Fast And Furious 6 cammer thrown in slammer for nearly three years

A man who illicitly recorded action film Fast And Furious 6, uploaded it to the internet and then sold copies online has been locked up for nearly three years. The jail term was handed down to Philip Danks, 25, of Livingstone Road, Bloxwich on Thursday, according to the Walsall Advertiser. A copy of the Universal Pictures' …

[i like crisps]

BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

If i was the Beak i would have let the bloke off and sentenced Universal Pictures to 10 yrs inprisonment for actually making F&F6....no early release and no parole.

[Havin_it]

Re: BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

^This. I'd have advised the lad to go for an insanity plea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

And what about those who actually download and watch it?

[TitterYeNot]

Re: BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

"And what about those who actually download and watch it?"

Compensation for brain damage and mental scarring I would have thought, if there's any justice in this world...

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Sir

I would like to see a table where all the crimes in this country and their respective sentences were all compared and ranked accordingly.

I really want to know if the judges consider copyright infringement more serious than rape or burglary for example.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: Sir

"Potential revenue", man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

The bastard who did this, for example, only ended up serving four years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7577646.stm

Property, you see, especially that belonging to the Corporations is worth more than a human being.

[Cliff]

Civil --> Criminal

I still don't quite get how what is surely a civil offence at its heart is handled as criminal by the courts? How is it the state's job to do corporation's enforcement for them?

These are real questions by the way. If a client doesn't pay an invoice, it's civil, and up to me to take the guy to court, and at worst he'll pay the invoice plus interest. If a company digger runs me over and I want compo for time off work, I can take them to court as a civil action and maybe get some reparation. If I slander Jeffrey Archer and he takes me to court he can win significant damage from me, but none of these are criminal, none carry prison sentences. We don't have debtors prisons. So how does beach of licence become a criminal thing with real prison sentences and the state paying for the enforcement. It seems kinda fucked, y'know?

[Vic]

Re: Civil --> Criminal

I still don't quite get how what is surely a civil offence at its heart is handled as criminal by the courts?

He was charging for each copy - that means it's a commercial endeavour, and so covered by the notorious Seciotn 107 of CDPA '88.

That makes it a criminal offence.

I've offered my vote to any politician who will repeal this legislation. None have taken me up on the offer...

Vic.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Civil --> Criminal

"I still don't quite get how what is surely a civil offence at its heart is handled as criminal by the courts?"

If he had merely recorded or uploaded the files then it would have stayed in civil court.

_Selling_ the items in question is what got him criminal charges - the anomaly here is that the stuff which was torrented was treated as if he as also sold it at the same value in order to reach the criminal threshold.

[SolidSquid]

Re: Civil --> Criminal

The copyright act was amended a while back so that commercial copyright infringement was considered a criminal offence rather than a civil one. If he hadn't been selling them then it would have been much tougher for them to try and get him charged under criminal law

[I'm Brian and so's my wife]

Re: Sir

That is a disgraceful situation and outcome.

There are plenty of injustices on a daily basis, but being a cyclist, I have a particular beef with drivers who kill and get 6 month suspended sentences and possibly a point or two on their licence. If they'd used a hand-held weapon, such as a knife, then they would probably be looking at a couple of decades in jail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

So many cyclists look to ignore any traffic rule as if being on a bicycle gives them any special exemptions. Especially sport cyclists who always think they're at the Tour and any road is dedicated to them. People on motorbikes are no better. Just, a car is bigger, heavier...

Also intention in crimes is punished more. This guy didn't fall into a cinema with his camera unintentionally pointed at the screen while recording. Nor he was selling copies by mistake.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cyclist

There definitely are some cyclists who go through red lights, and infringe other rules. But then there are MANY who don't. I'd estimate the proportion who break rules willy nilly as around the same for motorists who do that.

The fact remains that the metal box is going to cause more harm than a bike ever can

[Tom 260]

Re: Cyclist

"But not one of them killed the 1754 people who died on UK roads in 2012"

Statistics will tell you anything, mainly because the majority of pedestrians killed in collisions with cyclists are on the pavement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cyclist

There certainly are annoying twats on bicycles who jump lights and such.

But not one of them killed the 1754 people who died on UK roads in 2012,

Not true. At least some of those 1754 were cyclists who killed themselves through their own stupidity. Hopefully they didn't injure anyone else while doing so.

