Fast and Furious 6 Gets UK Movie Pirate 33 Month Jail Term

Doom-Slayer

Ooooh...I has custom title.
Jul 18, 2009
630
0
0
ron1n said:
Yes there will always be people that will want still steal it. That's impossible to completely eradicate. But I think you'd find there would be a large percentage of people who would happily pay for a better service/for more choice. Not only could they potentially convert a number of the people pirating but you also have to take into account the people who have simply stopped watching movies because it's too expensive and they don't want to pirate.

Yes hd rips could go up, but at the very least, it would allow the film industry to control WHEN the rip goes up. After all, do you think people will actually bother downloading a piece of shit cam rip when they know a good quality copy is going to drop in a week or two?

Anyway the point is, even if they can't stamp out piracy all together, they could be making a lot more money and missing out on a lot less if they took some proactive steps toward changing the way they offer their product/service.
You make good points, and I will conceed, the attitude is starting to shift in that people demand quality. One thing though is that right now, the demand for immediacy is HUGE. A company uploaded a super HD version of a film 1 week after film realease? To people who want it, that is unacceptable.

A classic example, is that here Game of Thrones used to(or may still) get aired 1 week later than the US. Almost everybody I knew that watcedh GoT already HAD a TV and the appropriate channel payed for, but they pirated it anyway simply because they wanted it sooner.

Its almost impossible for companies to appease the masses. Without a huge cultural shift, or vastly improved servies, right now the main way you stop piracy is by viciously targeting the distributes to dissuade more and more people from sharing. It certainly isnt the best option, but right now its what works until we get a better system in place everywhere.
 

ExtraDebit

New member
Jul 16, 2011
533
0
0
KaZuYa said:
You get more jail time pirating a movie than you would mowing down a family while drink driving because costing rich people the chance of making more money is something you just don't do.
This!

33 months for pirating a movie, is this really justice? However, there's an old chinese saying: the poor can't go against the rich, the rich can't go against the government. I guess this is true even to this day.
 

ron1n

New member
Jan 28, 2013
401
0
0
Doom-Slayer said:
You make good points, and I will conceed, the attitude is starting to shift in that people demand quality. One thing though is that right now, the demand for immediacy is HUGE. A company uploaded a super HD version of a film 1 week after film realease? To people who want it, that is unacceptable.

A classic example, is that here Game of Thrones used to(or may still) get aired 1 week later than the US. Almost everybody I knew that watcedh GoT already HAD a TV and the appropriate channel payed for, but they pirated it anyway simply because they wanted it sooner.

Its almost impossible for companies to appease the masses. Without a huge cultural shift, or vastly improved servies, right now the main way you stop piracy is by viciously targeting the distributes to dissuade more and more people from sharing. It certainly isnt the best option, but right now its what works until we get a better system in place everywhere.
But that's just it. Is there any solid evidence to suggest that maliciously going after up-loaders and down-loaders has made an iota of difference to piracy? I mean, we are talking about guys with camcorders. Put one in jail, there's another hundred or more to take their place.

I agree immediacy is the issue, but the reality is, people refuse to be held down by industry mandated cordoning-off of content in any media now days. Music, TV, Gaming are exactly the same. They need to just start servicing this demand and try and provide as good a service as they can. At least they could start getting people on their side of the issue. I have zero sympathy for them until they try to change.

I mean, for example: In Australia, it costs roughly $20+ for an adult ticket. $15-$20 more for a popcorn and drink. If I have to pay $35-$40 for the 'cinema experience' I'm simply not going to go. Hell, if they charged me the same amount but let me stream it in the comfort of my own home, I'd actually pay to see more movies in a given year. At least I know I'll be able to enjoy the film in the comfort and quiet of my own home and pay $5 for my own snacks.

The cinema is the weak link currently. They are effectively the 'Gamestop' of the film industry.
 

freaper

snuggere mongool
Apr 3, 2010
1,198
0
0
ExtraDebit said:
KaZuYa said:
You get more jail time pirating a movie than you would mowing down a family while drink driving because costing rich people the chance of making more money is something you just don't do.
This!

