X-Men Origins Pirate Draws a 1-Year Sentence 341
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from geek.com: "In 2009, a copy of X-Men Origins: Wolverine found its way on to Megaupload a month before it was due to appear in movie theaters. The so-called 'workprint' copy was unfinished — so unfinished in fact, anyone viewing this copy saw green screens and wires attached to actors used to help with the more acrobatic movements during action scenes. Hugh Jackman even commented on the leak, describing it as like getting a 'Ferrari without a paint job.' The person who decided to share the movie illegally was tracked down, however. He is a 49-year-old New Yorker by the name of Gilberto Sanchez, and he's just been prosecuted." The New York Times' 2010 interview with Sanchez is a good read, too.
lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:3, Insightful)
not like he was ripping DVD's to play on his ipod or iphone because the digital copy thing for blu ray is a scam. not like he only watched the stolen copy in his home. he uploaded it so it could be downloaded by others
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the punishment here is perhaps disproportionate, but I agree with the sentiment. It's far better to go after the people who knowingly share things with widespread audiences than anyone else in the infringement set-up.
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Funny)
I think the punishment here is perhaps disproportionate, but I agree with the sentiment.
It could of been worse. He could of been forced to watch the movie repeatedly through his 1 year sentence; thankfully the 8th amendment prevents that.
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Funny)
Similarly, he could have been forced to read your tortured sentence structure repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for making me read it twice. yeesh.
Re: (Score:3)
It could of been worse. He could of been forced you to read it three times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, going after the Korean DVD vendor would be a better place to start. He's actually making a profit from criminal activity.
Going after the warehouse that's making the DVDs the Korean is selling is an even BETTER proposal. Hell, we have DVD Sniffing Dogs [ifc.com] to check cargo containers for undeclared shipments of bootleg DVDs that come from overseas (china, mostly).
Meanwhile, go to Hong Kong or most places in South America (Brazil's particularly bad for it) and you won't find a single legitimate console or game in stores. What you will find is a shop where they sell you a modchipped console, then you bring a box to the guy at the counter who nods, goes into the back, and comes back 5 minutes later with a burned copy of whatever disc you indicated; if it's a PC disc, there'll probably be a no-cd crack included on the disc. When the local government shuts these guys down, you can be sure that it's not because they broke the law, but because they didn't make their bribery payments to the right guy on time.
Re: (Score:2)
The question wasn't where to start, but where to end. This guy isn't the big fish in the chain, but he's not innocent. The bigger problem IMHO is that what he did doesn't deserve a year in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
i think the logic would be more akin to the guy who bought your stereo from the guy who bought your stereo, from the guy who bought your stolen stereo from the guy who broke into your house and took your stereo, shouldn't be held responsible for breaking into your house.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case, he still received stolen goods, which is illegal. He's not responsible for the break-in, but it doesn't make it legal for him to have your stereo.
Not sure that helps your analogy or not. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
No, I merely pointed out that the analogy for the stolen radio didn't work in such a way as to absolve the recipient of any wrong-doing, which may or may not have been the point of the poster I replied to.
I didn't specifically advocate anything, but as an AC, I don't expect your reading comprehension to be complete. Certainly the logical fallacy you attribute to me isn't based
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the movie was not completed, so no one could even buy it. I don't even know why someone would think it wasn't stolen property. It's not like it was a copy that was made after someone paid for it fair and square, or who received it without some sort of NDA and who decided sharing it because they felt they "owned" the DVD or whatever.
Sharing movies can have all sorts of shades of grey in terms of ownership rights, but I'd say that obtaining an unfinished work print is probably going to qualify
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Interesting)
So the question becomes... why does a guy that intentionally uploaded this for others, a month before the movie comes out (where I would expect the studio to make a huge chunk of its profit on the movie) only get a year in prison when someone who accidentally shares a few crappy songs gets a financial punishment that makes a year in prison look quite tame?
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that he can still be sued by the studios for copyright infringement, right? This was a criminal action. The studio can still take civil action against him if it so desires.
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases I would agree that a DVD of a movie that already came out is imaginary property, but here, you were actively paying various studios and partners to develop CGI effects and finish editing a product you'd just paid megabucks for actors to star in, a film crew to build sets, a film crew to place cameras, set off explosive charges, pay insurance premiums, pay the caterers and a thousand other line items.
