NinjaVideo Admin Phara Gets 22 Months In Jail, 500 Hours Of Community Service & Has To Pay MPAA $210k

from the well,-well... dept

Fri, Jan 6th 2012 11:17am — Mike Masnick

Today was the sentencing for Hana "Phara" Beshara, the admin for NinjaVideo who has received plenty of attention in the last few months. Just a few hours ago, she was sentenced to 22 months in prison, another two years probation after that, 500 hours of community service and she has to pay back the $209,896.95 that she supposedly made from NinjaVideo to the MPAA. I'm sure they'll be passing that along to moviemakers, right? Either way, what's telling here is that the judge appears to have given Beshara significantly less than what the government asked for.

After receiving what appears to be some pretty bad legal advice, Beshara was indicted, and quickly realized that she was left with little choice but to plead guilty in the case. Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about the fantastic and detailed American Prospect article by Rob Fischer, which detailed Beshara's story in a way where she certainly made it clear that she didn't agree with the reasonableness of the charges against her. Once again, it seems as if Beshara has been on the receiving end of bad legal advice (talking to the press post-guilty plea, but pre-sentencing... not so smart).

The US Attorney, Neil MacBride (who, it's important to note, spent years as the Business Software Alliance's "anti-piracy" boss), asked the judge to throw the book at her, using Fischer's article to repeatedly claim that Beshara's "substantial ego" and "inflated sense of self-importance" justified sending a strong message with the sentencing. Who knew that having a big ego was illegal? MacBride -- as he used to do with the BSA -- totally overplayed the claims of "losses" to the entertainment industry -- insisting that, every week, the MPAA alone was harmed to the tune of $1.5 million, "resulting in a staggering sum if the figure is extrapolated" to cover the 120 weeks that the site was in existence. Here's a tip, Neil, if extrapolating leads you to "a staggering sum," perhaps it's because your assumptions are wrong.

Either way, the judge appears to have decided not to completely buy into these claims of harm. While the government "agreed to limit the loss" to just $1 million, even though "the harm was certainly far more than $1 million," the judge seems to have capped the financial restitution to just her salary from NinjaVideo. The judge appears to have chosen not to also include a fine (which sentencing guidelines would allow between $10,000 and $100,000). On top of that, the judge gave Beshara less time in jail then either what Beshara claimed she expected (3 years) or what the sentencing guidelines and MacBride suggested (46 to 57 months). It seems that the judge didn't buy into all of MacBride's assertions.

Either way, expect the government to play this up as some huge victory against the scourge of online infringement and use it to justify continued censorship of websites.

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

Filed Under: copyright, hana beshara, ice, infringement, jail, neil macbride, operation in our sites, phara, sentencing
Companies: mpaa, ninjavideo

124 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Scote, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:23am

How on earth can she owe the MPAA anything?
When the RIAA sued people for infringement, the individual labels who owned the copyrights were always part of the suit, because only they could actually claim damages. I realize this is a criminal complaint, but the MPAA is an industry trade group, not a copyright licensing organization. How can she owe money to a group who don't own any copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: How on earth can she owe the MPAA anything?
  Magic, you buy lawyers who can sing and dance, but provide no concrete evidence of anything. You bribe judges or pick the most ignorant ones, meet with them repeatedly pre-trial to brainwash them with your bullshit. Finally, you bribe politicians to allow you to do anything.
  
  If we were not in such economic hard-times, I'd suggest collecting cash from citizens and buying the politicians back. You'd need roughly 1 dollar from each American and you'd have 312 million dollars, so you could theoretically buy 312 politicians on Congress and the rest... fire them and replace them with non-zomby-like people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Another AC, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:58am
  
  Re: How on earth can she owe the MPAA anything?
  I presume your don't need to bother with things like evidence, proof, or standing if you can convince them to just plead guilty. In fact, I don't think they even need to be guilty of the crime for them to plead guilty, all you need to do is threaten them enough :(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:24am

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about the fantastic and detailed American Prospect article by Rob Fischer, which detailed Beshara's story in a way where she certainly made it clear that she didn't agree with the reasonableness of the charges against her.

Do you think there are a lot of criminals who agree withe the reasonableness of the charges against them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  Do you realize the government gets it wrong and can mess up people's lives with merely an accusation of wrongdoing?
  
