Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Patents The Internet United States News

FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges 352

Posted by Zonk from the free-isn't-free-anymore dept.
luigi6699 writes "The BBC reports that 'the US authorities have charged eight people in connection with the illegal trading of copyrighted films, music, games and software over the net.' According to Acting Assistant Attorney General John C Richter, 'cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges More

FBI Arrests Eight On Copyright Charges

Comments Filter:

  • Priorities! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @06:38AM (#13201287)
    If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

    • Re:Priorities! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @06:41AM (#13201290) Journal
      But they protected the most important thing of all, the profits of media conglomerates.
    • There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.

      Priorities? We're the FBI, we don't need no steeeeeeeenkin priorities!!!

      • Pedophiles and Satanists (Score:5, Insightful)

        by typical ( 886006 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @10:08AM (#13201806) Journal
        There are tons of identity thieves and pedophiles out there that the FBI hasn't gotten around to nailing, either.

        What would the point of "nailing" pedophiles be?

        You don't "nail" Satanists. Nothing wrong with being a Satanist. The problem comes in if some guy starts cutting human hearts out on an altar somewhere -- then you're nailing a murderer who happens to be a Satanist.

        Similarly, you could maybe nail someone guilty of sexual abuse of a child who happened to be a pedophile, but what would be the benefit of nailing pedophiles?

        Identity thieves, on the other hand, have committed a crime.

    • Re:Priorities! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:07AM (#13201342)
      I think they consider that, and probably spike our taxes so they can hire more and more FBI agents and such. 'Gotta get them all' so-to-speak.

      I think there are two main issues. People who freely share copyrighted material, and people who SELL copyrighted material. Personally, I see the latter as being flagrant theft.
      • The copyright gestapo also use the for-profit counterfeiters as an excuse to nail teenagers to the wall for swapping songs for free, with shit like "piracy funds terrorism."

    • Murderers... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:19AM (#13201361) Journal
      If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

      #1) Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity, without allocating many law officers. All the FBI has to do is make an example of one person, charge him with everything, throw the kitchen sink at the guy and make sure he never gets outside of a jail, and that might stop other people from doing the same act.

      #2) Follow the money. There would be no FBI without money, and they get their money from congress. Members of congress get elected, and that takes lots of money. I can't give/donate nearly as much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me. If the RIAA wants music file sharers chased, arrested and prosecuted, and members of congress want money for the next election, guess what the FBI will be doing?

      #3) Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks. Whenever there is an attack, the people collectivly lose more rights. Police put up camera's in cities to videotape everyone (chicago and boston both have over 3,000 each). Libraries require fingerprints (Naperville). Gas prices soar. Companies like Halliburton get rich. I also noticed a direct relationship between acts of terror and rednecks getting very patriotic, which means they vote republican. For some reason, people in the south think democrats are pussies because we want to understand a problem before shooting at it.

      I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills? The terrorists target public trains and busses which the avarage joe takes to work. The rich live in gated communities, they have private security in addition to the police. And when the rich call the police, the police know to anwser quickly and with their best officers. The last thing the police departments want is a millionaire with lawyers pissed off at them.

      • Re:Murderers... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:10AM (#13201456)
        About number three, no kidding on the millionare with lawyers angry at the police department. But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

        I don't like the concept of requiring fingerprints unless someone is convicted of a crime. People not convicted of their first offense ever should have their fingerprint copy destroyed. What if someone has no fingerprints for whatever reason?

        About cameras in cities, if the voters approved it, then that's okay. But it needs to be voter approved and temporary. Perhaps require it to be reapproved every 4 years during the mayoral election.
        -
        Personally I think they should never be lively monitored. Just review the tapes when necessary. Delete footage after 30 days. But still require voter approval every 4 years.

        About the terrorist attacks, namely September 11th, let us think about that for a second. What was Osama bin Laden's reason for attacking, if he truly did that? And who had more to gain? Bush being able to sign into law stripping out rights? Or Osama bin Laden's reason?

        By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things. But more often than not in our federal Congress we see them voting for stupid things, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think one Senate vote ended up having it 100-0 for something bad.

