UK Internet Pirate Goes to Jail for Long Time

[crazyrabbits]

I don't see how this is hurting anyone. Yeah the guy profits from it, so what? He get money from ad revenue it's not like the money he gets is taken from the movie studios. There really isn't an act here worthy of punishment besides the pirates themselves. The only person being ruined is the guy who's in jail now. If I were to sell a picture, yes I would be mad at the person putting it on display in his house. But I would NOT ruin the life of a guy that says "hey, did you see this thing here?" pointing to his home. Of course the analogy falls apart here because theres no real world equivalent to ad revenue.

That's not an accurate analogy.

It's more like this: I find all of the work you've ever written, and all of your friends' work, and all of their friends' work, and I post links to it online on a single website. I'm not making a dime from your content - I'm only pointing the way to it on my site. Yet, I'm also getting 35,000 a month in ad revenue because of the content I've put through on the site - revenue which you'll never see a dime of.

Do you understand why copyright holders would be upset, never mind the fact that it's piracy anyway?

 

[Wriggle Wyrm]

Correct me if I?m wrong but it seems to me that this guy wasn?t even pursued by government. From what I?ve seen, it looks like everything from the gathering of evidence to the prosecution itself was all done by or at the behest of this FACT organization, a corporate cooperative with every incentive to put this guy away, with no incentive to protect people?s rights and with no accountability to anyone but their bottom line.

 

[piclemaniscool]

I don't see how this is hurting anyone. Yeah the guy profits from it, so what? He get money from ad revenue it's not like the money he gets is taken from the movie studios. There really isn't an act here worthy of punishment besides the pirates themselves. The only person being ruined is the guy who's in jail now. If I were to sell a picture, yes I would be mad at the person putting it on display in his house. But I would NOT ruin the life of a guy that says "hey, did you see this thing here?" pointing to his home. Of course the analogy falls apart here because theres no real world equivalent to ad revenue.

That's not an accurate analogy.

It's more like this: I find all of the work you've ever written, and all of your friends' work, and all of their friends' work, and I post links to it online on a single website. I'm not making a dime from your content - I'm only pointing the way to it on my site. Yet, I'm also getting 35,000 a month in ad revenue because of the content I've put through on the site - revenue which you'll never see a dime of.

Do you understand why copyright holders would be upset, never mind the fact that it's piracy anyway?

But that's the thing; HE didn't put the stuff up. And no, why would I care if you're making ad revenue? Even if it's because of my work, it isn't taking money away from me, and wouldn't be MY money to take back.
Captcha: stinking rich

 

[crazyrabbits]

But that's the thing; HE didn't put the stuff up. And no, why would I care if you're making ad revenue? Even if it's because of my work, it isn't taking money away from me, and wouldn't be MY money to take back.
Captcha: stinking rich

He showed you the way to it, just like he showed the way to thousands of copyrighted works across film and television - don't get me wrong, those sharing sites are just as culpable. Put together, that's a truly massive volume of content - the "how's" and "why's" are irrelevant in this case - if he's making money via revenue for content he doesn't own (even by proxy), it's piracy.

That revenue he generated could have supported you and your work if you had put it online and wanted to monetize it. That's the goal of most major copyright holders - they want to be compensated fairly for the content they produce. Whether it's through paying customer or subsidies, the act of someone taking their work and using it for profit is circumventing copyright law. It's quite cut-and-dry.

 

[piclemaniscool]

That revenue he generated could have supported you and your work if you had put it online and wanted to monetize it.

How, exactly?

 

[Savryc]

4 years for some sodding internet links and adverts. We can't deport a fucking Al-Qaeda soldier because "human rights" yet we can sling someone into our already over-crowded prisons because of things you can easily find on youtube?

Fuck this country, as if I needed more reasons to GTFO.

They are two entirely different things there. You just compared murder to digital theft, two things that have totally different series of laws regulating them and they have different legislative paths to go through before any charge or deportation can be carried out.

This veiw is becoming far too popular in Britain and it's massively flawed.

