Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail

from the punishment-=-crime? dept

The ridiculous over-punishment of those caught infringing continues. Earlier this week, Judge Margaret Morrow sentenced Gilberto Sanchez to one year in jail for daring to upload the "workprint" copy of the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Morrow called his crime "very serious." We're still trying to figure out what the evidence is that his crime was serious. As we've discussed, the actual evidence suggests that the leak probably helped the movie at the box office rather than the other way around. Despite dreadful reviews, the movie massively outperformed a number of very similar movies with very similar target audiences (but much better reviews!). The fact that Sanchez uploaded a "workprint" version -- which left out many of the special effects makes it even more ridiculous. That's not going to be an adequate replacement, and many people who saw it would probably be intrigued to see the full film to see how they turn the workprint into the final version.

I still think that Fox missed a huge opportunity in its idiotic response to this leak. It could have acted cool about it, and said something like:
Hey Wolverine fans! We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month. We're excited too! By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online. It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some amazing special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all. We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!). If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version. If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there. If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie. It's just a month away!
Instead, it called in the FBI, who took time and resources away from things like fighting terrorism, to put this guy in jail for uploading a version of the film that wouldn't be a very good substitute, and which appears to have no negative impact on the box office whatsoever.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:31am

    LOL

    I watched that workprint. Then I watched it in the theaters. Then I bought the DVD for $5 (legit).

    Yes, they totally lost sales from me because I watched the leak.

    I should stop consuming anything from the MAFIAA to justify their idiocy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:38am

      Re: LOL

      Which reminds me that I'm a filthy pirate and ppl like me and their crimes cost the world economy gazillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:40am

      Re: LOL

      The fact you watched the movie in theatre and bought the DVD doesn't matter to them. What matters to them is trying to control the distribution of the movie, whether finished or unfinished. This guy distributed the (unfinished) movie without their permission, which is anathema and heresy to them. Don't bother seeing if it helped the box office. Don't bother seeing if there's a silver lining. What matters is they lost control.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DannyB (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:46am

        Re: Re: LOL

        Control is necessary in order to maintain monopoly rents.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:14am

        Re: Re: LOL

        What matters is that those people have no balls to go after the pirates, they saw what it happened to the music industry and are trying to make others do what is their obligation if they really believe in "their rights", go and prosecute every filth pirate under the sun and see how much that will cost THEM.

        No instead they want others to take the PR hit, they want others to be responsible for their business, they want others to care when they don't care about anybody.

        Oh this makes my blood boil.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:22am

      Re: LOL

      I will never buy a MAFIAA procudt and if I do it is always a used physical product from a local used DVD Store or if not there then on ebay or Amazon.
      They do not get a dime out of me.

      Guess what this guys got the kind of sentence I go in 1988.
      Busted: Selling an 1/8 ounce of Cocaine by the DEA
      Sentence was:
      18 months in Lewisburg Penitentiary
      $3600 Fine
      6 years of "supervised release".

      This man gets a year plus whatever else they threw at him for a completely non-violent and non-drug act.Real nice of the studios to give this guy the hammer.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:41am

    Yeah, copyright infringement is a very serious crime and the pirates should be incarcerated because they are a threat to themselves and others ... meanwhile back at the ranch, felonies perpetrated by big wigs get a head nod and wink.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    David Muir (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:41am

    Reddit Community Reaction

    So the consensus seems to be that the punishment is "not that bad" for someone who physically stole something (apparently the workprint was physically lifted -- although I think it was a digital copy and didn't deprive anyone of using the original) and had been caught doing the same thing before.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/njfhf/man_gets_a_year_in_jail_for_uploading_wolveri ne/

    It is frightening to me to think that a man could sit in a federal prison for a year because someone in a corporation believes that there was harm done (or that a court ASSUMES there was harm done)... yet no harm can possibly be proven in this case. No lost sales can be demonstrated; in fact the opposite is true as Mike points out.

    The "cost" of the actual thing he stole (let's say it was a USB stick or a DVD)... what would that be? $4.95? Maybe he should still be punished... but not like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MAJikMARCer (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:44am

    I couldnt help but picture Fox as Gollum yelling, "It's MINE!! MY PRECIOUS!! AHHHHHHH!!!" I'm sure there is a clip out there of that, but I don't want to be aiding and abetting criminal infringers (/s) so you'll just have to use your imagination. While that's still legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:47am

    should have got longer for release that rubbish ealier on the poor unsuspecting world. Zing

    This is terrible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:51am

    You know what, I wish every download DID cause these people to lose actual money.

    I could put them out of business in a week and we would all be the better for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:51am

    when are people going to get it into their thick heads? there is nothing more important than 'copyright infringement and file sharing'. if planes are blown up, buildings blown up, cities devastated or total collapse of the economy through dubious practices of a few wealthy, self interested ass holes, these events are of secondary concern! how many have been imprisoned for causing these events, that affected hundreds of thousands of people, in relation to those sharing a film? what a comparison!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nastybutler, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:25am

      Re:

      This was what I was thinking too. If I was in Mr. Sanchez's shoes, after I was sentenced by this bafoon of a judge, I'd ask to make a statement to the court. My statement would be something along the lines of, "So I'm to spend a year in prison for releasing an unfinished copy of a movie, yet non of the bankers or regulators responsible for what is essentially the defrauding of the American economy have, or will, see the inside of a cell. I guess Justice really is blind, because she can't tell who deserves prison and who doesn't. I hope you sleep well Judge Morrow knowing a "threat" such as myself is behind bars and unable to provide free marketing for your corporate overlords." Or something to that effect. I'm sure I'd come up with a doosy of a statement if I had the time he does to think about it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 5:51am

    The only positive I see in this is that they at least apparently went after the right person. Nobody can download without an upload first.