        • Re:Murderers... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by dhasenan ( 758719 )
          But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

          Bah, that takes too much effort. It wouldn't happen often at all--maybe once every five years at the inside. The poor person in question would have to win the lottery or something similar (saving money and working doesn't cut it, and county/state/federal law enforcement officers don't generally harass college student

          • The problem with trying to reference it is taking hours of trying to find the exact vote. The government site seems a huge mess to me.

            I don't care if they think it would be political suicide. They lost my vote. They really should have the courage to vote for what's right.

            Someone can hold a grudge that long. And so what if it goes beyond the statute of limitations. I would think it would still be possible to sue the specific judicial system for corruption. Well, by sue, I don't mean for any monetary compensa
            • I don't care if they think it would be political suicide. They lost my vote. They really should have the courage to vote for what's right.

              Fuckin eh. All I have to say is thanks, and I'm with you.

        • Re:Murderers... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oyler@ c o m c a st.net> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:54AM (#13201563) Journal
          But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.

          It takes more than cash to be rich. You spend years making connections and earning favors. As a newly won lottery magnate, you wouldn't even have access to the best lawyers. The police have nothing to fear from a family that's been rich less than 40 years.

          By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things.

          Wrong. Both do bad things, all the time, never good. They've not passed any necessary legislation in decades, their only real work at this point would be the budget... and they've screwed that up to. If you have any sense left at all, you'll promise not to vote for either, ever again.
          • You misread what I said. I said not all Republicans are bad, meaning there are some good ones. To point them out might be difficult though. Probably on the local level where their power is limited. And someone I think implied Democrats are the other extreme.

            I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.
            • No, I didn't misread. Your suggestion that there is a good republican somewhere, that's what I'm disputing. They're all rotten to the core, along with every single democrat.

              We need a Constitutional Ammendment barring people affiliated with either party from ever holding public office again...
              • What you are saying is highly offensive.
                • A historical case can be made that there are political parties so virulent, that nothing to do with the party can be considered good. Why is it so hard to believe that both the GOP and the DNC have reached that status?

                  I'll let someone else do the Godwinning this time.
                  • National, state, county, city, etc., are levels a party can be. They can all have different platforms. Nonetheless, some politicians may act out against their party, and may attempt to change it for the better.
                  • What are you going to do? Beat people up and then lock them away as soon as more than 5 get together and start calling themselves a political party?

                    That would be insane.
                    • Hardly. Just Republican and Democrat party members. And I don't intend to jail them, or beat them up, or unperson them. Hell, let them retain voting rights.

                      Just make it so they can never hold public office again, at the local, state or federal level. Problem solved.

            • Re:Murderers... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @09:50AM (#13201727) Homepage Journal
              I think most Democrats and Republicans in Congress are essentially the same side, except for minor differences.

              I think they are exactly the same party; two different flavours of Corporate Greed, each with its own brandname to create the illusion of choice. The biggest challenge of the election is finding enough highly emotive non-issues to distract the electorate.

              It'd be pitiful, if it wasn't for the fact that it seems to work...

              • Some sensitive issues are abortion and same-sex marriage.

                Concerning abortion, a woman has dominion over her own body. No law can state otherwise. However, I will say that it's cruel to abort a pregnancy at a point where the baby could survive outside the womb, unless the abortion is in the name of the woman's health or a few other rare reasons.

                Concerning same-sex marriage. Leave marriages to churches. Let churches decide whom to marry and not to marry. Let the government perform civil unions. Neither shall
                • No argument there. These are sensitive issues, but I think they've been deliberately blown out of proportion. To have an election hinge on issues like that doesn't seem like a healthy approach to democracy.

                  Full Disclosure: UK citizen speaking. I'm not claiming any moral superiority - we have exactly the same problem.