They weren't stealing a finished product that had done it's rounds in the theaters and
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true. The two OJ trials are a well known example. It makes sense because punishing criminals is about some combination of protecting society, rehabilitation, and retribution. It isn't about trying to cure harm caused to the actual victim; whether the victim wants to try that, and whether he'll succeed is up to him, and occurs in a civil trial, and those are all about curing harms (usually via money, for lack of better alternatives).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:4, Insightful)
So the question becomes... why does a guy that intentionally uploaded this for others, a month before the movie comes out (where I would expect the studio to make a huge chunk of its profit on the movie) only get a year in prison when someone who accidentally shares a few crappy songs gets a financial punishment that makes a year in prison look quite tame?
Judges often don't have leeway in sentencing; Whether it's a "crappy" song or a pre-release of a highly-anticipated motion picture, the law says the punishment is the same. Don't blame the judges for the seemingly random or harsh sentencing... blame the politicians. I mean, I can come over to your house and beat the snot out of you on the way in to work with my bare hands and get less time than this guy did for posting some crappy "work print" movie. Which crime do you think is worse? Worse, downloading that same crappy movie can cause civil penalties far in excess of what I would get if I broke into your house and did something horrible to you (use your imagination)...
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Insightful)
> Whether it's a "crappy" song or a pre-release of a highly-anticipated motion picture, the law says the punishment is the same.
No. Usually not. The law and judges actually have a wide degree of leeway. They have it because typically no two sets of facts are quite alike and they can be often quite different.
The judge could have suspended the sentence entirely.
The judge isn't just an automaton despite the fact that some people like to pretend that they are or should be.
The ability to adapt to different circumstances is actually a good thing.
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one more lesson we have learned. The world is full of assholes who seem to agree with this punishment!
So you do think that 1 year in federal prison after being hunted by FBI is an appropriate punishment for buying a bootleg movie and uploading it? Really? If he at least stole the copy during his employment - there would be a breach of trust/contract violation (why, yes, I read TFA). But he bought and uploaded a bootleg movie.
Only in a cruel asshole world is 1 year in prison plus another year of limited computer access an appropriate punishment for uploading/sharing a movie he didn't even steal. We can argue about some fines (he's not right or anything), but the punishment is very clearly out of proportion. And those cheering it on are part of the problem!
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson learned, upload movies from behind 7 proxies.
Re:lesson learned, don't upload stolen movies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The law was that people could own people. The law is soon on it's way that people can own people's minds.
Laws are meaningless. Morals are all that matter. A law does not make wrong or right. It makes legal or illegal.
All immoral laws should be broken. And questionably laws should be stood against. And seeing as how mega-corporations are paying to have the laws made for them, even ones that violate the Constitution. One must be left to ask one's self, does society have any reason to recognize those laws?
I s
how much will this cost US (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo, instead of imposing a fine, we'll let the taxpayer foot the bill for a year's incarceration. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how much will this cost US (Score:5, Interesting)
"Out in a couple of months"? Maybe not.
For Texas, at least, it would have to be a year and a day to be eligible for parole; a year bare is actually the harsher sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to start that kind of thinking, we're all screwed.
I'll only mention one class of people - drug users. We don't want people to use drugs, because they mess up your life, right? Well if the drugs don't mess up your life on their own, the legal system will finish the job. Once you've got a criminal record, you can usually pretty much forget it. (Unless you've already made it, of course.)
When Nixon ran for his first term, one of the planks on his platform was "crime". Once elected, he felt
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone ever consider the link between the War on Drugs and the illegal immigration problems? Our War on Drugs has funded the drug cartels south of the US (Mexico for sure, Central and South America also) so well that they pose a serious challenge to the government. That makes for a poor business environment, discouraging investment and job creation. No jobs, look North.
While I have no sympathy for those that chant "illegal immigrants are the cause of all our problems", I do think the business environment was pretty poor to start with. Given a state doing quite well, with opportunities for those on the bottom, noone would have had to turn to drugs. But yeah, add a not-really-functioning corrupt state to a mix of humongous amounts of money from drugs, spice it up with modern weapons imported from neighbouring countries then yeah, it all goes downhill from there.
Stopping the
They ignore the commercial pirate? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA says the jailed guy got the movie on DVD for $5 from some guy in a Chinese restaurant. So the movie was already in commercial, pirate distribution on DVD and the feds did nothing about that. Instead they went after the movie buff who uploaded the DVD for no commercial gain. This sounds more like the usual "war against the internet" than "going after the right person" as the articles propagandistically pretend.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing." The found the person who uploaded the stolen video to a sharing site. That was a criminal act so the prosecuted him. That does not mean that they are not still investigating the situation and are not looking for other people in the chain of custody. Should they not have persecuted him because he was not the only person in the chain?