    Not sure why he has to go to jail though. Can't he just be fined and put it through his house insurance?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:05am

    Had he burned it to discs and been selling it on the street, totally deserved to get busted and fines jail etc...

    I think the problem is one we have seen over and over, no one "in charge" of the laws wants to take the time to see the difference in commercial vs noncommercial. They accept the envelope of cash on top of the flawed study and prewritten bill and run with it.

    This case should be a wakeup call to studios, that you can spin these sorts of things to your benefit. But at the same time I fear their fake attempts to have an advertising firm create a campaign to make this happen for them under super controlled conditions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:29am

      Re:

      "I think the problem is one we have seen over and over, no one "in charge" of the laws wants to take the time to see the difference in commercial vs noncommercial. They accept the envelope of cash on top of the flawed study and prewritten bill and run with it."

      Commercial or non-commercial is a somewhat stupid distinction. Putting the video online, he is likely responsible for millions of copies made. That has to be at least as big a deal as burning a few hundred copies and selling them on the street.

      The lack of direct payment for P2P doesn't mean he didn't get indirect benefit, social boosting, whatever.

      The results are the same - and no, it's not a "envelope of cash" that is changing things, it's common sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re:

        The problem I have with this ruling and the law and especially your interpretation of the law is as follows:

        1) No harm could be proven to have been done to Fox. The movie made loads of money both in theater and DVD sales. They made a profit. They could not prove that harm was done to him.

        2) While he may have received some benefit, whether that be financial or social, was that benefit made by causing harm to another person or business? Not that can be proven.

        3) if the only benefit he gained was social and no harm was done to Fox, why is he being punished? Is it now a crime to raise yourself socially?

        While I can understand copyright law as it currently stands, there are too many scenarios and too many variables to really make this a black and white area. That is what this court did.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          1) Prove that it wouldn't have made more money. Since it is not the all time best selling movie ever, clearly there is market they did not get. Would they have sold more without the leak? Possibly.

          2) The harm is caused, like it or not. If a single person saw the torrent and never saw the movie as a result, then some harm was caused.

          3) The crime was committed, and benefit obtained. You don't need to go any further.

          Basically, your defences for him would require that every human on the planet be brought to a court of law and questioned, attempting to show actual harm. It is not going to happen. Dude was handling and distributing stolen material, plain and simple. We don't have to have a national brain scan to figure out that he broke the law.

          Why are you defending a pirate so much?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Assessing actual damages is a central element of many, many areas of civil litigation... Please don't act like it's insane for people to question that aspect.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Infringing material not stolen... don't blame us for the terminology, if you are happy that the law can send a man to prison for a year you can be happy that the legal term is "infringed" and not "stolen".

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              ACtually, in this case, the material was specifically stolen, lifted off of a computer inside a private company. We aren't talk about knocking off copies of existing DVDs... this was something stolen off of someone's computer.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Fushta (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:03am

                Re:

                So, let see if I have this. When he took the file from the other computer he erased the original file. Is that correct? I guess that would be stealing, since the studio wouldn't have the original anymore.

                Or maybe, he copies the file, and left the original still on that computer. How is that stealing again? Definition fail on your part.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            1) Fox is the one suing pressing charges. It should be up to them to prove actual harm committed. Don't like it, get the law changed. Oh right you are trying with SOPA.

            2) See #1.

            3) Why is it a crime to not hurt someone else? Sure he uploaded a video. People watched the video and the film still made a profit. Was his intent malicious? Not that was ever proven.

            My defenses of him are not to make the process of prosecuting real crime more difficult or impossible. It is to show that not everything is as cut and dry as you wish it to be.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            SabreCat, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I had a coughing fit last night.

            Fox did not make ALL OF THE MONEY.

            Therefore my coughing harmed them irreparably. Prove it didn't.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            1) Yep, can you plot a line?
            http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=comicbookadaptation.htm
            Wolverine is in 17 place of the all time earnings for comic book adaptations, I say that is pretty obvious that no harm has come from piracy, one even may wonder if it didn't help it, because if that is a flop I think many people would like to fail like that, it opened to the tune of $85 million dollars, how many other movies made that much? Only four apparently, from which 3 of them are in the same general ballpark of $150-160 million dollars.

            It beat AVATAR that opened to $77 million dollars the all time gross maker to this day and you are saying it was harmed?

            If anything else the pre release made people curious and wanting to see the "finished" movie to see if it was any different, that may explain the super weekend record ticket sales and subsequent sharp decline, apparently good movies lose less than half the tickets sales of the opening and when they are bad they go down to one quarter the sales is all there in the numbers, people where expecting it, very few movies of its kind made more money in its opening and somehow there is loss?
            Plot the graph if anything, more than likely the leaking of the pre-release movie acted as an stimulant, because it got people curious about it, how would you explain the sudden decline from one week to the other to $28 million from the $85 million?