                • I REALLY don't want to get into an abortion argument. Honestly. But don't generalize it away as something so stupidly simple. If I stick an index finger into a woman's nostril, she doesn't have the right to chop it off at the first knuckle because it is "within her own body" (though a slap might be in order). A developing fetus, even below the age of viability isn't necessarily a part of her own body. The entire abortion rights issue has more to do with women wanting to whore around like men have for centur

      • Re:Murderers... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:12AM (#13201460)
        Sometimes a highly visable arrest is enough to deter people from an activity

        Some. Not terrorists, typically. For that, you have to just plain remove them, their backers/resources, and try to deal with the underlying culture clash that fuels them. People who are too cheap to pay for movies, on the other hand, already know all of the ground rules, and are just assuming that they won't get caught. It's not like they don't know they're no better than a standard shoplifter, they just figure that since there are millions of them they have a shot at continuing to enjoy the work of their favorite band without actually paying what the band asks. The people who facilitate that on a large scale are truly low hanging fruit for law enforcement, though - they can't really get the stuff they pirate into a lot of their buddies' hands without, by definition, exposing what they're doing. That little bit of deliberate, very public nose-thumbing is pretty much asking for it.

        much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me

        So why are you not forming the National Pirate's Association? Groups of teachers, gun owners, auto workers, environmentalists... they all form large groups and leverage that so that they can make a bunch of noise and fund campaigns. What do you think MoveOn.org is? It's rich people backing Democrats with millions and millions of dollars. Poor people can throw in a dollar, too, and say they think the same thing. Do you really think that the trial lawyer associations, the NEA, and other extremely well funded left-of-center groups don't have every bit of an audience in political circles as a particular trade association in the entertainment biz? Spend a little more time on K Street in DC - the noise from the well funded left is very, very loud. The problem is that it doesn't resonate with most voters because all it ever is is against things, and not constructive. That's getting pretty old.

        Perhaps terrorists are not a high priority because the politicians in power have been able to take advantage of the attacks.

        Not a high priority? How do you figure? We've got an unprecedented number of people working on the intel, interdiction, and counter-terrorism side of things. We're in the middle of re-building a seriously gutted intel capacity that suffered for years under enormous budget cuts. It takes time to hire, train, and embed the sort of people needed to head this stuff off at the source. Until then, we're treating the symptom, not the problem. But that doesn't mean that other crime should just be ignored.

        Gas prices soar.

        Because no one will tolerate the building of domestic refining capacity. We haven't added refineries since the 1970's, even as the population using the fuel has grown hugely. But that's only part of the picture - the main component is demand pressure because of hugely growing markets in China and India. There are simply more people trying to buy the same gallons of gas. So, if your personal favorite politicians were in office, how would you reduce the competition for oil? Would you drill for more? Build new refineries (in which state/city - have fun getting approval!)? Subsidize fuel with tax dollars? The point is, you toss gas prices into the conversation as if your distaste for the FBI busting flagrant copyright violators is all part of giant tinfoil hat conspiracy that also includes somehow fooling the Chinese into using more oil so that we have to bid up our purchases from suppliers.

        I would also add the uber rich are not scared of terrorism because when was the last time a suicide bomber blew himself up in Beverly Hills?

        Who do you think had their offices in the top floors of the World Trade Center, a bunch of living-on-Velveeta 20-year-olds starting up a lost cause web site? No, it was bankers, traders, law firms, accounting firms - "rich" people. Who do you think lost a fortune when those attacks clobbered the econom
        • >

          So, exactly how many rich people wound up on the list of WTC dead? Have you heard of any?

          The rich wouldn't be found in the WTC, they'd be found in their mansions out on the plantation watching the immigrants pick grapes for their wine. The middle class and investor-wannabes would be found in the WTC.
          • Obvious crap on your part. Please cite any references from which you drew your conclusion. I'm guessing you haven't a friggin' clue as to who actually was killed. Just your warped opinion. Flaming troll.
          • The rich wouldn't be found in the WTC, they'd be found in their mansions out on the plantation watching the immigrants pick grapes for their wine.

                  No, we have people for that :-)
      • I can't give/donate nearly as much money as organized groups like the RIAA, so members of congress won't listen to me

        Why not? The RIAA members contribute a very small amount of their earnings to lobbying, and their entire earnings come from people buying their products. Why don't you start a PAC. Every time you are thinking about buying an RIAA product, remember where the money would go and donate it to the PAC instead. Publicise this and get other people to do the same. If you did this between now

      • I wish I had mod points, this is one of the best posts I have seen about how the world is going to hell I have seen in a long time.

