UK Internet Pirate Goes to Jail for Long Time

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Ledan:

Well if you actually read it you'll find that he thought the court case was unfair. The judge was not impartial. FACT Ltd committed fraud in an appeals court, but due to a lack of funds he was unable to call them on it.
How was he at fault? He had a website that was a search engine. You put in "The Avengers" and there was a link to another site, where someone else had uploaded that content. Like Google. You put in "DJ Earworm- Summer 2010" and you get a link to several perfectly legal torrents.

The UK courts had previously ruled that the location of the servers does matter. I'm guessing from your other posts that you have already decided that he is a heinous criminal that deserves what he gets, and anything presented otherwise you would probably call lies. Read through it and you find that FACT Ltd openly "lost" important documents, admitted to bribing a witness, and used several dirty tricks.

Yup, I really hope that a higher court looks into this. An open and impartial one.

Seriously though, this guy's life was ruined because he made a search engine. How in the world is that fair?

I'm not calling anyone a liar... yet.

But yeah, I think he deserves what he gets, after making $50k a month linking shit for pirates. Don't pretend he didn't know what was going on, cuz that I won't believe. I also am not sure how he couldn't afford an appeal when you say 'FACT Ltd committed fraud in an appeals court, but due to a lack of funds he was unable to call them on it. ' How does that make any sense unless it's all just a big conspiracy riddled frame job by a judge on the take?

EDIT: Also, thanks for being civil with me.

Sober Thal:

Ledan:

Well if you actually read it you'll find that he thought the court case was unfair. The judge was not impartial. FACT Ltd committed fraud in an appeals court, but due to a lack of funds he was unable to call them on it.
How was he at fault? He had a website that was a search engine. You put in "The Avengers" and there was a link to another site, where someone else had uploaded that content. Like Google. You put in "DJ Earworm- Summer 2010" and you get a link to several perfectly legal torrents.

The UK courts had previously ruled that the location of the servers does matter. I'm guessing from your other posts that you have already decided that he is a heinous criminal that deserves what he gets, and anything presented otherwise you would probably call lies. Read through it and you find that FACT Ltd openly "lost" important documents, admitted to bribing a witness, and used several dirty tricks.

Yup, I really hope that a higher court looks into this. An open and impartial one.

Seriously though, this guy's life was ruined because he made a search engine. How in the world is that fair?

I'm not calling anyone a liar... yet.

But yeah, I think he deserves what he gets, after making $50k a month linking shit for pirates. Don't pretend he didn't know what was going on, cuz that I won't believe. I also am not sure how he couldn't afford an appeal when you say 'FACT Ltd committed fraud in an appeals court, but due to a lack of funds he was unable to call them on it. ' How does that make any sense unless it's all just a big conspiracy riddled frame job by a judge on the take?

FACT Ltd said that they did not know why the CCP had dismissed to prosecute the case, in an appeals case in which I think he was trying to get his property back from FACT Ltd. Later FACT Ltd disclosed a letter in which the CCP clearly states that they do not think that this case warrants prosecution and explains their reasons. They had received this letter long before the appeals case. At this point in time he did not have enough money to take FACT Ltd to court for this obvious fraud.

It is not illegal to provide links to people. Otherwise Google would be taken to court. I also don't believe in a conspiracy, but I do believe in negligence and the use of dirty tricks.

mike1921:

Sober Thal:

McMullen:

1) Reread the second paragraph.

2) I think there's a bigger need to lock you up than him;

1) Why would I care what a piracy sympathizer (that has nothing to do with the case) has to say?

2) *see answer #1

I hate the way people fucking think that if you find there are punishments for a crime that are too harsh than you're a sympathizer. No, I'm not a fucking robbery sympathizer because I think the death penalty is too harsh for stealing a twix. This is everything that is wrong with peoples' attitudes towards criminal justice. What he did was possibly a financial crime, one with not that much impact on anyone he should be fined. Jail time should not even be on the table.

I can understand that. It just irked me how he (the person who quoted me) added, the last part to his initial post, telling me that I should be in jail...

As far as this case goes, I don't believe the numbers the movie companies come up with, but I do believe it hurts to have your product pirated, at least a little bit. This guy was making around $50k a month for however many years, and ran out of money at the end of his trial supposedly keeping him from appealing. Even tho he states he has soooo much evidence of fraud, bribery ect ect

So he couldn't pay any fines, so he does the time. How much of a fine should he have gotten for the tens of thousands he received each month, and how much is a year in prison 'worth'?

Thanks for being civil ; )

The worst crime of all is anything that damages corporations. Drink and drive at high speed endangering lives here and you get a slap on the wrist and a £50 fine. Potentially be a cog in the piracy machine and you better not let them take you alive son! I still think piracy is pretty bad, but comparatively worse crimes get punished far less.

More heinous crimes are punished much less severely.

