Camming Group Leader Sentenced To 5 Years; Barred From Owning 'Any Device' That Can Infringe Copyrights After Release
from the how's-that-going-to-work dept
The DOJ triumphantly announced the five year sentence handed down to Jeremiah Perkins, who was named as the “leader” of IMAGiNE, a group that coordinated the recording of movies in theaters for upload to the internet. The DOJ and ICE arrested many of those involved in the group last year, and was able to convince them to do plea deals over “conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.” It’s a bit of a stretch to claim their actions met the requirements of “criminal” copyright infringement, but they did get some money for their actions, and that tripped the wire. I don’t have an issue with them getting in trouble for their actions, which were pretty blatant infringement, though I’ll say that the punishment of five years in jail seems ridiculously excessive when this one group’s actual impact on movie piracy was non-notable. So many leaks are internal leaks, rather than cams — and even if they take down this one group, it’s not like it stopped any movies from showing up online quickly. And, of course, none of this does anything to make people buy. So I fail to see the value in spending taxpayer money going after these people, and then paying for their prison sentence at a time when our prisons are overcrowded.
But the issue that gets me about this is this bit, highlighted by TorrentFreak:
After his imprisonment ends Perkins will be subjected to a further three years of supervised release and will be banned from possessing “any electronic device with the capability or reproducing and distributing copies of copyrighted materials.”
That’s basically pretty much any electronic device these days. Computer, phone, camera, tablet. Anything that can record audio or video or take a picture has that capability. Five years from now, it’s likely to include many more commonly used devices as well. That seems ridiculously excessive. Especially given that devices that can infringe on copyrights also do a ton of legitimate and important things, to say that he can’t possess any such device seems ridiculously limiting. The MPAA, who pushed this prosecution (which, again, was led by Neil MacBride — the former industry anti-piracy enforcer — who now does the same job for the government and rarely misses an opportunity to support his former colleagues), don’t see any problem with completely taking away all devices that can infringe on copyright from someone, but that’s because they still don’t realize how central to culture and society such devices have become these days.
Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright, doj, ice, imagine, jeremiah perkins, restrictions, sentencing
Comments on “Camming Group Leader Sentenced To 5 Years; Barred From Owning 'Any Device' That Can Infringe Copyrights After Release”
Why are we surprised with how ridiculously excessive the punishment is? It almost seems that we haven’t seen Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenebaum.
I do not agree with their punishment length, I’d go for a few months then community service and a fine with the size of the money they made. If they had just cammed and made available then there should be NO punishment. If the MAFIAA seriously think that a crappy cam video can make them lose money then they are doing it wrong. Only crap content will be truly affected by any form of sharing.
Re: Re:
I assume (hope) they will clarify that they meant devices such as the wireless headset he bought and used to record audio (used so that hearing impaired people can hear movies)
Re: Re:
Long Sentence ! Longer than violent crimes.Longer than my own Federal Prison Sentence for Selling and Eight-Ball of Coke.
Ended up doing 14 Months in Lewisburg Penitentiary.Other guys I knew when Busted with Drug Crimes got mostly 2 – 4 Year Sentences.
Five Year Sentence is Bullshit and so is Fining people huge sums of money.
Wake Me Up when it is time for a Revolution !
We are all so screwed so welcome to the Shit World of Corruption !
Fuck You MAFIAA !!!
I downloaded that Hobbit Screener.You will never see my wallet.
Re: Re: Re:
War against piracy is getting about as stupid as the war on drugs, you shouldn’t of done 14 months, and he shouldn’t be doing 5 years. Prison should be for people who are violent and a true threat to society.
Revolution is not a good idea, while its all fucked up, a revolution would be very very bad, destroying our union would cause a good more people starving and some of these right winger states would turn out worse then the soviet union. What we need is mass peaceful protest to change things..peacefully shut down roads, ports, and economic damage. Fact is, peacefully protesting has always worked out better.
