33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater 465
An anonymous reader writes: Philip Danks used a camcorder to record Fast & Furious 6 in a U.K. cinema. Later, he shared it via bittorrent and allegedly sold physical copies. Now, he's been sentenced to 33 months in prison for his actions. "In Court it was claimed that Danks' uploading of Fast 6 resulted in more than 700,000 downloads, costing Universal Pictures and the wider industry millions of pounds in losses." Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities.
The real crime here (Score:5, Funny)
Is bothering to upload a camrip. Just wait for a DVD release or at least a leaked screener copy!
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.
Re:The real crime here (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, it's cheaper and does not encourage prison corporations to side with the copyright lobbies.
Re: (Score:3)
obviously your a shill for the cane industry...
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn! If only he had bankrupt an energy conglomerate, dissolved hundred of millions of dollars in pension funds, and legally embezzled 9 figures into personal accounts! He'd have received no punishment at all!
The fall-out from Enron [economist.com]
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though the criminal justice system had to vacate the convictions because he died before his appeals were exhausted (and he couldn't very well assist in his own defense at this point), "civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate." In other words, you can't imprison the dead man to punish him (or you could, but it wouldn't be a very effective punishment, deterrent, or rehabilitation effort), but his family can be punished by having money and property taken away from them through the civil courts.
Nice try.
At the bottom of the reference I linked to, they mention that there are conspiracy theorists that say that Lay faked his death and he's still alive. Are you one of them? Of all the people who saw his dead body, not a single one of them would come forward to tell his story for the probable six figure payment he'd get? Sure.
When I saw the headline for this article I could guess that it was biased and incorrect, and I was right. The guy got 33 months in prison not for recording a movie in a theater, he got the criminal sentence for distributing copies for sale. The former could have gone unnoticed and would have harmed nobody, had he not continued to distribute even after he was warned about it.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
"civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate." In other words, you can't imprison the dead man to punish him .. but his family can be punished by having money and property taken away from them through the civil courts.
It is not punishing his family. It is restoring them to the status they would have been in if the culprit had not committed his crime. Which is as it should be.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
> Sounds like you're a violent sociopath. Maybe we should cane you if you like that kind of punishment so much.
A good beating administered by the authorities in a controlled and relatively safe environment will likely do FAR MUCH LESS damage than being locked up with animals and sociopaths for 3 years.
You simply don't have any clue. You can't relate do doing any kind of hard time. You probably can't even relate do doing a week or a weekend in the local lockup.
Re: (Score:3)
People like you are the reason we build prisons in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. No objection to that.
I indeed believe in the right to personal vengeance: Victims or families of victims of crimes or offences should be entitled to avenge such acts: The victim of a scam should be entitled to kick the scammer in the balls (or something like that) and the victims or family of rape or murder should be entitled to physically punish or kill the culprit. Why not?
Why is the state the only one with a permission to act as a proxy in these matters?
Re: The real crime here (Score:3)
Fake violence, like two guys punching it out, clearing the air and getting on with no lasting harm and no festering resentment.
As opposed to real violence, involving weapons, maiming and death.
Punch out your neighbor. Maybe you'll end up friends afterwards.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage)
Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case the "victim" was granted a monopoly by us. Big difference between fraud and a monopoly abusing a PRIVILAGE we the people granted it and now they are lobbying all over the world to make international criminal law... oh wait.
This is not a crime and there is no victimization. Nothing is being stolen. The person recording videos just disagrees with what is clearly out of line. It is a civil matter. The worst that can happen in civil matters in the US is one party can force the other into debt or ba
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The real crime here (Score:4, Interesting)
And what benefit does jail time give the public? Jail time for non-violent offenders is the stupidest, most useless thing we could do with these people. There are all sorts of public services that are in dire need of manpower. A shit ton of community service as a punishment is far far far more useful than just incarcerating people. I find it astonishing how primitive and archaic peoples' thinking is when it comes to punishments for crimes. Just like we don't spank kids anymore because it's pointless and counterproductive, we should also stop "spanking" non-violent offenders but put them to good use instead.
