15 years? Wow. He could have run down multiple pedestrians, killed one of them, and used a false insurance claim to try to cover it up and gotten a third of that.
Goes to show, he should have made a run for it and hit a bunch of people with his car. Then he’d get a reduced sentence.
Just goes to show how horrendous this sort of crime is. I hear dvd pirates are on the same cell blocks as pedophiles in prison.
What? Really? I would have thought dvd pirates would have far worse conditions than pedophiles.
That depends, is the pedophile a high profile person or a creepy poor person?
Don’t let it fool you. Serial pirates are the biggest enemy of mankind. We should strive together to make sure they get the penalty they deserve.
People generally aren’t sentenced to the maximum penalty for a crime, so it’s not very useful to compare the maximum potential sentence for a charged crime versus the actual sentence received after conviction on another crime. The Indianapolis hit and run carried potential penalties of more than 15 years. This DVD guy will probably get less than 5.
One is running some nobodies over, the other making a rich guy some pennies less rich.
Must set a precedent, y’know?
on paper
It’s making them less rich only if you assume pirated copies would’ve been sales. That’s generally not the case, and piracy can often increase sales by pirates recommending things to people who will actually buy.
He really wasn’t. The media he distributed came with Russian malware.
But I collect russian malware. I was expecting that release. Where else can I find that? It’s gone now, and the collector’s value has skyrocketed.
I’m sure some Tankies could provide it free of charge, ask around ML and Hexbear
what kinda 2009 headline is this?
police also confiscated 50 pairs of counterfit ray-ban sunglasses and 20 lbs of zippo lighters
Plot twist. It was 1 zippo lighter, but it was a comically large one. It just weighs 20 lbs.
At that point wouldn’t it just be a really shitty flamethrower?
It could be a good one, you don’t know the details.
Well, it could be a flamethrower wit ha novelty zippo style casing, but if it’s simply an upscaled zippo it’s going to lack the pressure feed mechanism a flamethrower has to cause the fuel to ‘throw’ out and instead would just be a fairly sizeable flame at the opening.
Yes let’s not go after the south African literally fomenting the rise of a fashist takovet. Let’s go after the guy selling bootleg DVDs.
I’m okay with both. This guy was enabling a Russian Hacker network.
Just started to say I’m glad they’re focusing on the important things. 🙄🤮
Fails to mention he also was selling the discs online.
But they want to sentence him for 15 years for this, even though his actions likely saved lives during the height of COVID if the allegations are true; if they aren’t true, he harmed nobody because those 10 million people wouldn’t have seen the movies in theaters anyway.
Thankfully, no crime was committed
DVDs?? is this article from 2006?
Weirdly enough, DVDs are still by far the most popular physical format.
I still buy them, but I prefer when it’s a dvd/blueray/3D (if available) combo pack.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say this company that makes DVDs probably also makes Blu-Ray discs.
You can just say bluray, disc is implied
I knew they were going to start cracking down on piracy. They’ll use it as an excuse to make vpns illegal.
Shhhhh, don’t give them ideas!
He shoulda just said he was training an ai model!
He didn’t get arrested for theft. He got arrested for being part of a distribution network that empowered Russian hackers.
To be clear. Copying or downloading media is not illegal. Distribution is.
Downloading is absolutely illegal, it’s just not really enforced because you need to prove criminal intent. You’re still accessing copyrighted material without a license, which is a copyright violation.
Distribution has much higher penalties and is more likely to push people to buying (harder to find copies = potentially more legal sales), so that’s where enforcement is focused.
If you can present the law that makes it illegal to download, please do so.
The laws of the USA make it illegal to distribute, but license violations are beef between you and a company subject to civil dispute at most (which is entirely uneconomic to pursue) AND technically you haven’t violated the license, the distributor has.
In fact, Facebook downloaded millions of archived and pirated works recently but claim no wrongdoing because they didn’t seed anything.
Here’s the interpretation by the US copyright office in their FAQ:
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution.
The enumerated rights of copyright owners are detailed in Title 17, section 106, with exceptions (e.g. fair use) described through section 122. The relevant portion is:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
My understanding is that the copyright office is using 1&3 in their interpretation. So my understanding is that Meta is violating copyright by downloading copies of copyrighted work if their use doesn’t fall under the fair use claims.
Right, so the owners have their rights enshrined in laws to make copies, sales, and derivatives, but that doesn’t mean people other than owners are breaking a law by downloading a copy that a third party made and distributed. In fact, that text alone doesn’t make it illegal to make copies, derivatives, or distributions, that would instead be outlined in U.S Code Title 17 Chapter 5 Section 506 which says:
§506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(2) Evidence.—For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
(3) Definition.—In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means—
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution—
(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture—
(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.
(b) Forfeiture, Destruction, and Restitution.—Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323 of title 18, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(e) False Representation.—Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2586; Pub. L. 97–180, §5, May 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 93; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, §606(b), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5131; Pub. L. 105–147, §2(b), Dec. 16, 1997, 111 Stat. 2678; Pub. L. 109–9, title I, §103(a), Apr. 27, 2005, 119 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 110–403, title II, §201(a), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4260.)
As with your quote from the FAQ, the entire section says:
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney’s fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many “authorized” services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights’ testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Statutory Damages are civil. Risk of liability for downloads means it isn’t certain. There are no criminal proceedings for downloading copyrighted media, it isn’t illegal.
In fact, it’s actually even more lenient than I had expected, you STILL don’t qualify for criminal charges even if you cost the real copyright owner $999.99.