  I guess the girl deported to Columbia was her own fault for giving a fake name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Are you suggesting that the government got it wrong and she is not guilty of the charges? She was charged, pled guilty and still got a sentence below what the sentencing guideline called for. And she'll probably go to the same woman's prison as Martha Stewart and learn how to cook grilled cheese sandwiches on the radiator and make raisin hooch from stuff stolen from the chow hall.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you suggesting that the government got it wrong and she is not guilty of the charges?
      
      Yes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe she should have gone to trial then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        maybe she should have had enough money to buy better legal advice you mean?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I wonder where those pussies from the ACLU, EFF, CDT and Public Knowledge were? Seems like they really could have helped out the poster girl for commercial scale infringing but chose not to. Where was Techdirt, where was Masnick? Why didn't Masnick and Techdirtbag Nation mount a legal defense fund for her? Why did you leave her hanging?
        
        I know why. Because the only true principle here is F-R-E-E-dom. It's all about the freeloading. This high-minded bullshit about censorship and freedom of speech is a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. Where were the ad networks? They paid NinjaVideo hundreds of thousands and in turn must have made even much more. WHy didn't they step up either? The answer is always the same.... money. That's all this fight has ever been about. And here's a shining example of what could have been a principled stand for all of those who claim it's about free speech and what happens. Freeloaders looking at their shoes, hands clamped tightly on their wallets. You all are a bunch of frauds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was a boisterous ramble I'm not even going to begin to address because my point still stands and it was, just in case you forgot after writing that slurry of ad homs, that she couldn't afford better legal advice and that matters because our legal system skews towards those with more money.
        
        P.S. I guess I kinda lied about not even beginning to address your rambling nonsense because a legal defense fund was mounted for her and she raised $10,000 from her own forums (which you would know if you actually read the linked articles). By your description those forums must be full of freeloaders. I guess their hands weren't clamped as tightly on their wallets are you suggest...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, that's what she did for herself. On her own. What did Techdirt and Masnick do? What about the piracy apologists like ACLU, EFF, CDT, PK. Or how about the profiteers like Google? You all left her hanging. Ten grand is about 10% of what she needed. So where were your principles then.... still hiding out amongst the cash in your wallets I expect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just keep on trying. How many more straws are you going to reach for? You've lost the argument, STFU already!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More straws? It's always the same straw. We keep pointing out it's a straw and he keeps brandishing it as if it's a claymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On her own? You think the donations came out of thin air then because she willed them too?
        
        You're not seriously suggesting that justice being contingent on a third party like Techdirt, Masnick, ACLU, EFF, CDT, PK, Google, or my personal wallet is acceptable are you? Because when people point out to you there's no justice without proper funding your response is 'well why didn't you give her money' as if that's how justice should be served and that's ok. As if it's our fault and not the fault of the justice system itself that she got no justice due to a lack of funds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People mount defense funds for others whose cause they believe in, or out of loyalty. I'm just saying that Techdirtbag Nation and the professional apologists and piracy profiteers left this kid hanging. You guys have to live with it, not me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have no idea who contributed and who did not. Do you have the list? How do you know Techdirt didn't contribute? Any proof?
        
        Didn't think so.
        
        Any more baseless, misinformation you wish to share with us today?
        
        Perhaps you could share on the funding to abuse the legal system? Maybe share which judges were paid off (and politicians too) to ensure anyone trying to better society IS LEFT HANGING?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you fucking kidding? Masnick is the most shameless publicity whore in the blogosphere. If Techdirt was behind her legal defense there'd have been banner ads, articles, proclamations, etc. Christ we have to suffer through a ceaseless recitation of his deeds each and every week. And all of a sudden you think something like this would go unmentioned? You're full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Techdirt is a community, not just Mike and the site admins or posters of articles. Yes, true, if Mike was vain like you imply, he might have banner-ed it. But many others who are members of this community are modest and likely would not need to trample around bragging about donating to help someone out.
        
        And if it bothers you SO MUCH to "suffer" then stop reading and troll somewhere else. How about Faux News, they would love you over there. Or maybe Lamar Smith or Capcom forums?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, Techdirt.com is a presentation of Floor64, Masnick's company. You get to come here and be stupid but it's Masnick's show.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You get to come here and be stupid..."
        
