, they would come after you just as hard. They don't care how much money you would have made, they care how much they would have lost. The $180 million wasn't based on the profits this guy was expecting, it was based on how much Direct TV thought they would have lost.
Re:The punishment is valid (Score:5, Insightful)
Who owns the electro-magnetic fields in my house? Does DirectTV own them, or may I sample them freely?
Now, I respect the rights of DirecTV to make money by selling cable through the airwaves, but I have a real problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot do with EMFs someone else is beaming into my house.
Legal in Canada? (Score:5, Informative)
Note: I'm not taking any sides here, just bringing up a fact.
Re:Legal in Canada? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, otherwise Bell Expressvu and StarChoice wouldn't exist. It's just that those two are the only licenced broadcasters allowed to broadcast into Canada.
This is where the big grey area occurs .. DirecTV and Dish etc are not allowed to broadcast into Canada, so, obviously, they're also not allowed to sell the equipment here. It's not illegal for Canadians to own the equipment. It's also not illegal to recieve DirecTV broadcasts because DirecTV i
And What About the Source of the Article? (Score:3, Funny)
All I want to know is... (Score:3, Funny)
Another step towards a bright future... (Score:3, Insightful)
But here, we aren't talking about predicted crimes. We're talking about POTENTIAL breakings of the law.
Should the corporates have caught the guy actually selling the thing, they would effectively had reasons to sue him like hell, but as it seems, he hadn't even begun to do so.
I know, the same guy had already been having quite a lot of problems with that the previous years, but, hey, it seems to me you are free to do whatever pleases you as long as it doesn't breaks the law, right ? Here, the DoJ's anticipation got a bit too far. What's the problem with carrying around some-electronics-stuff-that-could-potentially-be-
There's a context, a record behind the man. But it once stood somewhere into the brains of at least SOME policemen/inspectors/lawyers/judges that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Where's the guilt here ? They could have permanently glued someone on his tail, tapped into any communication line the POTENTIAL "criminal" used, and caught him the moment he was "officially" - that means, to the eye of the public, and to the eye of the law - causing "financial harm" to the companies.
That's not what they did, it seems. Judging he was going to get dangerous again, they ensured he'd be punished before he could do any real harm.
In some ways it resembles what happened to people who looked "suspect" to the authorities, a few days and weeks after some madman decided to scare the hell out of any proud American out there - and achieved his goal the best way possible. Remember 9/11, right ? Since then, as it seems, you can be arrested for the seemingly arbitrary reason of suspected terrorism.
In the case I'm talking about, it's (heavily) suspected copyright/rights infringement. In the first case, at best you save lives. Here, at best, you save money. Quite a proof that in the mind of way too much people out there, human lives and money have become quite the same in terms of value...
Simply put : the rights of those who've got the money, therefore the power, are enforced, and this, now is possible even before said rights are violated.
That's widening the subject to a wider debate, but I do not call that justice, knowing that your rights won't be as efficiently defended should you not have enough zeros on your accounts. I do not call that Justice.
Anyway, what's the most scary is that the US calls that vision of things justice. And are pretending it is fair. Come on...
Besides, you just can't demand $180M from a physical person. This is even beyond our good ol' friend Gates' reach. Not to mention the fact this amount was "evaluated". How ?
- Hadriven
Not a sentence but an agreement (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously People (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time something like this happens, I always see a few people that say "good, they broke the law, they got their punishment", well I have a little something called "empathy".
Put yourself in their shoes, would you like it if you were sent to federal prison for five years just because you might have cut into the profits of an already greedy and overpaid corporation? You need to put this in perspective, people charged with assault and other various violent crimes get off easier than this. This is complete and total bullshit and you people are just going to sit there and not only take it, but praise the government for brining another "dangerous criminal" to justice. Let me make it absolutely clear that the he didn't actually do anything, he was charged with conspiracy to do something.
Doesn't the amount of power that corporations are demonstrating they have SCARE YOU at all? Or are you just to completely oblivious to the world around you?
Minority Report.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I recall, there was a movie last year called: "Minority Report" that involved this very same thing. The premise was that people could be jailed for what they MIGHT do.
I guess the judge here must have seen that movie while on LSD and confused fantasy with reality!
POtential Damages (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news, Microsoft sued Linus Torvalds and all companies distributing Linux and they were forced to pay for all the licenses to Microsoft software that would have been bought if Linux had not been released for free. Then again, isn't this pretty much what SCO is doing?
I just don't understand the... (Score:3, Informative)
These companies are making their programming appear to be worth far more than it really is.
I used to subscribe to one of these services. Got the dish, wired my home, basically did the whole bit. Picture was nice, but there was a problem
150 channels plus premium and STILL NOT A FSCKING THING ON! At $60 - $80 per month US, this was not ok. Every time the value of the bundle drops, they either add more channels, split those they have and add more commercials, or manupulate the bundles in ways that drive more revenue (read require more of our money for the same content) their way.
Went to Radio Shack and got a nice antenna. Funny thing about antennas. They cost about the same as they did years ago and still come in the same boxes. How many different cable / sat devices have to needed to own over the years. Is that cost worth what you received?
Now, I purchase DVD media with the money I used to spend on subscription TV. They must all compete on content value or they don't get my dollars. I don't think most people get as much out of the system as they think. It is packaged and promoted in a way that looks like a good value but really isn't.
I purchase a very small percentage of what is produced each year. I just might buy more if they worked harder to provide it. I might even double what I spend now if what I want is easy to get, but its not. To me, this means that most of what we are getting via subscription programming is almost worthless.
If it were really that good, I would pay, but it's not.
These companies see *everyone* as a customer, yet do not have to compete on almost any basis for their wares. Subscription programming used to be a big deal when it was started. Many folks could not get any decent broadcast content; others wanted the premium content and were willing to pay. Early systems required infrastructure, equipment and other things that justify the price.
Congress is wanting to basically kill broadcast TV so they can hand even more money to these companies via the spectrum; at our expense no less.
So, where is the competition? It's not like we have a lot of satellite providers. Kind of hard to put up that many units. Cable is granted a monopoly. Lets say you manage to sell me on competition; that it exists, not the concept. How can we evaluate the worth of the programming?
They do not sell per channel, or per use (other than insane PPV.) What if I want to purchase some programming from them. Maybe Sci-fi, Food Network, HBO, Showtime and a couple of others I see value in. Can I pay 29.95? No. Why not?
Do we know how much we have paid for infrastructure? What are the costs there? Is it being built out or maintained? How long do they get to keep what is in the public interests?
The whole thing looks to be nothing more than a shell game. At least when I purchase media, I have some understanding of its true cost and some understanding of its relative worth.
I can know this worth because there are many suppliers, I know because I can resell the content to others and see what they are willing to pay. Try taking a lame DVD to a swap shop. They will almost make you pay to get them to take it off your hands.
I can produce these things myself and understand the costs from that angle if I want. (Though they *really* don't want that to happen --and for good reason.)
In short, any number these guys propose is simply an indication of their wants, not their needs and that is a problem in the judgement of this case.
I can clearly understand the crime of selling decryption devices for paid programming services. I have problems with the nature of the services, but the crime is clear. I don't understand the result of the information crime however. I just cannot assess the value of the damage to the public and the sat companies. Any court that takes their numbers on their merits is wrong on moral
When I Saw The Headline (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, well, back to temping...
Re:Appeal anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice job, knee-jerkers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simply Insane! (Score:3, Insightful)
Was that particular judge appointed by Bush?