Re: Re:
Yeah, and did you know the punishment for violating FCC regulations and broadcasting is like 10 thousand dollars or something? Why? Because it may remotely threaten corporate profits and we can’t have that. The government’s job is to protect corporate profits and their government established (broadcasting and other) monopoly privileges and to excessively punish anyone that may remotely threaten the profit margins of government established monopolists into the ground.
I say we get rid of the FCC.
Re: Re: Re:
Also we should get rid of IP laws as well. They’re nothing but corporate welfare.
Re: Re:
If the MAFIAA seriously think that a crappy cam video can make them lose money then they are doing it wrong.
Actually, IMAGiNE’s cams were usually of pretty good quality (for cam copies). The quality of cammed movies really took a nosedive after they were busted.
Does the ban include devices supplied by an employer, or those made available at a place of work?
I can see it now...
This guy in a prison yard with the other inmates, when asked what he’s in for: “Video taping movies” 🙂
Re: I can see it now...
He’ll come out of prison a hardened criminal though and therein lies the biggest problem with our justice system.
Re: Re: I can see it now...
He is ALREADY a hardened criminal. Don’t you see what has happened here? He has STOLEN from the 1.5 billion people involved in the creative industries that made these movies. The scale of this crime is far greater than holding up one store owner or bilking millions of dollars out of the State of Connecticut while serving as it’s governor (go Rowland!).
We need to make an example of people that commit such horrendous crimes. It’s not like we would let a murderer get off with less http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-11-05-killer-cop-gets-slap-on-wrist-ki.html
Perhaps if we put these people in jail for long periods of time and then take away their ability to, you know, work – they will become productive members of society again.
Re: I can see it now...
Inmate 1: I stole 377 trucks loaded with goods. Beat that!
Inmate 2: I raped 45 women!
Inmates: holy crap!
Inmate 3: I tortured and killed 1219 including children and elderly!
Inmates: And you dude, you are so quiet there, join us!
iMAGiNE guy: I got a few bucks from camming movies in the cinema!
Inmates: OH MY GOD STAY AWAY YOU FILTHY CRIMINAL, SATAN LOVER!!!!
Re: I can see it now...
“And they all moved away from me on the Group W bench…”
Pens. Paper. yada yada
Given how broad this is, the person is incapable of owning pens / paper / any technology with a microchip. I would assume they will allow TV’s given the one way nature of Television, however they must be kept as a single unit with no internet access (think big bulky pree-flat screen TV’s).
How is this even close to constitutional, if you ban all items that can infringe then you ban all items that can create. People who do mass copy DVD’s don’t get this kind of punishment.
Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
People who profit massively don’t get this kind of punishment because they profited and can afford high priced lawyers. People who do it just to do it get the worst punishment imaginable.
Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
Lucky for him it specifies electronic devices. So pencils, paper and very old film cameras are still permitted. Maybe he could go live with the Amish for three years.
They’ll be sorry when he sneaks a 1930’s hand-cranked movie camera into the 2018 release of the latest Justin Bieber romantic comedy. Instead of webstreaming it from microscopic retina-dots, like everyone else in the theater. That is, if those things are still electronic…
Re: Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
into the 2018 release of the latest Justin Bieber romantic comedy
Yay! Finally something to look forward too!
Re: Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
So he can’t have one of those pens that also include a digital clock?
Your daily required troll impersonation
That Guy should get a life sentence. Long hail Copyright extension to infinity and beyond.
Masnick threw in his obligatory weasel words to try and mitigate the notion that steam is coming out of his skull in reaction to this sentence of a criminal.
Par for the course.
Re: Re:
Wow, you rolled a natural 1 on your Read check.
Mike’s problem (as clearly outlined above) isn’t with the jailtime on its own merits – it is with the post-jail restrictions of the sentence. “Oh, look, most things will actually have internet capabilities in the next two years, let’s ban this guy from using them for 5.” Not smart at all.
Re: Re: Re:
?any electronic device with the capability or reproducing and distributing copies of copyrighted materials.?
It is a bit of a smaller subset of anything with internet capabilities, but it is arguably anything with a web browser – and considering my new refrigerator has one, that is going to be a pretty big list in 5 years.