        So do you. In fact, Mike even allows you to disrupt intelligent attempts to solve problems and benefit people (aka find the better solution so artists get paid and content creators create and release things WORTH BUYING!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've had your thought license revoked, haven't you? Worthless, money-grubbing shill for the deep pocketed industrialists. Traitor to the true meaning and reading of the constitution of this country. Keep on blaming others for the failures of yourself and your paymasters. We'll keep laughing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope. But keep trying. You only make yourself look far more foolish on this issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jay do you keep posting inane comments in the hope that you can capture the "most posts" award for 2012, since *giggle* Marcus seems to have bested you almost everywhere else?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Newsflash: I didn't win. Not like that's anything huge anyway. But your crush on Marcus is kinda cute.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Admittedly, I do have a soft spot for Marcus- as I do with most developmentally disabled young people. It's inspiring to see him overcome his challenges. But frankly, you are to this board what Marcus is to music and poetry. At least he has an excuse for his embarrassing flailings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Troll harder you are not even funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know several retarded individuals (they don't take offense by the term, why should anyone else get that privilege?) who would be justifiably outraged that you believe you are smarter than they are. You, the AC Troll, specifically.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My regards to your parents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 8 Jan 2012 @ 10:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ur momma's so fat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why didn't Masnick and Techdirtbag Nation mount a legal defense fund for her? Why did you leave her hanging?
        
        How much have you contributed to Righthaven's defense fund?
        
        You just gonna leave them hanging after they have worked so hard to stretch the limits of copyright law towards your way of thinking?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuck Rightshaven. A bunch of self-absorbed shysters trying to pervert the legal system for their own enrichment. They make legitimate intellectual property protection all the more difficult. I like forward to seeing them go to prison for far longer than Phara. The best part is that in prison, lawyers are neck-in-neck with child molesters. Think about it, everyone there had a lawyer and probably thinks they got sold out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do sooooooooooo love to have it both ways don't you?
        
        One one side your freetards, which must include everyone you disagree with here as we all must spend the night searching for torrents and other places to pirate the ohhhhhhhh so wonderful products the RIAA and MPAA come up with these days.
        
        On the other hand you don't like it when outfits like Rightshaven go overboard in the other direction, at least after they've decided to cut and run after being just a touch shady. But if the *AAs of the world are gonna protect their copyrights then they're also gonna have to employ the lawyers you love so little.
        
        Another nice knot you're tying of yourself.
        
        It's just staggering how you keep it up day after day after day after day after day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Personally, I despise zealots and/or charlatans no matter what side of the issue they're on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This woman violated the law and will have to face the consequences, unjust as the law is.
        
        That doesn't change the fact that I view copyright as fundamentally unjust whether infringement is done for profit or whether it is not. I don't care about freeloading, whether people infringe for money or whether they don't.
        
        Perhaps publicly we might talk a good game about creators getting their fair share, but I personally don't care whether creators get paid or not unless their creations mean something to me (and I decide to support them by purchasing a copy or, in a copyright-free future, by giving them a contribution). If creators want to get paid, they shouldn't produce until they have a promise of payment.
        
        Ideas are naturally free. If you want to restrict who has access to an idea, keep it secret and don't release it to the public.
        
        I view copyright as an artificial coercive unregulated state-granted monopoly privilege. I view it as looting and mooching on a large scale.
        
        I don't care whether or not the music and movie industries live or die. I want to see them stop infringing on the rights of the private property owners of the Internet to peacefully enjoy their property. That's the thing: the Internet is private property, and just wants to be left alone. The movie and music industries can't leave it alone and are trying to use the government to destroy it. The RIAA and MPAA are serial moochers and looters - the real freeloaders in the equation here.
        
        We aren't going to change our views. You're welcome to post here, but I don't see what good it accomplishes. Perhaps you should go elsewhere. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 8:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I view copyright as an artificial coercive unregulated state-granted monopoly privilege. I view it as looting and mooching on a large scale.
        
        So I write a script. I borrow $1 million and direct my own film. I offer it for sale to anyone who cares to buy it... or not. WTF? If you want to watch it, pay me for my investment and labor or if not, don't bother watching. And I am looting and mooching?
        
        Either you live in a mud hut in some God forsaken backwater or are an embittered, failed creator who simply couldn't cut it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 8:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And I am looting and mooching?"
        
        Yes, you are, if you try to use government violence to extract a rent from me, which is what copyright is.
        
        I don't really want to have anything to do with the MPAA or RIAA. I don't buy their product - on purpose - their entire business model is built on government force, and am not interested in it.
        