Re: (Score:3)
"And what benefit does jail time give the public? "
That the threat of jail prevents many crimes. Point is that the "benefit" is not zero.
GENERALLY, (at least in the US) jail isn't automatic on a first time offense -- or even second or third. The courts bend over backwards trying to give the defendant a chance to change. And if jail wasn't a decent enough threat, why do so many criminals flee from the cops?
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually most crimes are not prevented or thwarted by jail or excess sentencing. The reason is that those committing crimes aren't considering the risk or consequence of their actions. The line of thinking that jailing, violence toward (physical abuse, caning, etc), etc will reduce crime is naive, but it is also the line of thinking most people have grown up with and been taught. Other solutions may not necessarily have a significantly better outcome, but without different approaches being attempted its we're probably not going to see a significant reduction in crime.
What we know has had major impacts in different parts of the world:
1. Advancements in medicine (drugs) have reduced crime (they have almost eliminated the need for insane asylums)
2. Banning certain chemicals from gas (has resulted in significant reductions in violent crime)
3. Reducing the wage disparity between classes (particularly reducing poverty, educational opportunity, and enabling advancement)
4. Focusing on rehabilitation facilities for drug offenders rather than jail
5. Legalization of at least low-impact recreational drugs
Re: (Score:3)
None of this is relevant. You are forgetting that there are victims of crimes, and those victims have a right to justice, and part of justice involves incarcerating people for certain crimes.
Perp A breaks into my house because he is looking for jewelry, which he then pawns for money to fuel his "victimless" meth habit. Incarcerating that person has two effects: It removes him from the street, where he can get access to drugs that harm himself and society, and removes him from the street where he can no lon
Re: (Score:3)
Advancements in medicine (drugs) have reduced crime (they have almost eliminated the need for insane asylums)
Tell that to all the homeless schizophrenics on the street due to deinstitutionalization. [salon.com] We have not eliminated the need for forced institutionalization we have limited it some but mental health is a seriously neglected part of american society. Here's a less sensational article [healthaffairs.org] if you don't like the other one.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why it is unjust. Punishing someone as an example to others is reprehensible.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely community service would create the same deterrence and benefit society more than rewarding him with free room and board and medical care at the taxpayer's expense?
Re: (Score:3)
> If someone created that commercial movie, of course, they're are going to want to sell it. Who else, besides the owner, should have a right to sell movie tickets or DVDs for that movie? Pirates? Consumers? Who's being silly now?
Still you :)
The donut analogy fails because other people can sell donuts that look and taste exactly like the donut shop owner's donuts. This is normal competition and is a good thing. If the donut owner has some patented formula where only he can sell specific types of donuts
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement? That wouldn't be a physically violent act, but would seem to have consequences that merit punishment other than a fine.
Putting him in jail doesn't solve the problem with my parents retirement.
Anything that doesn't refund my parents plus something extra for the trouble would be an injustice.
Whatever, if any, punishment is suitable on top of that is not really my concern. Whatever prevent the financial advisor from doing it again works fine.
If someone can get away with 6 month for assault and battery then I certainly think that anything above that is way excessive for a white collar crime if it has been repaid.
Not my kind of person. (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you feel the same way if a financial advisor intentionally stole all the money your parents had for retirement?
The financial advisor isn't a geek ---
and the geek should never have to serve hard time.
That is the argument as it usually plays out on Slashdot.
Prison sends the message that the white guy with a six or seven figure income will be treated the same as the poor and the black.
It sends the message that intangible property is still property.
Something that the geek --- who spends his entire working life inside a digital universe defined by the value given to endless streams of ones and zeroes --- ought to be applauding,
Re: (Score:3)
It sends the message that intangible property is still property.