Actually I complained about prison overcrowding, the (EU) human rights act being invoked to overturn the deportation of a self confessed soldier of a terrorist organization (as well as plenty of other's, the EU can't die quick enough) and an outrageously high sentence for, as I said, a few links and adverts the majority of which could probably be found on youtube. Then I pointed out that I was of the opinion that I didn't need any more reasons to want to GTFO.

No comparisons whatsoever. Dunno where you got the impression from.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Black piracy. Scummy little toads. Jail them all.

 

[Bloodysoldier]

Did you get permission to use that image as your avatar good sir? What no you did not? Well my good man your going to jail for a long time. Hope you rot in jail pirate.

Awww, your soooo cute! I'll give you an answer~!

First off, I'm not making $50k a month by using this avatar. Secondly, I have not received any letters asking my screenshot, of a series I own (that's over 27 years old), not be used this way. If the day comes and I am informed by Harmony Gold USA in association with Tatsunoko Production Co., Ltd. to cease and desist, I'm not arrogant enough to ignore it.

I do not care what a pirate or a pirate sympathizer has to say, A pirate is bad and should go to jail. You sir are a bad pirate stealing pictures of somebody else's work without giving them credit, how dare you pirate.

 

[FalloutJack]

Ok wait wait wait.
Who advertises on a site devoted to people who aren't willing to pay money for things? That just seems odd.

*Looks around, grinning*

I'M SURE I HAVE NO IDEA!

(Mwa ha ha ha ha haaa...)

 

[crazyrabbits]

That revenue he generated could have supported you and your work if you had put it online and wanted to monetize it.

How, exactly?

Website revenue mostly comes from merchandise sales, banner/commercial advertising or donations in some cases.

Again, it's one thing to just link to a piece of copyrighted content. It's quite another to do the same thing to hundreds of works and make money off their work at the same time. It's theft-by-proxy.

If I was charged and tried to defend myself by saying, "Sure, I linked to hundreds of movies and made money hand-over-fist through ad revenue, but it's their fault for putting it online in the first place," I'd be laughed out of court and sentenced to jail time.

 

[Nopenahnuhuh]

And yet, Google do the same thing, and no doubt profit far more from advertising whilst doing so.

Shhhhh! Don't point out that kind of logic discrepancy, you'll crash the Matrix.

 

[Xerxesrogue]

Am I the only one sensing some irony, in the fact that there is a link to surfthechannel in this very article?

 

[The Funslinger]

The crime is real, but the time is overkill.

Severe overkill.

"This man is charged guilty of stealing a loaf of bread, sire."

"I decree he is to be beaten to death, by an executioner using the guilty's youngest child as a club!"

Should have been fined and had his site taken from him.

This is assuming he wasn't set up like he's claiming.

 

[Something Amyss]

And yet, Google do the same thing, and no doubt profit far more from advertising whilst doing so.

But that's different because they're a corporation.

Two tiers of rules: One for us, one for them.

 

[alexbuckenham]

Can't help the feeling we're falling into a corporate run dystopian era

I felt it ever since the Tories got a majority in the commons on election night.

And here we are now. In a country where the people are ants, willing to be stepped on because of peer preasure and right wing politics. Another reason why I am considering moving to Canada when I can afford it.

CAPTCHA: Heartache.

How my heartaches at the fact our government is being twisted by the big businesses.

With 37% of the popular vote and an apparent mandate to turn the UK into a right wing utopia.......I hate the world

 

[alexbuckenham]

Did you get permission to use that image as your avatar good sir? What no you did not? Well my good man your going to jail for a long time. Hope you rot in jail pirate.

Awww, your soooo cute! I'll give you an answer~!

First off, I'm not making $50k a month by using this avatar. Secondly, I have not received any letters asking my screenshot, of a series I own (that's over 27 years old), not be used this way. If the day comes and I am informed by Harmony Gold USA in association with Tatsunoko Production Co., Ltd. to cease and desist, I'm not arrogant enough to ignore it.

I do not care what a pirate or a pirate sympathizer has to say, A pirate is bad and should go to jail. You sir are a bad pirate stealing pictures of somebody else's work without giving them credit, how dare you pirate.

Really? REALLY? You are just the worst