        I only ask they keep off my private property online and not try to mess with DNS or other Internet infrastructure so as to prop up their failed government monopolies.
        
        The Internet doesn't need government. It just needs to be left alone. Stop using government force to steal from private property owners, looter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll type this really s-l-o-w-l-y so even you can follow along.
        
        Option One: View my film. Pay for the experience.
        
        Option Two: Don't watch my film. Don't pay.
        
        You choose, loser.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 9:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't have a right to compel me to pay for your film unless I take it from you, looter. Viewing it isn't taking it.
        
        Except, of course, if you use government force, which is what you're about.
        
        Typical looter - goes running to his government protectors when the market rejects his business model. What a loser.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2012 @ 7:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lol. The idiocy in your argument is funny. When you go to a store and buy something, is it "government force" being forced upon you when you hand the cashier your form of payment? It isn't optional if you want to pay for any other product, so I don't know why you think the opposite is true for entertainment.
        
        And BTW, viewing it IS taking it. Because that's how you consume the product in the case of a movie...LOL. Not every director "goes running to his government protectors." Ever heard of indies who actually give their fans reasons to buy through sites like gofundme or kickstarter? But I guess you think they don't have a right to ask for payment either. (even though most indie productions are probably on your side about how stupid things like sopa and DNS blocking are...freetard logic!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 9:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll take Option 3. Abolish copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Jan 2012 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Option 3: Borrow from a friend for free, legally.
        
        Option 4: Wait until it's available for nothing as part of the streaming package I pay for, or legally on a free site
        
        Option 5: Buy a 20 disc box set of crappy movies that failed at the box office, and watch it because it was bundled in with the movies I actually wanted
        
        Option 6: Wait until it's on free-to-air TV
        
        Option 7: Catch it round a friend's house, turn off after 5 minutes and be thankful I didn't pay a penny for that crappy movie.
        
        You just LOVE to pretend that the world operates in a black-and-white binary fashion, don't you? It's so much easier than addressing reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Option 3: I watch the movie and spread it as wide as I can without caring about your feelings or "rights", you don't deserve them, period.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        So I write a script. I borrow $1 million and direct my own film. I offer it for sale to anyone who cares to buy it... or not. WTF? If you want to watch it, pay me for my investment and labor or if not, don't bother watching. And I am looting and mooching?
        
        I'm not paying you for your excesses, go try and earn a million honestly.
        
        You can't just force others to obey artificial limits that endanger the foundations of social norms and society.
        
        You are not entitled to a monopoly I don't care what is for, nobody is and you shouldn't have one either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe she should have gone to trial then
        
        Because lawyers are so cheap. The difference of the High Court and Low Courts continues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How much did you donate to her defense fund Jay. Did you even offer to help. Don't bother answering. It's already numbingly embarrassing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not seriously suggesting that the injustices of the current legal system are ok because people can beg others for money... are you? Because that would be insane.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course not. Just pointing out that the apologists and freeloaders didn't lift a finger to help in a very high profile matter that they come here every day and run their mouths about. No surprise to me. Now feel free to resume your screeds about free speech and justice and your commitment. I'll be here laughing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you admit then that your entire line of argument here was just a smoke screen and the real reason she didn't get justice is because the system is unjustly balanced towards moneyed interests. That's very big of you.
        
        Feel free to resuming laughing at injustice while the rest of us rightly consider the fact that doing so is indicative of sociopathy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and again, you've already gotten this wrong once: The 'apologists and freeloaders' donated $10,000 to her defense. So they lifted many fingers, attached to wallets, with money in them. Please try to keep up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Too bad apologists and freeloaders don't "lift their wallets" and pay for content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice attempt to detract.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, they lift their wallets more often than most:
        http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/6/150152
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How much did you donate to her defense fund Jay. Did you even offer to help. Don't bother answering. It's already numbingly embarrassing.
        
        Probably a lot more than you ever would. But I'm not expecting a lobbyist for bad laws to actually adhere to civility in a debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really Jay? You really actually donated money to her defense fund? Let me guess, you have no way of proving it. Oh well, that was your big chance prove that you're not simply a fraud who can talk the talk but little else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let's try this:
        
        Really AC? You really actually don't believe anyone against copyright abuse donated money to her defense fund? Let me guess, you have no way of proving it. Oh well, that was your big chance prove that you're not simply a shill who can talk the talk but little else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No douchenozzle, I don't believe Jay did. Nor Masnick. Nor did the professional apologists nor piracy profiteers lift a finger. How about you? How much did you contribute?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't know who donated and who didn't. If you did, I'm sure you'd send the lawyers after them.
        