There is also a huge difference between a few DVDs available in p
Re: (Score:3)
There is also a huge difference between a few DVDs available in person at a few select locations and an uploaded file available to anyone with an internet connection. The latter has a much wider audience, is easier to find and has much more impact on the revenue for the film.
Yes, if the movie's a stinker and they see it's a stinker, they won't shell out the money at the theater and the crappy movie loses money. However, if it's a good movie people will want to see it in its full glory and it will do better
Re: (Score:2)
No harm? Even you say "probably" when referring to lost revenue. So there is possibly lost revenue.
No intent? If the person didn't know there was a law against distributing copyright material he should. His intent was to spread the video around which is against the law.
No Crime? The fact that he broke the law makes it a crime. For example a speeder. He has not been in or caused an accident so not harm. His intent is to get to where he is going faster, not break the law, so no intent. No harm, no intent but
Re:They ignore the commercial pirate? (Score:5, Informative)
Reading is fundamental
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They ignore the commercial pirate? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're prosecuting the low-hanging fruit. It doesn't matter if he didn't cause as much financial harm, he's easy to prosecute and makes a great example.
Hrmm, seems the OP is slighty incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
"The person who decided to share the movie illegally was tracked down"
Well, not exactly... the person who first uploaded it was tracked down, not the person who first stole it, copy it, and give it to the Koreans to sell on the street.
Seems the person to first share it is still out there...
Re: (Score:2)
And according to the article, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing", still being looked for.
obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the obligatory proportions post. How many people have been arrested for the housing market crash thus far? How much monetary damage did those people actually do in comparison to this guy?... yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
So because we don not prosecute the big bad guys we should not prosecute the little bad guys? Sorry that is false logic
Re: (Score:3)
You're inferring a statement which is not in the grandparent post. Proportion is a valid way of judging how fair the society we live in is. Where would you rather live: in a society where murder is punished but pickpocketing is not (although formally forbidden), or in one where pickpockets always go to jail while murderers are never convicted?
Hard for me to get excited about it (Score:2)
Come to think of it, I still haven't seen this movie. The first one was good, the second OK, the third... well, you get the picture.
Re: (Score:3)
(Zen wisdom incoming)
Movie ideas are like tea. You take the leaves and herbs, and you brew them with some hot water, and you get some wonderful tea, and it is powerful and strong, and it will refresh you and invigorate you.
And you see that the tea was good and you decide to make another cup of tea. You take the same herbs and the same leaves and you brew them with some more hot water. And you notice that the tea tastes bad and stale, and that you should rather wash your feet with it than drink it.
As for tea
Re: (Score:2)
As for tea, it is for movies: Throw away the herbs and leaves after using them once and use some fresh ones. Even if that costs a few bucks, but at least you spare yourself the embarrassment of showing that you don't know jack about tea. Or movies.
Well... in China everyone uses the leaves multiple times. But hey, what do they know about tea, right? :)
So where did get it? (Score:3)
That copy was not ripped from a theatrical release DVD. It was obviously copied directly from a data file in some productions houses' work flow. This guy was just an accessory after the fact. And that "Sanchez explained that he actually bought the movie on DVD for $5 from a Korean man in a Chinese restaurant.". So where does the data originate from?
Who ever released the original data is the person who needs to spend time in jail, not some patsy who bought a cheap DVD from an anonymous pusher in some shady restaurant dealing.
Still the Wrong Guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I don't really follow the Slashdot party line on this one; I think stealing from artists you respect is stupid, because they won't make you more stuff. And Sanchez was an idiot for uploading this thing from the illegal pirated copy he bought. But his punishment does seem disproportionate, and they still got the wrong guy.
This guy bought stolen goods, and made illegal copies of copyrighted materials. Somebody, somewhere, actually stole the proof from the studio. That is the real crime they should be punishing if they want to stop pre-release pirates. And I won't even bother to point out how effortlessly easy it would be to track copies and identify leaks in this technical audience, because I'm sure you can all come up with half-a-dozen schemes yourselves. If the studios can't be bothered to prevent the leaks or identify and punish the leakers in the first place, why should we care what happens to the leaked materials?
Re:Still the Wrong Guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I don't really follow the Slashdot party line on this one; I think stealing from artists you respect is stupid, because they won't make you more stuff.