If you take away a cellphone isn’t that taking away freedom of speech?
Re: Re:
Nope, as freedom of speech does not guarantee an audience, or a means of spreading the speech or making it available to others.
Re: Re: Re:
But given it’s ubiquity and necessity for daily life, banning someone from having phone or Internet service is often considered a cruel and unusual punishment.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but that is not a freedom of speech issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are out of your fucking mind? “Often considered cruel and unusual punishment” Seriously? I’d be amazed if you can find a single ruling anywhere that establishes that.
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know?
Re: Re:
You weren’t serious with this were you?
Re: Re: Re:
I was. It’s a primary means of communication in our society.
Re: Re:
Doubtful, but wasn’t internet access declared a basic human right by the UN? Anything that can connect to the internet has the potential to be an infringing device, so to carry out this sentence would mean denying Mr. Perkins his human rights.
Re: Re: Re:
The UN has declared that creators have a human right to exclusively exploit their creative output. Unfortunately that doesn’t get much notice around here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would probably be because such a claim is wrong, and in fact the UN has gone out of it’s way to refute such claims.
Here’s a choice quote for you:
‘Whereas the human right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from one?s scientific, literary and artistic productions safeguards the personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities, or other groups and their collective cultural heritage, as well as their basic material interests which are necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living, intellectual property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments. Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author provided for by article 15, paragraph 1 (c), does not necessarily coincide with what is referred to as intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.
It is therefore important not to equate intellectual property rights with the human right recognized in article 15, paragraph 1 (c). ‘
And here’s the article it’s from:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/12333120767/no-copyright-is-not-human-right.shtml
Re: Re:
My cellphone doesn’t record a damn thing. It does not text, it does not browse the web, it does not even play music. It enables me to make phone calls (and play Sudoku, which is preloaded to the phone).
Re: Re: You just don't get it.
During the telephone call, the copyrighted music playing on the radio in the background is reproduced and distributed.
3 years without access to an omega watch 🙁
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again for those who haven’t heard my story.
Some time back I was at a bar and grill with a friend and a man sat down next to me. He noticed some of my tattoos and asked if I’d been in prison. I told him I had but for minor things that were eventually cleared up (basically just having bad luck and being at the wrong place at the wrong time), but the tattoos were just for me. Not prison related. So in reply to his question I asked if he’d been in prison. He proudly and happily told me had just been released that very day and was out celebrating and having his first meal and beer as a free man. I asked what he had been in for, to which he replied murder. He then went on to tell me the full story and suffice it to say he was a very nice individual but vicious (as the murder was quite brutal which he committed) when he felt he had to be. He showed me his court papers and documents, which he happened to have on him.
He had originally been sentenced to 8 years in prison. FOR MURDER. However, he was released after 4 years. He was also originally ordered to pay restitution to his victim’s family in the excess of $100,000. However, said amount was lowered before his release and the new amount was $14,000. Again, this is money he had to pay back to the family of the victim for the taking of the life of their loved one.
A murderer can serve 4 years and ONLY have to pay back what is essentially nothing to his victim’s family YET a person camming a movie gets sentenced to 5 years (of which he’ll likely serve 2 years at the very least).
Hooray for the justice system and it’s sense of fairness and punishment fitting the crime! /s
Oh yeah, for those wondering I’ve run into the guy a few times since. He remembers me as the guy who bought him a few rounds when he got out. And he’s returned the favor since, more so in fact. Because he is now quite successful and runs a few high end hair cutting places that cater exclusively to men.
It’s a crazy world we live in and I for one am glad those vicious and evil cammers are being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They pose way more of a risk to society than people who would inflict physical harm (up to and including death) upon others. Glad to see we’ve got our priorities straight. /s
Re: Re:
At least you can get a shave from a convicted murderer without having to worry about someone camming!
Re: Re: Re:
True. And I will say this, I was going to said hair cutting places before this guy was released and they are great. More so because they give you beer while you wait and the ladies always do a bang up job of cutting my hair, and even though they’re supposed to charge you for a shave they always give me one free. Which rocks!