        What you believe is irrelevant to the facts. Ahmadinejad doesn't believe in the Holocaust either, just as an example of people who don't believe despite facts. The facts, before you claim there are none, are the $10k in donations to her fund.
        
        Who donated is irrelevant and I'm not interested in going back and forth.
        
        You're just as fucked in the head as the idiots who want to see the long form of Obama's birth certificate. Who the fuck cares.
        
        We ask you and your shills for actual proof of damages because your math is entirely bullshit and what do you do, spew the same useless crap and hide your data.
        
        But accuse us of lying because we don't share our personal receipts so you can send your paid-for cop friends and lawyers after us for supporting people's rights for due process.
        
        Go back under your rock.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I really don't care. But I'm not going have people piss on my leg and tell me it's raining either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't look now boy but you are already soaked in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who donated is irrelevant and I'm not interested in going back and forth.
        
        Nor discussing why you didn't contribute either, apparently.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll discuss it, just as soon as you donate to my 'fix my plumbing and flooring fund.' Some of us have our own issues to deal with, and lack the finances to help others in the way you are suggesting, but that just makes us 'bad people' because we're poor. This is why you can just suck a cock.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 7:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll discuss it, just as soon as you donate to my 'fix my plumbing and flooring fund.' Some of us have our own issues to deal with, and lack the finances to help others in the way you are suggesting, but that just makes us 'bad people' because we're poor.
        
        A legal defense fund for a cause you believe in or person you support is a bit different than wanting to fix up you hovel. I suggest you contact Habitat For Humanity.
        
        This is why you can just suck a cock.
        
        You must have me confused with your boyfriend. Sorry. However that may be a solution to pose to your plumber or flooring man.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is at issue here is legal advice in copyright law is expensive. Further, the law punishes the weakest citizens the most. The Righthaven lawsuits show a vast difference in behaviour compared to what has happened here. The donation issue is merely your chance to deflect from the argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure that's the issue at all. Do you get a better outcome if you have more money than the next person in the same situation? Absolutely. But that pretty much applies across the board. The wealthy have better outcomes in education, healthcare, law, mortality, upward mobility, etc.
        
        My point is the self-righteous, loud-mouthed free speech advocates at Techdirt did nothing to help this woman. Neither did the so called free speech advocacy groups like the ACLU , EFF and company. Nor did Google whose Adsense network profited handsomely from her "free speech". Talk's cheap Jay. And a failure to back talk up with tangible action by so-called advocates is simply despicable and very revealing as to the degree of fidelity to the stated purpose.
        
        Google doesn't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech. It's a convenient stalking horse to allow widespread infringement to continue to enable them to profit from eyeballs on ads. The apologist groups are as weak and flat as day old Coors Light. Google is delivering cash in wheelbarrows and they get to make serious speeches to the press and members on the Hill about censorship and free speech. All along they know that with a nip here and a tuck there- Google will go dark after it gets a better (for them) bill. Techdirtbag Nation is nauseatingly hypocritical. Everyone's willing to pontificate, sign petitions and send e-mails- but did nothing to help this kid. I didn't help her because I don't believe in her cause and what she did. But you guys do, and you didn't do shit- because it would have required a measure of self-sacrifice. And the innate sense of entitlement that leads you (Techdirtbags) to believe that it is somehow OK to take the creative output of another without compensating the rightful owner is the same is precisely why this kid is going to spend the next couple of years in jail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        to believe that it is somehow OK to take the creative output of another without compensating the rightful owner
        
        If by rightful owner you mean the public yes I absolutely believe they should be compensated with free access to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good luck trying to enforce copycrap in the homes of people, I will be laughing to my grave LoL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 10:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This coming from a lobbyist, it's quite a lot of BS.
        
        Judging from the stories involved, she was making an online library and ICE shut it down.
        
        And all you can do is point to Google and try to extract money from them for the politicians they have to buy. Bravo.
        
