BitTorrent Site Admin Sent To Prison 685
Marc wrote in with a Torrentfreak story which opens: "The 23 year old Grant Stanley has been sentenced to five months in prison, followed by five months of home detention, and a $3000 fine for his role in the private BitTorrent tracker Elitetorrents.
This ruling is the first BitTorrent related conviction in the US. Stanley pleaded guilty earlier this year to 'conspiracy to commit copyright infringement' and 'criminal copyright infringement.' He is one of the three defendants in the Elitetorrents operation better known as 'Operation D-Elite.'"
Silly Punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
2) I hope he stocked up on torrents of stuff to watch/listen/play during house arrest.
Captain Obvious breaks it down for 'yall (Score:5, Interesting)
The Napster kerfluffle should have told anyone with three brain cells that building a site for the express purpose of putting people with a copy of a copyrighted file in contact with people who want a copy is infringement. The technology that implements it isn't all that important, it is the intent. And elitetorrents was ALL about warez. Just because the guy wasn't running an FTP site hosting the files wasn't going to save his butt and he should have known it wouldn't.
Don't like the laws? Either work to change em or violate them as an act of civil disobedience and accept the consequences in the hope of gaining sympathy for your cause and eventual change. But don't act shocked that the operator of what was a major warez site got busted and sent up the river.
Thank god I feel so much safer now (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is that he nor any of his users ever got any chance to vote on any copyright law. Can't say I have. Have you? Have you ever gotten to vote on any copyright issue?
Hell, I never even agreed to be any citizen of any country. Show me a signature where I did. So therefore, how do any laws apply to him, or me? As far as I'm concerned, if you have no say so in the making of a law, then you have no obligation whatsoever to have to abide by it.
Kind of like your neighbors down the street getting together and making an assinine aggreement, that all windows in the neighborhood must be left open in the winter time. And then enforcing that law on you. Fining you and or imprisoning you when you don't abide by it. Assembling a police force of patrollers to enforce this rule and smashing down the door and taking prisoner those who are in violation of it. Conformity and enforcement at the end of a barrel of gun.
Only the neighbors aren't down the street, they are 100 miles, or 1000 miles away. Or worse, somewhere back in time, even before you were even born.
Tell me the US version of representational democracy / republic isn't a total crock of ****....
Further, if you're under 18, you have no say so whatsoever. If you're over 18, your say so is generally limited to the joke of a vote. Which is nothing but a weak concession to undermine your primary right, which is the right to riot.
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Stupid is as stupid does (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"What are you in for" (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh.. this raises a question: Would he go to a prison with rapists, murders, and other violent people or would he go somewhere where he'd sit and think about what he did instead of worrying for his life?
Martha Stewart | Grant Stanley (Score:4, Interesting)
Grant Stanley, crime characterized as sharing : 5 years of butt sex.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you aren't thinking.
What is prison for? What's the purpose to putting someone in prison? To answer this, let's look at what prison does; It removes a person from the general population. Why would this make sense for a bt operator? Are they a threat to themselves or others? No, it's silly to imply otherwise.
A fitting punishment to this crime can and should be settled in civil court; They are forced to make restitutions.
So you tell me, which makes more sense; Taking someone off the streets and stop them from being a productive member of society. OR, let them continue working and paying off a fine. Which makes more sense given the crime involved? Which makes more sense for soceity ( remember, over crowded prisons )? Which makes more sense for those wronged ( what benefit does the RIAA get out of him being in prison aside from evil pleasure )? And finally, what makes more sense for the convicted?
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:4, Interesting)
When the penalties of a law does more damage than the crime it's addressing then the law is wrong. If we in the US could just hold all laws to that standard I think we could clean up the books quite a bit and put a lot of lawyers out of business, so in other words it will never happen.
Re:Oh no! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great punishment. (Score:4, Interesting)
it seems appropriate to insert a small reminder here that a federal criminal record can have long term consequences.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't think anyone is saying that. BUT, scenario 1 is not what is happening with Bittorrent.
1a. Jane Doe spends 10 years of her life 80 hours a week and $400,000 in funding from family and friends and loans to successfully build a revolutionary piece of software. Someone else developes a machine that can copy CDrom disks, which lets people copy and mass distribut Jane's software outside of her control. Jane and her family lose their livelihood and has to declare bankruptcy.
Slight difference.
Someone hosting a bittorent site is NOT violating copyright. They do NOT host 'illegal', 'stolen' files. They simply point to where those files are. Do you think Google should be shut down because you can search for illegal stuff on it?
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
He was knowingly and wilfully helping others to share information representated as bits and those others have decided to share information falling under the copyright law, amongst different information free from copyright.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a hint... if everyone could get infinite free pumpkins then anyone who picked pumpkins *would* be a chump.
Software's not quite the same. Software is a complex tool that lets people accomplish things - accomplishing things is worthwhile, so software will continue to be developed even if nobody buys it.