        Good job

    • Re:Priorities! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xugumad ( 39311 )
      Every time this happens, someone says "What, have they caught all the terrorists?". Believe it or not, the ideal method of law enforcement is not to deal with one type of crime at a time...

      "Theft? Err, no, we're still working through all the murders, try again in a few months"

      Seriously here people, you may think the copyright holders are big evil faceless corps, but that doesn't make copying their material right. If you object to the companies, don't play their games, listen to their music, watch their vide
    • If tomorrow there is a terrorist attack that the FBI failed to prevent because they were busy arresting some copyright violator, I'm going to be mighty pissed.

      This is the single best slashdot troll I have ever seen. Bravo, sir.

    • ...because they were busy arresting some copyright violator...

      Ah yes. It's too bad the FBI can handle only one investigation at a time and only has one field officer... Seriously, why is the parent "insightful" at all? What "insight" does it bring to the table? It's like saying "Gee, I hope the Seattle Fire Department can handle more than one call at a time..." Well, of course they can. Why doesn't the parent just say what he/she means: "I don't like coptright law, and the FBI should have better things to

  • Consumer (Score:4, Funny)

    by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @06:38AM (#13201289) Journal
    Glad to see our government is looking out for the consumer.

    Arresting teens for committing the hideous crime of downloading music and stopping monopolies right in their tracks.

    Ok, maybe not the second part, but 1/2 isn't that bad.

  • Why is this under "Your rights online"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kronocide ( 209440 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @06:41AM (#13201293) Homepage Journal
    Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

    • Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

      The whole concept of rights a bit nebulous. Having a "right" to something could mean

      a) Being permitted to do something

      or b) Being entitled to something

      You are confusing the two meanings. The general guiding principal is that you should be permitted to do anything that does't impact on anyone else's "rights". If two set of rights come into conflict things get more c

    • Nobody owns anything anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:42AM (#13201412) Journal
      Everything is becoming rented and licensed.

      Think what you will about it, but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

      The problem with the system is I can't own a damn thing anymore. There was a time if I wanted to tape something off TV, I would have used a VCR. Now people are paying a monthly fee for TiVo. 20 years ago, people could buy a satelite dish and get all the channels for free on C-band. And back then cable was fairly inexpensive. Today, a "basic" subscription to cable can cost over $60 a month. AND back then there were not as many commericals on television as today. What has changed? Did these companies hire specialists to determine just how much bullshit people can take before they break?

      And it is not good enough to have a phone in the house, now everyone needs a cell phone. I had one employer ask me to update my file with my second phone number, a cell phone number. I did not have one. My boss gave me one hell of a look.

      And take operating systems for example. There was a time that when I purchased a operating system, I could put it on any computer I owned. Now Microsoft wants me to call in and ask for permission to install Windows.

      Every buisness is figuring ways to not sell a product, but to sell a reoccuring service. One day, people won't be able to buy underwear, they will have to buy a license from fruit of the loom. Perhaps washing machines will need to call fruit of the loom before you can wash underwear.

      And the music industry and movie industry is doing the same thing. It is not bad enough that they want $10 to see a movie, after half an hour of commericals (what is the point of paying $10 if they will force people to watch commercials anyways, isn't that just like TV?). In addition to the $10 ticket and forced viewing of commercials, the theater has a monopoly on snacks, and they use that monopoly to charge $5 for a soda that probably costs them a thin dime. One year later, the movie gets released on DVD for $29.99. The movie quality is so-so. Three years later a nicer version comes out for $29.99.

      And If I want to back up my copy, in case it gets scratched so I have a working copy, the movie industry won't let me. They shut down DVD Decryptor.

      And about the music industry. Remember, they kept prices inflated to over $15 a CD. They were sued and they lost. They were ordered to give free CD's to libraries and what did they do? 100 different CD's that would be interesting? NO. They gave 100 identical copies of Christmas songs.

      So, no, sharing is not theft. What is theft is what the corporations are doing to people.