        But let's make a few things clear here. I do give money to Techdirt. The amount is none of your business. Same with if I gave money to Ninjavideo, the Salvation Army, or the Red Cross. If you want to tell how much you give to charity, or to another group for a viewpoint, be my guest. But far be it for me to tell you my personal choices. What I will tell you is that the $10,000 they received was an amassed donation from a lot of people that felt they could find good legal counsel to help them. Unfortunately they didn't.
        
        So going on and on about this is specifically your choice, but it's a misleading argument. People donated what they could to a site they liked to find good legal representation. The point that I've made (there's a difference between the high court of Righthaven and lawyers vs the low court of the Ninjavideo admins) still stands. The other point (the law is being twisted in order to criminalize innocent people) about CCI being a misleading misnomer here is also something you love to ignore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's no point in telling a troll/lobbyist anything about my endeavors. Or maybe, the fact is I showed a timeline of events that you've never bothered to answer while you constantly try your ad hom attacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Soooo, I guess that's your way of admitting that you did not, in fact, donate anything to Phara's legal defense. No surprise there. It's OK, I knew the answer before I asked the question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sooo I guess he didn't answer you means he didn't donate?
        
        We all knew you were full of shit, straw-man fallacies, no data to back up your shill claims, piss-poor logic, etc... based on your first few sentences.
        
        But rather than be blind like you, we at least gave you a chance to prove you're full of it.
        
        NOTE: Saying you are full of shit is not the same as calling you names, ad-hom attacks like you choose to argue with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Listen, Nancy-boy; I don't care if you call me names. I'm not the usual thin-skinned milquetoast mincing around here who collapses into tears or self-righteousness any time someone throws a punch my way.
        
        Thanks for explaining that saying that I'm full of shit is different than calling me a name. It's nice that all of those years in high school of staring at people from inside your locker has made you so sensitive to others feelings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're so adorable!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 10:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Soooo... You can't answer anything about the timeline so you double down on a bad argument. It's ok, I already knew you were full of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  Do you think people who like to beat others (Judge William Adams beats daughter for sharing) know they are monsters?
  
  If sharing is a crime, the whole of humanity is criminal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Infringing is illegal. You want to share, open your house up to homeless people. It's cold out. Not that I think would ever happen with the self-entitled freeloaders here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Domestic abuse (ie, beating your daughter) is illegal, too. Or are we going to just keep ignoring that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm pretty sure that was covered in a different article already. Feel free to dredge it back up since you aren't able to relate any of your babbling to the matter at hand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        links or it didn't happen
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 7 Jan 2012 @ 11:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why, he's just emulating your sorry ass and now you don't like it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Infringement is not always illegal dumbass, and is even the desirable outcome for many situations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Because you do it all the time I am sure.
      
      Get off you high horse. How can you ever expect to see the other side of the argument if you think every on that side is less than human.
      
      Stop filtering the whole world through your point of view and stop pretending you have the right to act better than anyone else. I know what you do to yourself at night.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 6:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh? And how much time do YOU donate to the local homeless shelter? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  On the rare occasion you get the truly repentant ones that agree with the charges.
  
  Then you have the deniers that will rail against any charge.
  
  Then you have the ones that are guilty of a lesser crime (whether in their minds or reality) railing against a trumped up charge.
  
  Then you have the innocent who will also rail against any charge.
  
  In any case, the charges should be true, accurate and the punishment should fit the crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  I'm pretty sure most criminals are well aware that what they did was wrong and what the punishment for their actions is. You do get the occasional nut-case, but most of them will agree (grudgingly, of course) that the punishment fits the crime.
  
  Please try not to confuse Hollywood movies (where criminals are always dragged to prison screaming "I'm innocent! I'm innocent!") with reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Iris, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Please try not to confuse Hollywood movies (where criminals are always dragged to prison screaming "I'm innocent! I'm innocent!") with reality.
    You mean the reality where Hollywood tries to drag innocent people off to prison?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The prison-industrial complex can be a bit corrupt at times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not sure whether to vote insightful or funny.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re:
  Judging from the ~90% rate of guilty pleas in federal cases?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:43am

They get the low court treatment, whereas Righthaven gets the high court treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 11:44am

The sentence is still outrageous and way too harsh for the little to nonexistent harm caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re:
  Some people make the same case regarding drug charges. But it's still illegal. Go figure, you don't get to pick what laws to obey without a potential consequence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Some people make the same case regarding drug charges. But it's still illegal. Go figure..."
    