I certain;y see plenty of cyclistrs on my daily commuyte who seem determined to remove themselves from tne gene pool, ignoreing red lights, cycling on the road right beside the dedicated cycle lines.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Cyclist

> But not one of them killed the 1754 people who died on UK roads in 2012, killed entirely by motorists.

Not directly at least. You can still cause plenty of havoc on the road by simply being a menace to navigation. Someone can easily cause an accident and fatalities by pulling some stupid stunt that everyone else has to react to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cyclist

"The fact remains that the metal box is going to cause more harm than a bike ever can"

That's something cyclist should be aware of but prefer to ignore, as they think a cyclist "always has precedence", even if in a dark night without any bicycle light...

I'm always very careful when I have a cyclist in sight, because there's a good chance he'll do something stupid.

But back to the "crime" - a car accident may involve a voluntary act or not. Most road accidents are not voluntary, although there could be behaviours that could lead to a bigger responsibility (alcohol, drugs, careless driving, using a (smart)phone, etc.) and should get a bigger punishment - not always happen, true. Not all crash are judged the same way.

But if you perform a crime voluntarily, and you know it is a crime, why shouldn't you get a punishment? Stealing is a crime. Even if you do it with a camera in a cinema.

If someone with the same camera would film you in bed with someone, from outside, and publishes it, what punishment would you ask for? Nothing because he didn't really steal anything? Or your privacy is veeeeeery important, but movie theatres can close because people steal movies?

If someone makes copies of your private photos from your phone while repairing it, and publishes/sells them, what punishment would you ask for? Or after all he didn't steal anything, it's just a copy, thereby he should not deserve any real punishment, just some time cleaning parks?

It's always easy to assert something is not a crime, as long as it doesn't touch us very close. Then, torture and death are not enough....

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Cyclist

Stealing is not something that can be done with a camera.

Words have particular meanings. When you LIE about them you abdicate any moral authority you might have. Just as in programming, the law requires precision and even a misplaced single character can gravely alter the meaning or even functionality of something.

[Frankee Llonnygog]

Re: Sir

You don't see many cyclists riding along while updating their Facebook page and yelling at the kids in the back

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: Sir

Sentences, imho, should reflect the crime to some degree.

Imprisonment should primarily be about protecting the public from harm due to the nature of the offence etc. - I don't see how this is relevant in this particular case.

Financial crimes should be punished financially. Community service, reduction of priveledges such as accessing the internet (if relevant to the crime) - curfew orders based on time/location etc.

For example, this guy was guilty of selling someone else's intellectual property via the internet. Lots of community service, a fine and no internet for two years would be more applicable than locking him up at the taxpayers expense - what value do I get from the transaction as a taxpayer? Do I feel safer because he's locked up? Hardly.

If someone were caught selling bootleg copies at the market a punishment of community service, not allowed near a market for 2 years etc. would be more applicable.

I just don't see the value for me. It looks like the police are now sponsored by the corporations, so the honest thing to do would at least make the corporations pay for the incarceration - but that would be admitting that the police were effectively (if not directly) on the payroll, and even the myopic general public might be able to add things up at that point, the politicians can't have that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

Ask people who used to live renting movies legally and now lost their jobs if the believe some community service is enough....

[Alan Brown]

Re: Sir

"Ask people who used to live renting movies legally and now lost their jobs if the believe some community service is enough...."

Classic misdirection.

I stopped renting because it was cheaper to BUY the material in question. So did most other people.

Especially when renting a DVD which wasn't new release had a 50:50 chance of finding the disc so badly scratched it wouldn't play - you might get your money back but the frustration factor is enough to make you go elsewhere, and video shops found that DVDs had much shorter lifspans than VHS tapes

The physical rental market was faltering _long_ before downloading became ubiquitous - and it was netflix which laid the deathblow, not "piracy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

"Financial crimes should be punished financially"

Are you sure? Some financial crimes can have big impacts on people lives, and create big damages. Do you believe Madoff didn't deserve jail time? Or people at Enron?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

I see people on bicycles on phone calls and texting...

[Jonathan Richards 1]

Re: Sir

> I would like to see a table ...

You could set about compiling one from the information presented here:

UK Sentencing Guidelines.

33 months is less than one would get for a rape conviction (guideline 4-19 years).

[Aitor 1]

Re: Sir

I can tell you that driving over a cyclist on a straight road is cheaper...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

This is a thief. He had stolen and resold stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?