      • The problem with the system is I can't own a damn thing anymore. There was a time if I wanted to tape something off TV, I would have used a VCR. Now people are paying a monthly fee for TiVo.\

        No one is keeping you from using a VCR still. You still have the right to choose with your dollar. Just because Tivo charges a monthly description and cable charges an inordinate amount of money for their service does not mean you have to buy it. If VCR's are a bit archaic for you, there are DVD recorders that can

        • I like the idea of being able to call someone from wherever I'm at and have one in case of an emergency, but not for $40 a month.

          Is it really still that expensive? In my country I only pay $20 for 3 hours of communication every month and they automatically give me one hour as a bonus if I have more than one hour left at the end of the month. My parents pay more than 3 times this price for their landline.

          but that is Microsoft's EULA which is legally binding when you buy their software.

          Are you sure it'

    • but recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

      Doing what you want with your own private property, including making copies of it available for other people, _IS_ a right. That's why they call them "private property rights". "Intellectual property laws" put restrictions on everyone's normal private property rights, supposedly to encourage innovation in the society (although all the anecdotes I've seen lately seem to indicate that they're used prim

      • Your analogy is flawed. If you want an accurate one,
        A carpenter makes a chair and sells it to A. A sells it to B. OK.

        A musician makes a CD and sells it to A. A sells the CD to B. OK.

        Contrast this with

        A musician makes a CD and sells it to A. A makes a copy and sells it to B. Infringement.

        A carpenter makes a chair and sells it to A. A makes a copy of the chair through some sort of future "copying machine". Infringement? It will be interesting to see what happens with intellectual property when we have machine
    • recieving a free copy of something someone else has invested time and money to produce is not a "right."

      You're right but that's only one side of the equation. You want consumers to follow the rules but corporate empires can continue to fix prices, gouge the consumer, whittle away at our fair use rights and we're just supposed to take it?

      cases like these are part of the Justice Department's coordinated strategy to protect copyright owners from the online thieves who steal and then sell the products the

  • I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mocm ( 141920 ) *
    how someone can be an Acting Assistant Attorney General and not know the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
    • I wonder, how can someone who posts on slashdot not understand a 'Figure of Speech'

      I'm sure he knows it's not theft, but all the sheeple reading the article wont know the difference between copyright infringement and theft, much less what copyright infringement is.
    • The RIAA offered to take up his propagand...er...I mean, speech writing department.
    • It's a soundbite. It's meant to be short, snappy and to the point, not necessarily legally accurate.

      If the case goes to court with these people charged with theft, then you will have reason to complain, but that's unlikely (because they'd be aquited, at least on that charge)

    • Re:I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Uber Banker ( 655221 ) *
      To copy and share copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. To sell copy and sell copyrighted materials in a market/environment where legal copies are also for sale is theft of a revenue stream. TFA refers to organised criminals conducting not only copyright infringement, but theft of revenue. These were not nice people benevolently running a backwater torrent site, they were copying and selling copyrighted materials.

      Yes theft is an often misused conce
      • Yes theft is an often misused concept in regards to copyright infringement, but in this case it wasn't.

        In terms of law: no it's not theft. (It's not stealing either). No physical objects were removed from anyone's possession. It's not theft!

        A simple test for theft: take a picture of the object before it is stolen, then take another picture after the crime. You can see that the object is gone! If you cannot do this, then it's not theft!

  • Does this really solve the problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theamazingflyingshee ( 900968 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @06:42AM (#13201296) Homepage
    Well think about this, if they are taken to court or pay an out of court settlement then they might not have enough money to feed them selves (etc.) as they might me heavily i debt(etc.), so then they might turn to crime as means of income. There must be a better way.
  • Heinous news is released late on a Friday so that American reporters may be scooped by the BBC.

  • Selling or Trading? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The article says that they were trading copyright material, but the Assistant Attorney General says that they were selling it... so which one is it?

  • Makes me sick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @06:48AM (#13201313) Homepage Journal
    I never thought I'd ever live in a time where something that is so clearly a civil issue would be come a criminal charge. What's next, arresting people for slander or violating a contract?
    • I'm guessing that you must be the oldest /. poster around, since there have been criminal penalties for some copyright infringement since 1897. It's a dumb idea, but it's not new.