Work is still work even if the result isn't property, if somebody wants software to do X which doesn't exist they have to either pay someone to write it or write it themselves. My current job would still exist if copyright disappeared tomorrow. As would any other system built for internal use or one particular client, all the consulting services around making it work and so on. Or that are centered around controlled services like an MMORPG. Yes, COTS software as we know it would basically implode but I'm gu
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's impossible for a government to do anything without at least some real threat of violence behind it. How do you enforce a nonviolent sentence?
Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."
Offender: "No."
Government: "You're a poo-head."
Offender: [sobs pathetically] "Ok, ok, I'll pay! Just please, please don't hurt my feelings again."
Re:The real crime here (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy: By ordering a more compliant entity that has a financial relationship with you to comply on your behalf.
Government: "Pay me a $1000 fine."
Offender: "No."
Government: “Offender’s Bank: Give us $1000 from Offender’s account (by seizing every penny deposited for the next 10 years immediately in priority over EVERY other debit if necessary) plus an extra penalty for non-compliance.”
Offender’s Bank: “Okay, here’s your money, and BTW we’re taking our own fee for enforcing this, and of course we’ll charge them for every overdraft fee that results from draining their account.”
Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now?"
--- Or alternatively if no bank accounts: ---
Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."
Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”
—-
See: Civil compliance and no truncheons necessary. There will almost always be someone with more to lose than you and less desire to stick it to the man. They’ll comply so you don’t have to.
Re:The real crime here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Government: "Offender's employer: We're garnishing offender's wages. Give us the next $1000 you were going to pay offender, even if that means he doesn't see a penny for a paycheck for the next two months."
Offender's Employer: "Okay, here's your money, and BTW thanks for letting us know our employee's a thief. We’ll be looking to replace them ASAP.”
Bender the Offender: Hmm, there's no point in working if they take all my earnings, I think I'll just go on the dole.
Taxes will end up paying for the crime no matter if it is jail or fines.
Re:The real crime here (Score:4)
What if the offender's employer refuses? What if the offender's employer doesn't have a bank account? What if the offender's employer's customers refuse? What if it's turtles all the way down?
Physical confinement is a good deterrent for white collar crime - far better than it is as a deterrent to violent crime, in my opinion, because the type of people who use violence tend to have minds better able to shut off emotions and critical thought as needed, whether than need is for 10 minutes while shooting and robbing someone or 15 years behind bars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
Offender: [sobs pathetically] "How am I going to pay my rent or car payment or buy food now? I guess i'll have to start mugging people."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, financial harm is a real thing. And it can, thanks to how we run our economy, result in physical harm to real people.
That doesn't mean that this case represents real financial harm, or even if it did, that someone might go hungry as a result. But in our world, you need money to survive.
I'm always wary for this quid pro quo notion of justice that you're implicitly backing, because harm can be difficult to both quantify and qualify, and retrobution doesn't achieve nearly as much as we think i
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement for money is a criminal offense, fyi.
Not at Slashdot...
People seem to miss the point that this was a criminal activity for profit.
But of course here, entertainment that cost millions of dollars to create must be free.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. "Bootlegging" has always been a criminal offense. It was even this way before recent lobbying got the relevant bits of the US Code changed.
Back in the day, crackers had really nasty things to say about people that sold pirated works.
Even then, in that context, there was a social convention dictating that selling other people's stuff wasn't cool.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real crime is punishing a non-violent civil offender with violence (i.e. forced into a cage). It only takes a moment of critical thinking to realize that punishing non-violence with violence is a product of injustice, not justice.
no, the real crime here is a misleading title that implies he was given 33 months solely for the act of filming a movie with a camcorder.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not in jail for recording a movie; he's in jail for distributing copies and selling them. Selling copies isn't a civil offense; it's a crime. And did you miss the part where he kept selling and distributing even after his arrest? I have pretty liberal views on file sharing, but this guy was asking for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.