A more interesting example is expensive Hollywood movies - as home thearters get as good as cinemas they may stop being sustainable. That's sad, but it's not so sad that I'd be willing to give up basic freedoms to preserve the MPAA's business model.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL counteracts copyright by making the media free in most ways except for making non-free media with it, ie keeping the money from flowing into the hands of corporations.
You seem to not understand why the GPL exists. If copyright didn't exist, I really don't think that the GPL would be needed at all.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
"As far as I can tell, this verdict means we will haul librarians to jail if they put a photocopier into the library: providing others with the means to violate copyright."
As the summary covered, he was nailed for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. "Conspiracy" is the key word. Librarians are generally not involved in conspiracies to commit copyright infringement.
If your response is "well, I see no difference...", keep in mind that this is what we have courts for. If your grandmother, your neighbor, or some random person on the street understands the difference between a librarian and the guy who runs "EliteTorrents," then your average judge will, too.
I'm wondering if you really see no difference, or you're just slippery-sloping for effect. Can you clarify?
"Where exactly is the line here?"
There is no exact line... that's why cases go to court. Every case is different. You can't easily do an If A, Then B, as in your "running a torrent tracker / working in a library" comparison.
USSR (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, in USA person gets into jail for distributing music. I guess this is the real Democracy for you
A better way to make your point (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope we haven't reached the point were copyright infringement is considered a "menace to society."
Re:Oh no! (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, while I agree that this is overkill, this statement is, I think, silly. To put it that way denies that those "1s and 0s" might actually mean something when put together. I mean, I could say that stealing* is just taking a few atoms, or that killing someone is** just stopping some electrical impulses. Yes, these are in some sense hyperbole above and beyond yours, but your original statement is a pretty blatent example IMO too.
*I'm not trying to equate stealing and copyright infringement
**if you don't believe in a soul
Re:"What are you in for" (Score:3, Interesting)
Content:
Some young dude is sent to his cell and as he walks by two cliche criminals/thugs discuss
who can have him first.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
A photocopier in a library is a long way away from a bittorrent tracker that (according to wikipedia) was the first site to host a copy of revenge of the sith before it was even in theaters. Thats not an innocent kid just resharing something he found elsewhere on p2p2. Thats someone deliberately targeting new movies and aiming to be the first to distribute them.
I'm not saying that jail time is the right punishment, but lets get some perspective here. Its not a kid downlaoding a single mp3.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
Try reading up on vacarious and contributory infringement. Try looking at the Napster case (which didn't store no files themselves either). Try looking at the DMCA, where it's a separate crime (implicitly assuming a tool to break DRM will be used to violate copyright law).
As far as I can tell, this verdict means we will haul librarians to jail if they put a photocopier into the library: providing others with the means to violate copyright.
If they installed a private copier where the whole setup was made to facilitate mass copying of books, then probably yes. It is sort of like being an accountant, which is legal. It's legal even if the clients are running some sort of scam operation, as long as you're not personally involved. But if you're the Mafia's accountant, then you're going to have a bloody hard time saying "I'm just the guy running the numbers, I haven't done anything illegal. I'm not part of any organized crime, I have no idea of this protection racket you speak of and I don't know anything about trade in illegal goods."
I don't know where you think that this is anything new. Go back three hundred years, and I'm sure someone tried "Gee, I was only hired in to herd some cattle... at night... from this farm where we had to be quiet to not wake the farm up, to somewhere far off where we'd sell them. Guy who hired me said he owned them, I don't know about no cattle theft." Don't think it worked then, don't think it works now. If you're doing something that everyone that isn't blind, dumb, deaf and retarded can see is done as part of a crime, expect to be prosecuted for it. Operating a private tracker for a warez group is one of those things.
Re:I had a chat with a record company guy.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Ability to download music is good for the customers and good for the music industry. The only problem there is is the restrictions in the music files. Why would anyone buy a car which you can only use on Mondays and drive only 20mph with it, when you can get a fully working car for free. If they want that people will buy from them, they need to be better or atleast as good as the free alternatives are.
Don't worry, I don't download illegal music.
The content? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Good question (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, that's alright then! I expect this will do wonders for your tourism industry...
The account of a former prisoner (Score:5, Interesting)
Prisoners are not nearly as rape-happy as they're made out to be in popular culture. There are fights, drug deals, and a lot of angst and widespread hopelessness. But the few outright rapists in the general population are stigmatized and not well-respected. Keeping to yourself and minding your own business go a long way in lockup.
In comparing federal to county: You are better supervised in federal prison, which means there are actually far fewer assaults, sexual or otherwise. Federal prisons have more controls in place for dealing with problems.
And that's about all he was willing to share on the subject. Thankfully, I have managed to stay out of prison myself, so what I am imparting to you is second-hand information.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, yes. Whatever useful right to complain that you've got is one that is given to you by the public, and is meant to serve the public interest. No one at all cares about you, or what you want, other than that it is a useful way to manipulate you. I.e. you want money, and we want public domain works, so we give you a limited, temporary monopoly that you gamble will make you money, and you create the work that we will ultimately get whether you actually make money or not.