    • Re:Makes me sick (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:33AM (#13201394) Homepage
      Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore, "intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity. Copyright infringement, then, is "economic terrorism" and a threat to national security. </idiot devil's advocate>

      • Re:Makes me sick (Score:3, Informative)

        by Ingolfke ( 515826 )
        Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore

        Not true. Ford, GM, and many other manufacturing corporation. What is true is that a large part of the U.S. economy is a service economy and also is based on revenues from Intellectual Property. So for the U.S. there is a real value in ensuring that each copy of a product is purchased.

        "intellectual property" then becomes all the more important for maintaining control in a capitalistic economy still based on scarcity.

        As before, "all" is
        • There are only some many of any one thing to go around. Capitalism is the best method for allocating scarce resources.
          Except that IP is, by definition, not a scarce resource. It can be indefinitely reproduced at almost no cost. Capitalism is indeed good at allocating scarce resources, but fails miserably when the scarcity disappears. IP laws are what create (well... try to) the artificial scarcity so that capitalism can continue to work.
      • Since the U.S. doesn't actually manufacture anything tangible anymore,

        In 2004, U.S. agricultural exports to China totaled a record $6.5 billion, an increase of five percent over the previous year. China is now the fourth largest market for U.S. agricultural exports, surpassed only by Canada, Mexico and Japan. cite:http://www.ncfb.com/mediaC/accent/accent_0516 05.html [ncfb.com]

        We are still the number 1 exporter of tobacco products around the world. American cigarettes are highly reguarded as the best quality one can

  • Where is my local FBI office? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by speights_pride! ( 898232 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:02AM (#13201336)
    Oh that's right, I don't live in America. I wonder if these other countries will actually extradite people to the US? I doubt theyt would in New Zealand as copyright infringement isn't a serious enough crime and imagine the outrage if you got 30 years jail in the US, when convicted killers often get away with 10 years here.

  • Shoplifting VS Copyright Infringement (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:09AM (#13201347)
    One actually deprives people of something that they possesed, the other doesn't. Yet which is more heavily punished? It's just crazy.

    I had an arguement about copying vs sharing, the guy was saying that copying software isn't the same as sharing, he said if you gave away your copy to the person then that would be sharing. I guess that he also thinks that someone writting down a copy of a recipe for a friend isn't sharing either.

    There are many methods that could be used for allowing artists to make money and allowing people to share. One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art (instead of the big labels soaking it up and dripping a little down to the artists) and more people would have access to the music. The only people that don't like this seem to be those that think 'why should I give money away and then people who haven't get to download the music/movie for free'.
    • One such way that I've thought could be good is for the artists to just with-hold new albums, and saying they need $X amount and once that is reached they will release it for everyone to share. I'm sure that they fans would quickly fund the artist, this way the artist would get money for their art

      Stupid blind consumers will buy a product sight unseen. I read reviews, try to find legal samples on the Internet, maybe here it on the radio, ask friends or people w/ similar musical tastes about the band. I wou
    • You think people like band X because of their music? Oh boy. You like the music you like because of how old you are and where you grew up. You like what you like because your friends listened to it or because your dad hated it or because you got saturated with advertising for it whilst you were going through a messy breakup. Music is the perfect reflection of social control over thought.
  • Don't I wish I was born in China, and never came to the US?
    • Living in China is probably great _IF_ you are one of the _RICH_, well-connected people.

      If you're a poor person - well, let's just say that poor people in China are an object lesson about what you get when you let pure, undiluted capitalism run amuck.

      Yes, China's economic system is a lot more capitalistic than any other First World country's economic system right now - the U.S.'s economic structure is positively socialistic compared to China's (although I'm sure the U.S. rightwing-nuts are trying hard to fi

  • The article says... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Neticulous ( 900423 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:32AM (#13201393)
    that sweden was one of the countries involved, does this mean swedish law is changing? Will we soon see the ever popular piratebay being closed down? I know they have always taunted in their legal threats [thepiratebay.org] section about how swedish law keeps them running. Curious to know how far the grasp of the DoJ reaches on this.

