Movie Uploader Pleads Guilty; Will He Get Jailtime?
from the questions,-questions dept
Earlier this year, the entertainment industry convinced Congress to pass a law that added extra penalties for anyone who shared a "pre-release" copy of content, making it a felony that could lead to jailtime. Yes, this could lead to awkward situations where fans who want to hear an album that some big label decided didn't have enough hits to be released could all be facing jailtime. Well, now, the first person prosecuted under this law has pleaded guilty to uploading a pre-release copy of the last Star Wars film two days prior to release. So, does he deserve jailtime? Can anyone make a credible case that he actually "cost" the industry anything? As we pointed out at the time, it only seemed to increase the interest in actually going to see the film. Yes, the guy did break the law -- but does jailtime fit the crime?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
did he cost the movie industry money?
It's important to remember that some forms of art are different than others. I can imagine that a free MP3 of a song might encourage me to buy a concert ticket or a complete album, but I don't see how a free copy of a movie can have much of the same effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did he cost the movie industry money?
That's stealing my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if...
However, I do equate it with something like going to Ikea and photographing some furniture to build at home. Now, I like building my own things but perhaps Ikea has a design I think is pretty slick. They aren't out anything by me "stealing" their design - I won't profit by selling it.
So I can build my own coffee table or whatever and it won't cost them a cent - just like downloading the movie.
My motivations here are perhaps opposite movie downloaders does. You download a movie because you A) Don't want to support the film companies whose politics you disagree with while retaining the entertainment they sell B) You can't afford their price and/or C) You're too lazy/don't enjoy the theater experience. If you couldn't download the movie, would you pay to see it? Maybe.
I build my own furniture because A) It's cheaper B) Ikea furniture is so badly built I wouldn't trust it with anything that bears a load and/or C) I don't enjoy the shopping experience/prefer to build it in my home garage.
In both cases, if I do it myself, I do gain something at the cost of a corporation - however this cost is in their R&D and not in the tangible product I am taking (eg. what I have is not matter - I have not deprived them of anything because I have only information). For me to have the illegal version or nothing at all doesn't affect their bottom line in the slightest.
The *only* place that IP theft is relevant is when people choose piracy when they would otherwise purchase their own license for it. Ie, "paying sucks!" so I go and download and burn the newest 50 Cent (or whatever retard in en vogue in pop culture this afternoon) rather than going out and buying this "must have" product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Stolen" profits
If someone has an online DVD rental deal, where they get 3 dvds at one time, but while waiting for his copy of COACH CARTER to come up in the queue, decides to download it from wherever.
He realizes it isn't too hot, so he drops the movie from his list (and decides to get "The Island" instead).
Did he do wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movies
I do agree that he broke the law and some punishment is deserved. I like the idea someone above mentioned of a fine. But jail sentence, PLEASE! We already have full jail houses and there are worse crimes that get less punishment. As a tax payer, I really don't care to take care of him behind bars because somebody MIGHT have missed a few ticket sales.
And community service..eh. People like their money. I'm inclided to believe a fine is more effective than community service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If he is not disrupting society or causing harm to others (which in this case I sure hope we can all agree he's not "hurting" George Lucas with his actions), then JAIL TIME IS NOT NECESSARY.
As far as I'm concerned this is no different that all the people serving jail time for simply HAVING marijuana. They are not harming anyone (except possibly themselves with smoke) and are overcrowding prisons and taking police officers' attention away from the REAL criminals who are a REAL threat.
Stop this nonsense. Fines are enough punishment for petty crimes like these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
punishment should fit the crime?
1) does uploading a movie really deserve jailtime? Shouldn't our jails be saved for violent offendors?
2) what was the harm done? there is a hypothetical harm to the movie industry, but that is purly financial and should stick to a civil suit, to recover them. most of the "evildence" of lost income is very skeptical.
3) as a tax payer, i hate seeing my tax money go toward this. the portion of my tax money allocated to the DoJ and FBI should be going toward crimes with actual harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
One point these companies refuse to acknowledge and it drives me nuts.
1) SW was wildly profitable
2) Most geeks who spent the time downloading it were there on opening weekend ANYWAY...and likely purchased the DVD
3) Those who downloaded the film but don't fit the description above in #2 would VERY likely NOT have paid to see it anyway.
So any talk about how those "poor, undertrodden corporations suffered so many loses" really burns me.
I'd rather see at this point someone say "Yes, we made tons of money, but what this guy did was against the law and that's why we want him" rather than hear "its horrible!! What he did made us lose billions of dollars *booohoooohooo* we're almost bankrupt!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]