Why? Because this kind of thing is backed by -financial- incentives from ppl with more money/power.

That's just how justice works. /cynicism

Sober Thal:

mike1921:

Sober Thal:

1) Why would I care what a piracy sympathizer (that has nothing to do with the case) has to say?

2) *see answer #1

I hate the way people fucking think that if you find there are punishments for a crime that are too harsh than you're a sympathizer. No, I'm not a fucking robbery sympathizer because I think the death penalty is too harsh for stealing a twix. This is everything that is wrong with peoples' attitudes towards criminal justice. What he did was possibly a financial crime, one with not that much impact on anyone he should be fined. Jail time should not even be on the table.

I can understand that. It just irked me how he (the person who quoted me) added, the last part to his initial post, telling me that I should be in jail...

As far as this case goes, I don't believe the numbers the movie companies come up with, but I do believe it hurts to have your product pirated, at least a little bit. This guy was making around $50k a month for however many years, and ran out of money at the end of his trial supposedly keeping him from appealing. Even tho he states he has soooo much evidence of fraud, bribery ect ect

So he couldn't pay any fines, so he does the time. How much of a fine should he have gotten for the tens of thousands he received each month, and how much is a year in prison 'worth'?

Thanks for being civil ; )

it's probably because it looked like you were mitigating jail, taking away years of someone's life.

Quite frankly I don't think they're interchangable for any number that a normal person will ever see. Although it seems the real problem here is that you could even manage to spend a $50k a month income on a legal defense and run out of money .I still wouldn't support jail time for a crime of that nature for anything that's not at economy sinking level (which is the sort of thing that ruins livelihoods). Like if he legitimately did lose all of his money what threat is he? And if all he did was provide a hub to other things is what he really did all that bad? Like did they even try to do something about the hosts which are actually keeping the content up?

Agow95:

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

Isn't Google a American company though? FACT is based in Britain, and it's most likely only capable of arresting sites based in the UK, like the one that got this British guy arrested, FACT trying to arrest the head of Google would be like the FBI launching a full-scale assault on a fat man in New Zealand.

Oh wait... they did that in the megaupload case...

A huge fine yes but jailtime is just extreme. This man has lost everything and he will never get it back over something I would consider a grey area in the legal system.

It's alarming that copyright can cause a person to be jailed in the first place without even having personally broken it. What's next, cooperation's enforcing their own laws, the breakdown of the state?

sethisjimmy:
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.

well you can't exactly torrent a chair, downloading something is a lot easier than physically stealing it. so theirs your answer

I understand fining him but sending him to jail, but for four year is just ridiculous! sending him to jail at all is ridiculous. it seems he has already lost most of what he has and has to declare bankrupt, And in reality the people who asked for links to illegal stuff would have found it anyway, so it's not like he made them do it

Wow, that's some bullshit right there. =/

How 'bout they use the money it costs to keep this guy in jail and use it to put REAL criminals in jail?

Signa:
This is enraging. Yes, some people have said that he was profiting from piracy, but I disagree fully with this being a punishable method.

See, the reason profits from piracy is bad is because it takes a customer away from EVER buying a product. They have a "close enough" copy of the original work, and the artist never gets to see a dime of that transaction. Even if the copy is shit, the customer isn't going to feel the need to buy it again unless they REALLY want it. Getting someone to buy something once is hard enough, getting them to buy it twice is very rare.

In this case, the guy wasn't taking money from IP holders. He was just being more or less gifted money by people that wanted to get their own names out too. Any potential customers that went through him could still see value in buying a product they saw through his service. He didn't take their money, and if they wanted to spend it, they still had it.

agreed, he had extra space and basically said "hey, wanna get your name seen? feel free to hammer your sign in right here, finders fee of course"

I mean really, since the beginning of time people have made money with smart advertising, I don't see how this is any different, not to mention it's not like movies/tv shows kill or physically hurt people, so don't go playing that extremist crap card I've seen thrown out there a few times.

My goodness... I'm not sure if i'll ever agree with some of the wonky paragon republican boy scouts on here. Definite overkill on his sentence/court case.

Meanwhile you can get away with less for manslaughter...

And no he was not profiting from piracy he was profiting from ads, just like 99% of free sites, and he was linking to other sites just like every search engine does.
This is a clear case of bending law by sheer bullying, the guy didn't have the money to defend himself and he goes to jail for it.

Fuck me, this is insane. Four years!

legendp:

sethisjimmy:
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.

well you can't exactly torrent a chair, downloading something is a lot easier than physically stealing it. so theirs your answer

Actually with a large enough 3D printer and a downloadable design, yes, yes you can download chairs.

Even if the guy didn't do anything technically illegal, it's like if he's the one telling people to go get the anarchist's cookbook or something, someone in power is going to get annoyed. And this time around, I'm pretty sure I agree with HM's government.