            Wolverine is probably one of the few that show a positive side to piracy, because by the numbers the most probable cause of that huge opening intake was due to the piracy marketing, which faded away once people realized it was not that good even after the especial effects where added.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Fushta (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Firstly, no one is defending the "pirate" (arrrr, matey), we are just questioning whether or not the punishment fit the crime. A year in federal prison in a case where malicious intent was not proven and where actual harm was not proven seems excessive. He broke the law, and while many of us may not agree with the law, we understand that there are consequences. The majority of us do not think these consequences were appropriate.

            To address your points:

            1. It is Fox's responsibility to show that harm was done. If they cannot show harm than how can punishment be determined? It is highly unlikely that Fox would have sold more without the leak as the movie did quite better than expected considering the comparison to similar movies with more favorable reviews that did not do nearly as well. If the leak did not help the movie (which also cannot be proven although the numbers suggest it did) then it is a statistical anomaly in comparison.

            2. I don't follow your logic. As has been pointed out numerous times, just because he watched the movie via download does not mean that the viewer would have ever paid to watch the movie whther it be in the theaters, a rental/stream, or purchase the dvd. Again no harm can be shown and there is nothing presented by the prosecution to indicate that there was even one lost sale. And again, the statistical evidence (although possibly anecdotal) would indicate that the movie did better than it should have.

            3. While yes there was a crime committed, it does not follow that there was a benefit obtained. Nothing in the court filings indicate that the defendant received any financial benefit. Social benefit is irrelevant and impossible to measure, but again nothing was presented to show any evidence of this either.

            Following the benefit argument, I would argue that the public trial may have given the defendant more of a social benefit than the pre-release ever could have. Now his name is attached it the release and people know who is, many people are outraged at the severity of the punishment, and Fox has essentially made a martyr out of him rather than provide a deterrent example. As usual, it seems the industry has once again lowered their standing in the public eye and lost even more of the already exponentially small amount of respect they have.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Joe Dirt, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            prove any one of your assertions above.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            1) Prove that it wouldn't have made more money. Since it is not the all time best selling movie ever, clearly there is market they did not get. Would they have sold more without the leak? Possibly.

            If you bothered to read the actual links in the story (too difficult for you, I know), you would know that one of them does a nifty comparison to a number of very similar movies to Wolverine. That is, sequels in similar genres/budgets/target audiences... all of whom got much better reviews... and all of whom performed significantly worse than Wolverine. I think there's plenty of evidence that this movie did well beyond expectations, and significantly beyond what comparable movies did.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:10am

        Re: Re:

        "The lack of direct payment for P2P doesn't mean he didn't get indirect benefit, social boosting, whatever. "

        So someone giving you an 'atta boy' is worth how much in imaginary dollars? We might have figured out how losses are being computed by the industry now.

        And nope its an envelope of cash, a small pile of cash, to get a TX representative to propose breaking the internet for groups based on either coast and NOT in TX.

        You should check the memo before selecting a target... Rule 34 - Phear the guy in the Fawkes Mask.

        0/10

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          hothmonster, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          uuuummm that is not rule 34. Also thanks for making me think of Fawkes mask rule 34, creepy, thankfully it also made me think of Natalie Portman.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:28am

        Re: Re:

        The lack of direct payment for P2P doesn't mean he didn't get indirect benefit, social boosting, whatever.

        So the MPAA just wants their +1,000 internets back?!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:08am

    Well, when Sanchez gets out

    the studios may have bigger problems than they thought. It would be really, really cool if he came back and went postal on them. It would be even cooler if someone filmed it, and put it up on YouTube.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:10am

    Instead, it called in the FBI, who took time and resources away from things like fighting terrorism...

    But Mike, this guy was a terrorist! (essentially)
    /hyperbole

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:52am

      Re:

      With how often the FBI has pushed people to almost commit terrorist acts in the past couple years. I think this is a set up by them to further the agenda of world domination.

      /howAmIDoingPretendingToBeDarryl

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:39am

    Since none of you seem to know how he managed to get put away for a year, this entire discussion is still conjecture.

    People who know how this copy was leaked understand that what this man did was actually quite wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:53am

      Re:

      Please enlighten us oh wise owl... according to most news sources he "purchased the workprint release from a street vendor". Did he actually break into a house, rape, mutilate and then murder the children/spouse/owner before making off with his ill-gotten disc?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Squid Lips, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:17pm

      Re:

      "People who know how this copy was leaked understand that what this man did was actually quite wrong."

      I would agree if it was something isolated to a few individuals and not millions. If millions are doing it the law is unenforcable. If it is unenforcable, than it is not a law at all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:41am

    This kind of action/sentence is meant to instill fear in others doing the same thing - instead I have less respect for FOX and the media companies. Disgusting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:41am

    Helping Fox earn more money is a crime punishable by jail time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:45am

    Should I mention the term "piracy apologist" now? Come on Mike, he illegally obtained the copy off of private computers, and spewed it all over the world. Why would you want to give him a pat on the head for it?

    More importantly, why would the movie company want to publicly come out and say "hey, it's okay to pirate our stuff, we are fine with it. In fact, just for you, we will stop locking the doors at our mastering facilities, and you guys can all come in after 10PM and make all the copies you like"?