The convicted murderer though just manages the place. Although he’ll occasionally get hands on, as he told me when he was in prison he was the prison barber. I’ve seen his (hair cut) work and he does indeed do a good job.
Re: Re:
But I’m assuming he also was barred from owning anything that could be used to murder someone. Like scissors or a straight razor.
Re: Re:
Corporate profits trump everything else. Political campaign contributions and revolving door favors are an essential priority for politicians. How else are they supposed to stay employed and have an easy job that enables them to make money with little effort?
Re: Re:
The key point being that it wasn’t a media executive that he murdered.
Re: Re: Re:
ding ding we have a winner!!
Re: Re:
Way to cherry pick a story. Bet it wasn’t first degree murder. Maybe a fight, drunk driving, walked in on his wife banging the neighbor?
I hate to break it to you but Federal sentences offer only limited “good behavior” time. He’ll do 4 1/2 minimum.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re defending sentencing someone to more time for camming movies than for killing someone?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go kill someone and come back after your sentencing and let us know how it worked out for you.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, I’m not sure what degree it was. But basically, he went over to a guy’s house over a dispute or allegation that the man had done something, the man then proceeded to laugh about what he had done and gotten away with and the guy flipped out and straight up murdered him.
Either way, you’re basically saying that camming a movie is a more serious crime than taking the life of another individual and deserves to be punished more severely.
And I didn’t cherry pick the story. I’m just telling what happened regarding one random person I met at a bar. You know, pointing out the gross violation and hilarity of the justice system in determining adequate punishment.
The DOJ and ICE arrested many of those involved in the group last year, and was able to convince them to do plea deals over “conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.” It’s a bit of a stretch to claim their actions met the requirements of “criminal” copyright infringement, but they did get some money for their actions, and that tripped the wire.
You mean the US Attorney negotiated a plea agreement with the defendants lawyer, whose client accepted it- don’t you? And it is no stretch at all. They jointly conspired and planned to break the law for personal profit, correct? How exactly is that stretching conspiracy law?
But the issue that gets me about this is this bit, highlighted by TorrentFreak:
“After his imprisonment ends Perkins will be subjected to a further three years of supervised release and will be banned from possessing ?any electronic device with the capability or reproducing and distributing copies of copyrighted materials.?
That’s basically pretty much any electronic device these days. Computer, phone, camera, tablet. Anything that can record audio or video or take a picture has that capability. Five years from now, it’s likely to include many more commonly used devices as well. That seems ridiculously excessive. Especially given that devices that can infringe on copyrights also do a ton of legitimate and important things, to say that he can’t possess any such device seems ridiculously limiting. The MPAA, who pushed this prosecution (which, again, was led by Neil MacBride — the former industry anti-piracy enforcer — who now does the same job for the government and rarely misses an opportunity to support his former colleagues), don’t see any problem with completely taking away all devices that can infringe on copyright from someone, but that’s because they still don’t realize how central to culture and society such devices have become these days.
I don’t know why you have a problem with that. This was not imposed upon the defendant, it was what he agreed to. If he thought it was excessive or unreasonable, he should have gone to trial.
Re: Re:
He may have known that taking this to trial was not going to make it any easier. There’s been a few piracy cases that went to trial and the defendant ended up getting screwed pretty badly, maybe he thought settling was the easier way to do things.
Either way, the 3 years of supervised release shows a certain lack of foresight by the court as electronics are becoming a mandatory part of work and everyday life. He’s better off staying in a cave for that term then trying to eke out a living.
Re: Re: Re:
“After his imprisonment ends Perkins will be subjected to a further three years of supervised release and will be banned from possessing ?any electronic device with the capability or reproducing and distributing copies of copyrighted materials.?
So while he’s on probation, he can’t have a smartphone, camcorder or be connected to the internet. Surprisingly, he’s in the same boat as a lot of other gainfully employed people.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
…or a camera, a computer of any sort, many (all?) game consoles, cell phone (not just smartphones), etc., etc.