[Wade Burchette]

Re: Sir

@LDS - "This is a thief. He had stolen and resold stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?"

To be a thief implies something physical was taken. You cannot steal an image. By your logic, if I sneak into a movie theater then I am a thief because my eyes saw an image I did not pay to see. This is copyright infringement. It is still wrong. But it is not the same type of crime as theft because he did not rob the studios. Actual factual theft, not your pseudo-theft, is more serious because the owner is denied the right to use what is his. This copyright infringement did not stop the movie from being played in the theater.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

I wish someone one day will make copies of some of your "private" photos or the like and publishes/sells them. Then I'm not sure your stance about "it's not stealing because nothing physically was taken" will still hold.

Stealing doesn't imply "physical goods" implies "damages". It's the damage that leads to punishment, not the removal of something "physical". Or is I steal a Porsche and leave a Trabant it's not a crime because there is still a car? Or there is still a damage - a financial one, because the latter value is far inferior? Or there is something called "ownership" that means you can't do everything you like with something that is not yours? If you sneak into a movie theater you are still commiting a crime, or do you mean that sneaking into private properties is not one?

I understand that almost everybody here probably download music and movies illegally, but at least, don't try to assert it's right and those people who steal for your downloaded should get little punishment because otherwise your download sources will drain and you're too coward to steal yourself...

[Vic]

Re: Sir

don't try to assert it's right and those people who steal for your downloaded should get little punishment

The phrases "it isn't stealing" and "it's right" are entirely different and mean different things.

Breaching copyright isn't right, and is punishable. But that doesn't make it stealing. Stealing has its own definition, and this isn't it.

Vic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

Copyright and patents exists to avoid to "steal" ideas. Or do you imply that industrial espionage in not "stealing"? Copy-right exists exactly to rule about rights of copying someone else work. Because in this case you can steal without actually removing the original. But it's still stealing if you damage the owner and profit from it. You all try to absolve yourself "hey, it's a copy, after all, I'm not stealing, I'm not a thief". No. You're stealing someone else property - intellectual or not -, and you're a thief.

[Vic]

Re: Sir

Copyright and patents exists to avoid to "steal" ideas

No they don't. Infringing on copyright or patent rights does not deprive the original holder of that property, and is therefore not stealing. That doesn't make it right - but it's no more stealing than it is paedophilia.

Or do you imply that industrial espionage in not "stealing"?

I don't imply it - I'm outright stating it. Industrial espionage is not stealing, nor is it arson - it is industrial espionage

Copy-right exists exactly to rule about rights of copying someone else work.

Correct. No argument there whatsoever.

Because in this case you can steal without actually removing the original

No you can't. Stealing would deprive the original copyright holder of his property such that he can no longer exploit it. So you *could* steal his (copyrighted) manuscript, but you cannot steal his materiel by way of copying it. It's just not possible.

You all try to absolve yourself

No. No-one is trying to absolve anyone. Copyright infringement is wrong, and there are few more vocal about that being wrong than I. But trying to claim that it is "stealing" just makes you look ignorant - it isn't stealing, it isn't treason, it isn't GBH. It is wrong, but it isn't tax evasion.

Vic.

[The First Dave]

Re: Sir

The clue is in the name - "Copyright" is all about "Copying" - nothing to do with theft.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Sir

> Or do you imply that industrial espionage in not "stealing"?

You have a pathalogical need to distort language and the law in order to make a point.

To an objective observer, that makes your point seem much less valid. If you feel compelled to lie and commit fraud to make your argument then your position must not be very sound.

[Down not across]

Re: Sir

I understand that almost everybody here probably download music and movies illegally, but at least, don't try to assert it's right and those people who steal for your downloaded should get little punishment because otherwise your download sources will drain and you're too coward to steal yourself...

When did anyone infer that upoading the movie was right? The point is it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. I don't recall anyone even suggesting that infringement wouldn't be financially damaging.

As for the examples in your post, I'm afraid they're rather poor.

Posting someone's private photos online is not stealing, but has potential to break number of other laws depending on the exact case.

Stealing the Porsche is still stealing whether you leave a Trabant in its place or not.

Assuming everyone here downloads music and movies illegally is bad generalisation. Since you've been here long enough (judging by having a badge) you would know that actually in general commentards are not advocating privacy at all and more for the content owners to provide content in convenient and reasonably priced manner. I think you will find that a lot of commentards are payhing for their content via services like Netflix or Lovefilm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sir

My example shows that when it's your damage then the punishment needs to be big, when it is someone else, especially if it is a bad big company, and you get an advantage too, then punishment should be mild. Unluckily, Law can't reason this way.