  • Worked so hard? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Icicle509 ( 895174 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:48AM (#13201424)
    "......online thieves who steal and then sell the products they work so hard to produce......'" Im sure they work REAL hard, maybe 1% as hard as the average blue collar american? and they make more a minute than I make an hour..... Sorry guys, Not only do I think your grossly overpaid, I have a hard time swallowing calling what you do "Hard work"

    • Re:Worked so hard? (Score:3, Informative)

      by cliffski ( 65094 )
      you are saying people in the movie industry do not work hard?
      Im not saying Tom Cruise works as hard as a coal miner, but is that true for everyone whose income depends on that industry?
      the cameramen? lighting guys? set dressers? continuity staff? scriptwriters? set designers? the catering crew? the security guys at the studio? the artists? CG guys?
      You think everyone who works in entertainment works less than 1% as hard as everyone outside entertainment?
      Watch the DVD extras from Lord of The Rings, then tell
    • You clearly have no concept at all of the work that goes into music or video production.
  • I'm wondering why this story is posted on slashdot. It's simply the FBI enforcing the law. Apart from it being nothing new it makes me instantly think that this is relavent because of the assumption that the majority of slashdot readers take part in illegal download activity. I understand that any interesting changes to copyright law in any country or a big new itunes-style movie store might be worthy news, but why this?

  • If there arrests... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:20AM (#13201483)
    These people were likely the old fassioned type of copyright theft, where you make money out of selling illegal copies, or producing good quality counterfiets and selling them to legitimate retail outlets as if they were the real thing.

    They definately do need to be locked up, if I pay for software I at least expect it to be legit :)
    • You're new right? The FBI can't go after legitimate counterfieters, they all operate out of China or somewhere else outside the US. These arrests, and others, are of normal people who want to copy works for their own use and are bought and paid for by those corporations who base their fortune on making something that is inheriently copyable into something that is not. If the people want to copy, the people should be free to copy. The state should serve us, not the very very very small minority of us who
  • Jeeeeeebus christ this crap keeps going on and on. Doesn't the Justice Department know the meaning of the word "thieves" or "steal"? Clearly not, as copyright infringement, even for commercial gain, is NOT theft. It's NOT stealing. It's copyright infringement. Just like how it's not murder or grand theft auto, it's not stealing by any legal definition.
  • I download a small amount of music (let's say, 10 songs a month) for free, and the occasional movie that isn't out on video (Star Wars: ROTS, only after seeing it once in the theatre), as well as some TV shows I can't get in Canada because of CRTC rules (Real Time With Bill Maher). Sure that may be illegal, but shouldn't it also be considered that the RIAA/MPAA rips me off as I usually by at least one DVD and one CD per month. It's not like I go out of my way to rip people off, in fact, in two of these ca
  • I took them to my local distribution node, also known as "the library".

  • Rejecting 'entertainment' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bradbury ( 33372 ) <Robert DOT Bradbury AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @11:16AM (#13202123) Homepage
    Over the last couple of years I have sold most of my CDs (several hundred), not gone to a movie and have lived in a world where I listen to a few CDs (the Ally McBeal soundtrack and the Neil Diamond Jonathan Livingston Seagull CD) on an ongoing basis.

    Guess what? It doesn't significantly impact the self-perceived quality of my life to any extent.

    That would suggest that *much* of the entertainment media (movies & sound-tracks) are "add-ons" -- i.e. they must create the demand and the consumers buy into it.

    From my perspective the entire copyright debate tends to boil down to a question of whether or not you are producing something which people are willing to pay to see/hear. From my rather jaded viewpoint the answer is no.

    If an individual has a perspective that all copyrighted information will eventually be available for free (which is true to the best of my knowledge) *and* that human lifespan is only limited by our current lack of knowledge with respect to the biology of aging and how to prevent it, then the media producers have a significant problem... I.e. "How do I produce material which people are willing to pay to see now... vs. material which they will (legally) be free to see/hear sometime in the future?"

    Even though the material producers have pushed laws which extend copyright protections far beyond their original intent -- the progress in extending the human lifespan has not been locked in stasis either. Unless copyright protections are pushed beyond the maximum feasible human lifespan I will eventually have *legal* access to all of the material for free.

    So it would appear the entire "copying" debate is wrapped up in the question of whether or not one has access to it "now" or at sometime in the future. One could obviously draw analogies between the entertainment realm and other forms of self-gratification.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close