I am ambivalent about the terms, but they are, in fact, incredibly broad and restrict using a huge range of devices and services that are not obvious at first. “Copyrighted materials” can be quite small in size (think pictures and text, not just movies and songs) and any device that you can store that amount of data on and retrieve it from is capable of distributing it. I have a pen with a flash stick built into it that would qualify.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Perhaps he will feel differently about making money unlawfully on the backs of others next time around. Same goes for others playing this game.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Not likely.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
He probably made thirty cents off some ad software scheme. I wouldn’t really call that profiting off the backs of others.
Re: Re: Re: So many people don't know how to read legalese
The sentence has two clauses that begin “will be”. In legal terms, the length of time from one “will be” clause does not apply to the other “will be” clause. So whoever made up this idea that he is only banned from these electronic devices for 3 years is just ignorant.
He will be supervised for 3 years and will be banned from electronics. This means that he is banned from electronics, not just for 3 years…
Re: Re:
This was not imposed upon the defendant, it was what he agreed to. If he thought it was excessive or unreasonable, he should have gone to trial.
Anyone who thinks plea bargains in criminal prosecutions by the feds are “agreed to” by both sides willingly owe it to themselves to watch the documentary “Better This World” to disabuse you of your gross ignorance. http://betterthisworld.com/
Re: Re: Re:
I really don’t need the perspective of yet another professional malcontent to help me form my opinion.
That is the first thing the judge asks the defendant: whether he has voluntarily and willingly agreed to the terms of the plea agreement. Circumstances dictate what is agreed to.
Please feel free to enlighten us with how it should be. I’m sure you think you know.
BTW, you ignored my point yesterday in your fiscal cliff article that Google gets more taxpayer funded welfare than the entire motion picture industry combined. How could that fact possibly escape the scrutiny of such a credible journalist such as yourself?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plea agreements are more like fear bargaining.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don’t need the perspective of yet another professional malcontent to help me form my opinion.
Definitely. The fact that you think camming should be punished more severely than murder (of whatever degree) demonstrates quite clearly the kind of jackass you are.
Why stop with banning him from owning any electronic device that can be used to break the law?
He used his hands to! So lets ban him from having hands!
Oh, and people who listen to music they illegally downloaded, lets ban them from having ears or any hearing in order to make sure they never infringe on music rights again!
Re: Re:
If we cut out his eyes, he can’t see to do this again!
Look at people twist and writhe about this. They are only upset because they know that once there are no more cams that piracy’s devastating effect on the movie industry will be ended and there will no longer be any free riders depriving hard working cinema cleaners from the depressed wages they’ve had to endure in recent years.
Re: Re:
Yes, that $10.8 billion looks absolutely devastated.
Though, going by the mention of cinema cleaners of all people, I’ve half a mind to think you’re being satirical.
Re: Re:
No. We know that as long as there is a demand for something there will always be a supply. Example–Have all the anti drug laws reduced the availability of illegal drugs? Not that we’ve seen–they just made it more profitable to be a supplier.
And it amuses me that an industry that just had another record breaking box office year can claim to be devastated by piracy and have anyone believe it.
Re: Re: Re:
“And it amuses me that an industry that just had another record breaking box office year can claim to be devastated by piracy and have anyone believe it.“
They have to keep up that narrative, in the face of any and all facts or evidence. Otherwise their servants in Congress will think there is no further need for more restrictive/draconian/fascist copyright legislation.
As for Congress, I’d imagine that most are either:
A) so disconnected from reality that the only things they hear regarding copyright debate come from a well-paid MAFIAA lobbyist in a nice suit.
B) Fully bought out by the media industry, and therefore obliged to carry out the will of those that sign their “campaign contribution” checks.
And/Or,
C) Eagerly complicit with the copyright maximalists, knowing that the same anti-piracy measures lobbied for by the media industry could easily–in time–be turned into a government tool for Orwellian levels of surveillance, censorship, and control over the population. And of course, assembling such a system is a bit easier when the (ostensible) argument for it is “protecting jobs and the economy” rather than “promoting fascism” or “making 1984 a reality”
Re: Re: Re:
They have not made a profit on films for so long that they have set a record for making losses and not only remaining in business, but able to make campaign contributions.