    Your fake press release is just sucking up to the pirates and making it sound all okay and wonderful. It's a crime, and the guy has been treated like a criminal. Deal with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:54am

      Re:

      Yep. This is just another stupid piracy apologist post from the King of Piracy Apology himself. Good grief, Mike. You couldn't be more transparent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:57am

        Re: Re:

        Yep. This is just another stupid MPAA apologist post from the King of MPAA Apology himself. Good grief, AJ. You couldn't be more transparent.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Tell me this. Would you agree that this post of Mike's is an example of piracy apology? Mike pretends like he can't understand how anyone could possibly think he's a piracy apologist. I think posts like this make it perfectly clear that he is. Let me know if you agree, and if you don't, I'd love to hear why. Thanks.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What about questioning the severity of the crime and the sentence makes this an apology or a defense of piracy?

            When I hear stories about people getting life in prison for shoplifting some groceries on their third strike, I think "that is seriously unjust and something about that legal framework is broken" - that doesn't make me a shoplifting apologist.

            Lots of people oppose capital punishment - are they all murder apologists? Lots of people oppose torture and extraordinary rendition - are they all terrorism apologists? Lots of people oppose red light cameras - are they all poor driving apologists? Lots people oppose corporal punishment by parents and schools - are they all undisciplined-children apologists?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Couldn't have said it better myself.

              Personally, I don't think any form of sharing an infinitely copyable pattern of bits should be a crime. But if it is, then the punishment must fit the crime. Jail time, or civil penalties of millions of dollars, or denying someone their freedom of speech are nowhere near the realm of reasonable. The "victims" must be able to provethat significant harm was done. This is like jail time for a first time offender parking ticket.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:57am

        Re: Re:

        Yep. This is just another stupid MPAA apologist post from the King of MPAA Apology himself. Good grief, AJ. You couldn't be more transparent.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:02am

        Re: Re:

        Spoken by a third rate law student who likely never get through the bar exam.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:11am

        Re: Re:

        Should I kill you, then, to prevent harm to the general public? Stop being such a shiny little pre-lawyer and have the stones to admit that maybe the sentence is a little excessive.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think this post is just MORE proof that Mike is a piracy apologist. Mike claims that he's not. What do you think? Do you believe him?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Proof or conjecture?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Proof or conjecture?

              It's evidence. While perhaps not by itself dispositive, it's certainly probative and material--it tends to make the fact that Mike is a piracy apologist more probable than it would be without this evidence. It's certainly enough to hand the question over to the jury. I mean, what would a piracy apologist say about this situation that Mike didn't say already? There's not much left. Mike is thorough in his apologies.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                AJ (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "The ridiculous over-punishment"


                After reading the first four words, I have decided that Mike is not apologizing for any piracy. He appears to be saying that the perp was "over-punished". Notice he said "over". That would suggest that Mike thinks he should be punished, but that his punishment should be somewhat less. This does not fit the "pirate apologist" shill attack criteria. Please proceed to direct insulting and personal attacks... that is all.....

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            JMT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:33pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Would you agree that this post of Mike's is an example of piracy apology?"

            A summary of Mike's post:

            The punishment doesn't fit the crime (he didn't say he shouldn't be punished).

            The judge called the crime "very serious", but it isn't.

            There was no provable harm done to the movie's ability to make money. (IMO it made far more than it deserved.)

            Fox could've taken the opportunity to make itself look good to fans, which has provable benefits to a company.

            Fox's actions instead make them look bad to fans, which has provable harm to a company.

            The FBI has far more serious crimes to investigate.

            I'm struggling to see how any of these points can be described as piracy apology, and even if you do, the issues raised are far more important than your incessantly repeated accusation. No actually cares what you think of Mike, stick to arguing the issues instead. We'll still disagree with you, but you'll look like less of an asshole.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:09am

        Re: Re:

        So obviously "piracy apologist" is the shill term of the day. All I need is a "destroying jobs" and I've got a bingo this week.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:01am

      Re:

      You seem to know more than us dear boy, most news sources report that he bought it off a street vendor.

      Now this 49 year old glass installer is some sort of super hacker able to hack into Fox's network and download unfinished movies!

      Please, please cough up mate, we want to read the REAL story, and you appear to have it.... oh include links.... me likes to read.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:47am

    Should I mention the term "piracy apologist" now? Come on Mike, he illegally obtained the copy off of private computers, and spewed it all over the world. Why would you want to give him a pat on the head for it?

    More importantly, why would the movie company want to publicly come out and say "hey, it's okay to pirate our stuff, we are fine with it. In fact, just for you, we will stop locking the doors at our mastering facilities, and you guys can all come in after 10PM and make all the copies you like"?

