What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Tips to be first in line without camping out in the cold! view!
newegg.com - The Pre-Black Friday Sale. No Lines, No Crowds; Click and Save in the comfort of your own home.
166 Comments
- nard3456, on 07/04/2009, -1/+117I find it interesting that 12,591 songs, 426 movies, and 16 tv shows only cost him $46K, yet that other person was charged $1.9mil for 24 songs.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -2/+104So what exactly were they searching for when they "stumbled across" all this pirated content. Also, that seams like pretty light "sentencing". They basically just demanded that he pay near-market-prices for all of the content, essentially, purchase it. Compare to America where he'd be facing millions of dollars in damages and years of jail time.
I guess the real moral of the story is to encrypt your stolen content. - spriggig, on 07/04/2009, -3/+75He got off cheap compared to that woman that was fined 1.2 million.
- pinguz, on 07/04/2009, -3/+71Delete my movie collection?
Over my dead body. - gheide, on 07/05/2009, -0/+64Truecrypt.org ... Full drive encryption...
- borez, on 07/04/2009, -4/+56I guess there's a lesson here when it come to movies and TV: Download, watch, seed a couple of times... Delete.
- skunkman62, on 07/05/2009, -1/+42dont live in france...
- JoelJ, on 07/04/2009, -4/+45I bet he's glad he's not American right now, else that fine would've been anywhere from 5 to 10 million
- bartpieters, on 07/05/2009, -3/+44The other difference is of course that the one case took place in the US of A, the land of crazy punitive fines, and the other in France where people are not quite so crazy.... in that respect at least.
- khedoros, on 07/31/2009, -0/+37You're being paranoid. They have the ability to log the data, but they aren't going to keep a copy of everything that every customer sends; it's impractical. I think most of them have to keep a log of connections for a while, so they could say who you connected to and how much data you sent and received (but they wouldn't log the data itself, and you could make it even more useless through encryption or proxies. It's a reverse lottery.
Say 1 in 1000 people get caught (an overestimation) and forced to settle for a large amount of money ($46,200, for the sake of argument). That's an expected cost of $46.20. 12591 songs at $1 apiece, 426 movies at $10 apiece, and 16 full tv series at $75 apiece (wild-ass guess). That comes out to $18051, with an expected benefit of $18032.95. Clearly, by several orders of magnitude, it's more worthwhile to get the stuff through questionable sources and pay up when it's required.
Frankly, I think it would make the most sense to set up a legal fund, with a $100/year membership purchase. It would promise to pay settlement expenses in case of a lawsuit. - Crisender111, on 07/05/2009, -6/+41***** SARKOZY
- pagno, on 07/05/2009, -2/+37$1.9 million
- YouAreDead, on 07/05/2009, -3/+36***** the mpaa
- YouAreDead, on 07/05/2009, -2/+34***** the riaa
- Culyt, on 07/05/2009, -0/+32Encrypted partitions...
- christopherrrrr, on 07/05/2009, -1/+33Hah, does this mean he gets to keep all of the stuff now that he payed for it?
- tnoy, on 07/05/2009, -2/+33If you properly delete it, then they cant prove it was on your system. A good layer will use that to your advantage. In a day and age where most all homes have wifi that is easily hackable, things like IP information is near useless in proving a person did anything.
Defense layer: "Did you find any trace of the video in question on my clients computer?"
Prosecution's expert: "No..."
Defense layer: "No further questions." - inactive, on 07/05/2009, -4/+30A $46,000 fine is perfectly reasonable for this guy. Not like the millions the **AA's try to take from people every day. Now if only the money would actually go to the artists he downloaded work from...
- Shazbuckle, on 07/05/2009, -1/+27More like 950 million at the rate the RIAA go by
- DirtyVicar, on 07/05/2009, -1/+25What I find most disturbing about this is the police acted as a self-appointed private detective on behalf of "19 plaintiffs" and took on what was clearly a civil matter. On the other hand the article is extremely vague about whether the movies were on a hard drive connected to a network or just buried away on DVD discs.
- TexMexRex, on 07/05/2009, -2/+24You need to get your money back from whatever law school you attended. The concept is called plain sight and it essentially means if it was legal to see it, they can grab it. If they are legally in your home searching for a stolen piano, and they see your collection of stolen TVs, they can grab them. If they look in a desk drawer and see your stolen iPod, they can't take it. The piano could not be in there.
Now if your buying and selling you stolen pianos on the internet, and the police are not dumb, the warrant will mention searching the computer, email etc for evidence. - Solkre, on 07/05/2009, -0/+21It might take forever to encrypt that 1TB HDD, but not as long as it'll take you to pay back 33,000.
- 1o23r, on 07/05/2009, -1/+20how do the police know he did not burn the movies/music legally?
- yocouchdigga, on 07/05/2009, -1/+19and what, burn them when the cops stumble upon them, ping?
this crazy ***** needs to end. it's insane and regressive. - ryanonfire, on 07/05/2009, -0/+18External hard drive
- offthewagon, on 07/05/2009, -5/+23I don't think there is an age limit on crimes. If there was, I'd never worry about retirement, because at 62 I'd just don a mask and rob a couple banks.
- mysql101, on 07/05/2009, -0/+17More than that, if he was charged for distributing it, he should be allowed to seed.
- borez, on 07/04/2009, -3/+20Don't keep them on your computer then I guess.
- zer0mass, on 07/05/2009, -1/+17I work for a data storage company. Your kidding yourself if you think ISP's are storing everything you download. Your $20 - $70 a month for internet access could not possibly offset the cost of the connection and all the data they would have to store just to potentially screw you over in the future. Like said above me the data saved it limited to logs. And once again at the cost of storage, they will be quick to delete anything they no longer need by law.