I have a Sky subscription, and all the movies/series I watch come from there. I still buy music on CDs because I don't trust downloads/streaming, and I don't need every and each song released.

But I know too many people who don't pay any subscription but watch a lot of movies and series, and see too many portable hard disk shuffling around with a lot of illegally copied movies on them. I know people with dedicate machines to download torrents day and night.

All of them with incomes good enough to pay for a subscription or the like. But hey, why pay when you can get for free, and use those money from something else, maybe a new bigger TV, a new smartphone, and holiday? People are greed. Hollywood people are greed and try to make you pay over and over for shitty contents, and other greed people steal them because instead of sending a clear message to Hollywood, they are the same type of greed people and want those contents.

It's true not everybody does it, but the percentage if high enough to make it a real damage to the owners, and that could be a crime, even if you don't like the owner. Stealing from a thief is still stealing.

[depicus]

Re: Sir

Not quite sure you understand the definition of theft so here it is.

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

Note the key words property, permanently depriving. Both categorically deny you can "steal" a film.

[big_D]

Re: Sir

@Vic, @depicus

Exactly, you can deprive the artists / copyright owner of possible income due to copying, but you don't actually steal his product.

Both are obviously abhorrent, but copying isn't theft.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Sir

> Posting someone's private photos online is not stealing, but has potential to break number of other laws depending on the exact case.

This tangent highlights an entirely different problem. We have a public discourse on this subject that is dominated by the crass interests of publishing corporations. The idea of a "personal paper" is completely overlooked. The law and most public perspective treats every worthless scrap of paper as some masterpiece that needs to be protected from harm lest someone publish it without permission.

The issue of "personal papers being stolen" really does not fit into the current framework at all.

[Someone Else]

@ LDS -- Re: Sir

I understand that almost everybody here probably download music and movies illegally, [...]

Then your "understanding" of "almost everybody here" is even more brain-dead than your understanding of copyright infringement.

LDS, Abe Lincoln once said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Although that horse as clearly left the barn in your case, here's a nice bowl of STFU to help keep you from degenerating from blithering idiot down to fucking moron.

[DiViDeD]

Re: Sir

"...thief.. blah blah .. stolen .. blah .. stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?"

Actually, more like, how would you feel if you were selling photos of your house, and he came along, took his own photo and started selling that.

Theft involves depriving somebody of something. He didn't nick the cinema screen, he just took pictures of it.

What he did was not right, but it isn't something we should be wasting the court's time with, ffs.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Sir

> This is a thief. He had stolen and resold stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?

Been there. Did that.

I asked for monetary damages. I had to. "The law" had no interest in prosecuting the offender.

Now these were real damages, not something just imagined or a matter of wishful thinking. This was a repeat offender that had a trail of victims going in both directions. As I already said: "The law" just wanted to ignore him.

Eventually got the money back. A good lawyer helps. Now that's sorted, I am not sure I want to spend the cost of Harvard tuition to keep him locked away from the world. The public record of the court case will do enough to slow him down in future.

Again. These were REAL damages and not just some made up sh*t.

[big_D]

Re: Sir

I agree, although I see a big difference between recording it for your own "enjoyment" or maybe giving it to a couple of friends and selling copies to anybody and everybody.

If he was selling it at 1.50 a pop, then he deserves whatever is thrown at him, but as has been pointed out, this is essentially a civil offence, not a criminal one...

[ecofeco]

Re: Sir

I can tell you that theft in the U.S. is ALWAYS punished more than violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

3 days ago?

Have you lot been asleep?

[Destroy All Monsters]

It was subsequently downloaded more than 700,000 times

I don't believe for a second that 700K juveniles want to download this.

[phil dude]

weekend..

this is why El Reg has a weekend edition, to cover issues that are not mainstream...

I mean, how could this ever affect any of us...

P.

[phil dude]

Re: weekend..

This is clearly an absurd situation, and I invite the negative reaction disproportionate to the original story.

P.

[Dr_N]

Coulson

And Coulson only got 18 months?

Justice is not only blind, but also high on drugs.

[Tom 35]

£1.50

If he did sell copies of a cam video on facebook (not sure how you would do that, it's not ebay) he should be in trouble for gross over charging.

I expect the 700,000 number is the normal pulled out of their ass number.

