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.
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, criminal copyright, doj, ice, imagine, jeremiah perkins, restrictions, sentencing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say we get rid of the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see it now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can see it now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can see it now...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can see it now...
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!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can see it now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pens. Paper. yada yada
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
Yay! Finally something to look forward too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pens. Paper. yada yada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your daily required troll impersonation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Par for the course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> for daily life, banning someone from
> having phone or Internet service is
> often considered a cruel and unusual
> punishment.
Considered by whom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hate to break it to you but Federal sentences offer only limited "good behavior" time. He'll do 4 1/2 minimum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So many people don't know how to read legalese
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though, going by the mention of cinema cleaners of all people, I've half a mind to think you're being satirical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe that's because they do a pretty good job of keeping freeloaders from sneaking into the theaters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Average Joe impression requirement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Hobbit
Zero Dark Thirty
Skyfall
Lincoln
I wonder when the MPAA et al are going to start looking at their own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See: 18 USC 2319B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best part...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The best part...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...all for sharing information!
No. All for heading a criminal conspiracy to convert the property of another for one's own profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobotomy?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ATM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
Exactly which recognized human right to you believe was violated? A citation would be nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2934&context=faculty_sch olarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dun%2 520recognition%2520of%2520creators%2520rights%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D10%26ved%3D0CG0QFjAJ%26url%3Dhtt p%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2934%2526contex t%253Dfaculty_scholarship%26ei%3DoqXnUN-0Bu6p0AH00oHwAw%26usg%3DAFQjCNGzm_5qpzUkqT0bRyMQDTrMj8ECmg%2 6bvm%3Dbv.1355534169%2Cd.dmQ#search=%22un%20recognition%20creators%20rights%22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spoon-fed, my ass.
You're on a roll today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sentencing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some judge doesn't understand how reproduction and distribution of information works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electronic age = electronic freedom of speech
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]