    Yes, go figure. You'd solve most problems associated with drugs if you'd just legalize them. Not all of them, but most.
    
    Remember, Alcohol was illegal during the prohibition. Remind me how that turned out?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey now, no fair pointing out that the definition of "illegal" changes based on social norms!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I actually agree with you about drugs. We'd be far better off legalizing them and using the "war on drugs" money to treat addiction and educate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe we'd be better off legalizing copyright infringement and using the "war on infringement" money to fund additional grants for the arts? You don't think all this enforcement was free did you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Which is funny, because they DO get to pick which laws they enforce, and when, and how forcefully.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's true. That's why I jaywalk but don't urinate in public. But if I get cited for jaywalking, you can bet I won't bitch up and start crying about the injustice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You would be entirely correct calling it an injustice if you did though because that's what injustice is, an unequal application of the law. Adherence to the law and justice are not the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well I don't. I drive fast and have been picked out of the pack a number of times while other speeders went about their business. I shut my trap and pay my ticket. See if you can't borrow your balls back from whoever took them from you and be responsible for the consequences of your own behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There you go again, pretending you know the behavior of people you've never met and assuming it has any baring on the subject at hand. It's becoming a pattern: loose argument -> ad hom. Please try to stay on topic and stop thinking about my balls, we're discussing justice in the modern american legal system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So... because you meekly accept the injustice of the system, you have balls?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:01pm

let me know when the MPAA now starts making an extra 1.2 million a week...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta**, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:17pm

Yeah, that's fair.
Why not just increase the amount of fines to one trillion US dollars per song per download per upload and per instance? It's not like they're going to ever see that. In fact, I'd send them a dime per month with the promise that I might find a better job somewhere (all the while staying self-employed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JaDe, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:24pm

Problems with extrapolating...
Obligatory XKCD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re: Problems with extrapolating...
  Additional obligatory XKCD
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warezweek, 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:24pm

Outrageous
outrageous sentence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyne L., 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:54pm

Excellent!
Good news. Seems like in the USA it's still not legal to steal and fence your stolen goods.

Hope she has fun with her community service. Maybe she'll get to feel like what it is to work for FREE.

The law CAN work in the USA. Now time for against against foreign thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Excellent!
  And for every invalid takedown, false infringement case, instance of abuse of the law, we'll throw your ass in prison. Because clearly the law works and if it does, then the false-takedown claims of the DMCA can be applied to penalize those who abuse the system... oh wait it can't.
  
  If you are working for free it is because you're not creating what people want or given them a reason to buy.
  
  Ever stop and eat the "FREE" sample at the grocery store but never buy? You were not hungry either, but you ate it because it was free. HUMAN nature. You would NOT have bought that product being sampled either.
  
  See how fucked up your logic is? See how free samples provided by companies does NOT make them bankrupt despite people not being hungry or intending to/actually purchasing their products?
  
  And on the flip side, people who are NOT hungry but DO LIKE the product will BUY it BECAUSE OF THE FREE SAMPLE!! Not a lick either, you get to eat it! No where is there a regurgitation bucket where you only get a taste. You get to leave with that FREE item in your stomach, no police, no court time, no abuse of the law.
  
  Odd concept I bet.
  
  Thanks for coming out!
  
  PS If you try to claim that digital media and free samples at the food store are "unrelated" then you also discount that whole "if you steal a candy bar or download a movie for free" argument too!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Excellent!
    See how fucked up your logic is? See how free samples provided by companies does NOT make them bankrupt despite people not being hungry or intending to/actually purchasing their products?
    
    Yeah, except the rightful owner wasn't providing samples Phara was. And it wasn't samples, it was entire movies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Excellent!
      Is is possible to take part of a swallow? Nope, it was an ENTIRE bite and ENTIRE swallow and it remains there in the person's stomach. Which is similar to how the content remains in your head after viewing.
      
      Point being, as you seemed to have missed, FREE != ripping people off. Free CAN and DOES equal to increased sales, as does sampling. If people enjoyed the sample, they will buy more. If people have no intention of buying, they can still enjoy the sample.
      
      SO FREE IS NOT ALWAYS a loss, and in fact improves chances of revenues!
      
      And if you want to argue "rightful owner providing samples" you should look at the benefits of those WHO DO provide samples! Compare that to the companies who do not and see how much their revenues increase? Try alienating customers, yeah that works.
      