    Your fake press release is just sucking up to the pirates and making it sound all okay and wonderful. It's a crime, and the guy has been treated like a criminal. Deal with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Ketterer, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:48am

    Copywrite Boondoggle

    So, 20th Century Fox are jerks. I'll just stop going to their movies forever. Thanks for the info.
    I wish there was a jerk list so I'd know who to boycott. I've stopped buying all copy-written music because most of them are jerks too.
    I wish Google would half the rank of all copy-written content, so the fair minded content creators would float to the top.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:56am

      Re: Copywrite Boondoggle

      "I wish there was a jerk list so I'd know who to boycott. "

      Forbes Fortune 500 List

      Hope that helps ...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:48am

      Re: Copywrite Boondoggle

      Join the "ARMY OF RIGHT" and declare WAR on the MAFIAA.There are millions of us out here who will not ever give a dime to the MAFIAA and will only purchase a udsed physical product.
      Do that and they never get a dime from you and you still get to watch something.
      or just read good books and listen to the radio,etc.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Brandon, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 4:13pm

      Re: Copywrite Boondoggle

      You might as well just start hording all your money now then. They are all jerks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:54am

    Compare and contrast

    Upload an unfinished, sucky movie: year in jail

    Steal $1.2 billion dollars (see: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-jon-corzine-mf-global-and-unaccountability ): nothing. Oh, maybe a token fine or something, but that's about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:27am

      Re: Compare and contrast

      Sorry, Rich, but they are unable to show that corzine specifically stole anything, at least not yet. There is an issue, they are having hearings, they are trying to figure it out. You might be able to assign guilt without knowing, but the courts have a slightly higher standard.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Rich Kulawic, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:19am

        Re: Re: Compare and contrast

        Oh, I'm aware the courts have a higher standard: they should, they're courts of law, with all the weight of the authority they hold. But I'm not a court of law, and neither are you; do you really put any credence in this statement by Corzine:

        "I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date."

        If you do, I have this terrific bridge made entirely out of unicorn bones that I'd like to talk to you about...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: Compare and contrast

        It's funny you'd mention that because Fox wasn't able to show that any harm was caused by the leak or that there was any criminal intent in the movie's release yet they scored a year in jail for the defendant. The higher standard you refer to offered by the court only applies to those who can afford the membership fees.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:54am

    In Amerikkka, the government considers possessing and looking at certain pictures in the privacy of one's own home a "very serious crime" too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:30am

      Re:

      So you're advocating legalizing child pornography? Sounds that way to me, since that's the only crime that fits your description. I don't know of any other pictures it is illegal to possess.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:02am

    Just get out while you still can. There's no hope of saving the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:12am

    Sounds about right to me

    A lady near here killed a construction worker while drinking and driving and got a year and a half in jail. That construction worker is dead. His wife and maybe kids no longer have a husband and a father.

    This guy pirated a movie before it was released to theaters. That movie, if I am not mistaken, went on to do very well at the box office. So no harm was done, physical or otherwise. So a year in jail sounds about right.

    Wait, what?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:20am

    by the masnick logic, no profit, no benefit, no harm, no foul.....

    the guy "only tried" to rape the woman, he didn't ACTUALLY do it, so no charges at all, better luck next time, laugh it off

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      Apples and oranges anyone?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      oooh advanced trolling 2.0

      equating to completely unrelated "crimes" to create the illusion one is like the other.
      illicit an emotional visceral response and leave the target no way to call you out without you being able to play a card making him look unsympathetic or uncaring about women being raped.

      3/10

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:22am

      Re:

      it isn't apples and oranges, or completely unrelated, way to miss the point

      I explain for the slow people, if you take the logic set used to dismiss something that happened, committing the crime that he went to jail for, which you pirate/freetard types are dismissing since he didn't profit, didn't hurt anyone, its not a big deal

      and apply the logic set to another crime, if it doesn't hold up, generally the logic set is flawed, it isn't the crimes being compared, but the logic used to reach your conclusion, but you don't see that, because it doesn't support your twisted view, it doesn't support your entitlement view of free downloads no matter what

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:33am

        Re: Re:

        Yeah but see, there's no Fair Rape defense. There's no Pubic Domain. You don't have to register your bits to sue someone for statutory rape damages. Rape is not potentially covered by the First Amendment.

        I'm not saying any of those things necessarily apply in this particular case - but the point is that copyright infringement is a hell of a lot more nebulous, with a hell of a lot more variables and exceptions, than rape. So yeah: apples and oranges.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:39pm

        Re: Re:

        The analogy was definitely a fail, but the defense of the analogy reaches failure of epic proportions.

        I explain for the slow people, if you take the logic set used to dismiss something that happened, committing the crime that he went to jail for, which you pirate/freetard types are dismissing since he didn't profit, didn't hurt anyone, its not a big deal

        I believe you may have misread the article and the majority of the comments. No one has dismissed the crime. What many people have said (including the post author) is that the punishment is disproportionate. A year in jail simply does not fit a crime where no harm can be shown.

        Your "logic set" analysis does not hold up to scrutiny. To say your analysis of crime A, when applied to crime B means that you condone crime B because you disagree with the sentencing result of crime A is completely preposterous.

        Rape is a particularly poor example because attempted rape is a crime as much as the actual act. Certain crimes have to be carried out in order to be considered criminal activity. You can not be convicted of attempted speeding or attempted tax evasion. Just thinking about or wanting to do some things is not a crime. Other crimes may be criminal once you have taken action towards the end goal of the criminal activity but failed to reach the desired end.