The idea that ANY one would actually PAY for a cam in this day and age is simply beyond belief. You gotta wonder if they are using some creative version of the terms "pay", "commerce" and "commercial use".
The relevant legal definitions may look like nothing we would recognize.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Funny)
Are you 100% certain about that? This is Fast & Furious 6 we're talking about here.
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Funny)
No the real crime is that he encouraged people to watch Fast & Furious 6 .
Re:The real crime here (Score:5, Interesting)
1. He failed to sufficiently anonymize his upload and got caught (I'm unclear if he was caught from his p2p or physical sales though).
2. When he DID get caught, he didn't cease doing something that would land him in jail
3. We can (and have!) debated all day long about the morality of p2p sharing . . . but he went a step further and was monetarily profiting from his acts (albeit via physical media as opposed to p2p sharing). I think it's safe to say most people don't agree with this.
Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity?
Re: (Score:2)
Now is a 33 month prison sentence fair for gross stupidity? /shrug I've heard of worse . . .
Fair? Put fair aside a moment. What will the result of putting him in prison be? Will it improve society in any way? Odds are sharply against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but you have to consider who’s perspective of improving society really matters here. If it scares more people into not eroding the *AA’s business model, then it’s a win for the groups that are *really* buying the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Having said all that, the MAIN problem with this man is stupidity.
If the point is deterrence and something FOR SOCIETY, than I can't see why any more than 6 months is reasonable. Prison is horrible and nobody in their right mind wants to be there -- despite the blather of people who don't expect to go who are "tough on crime".
I want crazy people who are going to kill me and rich people who abuse power in prison -- that's it. If we closed half of them this country would be headed in the right direction.
If th
Seems like they found something (Score:2)
“Also what can they possibly sue me for? I have no job, no savings and no means of paying any compensation regardless of the outcome. Is it simply going to be a waste of everyone’s time?” he concludes.
Re: (Score:3)
The MPAA can sue you, but they cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. That's just civil court though.
Problem with this guy's story is that what he did was illegal too. It was the illegal part that got him the jail time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the “irony quotes” on “accident” were enough to imply GP didn’t intend to suggest DUI is actually an accidental occurrence where nobody is at fault.
That said, agreed that community service or something that actually contributes to society makes a lot more sense than having society pay to house & feed him for (near enough to) three years, followed by pretty much ruining his ability to ever be a contributing (IE job holding & tax paying) member of society.
You like
If he sold phyiscal copies (Score:4, Insightful)
If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?
Re: (Score:2)
Even recouping media costs should be frowned upon. (Score:2, Informative)
Any financial transaction whatsoever technically makes it a commercial venture. Why do you think all the old tape swappers usually had you give them a tape to copy their mixes onto?
As above, I have no sympathy for the guy. Additionally, willfully doing it AFTER getting swatted for it is just asking for trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree he deserves to be punished and I get that he probably doesn't have enough money to pay a fine so it's off to the joint he goes but is 33 months really a fitting punishment here? That's almost three years of this guy's life. And the claim that "millions were lost" has been proven to be exaggerated over and over again. A download does not equal a lost sale; those that download do not buy, they simply go without. I'm not saying that makes it OK, I'm just saying the punishment does not fit the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, still think it's too harsh. But, no, I did not realize the threshold for grand theft was so low. Never really thought about it but if someone had asked me to guess what the threshold was I would have probably started at at least 10,000.
Oh man, this guy is an idiot!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"If he deliberately recorded and actually sold physical or digital copies, I have no sympathy for him. Why would I?"
33 months prison for 'violating' an imaginary right invented by a foreign industry to increase their profits?
What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for, just because the water company invented an unlicensed water drinking offense?
Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (Score:4, Interesting)
What would you say if you got that much prison for drinking out of a puddle after a rain instead of the tap you pay for
I don't think I'd be particularly concerned, assuming:
I'm not saying 33 months isn't an excessive sentence, but you just sound dumb when you make these comparisons.