Section 506 is about penalties, it doesn’t define what’s legal or not. If your actions don’t neatly fall under one category or another but you have violated the exclusive rights of the property owner, courts have a fair amount of discretion in interpreting the law to come up with a judgment.
That’s why I linked the exclusive rights grant instead of the penalties, the penalties are based on the rights you violated, so it’s a lot more terse than wading through the various penalties that have a bunch of conditions (if you’re an org making >X, Y penalties apply, if you’re an individual and damages…). If we were talking about what the penalties in a specific case are, then yeah, looking up penalties is instructive. But if we’re merely deciding whether a law was violated, then it’s a simple matter of identifying whether exclusive rights were violated.
Also, whether the case is tried in civil or criminal courts is irrelevant to legality, it’s only relevant to the types of penalties that can be enforced.
Statutory Damages are civil
Yes, and damages are only awarded if the plaintiff can demonstrate that you’ve violated the law. You can’t be forced to pay damages if they can’t prove a law was violated.
Risk of liability
All this means is that most files distributed over P2P networks are illegally distributed, which means the risk of breaking the law is higher. If you’re just downloading Linux ISOs (where distribution is allowed explicitly in the FOSS license), you’re not breaking any laws, but if you’re downloading “Linux ISOs,” that risk is on you (works are automatically copyrighted).
In fact, it’s actually even more lenient than I had expected, you STILL don’t qualify for criminal charges even if you cost the real copyright owner $999.99.
It’s still illegal regardless of the level of damages, it just may not be worth the court’s time to enforce.
The main differences between civil and criminal law are the stakes and burden of proof. Civil law has much lower stakes (no jail time), and criminal law has a much higher standard of guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Both are predecated on proving a law was violated.
It’s crazy how I can post the literal actual text of the law and a link to it and you can just ignore that and say it isn’t what it is.
How “Les Misérables” of them. Jean Valjean got 19 years for stealing bread. 15 years is light in comparison.
Thankfully this monster is finally off the streets
Honestly, yeah, he was enabling Russian Hackers.
Thankfully your banjo playing days are finite.
This isn’t a “piracy is bad” comment, this guy in particular was feeding media specifically to a group that repackaged malware into it.
Do you have a source for that? This article does not say that at all. It simply says that the person in question ripped Spider-Man Far From Home, that movie specifically was available from a lot of different users and locations, also had some cases where it had dangerous malware packaged, and that could have come from a Russian torrenting site. Nothing links this person directly to that malware or Russians at all.
The article says
Soon it became dangerous to download the movie, though, as popular demand for the movie quickly put a target on downloaders’ backs and scammers soon planted malware in Spider-Man movie torrents that ReasonLabs reported used the movie to “lure in as many victims as possible.”
ReasonLabs said that the malware was “likely from a Russian torrenting site.” It took over the would-be Spider-Man movie watchers’ computers without setting off Windows Defender and with the goal of cryptomining in the background for the bad actors’ benefit.
It could be that the article is misquoting people and displaying a Bias, but I wouldn’t know.
Right, but that specifically is not linking Steven Hale. So your original assertion that he is selling/supporting Russian malware is not substantiated by this article.
Exactly. That will have to be proved in court, and just making something available for anyone to use as they please is not “working with Russian hackers.” They would need to prove actual collusion to make the malware-ridden version more accessible.
National security priorities definitely in order.
My tax dollars at work‽
Soon it became dangerous to download the movie, though, as popular demand for the movie quickly put a target on downloaders’ backs and scammers soon planted malware in Spider-Man movie torrents that ReasonLabs reported used the movie to “lure in as many victims as possible.”
ReasonLabs said that the malware was “likely from a Russian torrenting site.” It took over the would-be Spider-Man movie watchers’ computers without setting off Windows Defender and with the goal of cryptomining in the background for the bad actors’ benefit.
How does a video file contain malware. Or are people running exe files to watch a video?
The video itself is a set of instructions, and when a video player interprets those instructions there is a window of opportunity.
Some players might have vulnerabilities that people exploit; but honestly it’s very rare, especially with most people auto updating their programs.
Most of the time it is indeed “download spider man no virus no survey 2023 free download.exe”
tldr: people using Windows can get duped into running what is basically a Powershell / Shortcut to pwn themselves
I cock blocked them with Qbit even though I don’t use Windows
tldr: people using Windows can get duped
Truth.
If they’re being shared as disk images, basically every Blu-Ray has an embedded Java program, also
Lol corporate enforcers paid by taxes
stole “numerous ‘pre-release’ DVDs and Blu-rays” between February 2021 and March 2022. He then allegedly “ripped” the movies, "bypassing encryption that prevents unauthorized copying
How? Especially pre-release bluray?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Hex?
Hey, that’s the combination to my luggage!
They should demand thorough answers from this vigilante and put them on YouTube so all the world understands not to do this!
No, i mean, bluray DRM is partly bound to keys and the player. Even blurays from 2020 often fail with libbluray and a newish player. I see no way to rip a pre-release bluray.
I’ve never ripped BluRays but from what I’ve been told by someone who is apart of a P2P release group the jist is there’s an exploit in Intel SGX that made BluRay protection obsolete and the tools to crack BRs are practically publicly available if you search around for a bit. The funny thing is newer CPUs/mobos don’t support Intel SGX, which is one way to stop it.
MakeMKV? I don’t understand.
With libredrive flashed on your player. Let the player decrypt for you, and then copy the decrypted stream, no need to break any encryption…
I wish it wasn’t so ungodly difficult to flash a drive in Linux. Proper documentation would be nice too. I do have a flashed drive however.
Better hope I’m not on the jury.