This is quite consistent with the "slashdot party line". You should reward the artists you like by spending as much as you can on them. Otherwise they're likely to find more lucrative employment. I don't remember anyone on /. ever saying that you shouldn't spend money on artists you value. Giving money to talented artists is extremely important, w
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly worth noting; (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possibly worth noting that that version was actually more interesting than the final cut.
Re: (Score:2)
I was pondering that.
I guess I finally found a really good reason to download bootlegs: They let you see far more interesting stuff than the finished crap.
Motherfucker Jones did a dime for this you know (Score:3, Informative)
doesn't fit the crime (Score:5, Interesting)
I know what the law says, and I know that he broke the law. But consider this: there was no provable financial harm to the producers of the film. No one was hurt. No one was deprived of anything. Yet, this guy is deprived of his freedom for one year and earns a permanent criminal record. This was a classic victimless crime and I would argue that that makes it no crime at all.
To put this in perspective (Why America is DEAD!) (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently, a Social Security employee was robbed and shot. The shooter, recently released from prison after 9 months "time-served" of a 10 year sentence for armed robbery.
So armed robbery, and you can be out in less than a year. Upload an unfinished video of a film and it's a year in prison.
The avg person's well being is meaningless to the Law. But the profits of a stealing mega-corporation, now that the Law is concerned with.
There is a point where the Sheriff is corrupt, and his badge is nothing more than a bully pulpit.
Re: (Score:2)
He should be effin' glad the badge isn't seen as the aiming cross. But we're getting there, give it time.
Bad analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more like having a Ferrari with every kind of shielding stripped so you actually get to see how the valves work and how the transmission shifts.
Personally, I'd almost say that "working copy" is more interesting than the finished movie. But that's the geek in me, I don't like magicians for the same reason: I wanna know how stuff works!
Re: (Score:3)
While he probably meant it in a derogatory manner, I think most of us would happily accept a new Ferrari lacking only a paint job. I know I would. In fact, I'd probably be willing to spend a year in jail if I got to keep it. Can't say the same for X-Men First Class though...
In a plexiglass prison? Or wait a minute, this was (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't till the end fight scene I realized what it was. During the bus fight I kept trying to figure out why Silver Surfer was in the film.
Re:Problem with the analogy.. (Score:5, Interesting)
At least watching the workprint made it fun: "Claws Grow".
Hell yeah! I found the workprint to be far more entertaining than the finished film as well. I watched it at least 3 times and laughed my ass off every single time. Remember the plane crash? "EXPLOSION!!!" The part when Wolverine gets hit by the Big Rig was great, too.
I wish more studios would include workprints and stuff like that on their legitimate DVD/BD releases. The process of making a movie is often times far more fascinating to me than the movie itself.
Re:Problem with the analogy.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Problem with the analogy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least watching the workprint made it fun: "Claws Grow".
Hell yeah! I found the workprint to be far more entertaining than the finished film as well. I watched it at least 3 times and laughed my ass off every single time. Remember the plane crash? "EXPLOSION!!!" The part when Wolverine gets hit by the Big Rig was great, too.
I wish more studios would include workprints and stuff like that on their legitimate DVD/BD releases. The process of making a movie is often times far more fascinating to me than the movie itself.
If you get Sin City - Extended Cut, you get to watch the whole film with green screen, though it's sped up to be 14 minutes or something.
Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Score:5, Interesting)
Jokes aside, it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.
Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Score:5, Informative)
it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.
There are criminal offenses defined under trademark law [wikipedia.org], too.
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually quite a few exceptions to my claim. France and Austria have criminal penalties for wanton patent infringement for example.
But I think my point still stands: out of all the criminal prosecutions for intellectual property infringements, the vast majority of them are copyright infringements.
Re: (Score:3)
(C) infringement mostly perpetrated by individuals (Score:2)
And so don't the similar harsh penalties for what once used to be organized economic crime strike you as disproportionate at least in some copyright cases where it has been reduced to as little as an inadvertent mouse click?
Cf. http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2008/11/cory-doctorow-why-i-copyfight.html [locusmag.com] - and that's by a published author who makes a living selling his works.
Re: (Score:2)
That would stand to reason since copyright infringement is the most common type of IP crime.
Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Score:5, Insightful)
And are policed by the FBI and ICE and Homeland Security ... pretty sweet deal, make the government responsible for policing your profits, and at their expense.
The police (and the government) now officially work for the corporations. It's amazing the laws you can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though lot of exceptions exist, I think my point is still valid. The number of copyright infringement cases in criminal courts dwarfs the number of all other intellectual property violation cases in criminal courts.
Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Score:5, Informative)
His first mistake (after, of course, uploading the movie) was in not demanding a lawyer present for all interrogations
This is a common misunderstanding.
A lawyer is necessary when you've been charged with a crime and you're going in front of a judge.
You don't need one when you're being interrogated (i.e. before you've been charged). All you need to do is BE SILENT. Do not talk to anyone. Don't say anything.
"Did you upload this movie?" silence.
"Is this your computer?" silence
"If you cooperate we'll make it easier on you." silence
If you do have a lawyer during an interrogation, all he will do is tell you to keep silent.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the way it should be. A company can easily behave if those without ethics are removed from the board.
Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank it's not a person, and shouldn't have the rights of one.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what 'rights' (that do not extend from the individual rights of the owners) do you think a corporation has?
Re: (Score:3)
See Citizens United v. FEC [wikipedia.org] for the First Amendment right the Supreme court recently ruled that corporations have.
Re: (Score:3)
>The one who commits a crime is the executive who makes the
> decision, and they certainly can be sent to prison.
I was under the impression that at least part of the basic reason for a corporation was to shield people from liability. To be reasonable, I'm guessing that it was meant as financial, not criminal liability.
But then we get to a thing I call, "blame diffusion," where you spread a bad, even criminal decision around many people. At this point while something truly bad may happen, something th
Re: (Score:2)
That is certainly the theory, but in practice a diffusion of responsibility results also in a diffusion (and eventually lack) of accountability. It becomes possible for a corporation to do illegal or unethical things without the actual decisionmakers in the corporation necessarily being aware that the company is doing anything illegal or unethical. A corporate culture of criminality or at least reckless disregard for the law can develop, and the government is not going to step in and jail hundreds of thousa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Score:5, Funny)
And they all moved away from him over on the Group W bench....
Re: (Score:2)
You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant...(exceptin' Alice)...
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it matters. The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."
I wouldn't call it a Ferrari either. Maybe a Pinto without a paint job.
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:5, Funny)
The movie butchered so many comic book back stories that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."
Tell me about it. Not only this guy, but every distributor of that crap should be jailed for unleashing such an atrocity. I saw it on TV and still felt like demanding my money back.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie was so-so and the effects were HORRIBLE--literally lower than SyFy monster-of-the-week movies. Watching the workprint was the best part. It's interesting to see the behind-the-scenes stuff.
Gene Siskel had a metric for movies: "Is this film more interesting than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?" My variation is, "Is watching this movie more fun than watching the 'making-of' extras on the DVD?"
Re: (Score:3)
Watching the workprint was the best part. It's interesting to see the behind-the-scenes stuff.
My thoughts when I read this story: "Sounds interesting, where do I get a copy?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it matters. The movie butchered so many comic book back stories...
Ha! Good one!
that it was incredibly painful to watch even after "the paint was applied."
I wouldn't call it a Ferrari either. Maybe a Pinto without a paint job.
...wait, were you serious? It seems silly to pretend that the last 15 retcons or complete rewrites were okay, but this one is a step too far! I haven't seen the movie in question and have no reason to believe it's not horrible, but to borrow from James Nicoll, the problem with defending the purity of Marvel back stories is that Marvel back stories about as pure as a cribhouse whore.
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:5, Insightful)
A movie doesn't have to be "pure" (or true) to the comics, it just has to be good. The X-Men movies directed by Bryan Singer were good. After he left, they took a nosedive.
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem with his analogy is that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was more like a Volkswagen Beetle. The "paint job" they added in post-production was all it had going for it.
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry, that was an typo on the editor's part. I clearly remember Hugh Jackman describing it like getting a "Fiero without a paint job."
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, that's an insult to Fieros!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but neither of those are Ferarris. I probably wouldn't liken the film to a Ferarri either, but I digress...
Re:Ferrari without a paint job (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, if you ever get a chance look up close at a Ferrari F40, it has paint, but just barely enough to make it look Ferrari red from a distance.
The paint is thin and nearly translucent as it is opaque, so it adds the least possible weight. You can see the carbon fiber/nomex/kevlar weave right through it; it's also notoriously easy to scuff, and difficult to polish. The paint job wouldn't be close to acceptable on a factory Kia, but people paid for what is basically a street legal thoroughbred race machine, and shaving a few pounds of paint off makes it go faster, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
And inside it's all bare metal and visible welding...carpets are heavy!
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go [weebls-stuff.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, plus the financial damage.