33 months for pirating a movie, is this really justice? However, there's an old chinese saying: the poor can't go against the rich, [em]the rich can't go against the government[/em]. I guess this is true even to this day.
Apparently they can seeing as this private business just got a guy jailed over almost nothing.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Karloff said:
His torrent was uploaded more than 700,000 times
He uploaded it 700,000 times? He must have a lot of spare time to have done that :p Methinks you meant downloaded 700,000 times!
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
CriticalMiss said:
Karloff said:
His torrent was uploaded more than 700,000 times
He uploaded it 700,000 times? He must have a lot of spare time to have done that :p Methinks you meant downloaded 700,000 times!
Ah, nuts. Adjusted. Thanks!
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
CpT_x_Killsteal said:
The jail term is harsh, but fair.
Yes because ruining someone's life and costing the tax payer even more for such trivial "crime" to protect large corporations is fair, They should have gave him the rope. too bad it's banned.
 

cjbos81

New member
Apr 8, 2009
279
0
0
So he admitted to the crime on facebook?

That's hilarious!

He should get 33 years for stupidity.
 

AstaresPanda

New member
Nov 5, 2009
441
0
0
Yeeeeeah, Recorded it himself, sold it for personal profit AND was dumb enough to have it on his facebook. lololol Twat. Good.
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
Brilliant sentencing, there. Paedophiles and violent criminals get similar amounts. Burglars can get caught multiple times before they would get a similar sentence. Not saying he did nothing wrong. just the sentencing is out of proportion.
 

Cartographer

New member
Jun 1, 2009
212
0
0
vdrandom said:
Cartographer said:
That argument equates those two situations, which is demonstrably nonsense. You have benefited (lol, in this particular case) from someone else's work without paying them ergo you have stolen from them. Hence their statement.
First, stealing means not only benefiting from stolen items but also removing them from the legal owner.
No, I'm afraid that is a particularly antiquated view of ownership which, like most countries' laws, hasn't taken account of technology and is what copyright law attempts to rectify (badly). That view simply doesn't work in a world where electronic copies of data are so easy to copy/steal/distribute. There has to be some protection for the producer of said data, be they a multinational corporation raking in billions from the sweat of slave labour or a single person working every minute of their free time to scrape a living together. Their work is theirs and they have a right to seek compensation whenever anyone else uses/watches/whatever their work. The view that you have to deprive someone of an item for it to be theft belongs squarely in the last century (where it was out of date even then).


vdrandom said:
Like, if a woodworker gets some of the chairs he made for the shop stolen, it's a proper theft ? chairs are gone and he cannot sell them anymore. Not the case with Universal here: they still can and will sell as many copies as they can, therefore it is not stealing, not by definition. (Not arguing that it is not a crime here, just to be clear.)
Except your own reasoning falls down here. If someone has illegally obtained a copy of (in this case) a movie, there is no reason to assume they will seek to pay the producer for a legal copy. In other words, by taking a copy, they are depriving the producer of a sale. The notion that they will pay for a legal copy later, is irrelevant as it is functionally the same as "it's not theft if I intend to return it later". Similarly, the notion that they wouldn't have bought one anyway is, as I explained in the post you quoted, also nonsense.


vdrandom said:
Second, if I get an item that fails to fulfil the use I want it for, I will return it to the store or resell it to someone who finds it useful. Although... If I watch a bad film that was hyped in media and trailers? Can I, like, complain to the cinema or a company who shot it and get my money back? Wait, are you going to say that it's a service and I pay for the experience? But why on earth have you been telling me that it CAN BE STOLEN?
Strangely, if you attend a cinema and the movie is without sound, the picture is awful, the film skips and jumps, you CAN get a refund; you can and have every right to your money back. If you didn't like it, tough, that is simply life and not legislated for, you have no right to a refund if you simply don't like something (seriously, go look up statutory rights; unless there is an actual fault with an item, you have no right to a refund, retailers can offer them if they choose, but are under no obligation to bow to your changing whims).
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
33 months for piracy? What the fuck? And how exactly did they calculate the amount of money that Universal Pictures lost because of this? They can't. People who pirate movies probably wouldn't have gone out to see it anyway.
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
33 months for piracy? What the fuck? And how exactly did they calculate the amount of money that Universal Pictures lost because of this? They can't. People who pirate movies probably wouldn't have gone out to see it anyway.
That's pretty much the universal reason as to why people pirate. The majority at least don't have the money to actually see it..same goes for video games.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
DarkhoIlow said:
That's pretty much the universal reason as to why people pirate. The majority at least don't have the money to actually see it..same goes for video games.
They pay more for internet access. They have the money for a movie ticket, they just don't care enough about the movie.