        The main point most of the commentators here have made is that he did not profit from his crime, and to address your point, nor did he attempt to profit from it. There was no conspiracy to defraud Fox, there was no breaking and entering, and there was no intent to do anything other than share something he came to posses with the rest of the internet. He had the movie, posted it up online, and called it a day. This is not something that warrants a year in federal prison.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:25am

      Re:

      I think you misread the propaganda posters. It's "Home TAPING Is Killing Music"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:21am

    Besides being blatant piracy apologism, this article is intellectually dishonest: you have no proof the leak wasn't harmful in at least some way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:25am

      Re:

      yes there was harm to society...
      it kept you spamming this website :)

      1/10

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:28am

      Re:

      And the proof that the leak was harmful can be found where exactly?

      The workprint was watchable but it was missing nearly all the special effects.... I went to the pictures to watch it after I'd seen the workprint.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:54am

        Re: Re:

        As did I...a true disgrace it was to its relatively strong X-Men movie predecessors. (I am speaking of the actual film)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I haven't seen either, so I'm in violation of the 2012 All Consumers Must Pay All Their Money To MAFIAA act and, by their accounting, I've cost them billions.

          Fortunately it hasn't been passed yet, so I'm OK until it does. Of course, since it's retroactive until the beginning of time, by this time next year I'm screwed.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oops! Turns out I'm OK after all. I was thinking this was a different movie; I actually HAVE seen this movie, in the theater (and I didn't kill 20 people to get in for free, either) with my daughter (who is a bit obsessed with the X-Men), and I don't have nor have I seen any other copies, period.

            Of course I can't PROVE that I don't have any other copies, so I'm still guilty. Damn!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      average_joe (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:40am

      Re:

      Besides being blatant piracy apologism, this article is intellectually dishonest: you have no proof the leak wasn't harmful in at least some way.

      Welcome to Techdirt! All bias now served with a side of prejudice--FREE!

      You nailed it, though. The assumption is that piracy can only help. Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights. Apparently it's supposed to be OK for people to deliberately take criminal actions so long as some nontrivial argument exists that the criminal was in fact helping the victim. Techdirt Logic 101.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:54am

        Re: Re:

        But still no proof of any actual harm being done.... Any data for us Mr average_joe?

        Copyright has ceased to be useful, gradually the populace are waking up to that fact and eventually changes will be made.

        Given that Congress and the Senate can no longer be trusted to work for the people I'd imagine there may well be bloodshed some time in the future. The same can be said of most of the Western political systems, the one here in the UK is just as bad.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, you have to consider that average_joe is just that - average. Given the average IQ in this country today, I think his choice of nickname is at least intellectually honest, if nothing else. Therefore, consider all his posts in that context. I would certainly not want to be defined as average these days, as its proximity on the Bell Curve to "cognitively impaired" is now much closer than before.

          Generally, I consider the opinions of average people to be no more than annoying background noise, to be filtered out. Average people are responsible for the current crop of elected officials, as well as the new contenders. Average people shop at Walmart and buy cheap, crappy goods manufactured overseas, and when they fail, buy them again. No lesson is ever learned.

          This is why the average Joe will be the ruination of the country. Sheer force of numbers. See the movie "Idiocracy" for a preview of the future. It may have been written as a dystopian comedy, but now appears to be a legitimate prophecy, and we are well along in the process. I'm actually glad I am old and ill enough to know that I won't live to see it. I do fear for my descendants, though, but the process is too far along to stop now.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:53am

        Re: Re:

        Mr. Joe - take the corporate cock out of your mouth and grow a pair of your own balls!

        Show us ANY SHRED OF FUCKING PROOF that the leak hurt sales of tickets and/or downstream revenues/profits for this film.

        Do it or shut the fuck up!

        Fucking corporate apologist.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          KelvinZevallos (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think that's not going to be possible. Any kind of damage assessment under the "IP infrignment" might be interpreted as proyected sales on a project analysis.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:01pm

        Re: Re:

        "The assumption is that piracy can only help."

        Straw man. Troll harder.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        JMT (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:45pm

        Re: Re:

        "All bias now served with a side of prejudice--FREE!"

        Why do you make such a big deal about Techdirt being biased? Of course it is, it's an opinion blog. Your bias is just as strongly displayed, except your constant harping about bias adds a dollop of hypocrisy on top.

        "The assumption is that piracy can only help."

        That's BS. There are no assumptions; instead there are references to numerous non-industry studies that show the losses from infringement are far lower than claimed, and to numerous non-industry studies that show there are indirect gains resulting from infringement. If you interpret that as "piracy can only help" then your comprehension skills are lacking.

        "Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights."

        You say that as if all rights are equal. Copyright is not an inalienable human right, or a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a government-granted privilege that should only be upheld if the net benefit is to society, as was originally intended. The government is supposed to pass laws that reflect the will of the people, and it's become quite obvious that the general public has a very low opinion of these rights. So your moral outrage is noted, but dismissed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:45am

      Re:

      I would like to echo Planespotter,

      Where is the proof that actual harm was committed. Fox can't provide it. The prosecution couldn't provide it. So with this lack of any proof of harm, why is this guy being locked up for a year?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:20am

        Re: Re:

        Zach, what are the sales of Wolverine?

        What are the sales of Avatar?

        Why didn't Wolverine sell like Avatar?