[TheSkunkMonk]

Yup commit a civil crime in a theatre and off you go to the slammer, Fiddle a kid and... you guys know the rest.

[Destroy All Monsters]

> civil crime

What, like belching loudly?

[JEDIDIAH]

Nyuk. Nyuk.

>> civil crime

>

> What, like belching loudly?

Does that fall under the heading of "anti-social activity" in Britain now?

[LaeMing]

Whelp!

He is the best place possible ... for learning a whole raft of new skills.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would in their right mind want to watch a 90+ minute film recorded on a camcorder even if it were free?

[Mike Bell]

Re: Who?

People on zero-hours contracts? Poor people, generally? I know a few of them. They don't mind watching shit quality movies on their lap-tops so long as they are free. They wouldn't stump up £1.50, though, so that's a new one to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Who?

>> Who would want to watch a movie recorded on a camcorder?

> People on zero-hours contracts? Poor people, generally?

Cheapskates utterly unable to delay gratification - which begs the question how dumb twitfacers are to pay for this junk.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Who?

It'll be in the £1 bin at adsa in 3 months anyway. I bet they don't sell 700k copies though

[bigtimehustler]

Yes, very fair when you get less for GBH or death by dangerous driving or rape... what the hell is the judge thinking. It just goes to show your life means shit, but damage a companies earnings or the governments image and your doing serious time.

[Nuno trancoso]

Just goes to show how far law and justice drifted apart...

In a fair world, anyone would have agreed that while his actions were against the law, they warranted no jail time, which in his case will probably do more harm than good. 5y "forced" community service? Sounds lot better, certainly lot more useful and would save taxpayers money twofold.

As for revenue loss, joke all around. Anyone willing to watch a cam version, free or not, is precisely the kind of people that WON'T pay for a movie ticket, a DVD or anything at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of people who will watch this kind of illegal movies even if they can easily pay for them just because it's free, and just a download away. It's not true that only poor people who won't buy those goods anyway do it. It's most people are greed and they don't care from where some goods come from, as long they are cheap.

[Salts]

Now for sure...

FACT, can go F*&k themselves and the police should not be so closely linked with what is really a lobby group of interested companies.

On the other hand, you do have to be some sort of dip shit, that when arrested, you carry on doing it. From the link in the article:-

"But Wolverhampton Crown Court heard on Thursday (August 21) that despite his arrest, Danks continued to copy, sell and distribute illegal copies of films.

He even enlisted the help of his sister’s ex-boyfriend, Michael Bell, of Birmingham Road, Aldridge, who uploaded films on his behalf."

[Steve Knox]

What about the people who filmed it originally?

They're the ones who should be jailed...

[frank ly]

re. the community work

I don't understand that part. Is it instead of the jail sentence and he can avoid jail if he completes it?

[jonathanb]

Re: re. the community work

He will probably spend about 8 months inside, then about 8 months with an electronic tag where his movements are restricted and he has to do the community work.

[Longrod_von_Hugendong]

Shame it was so short...

Asshats like this make me sit through 30 mins of ads after paying 10 quid for a ticket... so quite frankly I am glad.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: Shame it was so short...

You may want to explain this kinda reasoning more deeply.

If you download, you have zero advertising and about 1 quid, plus data rates. Quality is low but well, you can't have everything.

[Eradicate all BB entrants]

Re: Shame it was so short...

@LvH, really? It down to cammers and torrenters? Why didn't someone tell me they had been around for over 50 years? Would have been my solution when my older brothers wouldn't take me with them to see Ghostbusters.

Cinema advertising has been around a long time.

[Jan 0]

Re: Shame it was so short...

Why not enter just before the film starts?

In my view advertisers are a lower form of life than those who watch copies shot off screens.

Mind you, the real blame lies with film-makers who can't be bothered to make films that only work if shown on big screens.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Shame it was so short...

> Why not enter just before the film starts?

You will probably not be able to find more than one empty seat and what's left will likely all be at odd angles and in the back or all the way in the front. You might as well just stay home.

That's what I do. My first negative experience after I got my projector caused me to swear off the cinema entirely.

...don't need to put up with that crap no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 30 mins of ads

Are down to the greedy film studios desperately trying to recoup that money they spent on crap script and sh*te film. Prices have been going up since the beginning of the cinema, and length of ads has also. Very little to do with copying a (crap) film there

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: 30 mins of ads

Nah. The ads are probably the theater trying to take some money because the studios take all of it. The cut that a theater gets for a prime first run movie in the early weeks of release is peanuts. They have always had to survive on stuff other than the movie or the experience inside the theater.