This issue should be handled by sending a warning to everyone who downloaded the movie/game etc. asking them to pay the full price. And maybe a few extra bucks to cover the expenses of doing so. There's no need to incarcerate people for this crap. It fixes nothing and it ruins lives.
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
Adam Jensen said:
33 months for piracy? What the fuck? And how exactly did they calculate the amount of money that Universal Pictures lost because of this? They can't. People who pirate movies probably wouldn't have gone out to see it anyway.
Actually, I believe the reason for the 33 months is because he sold copies and not just pirated it and if he just put it available for download his sentence would have been less.

As far as calculating losses there is never an exact way to calculate those losses, its like the one hockey lawsuit that was finally settled where they estimated how much the player would have earned based on averages and past knowledge. With something like this its more vague, but even if they were to say 25% of the people that downloaded the movie would have seen it in theaters they can still argue it cost the company millions.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Cartographer said:
vdrandom said:
Like, if a woodworker gets some of the chairs he made for the shop stolen, it's a proper theft ? chairs are gone and he cannot sell them anymore. Not the case with Universal here: they still can and will sell as many copies as they can, therefore it is not stealing, not by definition. (Not arguing that it is not a crime here, just to be clear.)
Except your own reasoning falls down here. If someone has illegally obtained a copy of (in this case) a movie, there is no reason to assume they will seek to pay the producer for a legal copy. In other words, by taking a copy, they are depriving the producer of a sale. The notion that they will pay for a legal copy later, is irrelevant as it is functionally the same as "it's not theft if I intend to return it later". Similarly, the notion that they wouldn't have bought one anyway is, as I explained in the post you quoted, also nonsense.
You're just shown your ignorance on the topic twice there.
Theft is a specific crime, so is piracy. The reason they have two difference words is because they are two different crimes. That's not random justification that is the law.
Equally the claim "it's not theft if I intend to return it later" is true. Under UK law it isn't theft if you honestly intend to return it.

Please try and know what the hell you're talking about before making random claims about the law.
 

marscentral

Where's the Kaboom?
Dec 26, 2009
218
0
0
Karloff said:
What fascinates me about this is, if Danks is to be believed, FACT sat in on his official interrogation and basically told the police how to investigate the case. I can't think of any other pressure group with that kind of authority.
This guy is an idiot and a confessed criminal and while I think the sentence is a little harsh (I knew a guy who threatened someone with a sword and only got a 2 year suspended sentence), deserves to be punished. But this case does bother me. FACT is a trade organisation, not a government agency or law enforcement. If we let people like FACT push convictions on people, no matter how deserving, we're leaving our legal system open to abuse.
 

TheSanityAssassin

New member
Jul 24, 2008
121
0
0
This story must be fake or FACT must have made some of the chages up, so they would have something to stand by as i cannot see how anybody would buy or even sell a cam version of fast and furious...
 

CpT_x_Killsteal

New member
Jun 21, 2012
1,519
0
0
mad825 said:
CpT_x_Killsteal said:
The jail term is harsh, but fair.
Yes because ruining someone's life and costing the tax payer even more for such trivial "crime" to protect large corporations is fair, They should have gave him the rope. too bad it's banned.
Well what would you recommend? I dislike greedy corps as much as you do, but a crime is still a crime.
 

shintakie10

New member
Sep 3, 2008
1,342
0
0
Jesus christ. 33 months for this? I've seen people get lesser sentences for outright killing people (even if by accident).

How on earth is that kind of jail sentence justifiable for such a minor crime?

CpT_x_Killsteal said:
mad825 said:
CpT_x_Killsteal said:
The jail term is harsh, but fair.
Yes because ruining someone's life and costing the tax payer even more for such trivial "crime" to protect large corporations is fair, They should have gave him the rope. too bad it's banned.
Well what would you recommend? I dislike greedy corps as much as you do, but a crime is still a crime.
A less bullshit sentence for one. This kind of crime is, at most, community service with a fine. You don't serve a near 3 year prison term for petty theft. An honest to god burglary can get you a shorter sentence than this person got.