Re: (Score:3)
He had to watch Fast and Furious 6 in its entirety?
Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should anyone have control over the copying industry? Free market here would be great IMO.
I'm all for the free market but it's not the copying that is the problem. The problem is that it takes thousands of man hours
to produce a movie and all those people want to get paid. If you made copying legal then one of 3 things happen:
1) Noone produces movies anymore
2) They figure out another way of paying for the movie (merchandise tie-ins, product placement, etc..)
3) Metal detectors, etc... at the movie theatre and/or some other way of preventing copying.
Copying is too hard to enforce and we need a better way. I don't think swat teams and prison is the answer but I
don't really like the idea of movies being even more corrupted with advertisement either.
artists can get payed better when not bottlenecked by shitty distributors with monopolies
That might be so but if copying is legal then the indie film producer has the same problem. They can only sell 1 copy.
How do you fairly compensate the people who spend the many man hours producing the movie? The movie industry
isn't perfect by any means and there are plenty of people getting rich who maybe shouldn't but removing all copy
protection would require movies as we currently know them to cease to exist.
Re:If he sold phyiscal copies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
removing all copy protection would require movies as we currently know them to cease to exist
"as we currently know them" is the key phrase here. No one in the current production chain has any right to keep their job at everyone else's expense, any more than blacksmiths and farriers did. Now, would movies, good and bad, still get made if copying was perfectly legal? Yes, although the field would no doubt be very different than what we currently know.
Re: (Score:3)
No. They would not. Not unless you count shitty little hand held movies thrown together by a group of friends as being the best you want. The creation of good movies is simply a very expensive endeavor and even college films cost more than someone not actually in the class underwritten by the college can afford to do it. And *those* are almost exclusively horrid crap.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll admit that Noone's [google.com] work hasn't exactly been Oscar material, but she's pretty hot, and her producing skills might not be bad. I say it's worth a try, at least.
"millions and millions" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet the banksters who cost the public billions and TRILLIONS have yet to spend a single day behind bars.
Re:"millions and millions" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that just makes sense. Sure, they cost the public billions and contributed to a vast economic melt down, but they didn't violate COPYRIGHT! Priorities, people!
Not smart (Score:5, Insightful)
"Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."
In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, its eloquent use of car analogies is one of Slashdot's remaining fine points. =p
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until we mod up for pointing out the proper use of an automobile analogy.
Or even mentioning modding up for pointing out the proper use of an automobile analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US we are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Danks was originally told police weren't going to take any action against him, but he unwisely continued to share the movie files after his initial detainment with authorities."
In other words, the cop had decided to let him go with a warning for speeding, and then, while the cop was walking back to his car, he peeled out and gunned the engine, accelerating as hard as he could.
And ran a few red lights as well.
And stole policeman's helmet.
"Unwisely" (Score:5, Insightful)
Understatement of the year. This is a sad case of a stupid law intersecting with an incredibly stupid person.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems really sad. It's not like these people make a HUGE difference to profits. Only companies can charge for "potential damages" and have to show real damages.
However, if you went blind because of Core Exit in the Gulf, you better keep your doctor's receipts.
We need to have no laws at all (Score:2)
All laws are bad.
Re:We need to have no laws at all (Score:5, Funny)
We need to have no laws at all
Good luck enforcing that!
Re: (Score:2)
All laws are bad.
Especially that one..
The main point (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Real crime (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many people, realistically, are going to watch that fuzzy copy instead of waiting a couple of months for it to come out on Netflix?
There are 6 of them now? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And a cam rip at that. Well, as the guy in the article goes to show, there is no accounting for stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
That number is just what the film distributor's marketing department *claims* they lost.
Personally I think the real number is a magnitude or two lower. Did the first movie even do that many copies?