The lack of any laws wouldn't be all bad. There were no copyright laws prior to 1710 in England, and in most of the world not until well into the 19th and 20th centuries, and often copyright only covered some kinds of art and not other kinds. And a lot of works were created by authors who often could manage to be fairly successful and comfortable, entirely without copyright.
But in any event, this is a red herring. There is a much stronger call for reform of the law than there is to abolish it altogether. Getting rid of criminal penalties, shortening the length of copyright (if the game makes you any money, it'll do so quite rapidly; you don't need many decades of copyright -- especially since you only need to make enough to incentivize you, so far as the public is concerned), shortening the scope of copyright (e.g. mandating that the source be revealed and deposited in the Library of Congress if you want a copyright, though you're free to rely on trade secret laws if you forgo copyright; or mandating that you can't use DRM if you want a copyright, though you're free to use it if you forgo copyright and think you can withstand a government supported DRM-cracking agenda meant to get those public domain works into all the hands that want them).
Balance is irrelevant. The best copyright law is the one that best serves the public. No one cares how well authors do under it, except insofar as that affects whether the public is best served. Kind of like how a dairy farmer doesn't care if his dairy cows are happy, except insofar as it affects the milk yield. If treating them gently will make him more money, he'll do it. If treating them harshly will make him more money, he'll do that instead. Copyright's quite similar, with the public as the farmer, the authors as the cows, and their creative works as the milk.
Re:Silly Punishment (Score:1, Interesting)
Murderers are evil, pedophiles are evil; people who commit physically violent crimes should be punished with jail/prison. Everyone else in my opinion should not. Do you really think our government or the officials tasked with running prisons care a bit about those people inside? Again, first hand, no. Do you honestly care? Or are you just interested in sweeping problems away where you won't have to deal with them anymore? The perception and reaction to wrong doing in this country is out of control. As a conservative republican I believe our government (all three branches) have led and have allowed, for much too long, uncontrolled and rampant legislation at the federal and state levels. When I was growing up I watched the movies, read the books and talked about the prevention of a "Big Brother" society of monitoring our every transaction, movement and word uttered. It happened anyway, and with blessings from those who would stand to lose power or influence due to (gasp) FREE THINKING and SHARING OF IDEAS! Does the act of copying and sharing Jimmy Buffet, Lil' Kim or Metallica really hurt anyone physically? Unequivocally no! So why send non-violent people to jail/prison? We should never have started that practice to begin with. If caught, should someone admit to what they have done and pay some kind of reasonable restitution? Absolutely. Yet we cannot respond positively to this issue when, like every other issue our country deals with today, we go ape shit and gang busters on it. When our so called "leader" passes a bill allowing for torture, for any reason, then I fear the dark side is not some axis out there, but the evil within our own society. Right, I know, the pres says we don't torture...and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
When did we become such a vindictive, angry society that we feel everything needs to be checked, monitored and reviewed? For the sake of economic progress and free market coddling I'm sure. After all, software and products in general are worth more than a human life. So if you copy software, movies or music...if you photocopy books, read a magazine in the grocery line without paying for it or copy a VHS tape from a friend then just understand before hand that you are a bad, bad person who deserves prison or maybe even torture. Give it a f**cking break America!
Re:"What are you in for" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good question (Score:3, Interesting)
But I do agree that we need to handle terrorism and terrorists very seriously and very sternly. It *is* a war. Iraq is a total fuck job, but we need to focus intelligence, law enforcement, special forces and full military operations on killing every Bin-*, Abu-*, and Al-* that wants to do us harm.
This does require special tactics. Lincoln suspended Habeous during the civil war for all citizens. FDR interred 110,000 Japanese during WWII.
And it's totally false to say that these laws "stretching" the constitution are against what the "founding fathers" had in mind. The original Sedition act was passed in 1798, making it illegal to criticize the President or Congress. This was signed by John Adams. Thomas Jefferson was a vocal critic.
The law had a sunset clause built-in, so it expired uneventfully, but the fact that it passed the congress and was signed by the 2nd president of the united states should show you that the Constitution has never been concrete. It's mallable. This is a good thing. Sometimes it's bad, but it's very nature means that the bad things can be corrected.
Besides, the constituion specifically provides for the suspension of Habeas if required for public safety.
As for the "spying" nonsense, do you realize that international calls were also monitored during WWII?
You're blowing this out of proportion. No long-term harm is being done to our country, its citizens, or the constituion. Bush didn't invent any of the techniques he's using. And if listening to Americans INTERNATIONAL calls ends up thwarting a terrorist attack, I think it's worth it. Domestic calls are another thing. Mostly because they're so much more common. For most of us international calls aren't that common. And if I'm calling my friend who lives in Lebanon, for example, I don't care that the call is being screened by a computer system for certain keywords. It's *FAR* from spying".
Re:Good question (Score:4, Interesting)
I recall reading one right-wing think tank that said the west should buy up the entire yearly opium output from Afghanistan, refine it into morphine and give it to the third world's hospitals. This would be cheaper than the 'war on drugs' and would provide the third world with a drug that they have great trouble obtaining.