        Clearly, Wolverine lost potential somewhere. :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Fail! I'll post a few of my reasons to why Wolverine didn't make as much as Avatar below:

          1. It was a crap film that wasn't as good as the other X-Men movies.
          2. It wasn't in 3D.
          3. Two completely different movies in style/content/Genre. Apples and Oranges again, both fruit but both completely different.

          It could be argued that the workprint actaully made Wolverine more successful that it would have been had hte workprint not leaked.

          I watched the workprint, I was so interested in how they were going to fill the "missing CGI gaps" that I went to see it as the cinema, when I was planning on renting the DVD when it was released.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 8:49am

      Re:

      "this article is intellectually dishonest: you have no proof the leak wasn't harmful in at least some way."

      Okay, to that effect, you're being intellectually dishonest. You have no proof the leak WAS harmful in at least some way.

      See how easy it is to change one word and use the same stupidity on you? You have no proof, thus, you're being intellectually dishonest and a blatant studio apologist. For shame!

      You know, I think I like this. My new thing for the trolls is going to be "you don't have proof, so ha!". I'm not going to provide any to disprove them, just say they have none to prove what they say and end the convo by insulting them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:56pm

      Re:

      Therefore any amount of punishment is justified.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:23am

    What happened to you FOX? You used to be cool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    AndyD273 (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 7:31am

    While I do think that there are people who deserve this a lot more, and that the punishment didn't really fit the crime, and I would even go so far as to say that the punishment itself was probably useless since a single year is probably not that big of a deterrent.

    However, this guy knew the possible consequences. He had been caught before and didn't learn his lesson.

    If I was a movie studio exec, I probably would have done the same thing. "Hey, what you did probably helped us in the long run, but that doesn't change the fact that you did it again after we warned you last time, and we don't want just anyone to think that they can do this."

    Also, if I were in charge, I would probably find ways to experiment with this effect. I don't think you can do a double blind experiment with movies, since it's hard to qualify exactly what makes one movie succeed and another bomb, but I'd try to figure out something.

    Maybe take a mid level movie, do only minor advertising, and release a real low quality version to see if it could work as super cheap advertising.

    The internet is like a hammer. It can be a weapon or a tool, and it all depends on how you use it. They should be brainstorming ways to make it work for them, instead of trying to push it back.

    Something kind of internet judo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    KurtOlsson, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:13am

    What is actually the real crime here?

    Overall I really like what you're doing on this site, pointing out the ridiculousness of things like SOPA. In this particular case I also agree that it seems a bit harsh to be sent to jail (and perhaps become neighbor with lethally dangerous psychos) for such an offense. And reacting with a press release like you suggested instead of a lawsuit in this case would probably be a lot smarter way to for the entertainment industry to tackle thing like this.

    That said, I do think that the "the movie did well anyway so no harm no foul" approach is perhaps a little counterproductive. Because pointing at any direct causality between the two is, no matter which way you look at it, by no means a simple affair.

    If it is proven that he took the movie and then distributed it without permission I think the discussion should be about what kind of punishment (if any) that act in and of itself warrants - regardless of how much it affected sales of the finished movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Roger, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 10:42am

    Funny

    It's amusing reading alot of these comments. I'm quite sure alot of people here would have very different opinions if something they had invested time and money in was being distributed by a third party for free without their consent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Planespotter (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:22am

      Re: Funny

      You don't read Techdirt very often then... most people here would see their stuff being available for free and work out a way to turn that to their advantage.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 11:48am

    So, Mike, if someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff you'll be OK with that? Strip away all the hubris around copyrights, trademarks etc. and what you have here is plain and simple theft, like the kind resulting from someone breaking into your house. It is only the least creative people in the world that defend this behavior. Its amazing how many people think that everything around them is simply free and that laws really don't apply to them. My response to that thinking is... grow up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      Analogy fail. Copyright infringement isn't theft. Copying bits is very different from stealing atoms. Straw man -- Mike does not advocate theft (nor copyright violation), he advocates fixing the laws to make more sense.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:56pm

      Re:

      So, Mike, if someone breaks into your house and steals all your stuff you'll be OK with that?

      In that case, I would then be without the stuff. So it's entirely different.

      Strip away all the hubris around copyrights, trademarks etc. and what you have here is plain and simple theft, like the kind resulting from someone breaking into your house.

      No, actually. It's not at all the same. In the latter case, something is actually missing.

      If you want a real analogy, how about this: what if I suddenly got a copy of everything in your house. You had no idea that it happened. You're not missing anything and it has no impact on you directly. Not so horrible, is it?

      It is only the least creative people in the world that defend this behavior.

      Really?

      Its amazing how many people think that everything around them is simply free and that laws really don't apply to them.

      That's not what anyone said. Please. We're trying to have an adult conversation, and simplifying it to the level that you have doesn't help. Your kind of thinking was debunked decades ago. Please keep up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Terry Sorenson (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    all of you who think pirating movies is OK are douchebag idiot losers

    None of you trolls who think copyright infringement isn't harming anyone are worth the time it takes to scrape a piece of poop off my heel. None of you have ever produced any collaborative effort. None of you have invested money to create a production. None of you have ever hired staff who hope to earn income from creative productions such as this film based on performance. The idea that you would have never seen something in the first place if you had to pay for it works perfectly for me. You don't deserve to be entertained -- or not -- if you haven't paid the toll or fee or whatever is being asked. You're all loser fanboys who will never come up with anything worth someone else stealing, that's for sure. Enjoy your miserable lives as we come out looking for you! I would love to fine and imprison each and every one of you low life maggots if I had the time and resources.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 2:57pm

      Re: all of you who think pirating movies is OK are douchebag idiot losers

      None of you have ever produced any collaborative effort. None of you have invested money to create a production. None of you have ever hired staff who hope to earn income from creative productions such as this film based on performance.