Re: Re: Re:
And it amuses me that an industry that just had another record breaking box office year can claim to be devastated by piracy and have anyone believe it.
Maybe that’s because they do a pretty good job of keeping freeloaders from sneaking into the theaters.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So piracy isn’t a problem, then?
Re: Re:
Nice, you fooled a couple of people. 🙂
Average Joe impression requirement
Why won’t mike debate me? WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH.Stupid Pirate
Recent “Screener” releases (from affiliate sources, for example MPAA, Oscar Jury):
The Hobbit
Zero Dark Thirty
Skyfall
Lincoln
I wonder when the MPAA et al are going to start looking at their own?
Re: Re:
They won’t. Because then, who’ll pay for the drug-and-alcohol-fuelled comedy that is Charlie Sheen?
“It’s a bit of a stretch to claim their actions met the requirements of “criminal” copyright infringement…”
See: 18 USC 2319B
What about if this case occurred ten or fifteen years from now, when electronic eyeballs are used (they have been invented, they just don’t have great resolution at the moment, last I heard)?
The only criminal case I see is the subpar quality of theater captured movies…oh sure the picture is fine, but the audio is usually quite abysmal. This doesn’t mean 5 years plus 3 supervised years is the right course of action though. It just means that I don’t see the point in doing that regardless of sales or using bit torrent to share it.
I don’t know if IMAGiNE was intending to sell or just share, but the attempted captures abysmal audio quality is criminal enough for me.
I do have some questions though:
It should be noted that even if your camera in movie capping is capable of studio or theater quality sound…you still have an echo that is nearly impossible to filter out. However, if the Audio was high quality without the theater echo, how on earth did they get the raw audio from the projection room??? That would be a bit criminal methinks.
Why on earth would you even want to watch a screen captured video of a movie??? I mean really, what’s the point except for watching it at your leisure? I would like to watch movies as they come out when they come out…but if you’re going to screen capture it with a camera that doesn’t match the aspect ratio of the film…why bother. When I want to watch a movie at my leisure, I’d sure as Hell would want to watch it in the best quality possible.
I’m all for the use of distributing content on BitTorrent. It’s the certain low that comes with screen capture “pirated” movies that bother me a bit. This is basically because the subpar quality of film that this practice produces is likely to turn me and other enthusiasts away from the film.
Re: Re:
The only criminal case I see is the subpar quality of theater captured movies…oh sure the picture is fine, but the audio is usually quite abysmal.
They usually pull the soundtrack from the headphone jack used by the hard-of-hearing. They also do it in theaters around the world so as to have copies in multiple languages.
Re: Re:
I used to watch movies that way all the time on movie25.com until they started requiring registration and taking stupid surveys.
The best part...
…is that in 5 years, the only way for him to appeal his parole terms will be online, and operating a device capable of that will be a parole violation.
Re: The best part...
“…is that in 5 years, the only way for him to appeal his parole terms will be online, and operating a device capable of that will be a parole violation.”
His lawyer can do that for him, though I suspect they will come up with a provision where he can not instruct another to use a device as well since hes still technically in control of said device.
I’m tired of the government wasting taxpayer money to defend corporate profits. This needs to end. IP laws must end.
what the hell have citizens allowed to happen here in the USA? how many actually realise that the entertainment industries like RIAA, MAFIAA etc are the ones not only dictating the laws of the land about what people can or cannot do, but are running the country? if they want something done, they complain to Congress until it is done. the number of ‘favours’ done for those industries are too innumerable to count, with the rewards for doing those favours being a nice, well-paid, cushy job when politics is no longer is a viable option. how can any nation deem that copying a movie is a worse crime than almost anything else and warrant a punishment on par with manslaughter, bank robbery etc? and given what they have gotten away with putting into place so far, it is going to get even worse! i’m just waiting for the first ‘death penalty’ to be ruled. i bet it isn’t far away! and all for sharing information! unbelievable!!
Re: Re:
First things first: Mind your own fucking business. I’m sure your own country has ample problems for you to snivel over.