SOLD them (Score:2, Interesting)
Making a copy for yourself is one thing, but selling them is another. THAT is copyright violation.
I would say he got 33 months for that, not the act of recording it.
Re: (Score:2)
He got 33 months for being STUPID.... But crime usually is.
Where is Paul Harvey when you need him? (Score:2)
Nature of tort reform (Score:5, Interesting)
Crimes and punishments need to be re-evaluated. No truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example), when being the only crime, should never receive stronger sentences than crimes that don't affect persons directly and only lightly, at best, affect corporations (like this theatre-cam incident), and those types of crimes should never receive stronger sentences than for those where a person is individually victimized or significant chattel property is stolen (mugging, home burglary, car theft, etc), then would come violent personal crimes (any crime involving brandishing of a weapon, battery, threats of a greater harm like using the claim of a planted bomb, etc) and crimes where a person's life-savings were taken putting them into severe hardship, etc.
The scale should be steep; it should take numerous, numerous counts of the small crimes to even approach the sentences of the next crime up the scale, and the nature of what becomes a count should accurately reflect what's going on. In the case of providing copyrighted material, the law needs to bear in mind that much of the time the material would not have been purchased by the consumer had it not been available for free anyway, so the actual damage to the content creator is lower than usually represented.
Re:Nature of tort reform (Score:5, Insightful)
>> truly-victimless crime (personally using drugs without any intent to distribute, for example),
Thats a very naive viewpoint. Just by buying the drugs you're funding the entire drug machine so keeping it rolling, including the bits that hurt innocent people.
Re: (Score:3)
Legalizing drugs comes with its own pitfalls, but the militarization of police means that law enforcement and the subsequent criminal justice system is becoming increasingly draconian toward people that aren't causing intentional harm to others. When all
lots of good points, but what about... (Score:2)
Perhaps, he should take the most money he made (legally) on any one day of his life, then counter sue for los
Re: (Score:2)
There there is also the third catagory those people who would have bought the DVD only because of the seeing th
This is Bull Shit (Score:4)
There is no way there were 700,000 people who wanted to watch Fast & Furious 6.
Easy Lesson Here: Don't Piss Off The Judge (Score:5, Informative)
Ars Technica has more on the story, and links to actual news sites covering the mess [arstechnica.com]. And as many insightful Slashdot commentators have surmised, there's more to the story than a lousy cam-rip of a lousy movie.
Copyright silliness may have led to him being caught, but Danks got his 33 months all by himself.
Danks was arrested only six days after he'd uploaded the video, and two days later he wrote on Facebook, "Seven billion people and I was the first. F*** you Universal Pictures."
Danks had also sold DVD copies of the movie for £1.50 each. He said his total profit from the scheme was about £1,000.
To who? Who buys these things? Why would anyone spend money and time to suffer through a cam-rip?
how much of this was earned after he was arrested?
The prosecuting and defending attorneys both seemed to agree that Danks' motive for the piracy of Fast and Furious 6 was “Street Cred.” His defense attorney told the court, "He has no substantial assets of any sort, and his financial gain has been extremely limited, but he was obviously aware that it was a popular film that would be of interest."
The judge was particularly harsh on Danks because of his cavalier attitude."This was bold, arrogant, and cocksure offending,” he said to Danks, as Sky News reports.
Re: (Score:2)
instead of time in prison, he should be forced to watch the shitty movie continuously for 33 months
...in his own crappy cam-rip format.
Re: (Score:3)
Our Constitution's Bill of Rights has a provision against cruel and unusual punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to divide sentence by number of crimes, then shouldn't you divide his 33 months by [number of physical sales x scaling factor for profiting + number of downloaded copies]? If the 700k downloads number isn't totally made up by the studio (I'm making no judgement here) and ignoring the physical sales entirely, then he was actually sentenced to less than 2 minutes per infringement. That makes murder about 69 thousand times worse than contributing to copyright infringement.