Take away all of the extra annoying crap and all of those places would go out of business.

The studios are only indirectly responsible here. They squeeze the theaters and push them out on the thin ice.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Shame it was so short...

"Asshats like this make me sit through 30 mins of ads after paying 10 quid for a ticket.."

Actually they don't.

Distributors demand 90%+ of the admission price for first run showings(*), The ads are paying to keep the lights on and the overpriced popcorn out front is paying the pathetic staff wages.

(*) In some cases I'm aware of it's been as high as 98%

This is why management get pretty shitty if you take in your own snacks, legal or not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excessive. This is copyright infringement

The guy is an idiot but 3 years in prison is way too much. More than rape or assault or burglary. This is a disgrace.

[Jos]

Re: Excessive. This is copyright infringement

Agreed. A proper punishment would be to force him to watch F&F6 in a cinema every day for the next 2 years. Maybe throw in some mandatory Batman & Robin, or Battlefield Earth to top it off.

Really, he's an asshat for selling this piece of crud for a quid and a half and by doing so exposing himself.

[David 45]

Do not adjust your set

I can't understand why ANYBODY would want to watch a version of a film obtained by cam-cording a cinema screen. The picture quality must be absolutely foul, not to mention extraneous noises on the soundtrack made by other patrons (crunching popcorn perhaps?). I'm guessing that the sort of person who would watch something like that would possess very little in the brain-power department.

[DiViDeD]

Re: Do not adjust your set

I understand that, these days, the video quality can be quite reasonable, given the improvement in low light capability of the cameras. Often they are shot from the projection booth, avoiding the problems of people getting up and down, large hats and other such hindrances to free enterprise.

I also understand, from .. somewhere.. that a large number of bootlegs these days use the FM or induction sound transmission being broadcast for wearers of hearing aids, or even a direct jack into the cinema's sound system (suggesting there are a lot of differently principled projectionists out there)

Although for most people, the DVD screener, where available, is the preferable course for both video and audio quality.

or so I'm told

[Grey Bird]

Semantics

I realize a lot of you are really into saying that what this person did wasn't stealing, and semantically and legally (at least in the US and apparently in the UK) that would be technically correct. However, You're just nit-picking. What illegal copying and sales/distribution of movies and music does is deprive the legitimate owner of the IP of income, and in this case, making money by selling something that doesn't belong to the seller. To me, even though the guy making and selling the copies didn't deprive the owner of the physical movie he deprived him of money that could have been made from people who wanted to see it and maybe have their own copy to watch when they wanted. That may not technically be stealing, but it's certainly a kissing cousin of stealing.

[JEDIDIAH]

Re: Semantics

The time should fit the crime.

This kind of thing should not get someone more than what a first time shoplifter would end up with.

You want to equate it with theft? There's a good benchmark for you.

[Nuno trancoso]

Re: Semantics

Your own post reflects the truth. "he deprived him of money that could have been made".

There's a huge difference between could and would. A bit of common sense will tell you that most of the people that would consider a cam, or would consider a buck for a cam WOULD NOT pay a full price ticket. Or a full price DVD.

Also, unlike what other poster seems to think, whether or not you would buy is not related to whether or not you could do so. Many people that could still would not, because that's how they go about. It's either free or they go without, despite the fact they can afford it.

True revenue loss is when someone that COULD afford it and WOULD buy it doesn't because he got it "free". Which is what? 0.005% of the cam watching freetards? Less?

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has the proper approach

A mandatory 10 years in the slammer and a very high fine is what dirtbags like this guy deserve. 33 months is a slap on the wrist, not a deterrent.

[AsherGoldbergstein]

In the UK you can get 17 convictions for assault then glass someone and walk free but god forbid you tape hollywoods' summer blockbuster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rotherham

Just heard the news about the 1400 or so girls, who had been in care, raped over a period of sixteen years. A number of them went to the plods, parents complained, and in one case were arrested for their troubles. The police failed to act - except to arrest innocent parents - and yet they jump up and down on copyright infringement! Scum!

We need a root and branch change to the criminal justice system in this country. We need to see the bent coppers jailed, not pretending to protect the people they are betraying.

Anon, because I don't want that dawn raid for exercising my right of free speech.