…all for sharing information!
No. All for heading a criminal conspiracy to convert the property of another for one’s own profit.
Re: Re: Re:
Oooooh, conspeeeeeeracy…
The MPAA [and Justice Department] ……don’t see any problem with completely taking away all devices that can infringe on copyright from someone, but that’s because they still don’t realize how central to culture and society such devices have become these days.
Well, he also loses his Constitutional right to own a firearm. It’s not like his right to an iPhone has greater (or any) legal protection.
Lobotomy?
Jeremiah Perkins owns his brain which could be viewed as a “device” which through its memory could be used to infringe copyrights after release.
It seems as though the only thing the courts could possibly do to enforce this requirement is to lobotomize Jeremiah Perkins.
In all seriousness though, until we have competing arbitration organizations instead of the State’s monopoly on all conflict resolution (in which the State’s decision power extends even to matters regarding itself), we will continue to see the tyranny march to it’s logical violent totalitarian end.
ok, so i was reading my rss feed, i read the title and scrolled down even though i understood it completely; then it hit me that this “wasnt news” to me, it isnt news that the state just decided that some random guy who im assuming was non-violent cant own any electronics… why does it take effort to stay sensitive to the state abusing its power so unbelievable blatantly?
I feel much safer now.
ATM?
In countries where there’s a Copyright on money, he would be forbidden from using an ATM.
Wow
Organized crime protection rackets ain’t got nothin’ on our “wonderful” human-rights violatin’ governments.
Re: Wow
Organized crime protection rackets ain’t got nothin’ on our “wonderful” human-rights violatin’ governments.
Exactly which recognized human right to you believe was violated? A citation would be nice.
Re:
Here, this may give you a more balanced perspective than the one you’ve been spoon-fed by Masnick:
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2934&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dun%2520recognition%2520of%2520creators%2520rights%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D10%26ved%3D0CG0QFjAJ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2934%2526context%253Dfaculty_scholarship%26ei%3DoqXnUN-0Bu6p0AH00oHwAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNGzm_5qpzUkqT0bRyMQDTrMj8ECmg%26bvm%3Dbv.1355534169%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22un%20recognition%20creators%20rights%22
Re: Re:
Balanced, my ass.
Spoon-fed, my ass.
You’re on a roll today?
Hard time...
My ex-brother-in-law and his father were busted by the feds for running a large scale marijuana growing and distribution operation, complete with front businesses, multi-state distribution networks, and eastern European organized crime partners. It wasn’t quite Pablo Escobar, but it was a whole lot bigger than a couple of pot plants. He served something like three years. Good thing he wasn’t caming movies instead…he could have gotten some real hard time.
piracy
Well all studies have shown that these cam movies basically serve as free advertisement to movie studios and publishers. I mean they should be thanking these guys, instead of jailing them.
Pfft. By the time he’s out of prison, he won’t be able to own a toaster. I can just see this guy in prison though. “I ripped a mans head off and put on a puppet show with it. What are you in for?” “Uh…I recorded a movie and put it on the internet pleasedontrapeme.”
Sentencing
There does seem to be something wrong with the sentencing system where you can get less years for manslaughter than for recording a movie, even if it was an organized effort to record movies.
Some judge doesn't understand how reproduction and distribution of information works
This also includes a modern car, because they include cameras for reversing. It includes doorbells, because it’s possible to modify any doorbell to play a copyrighted phrase. It includes lights, because he can turn on and off the light to transmit the Morse code of every copyrighted book in existed, thus distributing and reproducing those myriad texts to everyone who sees the light.
Electronic age = electronic freedom of speech
The logical amendment to this penalty:
He should be banned from using any electronic device for the purposes of reproducing and distributing copies of materials that he does not own the copyright.
Because according to the current punishment, he can’t even own a device that can disseminate his own copyrighted materials to express his political right to express his own thoughts and ideas. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that everyone should be able to seek and impart information and ideas in the the media of their choice. To prevent this guy from this freedom seems like a political decision, not a legal one. Does it have any basis in law?