Why the fuck is no one arresting Bill Gates? Most pirates use Windows. Gates should be arrested for creating an OS and then pointing to the world and saying "Here, you can do illegal shit on it."

For fucks sake...the media seem to portray piracy as the worst crime ever. Like it's as bad as real piracy, which actually ruins peoples lives/kills them. But no, because internet pirates take tiny amounts of money from people that can make fucking castles out of dollar coins, they're the worst thing since the crucifixion.

Sober Thal:

McMullen:

Sober Thal:
Damn right, send em to jail.

When will you people learn that you shouldn't make money from IP theft? Probably never.

1) Reread the second paragraph.

2) I think there's a bigger need to lock you up than him;

1) Why would I care what a piracy sympathizer (that has nothing to do with the case) has to say?

2) *see answer #1

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.

What I'd like to know is how can you blame the case for 'losing your marriage'? His wife abandoned him because of the court case?

Anyone making a moral case out of his 'crimes' is just being moronic. The guy simply happened to do something entrepreneurial (which society encourages) which went against the 'big guys' (which society discourages). A trickle of water against the flow of a turbulent stream.

hold on a sec.....did he only get in trouble for linking to 3rd part video streaming sites like youtube?

if thats the case then say I post a youtube video on a blog..could I get in trouble for that?

Agow95:

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

Isn't Google a American company though? FACT is based in Britain, and it's most likely only capable of arresting sites based in the UK, like the one that got this British guy arrested, FACT trying to arrest the head of Google would be like the FBI launching a full-scale assault on a fat man in New Zealand.

Didn't some british guy get extradicted to the US in a very similar case, even though neither his page, nor he himself were ever on american soil?

sethisjimmy:
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.

Porn. Lots of porn.

Damn, surf the channel, the only streaming website i ever gone to (beside the obvious being linked to youtube all the time by random people thing). It had a lot of legal content too you know.

/sigh

And yet all those bankers that ruined hundreds of millions of lives around the world are still living the high life free as the birds...

Kordie:
So... he directed people on where to go to watch tv including legal and illegal places...

This is rediculous that a mans life is ruined over sharing information that is already freely available. Also, how is generating ad revenue for this wrong? Wouldn't that make youtube punishable? and google? If I made the same website and just listed the illegal places under a seperate heading of BTW avoid these specific sites as they are not legal sources, would there still be a problem?

Nothing about this case seems on the level. I can agree that piracy is bad, but this is not the way to stop it.

Not just sharing, but profiting from. As the article said, had he just shared them without a view to being paid, he may have not even been taken to court. FACT, no matter how evil, sniffed him out and sent him packing, which they are in their rights to do under the law as it stands.

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 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.

Carsus Tyrell:
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.

tkioz:
/sigh

And yet all those bankers that ruined hundreds of millions of lives around the world are still living the high life free as the birds...

Those bankers were, unfortunately, not breaking laws. They were trading unethically and lending money to people they couldn't guarantee would pay it back. Unethical yes, illegal? No. Those that were acting illegally have been fined and some have faced prison sentences. Still Douche bags though

Mr Companion:
The worst crime of all is anything that damages corporations. Drink and drive at high speed endangering lives here and you get a slap on the wrist and a £50 fine.

And a suspended sentence, suspended license. Sometimes even get your license revoked indefinitely. 6 Points on your license too if you were speeding.

Fappy:
Another example of how the battle is being fought on the wrong front with the wrong strategy.

Could you explain your point please? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Lyri:

Fappy:
Another example of how the battle is being fought on the wrong front with the wrong strategy.

Could you explain your point please? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I think they are wasting time and resources prosecuting people like this. He may be exacerbating the issue of piracy, but he is in no way the root cause nor is his absence going to impact piracy rates in any tangible way. Wasting tax payer money and throwing some guy in jail for far longer than that kind of crime should warrant does nothing to slow down piracy.

Call it justice if you want, maybe even making an example, but we won't see any real change if they continue down this path. Just wasted money and more people in jail.

Fappy:
I think they are wasting time and resources prosecuting people like this. He may be exacerbating the issue of piracy, but he is in no way the root cause nor is his absence going to impact piracy rates in any tangible way. Wasting tax payer money and throwing some guy in jail for far longer than that kind of crime should warrant does nothing to slow down piracy.

Call it justice if you want, maybe even making an example, but we won't see any real change if they continue down this path. Just wasted money and more people in jail.

You have to start somewhere, it isn't the ideal situation of course but pulling in someone who is making £35k a month is a pretty good haul.
A lot of people are defending him I guess because he's only linking you to torrents/links but I really don't believe that should excuse him, he's a part of the problem and is just a middle man in the grand scheme of things.

With that kind of figure PCM then he has probably got some networking behind him and isn't just operating some website, solo.
I'd say he was a pretty decent pick up, certainly not a waste of tax payers time.

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?

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.

crazyrabbits:

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

piclemaniscool:

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.

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?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here