- DaDrake, on 07/05/2009, -1/+17Well the article said the material was collected through a search. So, all they could prove is he downloaded it wrongfully... not that he distributed it. So there is a difference between the two cases.
- JCPahl, on 07/05/2009, -1/+17Seriously. I'd like to see the police spend less time on murderers and sexual predators and more on file-sharers, the greatest threat to society.
- TexMexRex, on 07/05/2009, -0/+16It was a fraud investigation. You think maybe the warrant said check his computer and email? Or did he use a stone tablet and smoke signals for all his fraud communications?
- jaaames, on 07/05/2009, -1/+1612,000 files x $80,000 ≠ $5-10 million
- onimusha115, on 07/05/2009, -1/+14i hope so, gives me somthing to look forward to in life.
- scarz99, on 07/05/2009, -4/+17It's ***** how they just try to make examples out of people.
- Rubis1, on 07/05/2009, -2/+15It would be over 1 billion dollars just for the music at the rate used in the Jamie Thomas case.
***** Rediculous. At least this is only a few dollars per song. Even France is more reasonable than we are. - SoCalCove, on 07/05/2009, -0/+12Remember, a lot of this shi# is illegal only because companies (RIAA, MPAA, software co's) paid politicians to make it illegal. They could have had it as a misdemeanor like jaywalking. But companies smell money in this. No one cared about mp3's for YEARS until mainstream caught on then RIAA thought, ***** money!
If we had a 3rd party non profit company and we can all donate one dollar a month to fund them, like a Red Cross to provide legal presentation and lobbying to politicians to remove those laws. 90% of this ***** wouldnt be necessary and we fix those ###### companies.
Remember, its illegal cuz they made it into a law. Counter it. - inactive, on 07/05/2009, -1/+13He must have had emule still installed, and that was probably enough for the copyright nazi's to wage a holy war against him, french justice must be a ***** joke.
- compacho, on 07/05/2009, -1/+12@Tnoy - It's spelled Lawyer*. And hopefully your name isn't Tony either. :)
- aadsm, on 07/05/2009, -2/+13Well, for starters France is not the US-fail
- ozydingo, on 07/05/2009, -1/+12RTFA
The police had searched his property and found the pirated material. There was no mention of uploading in this case. This was not like one of the RIAA lawsuits where MediaSentry or whomever else they used catches you by requesting downloads, thereby proving that you are uploading.
Careful who you call idiots. - inactive, on 07/05/2009, -1/+12Do the media conglomerates plan on using their awarded damages to compensate artists, or line their (or their lawyers) pockets? If the latter, what recourse do the artists have for obtaining what is rightfully theirs?
- acknotSW, on 07/05/2009, -0/+10All of that would be considered infringement under the current ***** laws, with the exception of loaning a legal copy.
The media companies spent a great deal of time and money in the 80's trying to get laws passed that would prevent the manufacture of tape players (audio and video) with recording capability; claiming that people would use it to "steal" their content. They tried the same ***** for the same reasons when CD and DVD burners came out. They also spent a lot of money trying to manufacture tapes that could not be duplicated. However, what they faced in the 80's and early 90's is nothing compared to today.
In the 80's and 90's they controlled the mass production, marketing, and distribution of their product and because of that, they were also able to control the talent. Creating copies was a pain in the ass and doing it amass wasn't practical for a typical consumer and a consumer certainly couldn't afford to give it away for free to thousands of people if they did. So while they didn't like the fact that some people were getting their stuff for free, it was only a drop in the bucket.
Napster was the first mainstream example that showed that mass production and distribution were completely obsolete in regards to digital content and their grip on marketing is slipping as well. A single shared file can turn into a flood that no one can stop and trying to keep millions upon millions of people from starting that flood is a complete waste of time. These companies need to face the fact that the internet has destroyed 2 of the pillars of their business model and nothing can change that.
Technology changes and as it does it creates new industries and it can and does destroy old ones. The printing press put the scribes out of business, the telegraph took out the horse messenger, and the telephone took out the telegraph. While the scribes, horse messengers, and the telegraph were made completely obsolete by newer technologies, sometimes it just forces an industry to change. TV certainly didn’t kill radio, but it forced it to change. Radio stars used to be some of the highest paid personalities, now they don’t make a fraction of what a major TV star makes. The media industry is going to face a similar change. When the supply of your product becomes infinit the moment it is created and distribution costs are also near zero, your product essentially has no monetary value. - record200, on 07/05/2009, -2/+12>Over my dead body.
Don't tempt them... - tnoy, on 07/05/2009, -6/+15Yeah, people over 50 should be allowed to commit crimes.
- sindex, on 07/05/2009, -1/+9Except the Dead (and almost all jam bands, and smaller bands) allow everyone to tape and share freely, so that's a completely different thing. Hell, you can still get those tapes on archive.org.
And my VHS tapes often didn't have commercials because I recorded movies from HBO/Showtime, or just paused the recording during a TV show when it went to commercial.
The answer to DeMarki's question of "how does this differ in any...." is "It's not different at all. They're just giant douchebags about it now." - Walwyn, on 07/05/2009, -2/+10yet in the US you get fined $2million for 25 songs
- DeMarki, on 07/05/2009, -4/+12How does this differ in any way to having VHS copies of movies taped off the TV or music recorded onto tape off the radio or from borrowed records/tapes/CD’s?
Would that be a lesser crime? Or does every person in the world that has any culture stored on any sort of media around the world need to start clearing house? - uberduger, on 07/05/2009, -0/+8Did you just sign your *spam*?
Woah, ***** just got real. - Murrabbit, on 07/05/2009, -1/+8Oh well, better than 1.96 million USD for 24 songs.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is