      Um. Please look around at this website. It is a collaborative effort for which I invested a lot of money and hired staff, hoping to earn income from my creative productions.

      Please try again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ian, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 1:21pm

    Man in jail uploaded but didn't leak the film

    The actual leak for the working copy has never been found according to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/x-men-wolverine-pirate-sentenced-hugh-jackman-275453, which has more details about this case than any of the other reports I have seen.

    The man being sentenced to a year in federal prison and a year of supervised release just bought a DVD off the street corner near his house, thought it was interesting, and shared it online.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Snakeman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:54pm

    IP Theft is real!

    I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of this IP Theft case, but invariably the defendants in these matters claim their theft is trivial, while the person infringed tends to claim major losses.
    That is how the adversial legal system in the USA, Australia and UK works.
    Rarely is there a common middle ground.
    However as a vicgtim of IP Theft I can say that losses are often real and huge.
    We do live reptile shows http://www.reptileshows.com.au in Melbourne Victoria Australia and two years ago, a bootlegger ripped off our trademarks online and was using SEO to rip us off at the rate of more than one client a day. In dollar terms thats about $500 a day.
    We eventually stopped him, but that was more than two years after wed sent him a friendly cease and desist letter and hed said hed copmply then.
    Because of repeat business with clients, our losses ended up as being well over $1 million (you do the math).
    It is likely the matter will be heard by a judge and I have little doubt that the IP thief will trivialize our losses to minimize his penalty.
    If (as contended here) the Wolverine bootlegger did not cause great losses (as alleged by posters here), it may be that the court sought to make the case an example to deter other would be bootleggers.
    My hope is that he succeeds.
    Surely its not too much to expect people to behave ethically and respect others property, whether that be physical (like a house) or intellectual, like copyright and trademarks.
    All the best
    Snakeman

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 11:31am

      Re: IP Theft is real!

      I'm glad that a business, any business, was able to restore it's clientele and income. While I very much applaud your efforts to use the most friendly form of enforcement, the CD letter, you might have waited too long.

      I will not speak for Mike or anyone else here and will instead say that, my understanding of this conversation was how disproportionate the punishment was to the proven facts for the case.

      This man did an illegal act and was caught. Good.
      He was sent to prison for a year. I just cannot equate the crime to the punishment handed out. Yes, I agree he needed some form of punishment (Although I am curious of his motives, as he was a way too eager fan?)

      I wish I could think of an appropriate punishment for him. I cannot. Worse yet, with that in mind, the "harm" caused was not very well proved.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JarHead, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 3:59am

    A bussiness model

    Hmm, all this gave me an idea of how to go with my (hypothetically) next $100M movie: go to production, and somehow along the way purposely "leak" the "unfinished" version. Hope it went viral, so I have "safeguards" in place on the official release.

    If the movie then flop, I can always blame on the "pirated" unfinished version. Maybe the general public won't believe it, but at least I have an excuse to sell to my investors and/or banks, "It's not that the movie sucks, it's those d**** pirates."

    If the movie succeed, well, I got other "avenues" in place to complement my "profits", i.e. start a "legal" extortion racket from suing everyone downloading/hosting/linking/watching/hearing about/talking about/thinking about/dreaming about the "pirated" version.

    Note, I own the copyright to this idea, and will let anyone copy/use it, with the understanding that I'll be cashing in such efforts (read: sue your ass off).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Reagan, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 8:14am

    Illegal Wolverine upload

    The whining of the copyright violators is endless, tedious, fallacious, stupid.
    I read these dumb articles from time to time, and then scan a few comments,
    which are even dumber. The law is the copyright proprietor controls the performance of his work. The law. It's one of the few laws embedded in our Constitution. Hello? These comments include the usual drivel about how the damage to Fox can't be shown. So what? When I see my car has been stolen and it is found nearby a few hours later, should I be happy when the cops tell me they caught the thief but they dropped the charges because they could not see that the car had been damaged? It would be nice---never going to happen---if the anti SOPA crybabies would simply grow up. "Hey man, why you giving me this speeding ticket? Why aren't you looking for real criminals?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Reagan, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 8:16am

    Illegal Wolverine upload

    The whining of the copyright violators is endless, tedious, fallacious, stupid.
    I read these dumb articles from time to time, and then scan a few comments,
    which are even dumber. The law is the copyright proprietor controls the performance of his work. The law. It's one of the few laws embedded in our Constitution. Hello? These comments include the usual drivel about how the damage to Fox can't be shown. So what? When I see my car has been stolen and it is found nearby a few hours later, should I be happy when the cops tell me they caught the thief but they dropped the charges because they could not see that the car had been damaged? It would be nice---never going to happen---if the anti SOPA crybabies would simply grow up. "Hey man, why you giving me this speeding ticket? Why aren't you looking for real criminals?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This