      Have Humpty Dumpty stand there casting insults for those who sample and buy (or sample and not buy) Frito-Lay chips. See how many people buy Humpty Dumpty after that!
      
      You're as blind as Cary Sherman and Mitch Bainwol.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2012 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent!
        It's still not a very good comparison. In the case of free samples offered in a store, the company that makes that product is ALLOWING the store to do so and in many cases even the one that is offering it themselves. And they also don't just hand you an entire bag of chips; they put a few on a plate.
        
        In the case of content creators though, it's not just a "sample" being taken; it's the entire damn product. Not to mention that it certainly isn't authorized by the creator or company who made the product in the first place. I agree samples would be a good idea; (and this is coming from a musician btw) but people don't just want to dl the first 5 mins of a movie or the first minute of a song. Thanks to the industry moronic fatcats dragging their feet, people have actually become USED to getting the entire product for free with no consequences at all. So for those of us that actually DO cwf+rtb, it's still annoying as fuck to watch your youtube/other free resource views&dl's to be in the millions, while your sales don't reflect the same numbers. All because people want to enjoy "samples" without actually buying it, just because it's readily available for free illegally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Excellent!
  What did she steal? And the foreigner pirates?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:39pm

Side question about shell companies
how much does it cost to create a "company"

Can I just pay some $2k registration fee or something, then pirate to my hearts content, then when a law suit comes down, I claim it was the company that did it and dissolve the company...

aka "get out of jail card"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 1:47pm

"I'm sure they'll be passing that along to moviemakers, right?"

We know they won't but has anyone investigated where the money goes after it reaches the MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 2:53pm
  
  *if SOPA passes*
  
  Months later...
  
  MPAA worker: Sir, why am I getting laid off...? You said that our paychecks would increase when that bill became a law...
  MPAA CEO: It's those evil pirates! They've managed to trick us into helping them! If you're willing to work as an astroturfer again, I'll give you your job back!
  MPAA worker: Of course, sir!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 6 Jan 2012 @ 5:29pm

Looks like the low court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 5:35pm

Imagine how wonderful it would be if Hollywood, instead of imprisoning this woman, used her obvious genius at media distribution, as an administrator for a site that would finally bring the entertainment industry into the 2st century. She's obviously very savvy as to what folks want, their viewing habits, tastes as well as her social awareness.

Unfortunately this point of light will be locked away in a dungeon for 22 months, her sentence satisfying only the empty suits whose jobs became redundant years ago and who are now strangling the entertainment industry in their bid to stay relevant. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 9:44pm

The Sellout of Phara
Here's Phara's own words:

�Perhaps you are affiliated with the ACLU, Google, Youtube, MegaUpload, Rapidshare, The Pirate Parties around the world. Perhaps you are financially comfortable and you feel passionately about the issue at hand. We need� NEED� legal sponsorship in addition to legal donation,� she pleads.

�We are up against the Federal Government of the United States. They are petrifying. PETRIFYING,� says Phrara.

�They want to cage us. They most likely will,�

�Please don�t let them. All it takes is $1 from each of you.�

A dollar?..... for shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2012 @ 10:20pm
  
  Re: The Sellout of Phara
  Shouldn't have broken the law.
  
  Should have worked to get the law repealed so you looters have to get real jobs rather than mooch off of others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2012 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Re: The Sellout of Phara
    Wrong, she shouldn't have been caught LoL
    
    Mooching off of others is so good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2012 @ 12:57pm

The only good prosecutor is a dead one!!! ;)
She should have had a ninja whack the persecutor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 16 Feb 2012 @ 3:04pm

Phara sucked anyways
When Ninjavideo was up, it was great, as long as you clicked on banners, minded your own business, and didn't bother reading the messages wrote under half the shows. Phara (and some of the other admins) acted like they were re-inventing the wheel. Yes, the site took a lot of work. Yes, it was helpful. But at no point did anyone need the attitude. Many of the major players that got the brunt of the traffic after the downfall of Ninjavideo welcomed the new users with open arms. I can remember showing up to a couple new sites to find everyone acting nice, the admin's running the show just as good as NV, but always with a professional attitude.

Part of me feels bad for Phara for how it turned out. There's another part of me that thinks karma is a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man, 5 Mar 2012 @ 12:37pm

HAHAH
She was a biitch anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]