Morally wrong? Yes. He stole intellectual property from others. That those "others" happen to me a huge conglomerate rather than some sweet little old lady doesn't alter the nature of the crime or the act. If he camcorded it for his own viewing, I'd say "no problem", as he paid to view it. But since he was deriving profit from the theft, I can only see him as a thief. Given that he knew he was caught and under investigation, and continued to peddle his stolen goods, that clearly qualifies him as an incredibly STUPID thief. The length of the sentence is questionable, since so many elements enter into it. As many have said, it's difficult, if not impossible, to determine what financial losses, if any, were suffered as a result of his crime. But many precedents exist as guidelines to arrive at a level of loss. I would "assume" (yes, I know that's a dangerous practice) that the court assumed that the copies sold by him resulted in those buyers not purchasing a cinema ticket to view the movie. A reasonable assumption, in the absence of any better yardstick. The issue that concerns me the most is that law enforcement allowed the plaintiffs to participate in the investigation and interrogation at ! That, in my opinion, should have resulted in him walking away clean.