Minicam movie pirate gets record-breaking five years in prison A member of the IMAGiNE piracy crew, which specialized in recording and distributing movies filmed in cinemas using camcorders, has received a five-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to copyright infringement. Jeramiah Perkins, 40, of Portsmouth, Virginia, is the second-to-last member of the team to be sentenced to …
"it's not going to be easy. In the UK, when the backlash from the active part of the 99% does finally get serious"
There is already in place a state security apparatus designed to contain such an eventuality. Privatised prisons and bogus ant-terrorism measures designed to harass the non-citizens not yet in prison... link link
The hanging / executions are always done in the utmost of secrecy as the state doesn't want to be seen to do something often on a par with the original criminals crime.
How many people does a country need to execute in a year to be considered a bad regime, is there a cut off point ?
The only thing he will learn in jail, is how to commit other crimes. He will be in there with all manner of criminals, he will gain new criminal contacts and be taught all manner of illegal money making schemes. When he gets out of jail, he won't be able to get a legitimate job due to have a previous conviction, and so his only source of income will be the opportunities presented by his new knowledge and contacts.
...from a friend in the police, a few years ago.
It was one of those chain emails that was being passed around the force and I no longer have a copy, but it went to the effect that, looking at the harshness of the possible sentences, you were much better off committing the likes of murder, rape, pederasty, and fraud rather than downloading a film off the internet, like.
"The only thing he will learn in jail, is how to commit other crimes. He will be in there with all manner of criminals, he will gain new criminal contacts and be taught all manner of illegal money making schemes. When he gets out of jail, he won't be able to get a legitimate job due to have a previous conviction, and so his only source of income will be the opportunities presented by his new knowledge and contacts."
This is VERY true, VERY! I myself am not a felon, but I know several. They didn't do horrendous crimes like murder or rape, but they did do crimes that justify a felony. However, today, literally January 2013, they have not a chance of finding a job, NONE! I have discussed with a few of them in hopes to keep them out of jail on what NOT to do, however, what I tell them comes off sounding naive...and rightfully so.
Shockingly, I was told similar to what Joe Montana mentioned, shocking in the sense that they might be better off going back to prison for "extended studies". I asked the person if that was wise, the response was "McDonalds won't even file my application." In today's world, there is no hiding or changing names or any other benefit one might of had 50 years ago when seeking a fresh start. The amount of rehabilitated inmates has been dropping year after year, for obvious reasons.
Shit happens. Crimes do occur. That will never end. However, will a day come where there is so many ex-cons with no chance at a fresh start that being a ex-con in itself will be a crime? The amount of convicted criminals grows proportionality to those that have not been convicted, and there is a lot less convicted criminals than those that are convicted.
In a nutshell: If you think you might go to prison, in today's world, you should seriously consider running. Because when you get out of prison, technology has made the chance at a fresh start virtually nil no matter how badly you want.
They were definitely doing something wrong and deserve punishment but 5 years seems a bit much. Would it not be better to simply ban them from any internet usage for that time, probation and a hefty but realistic fine?
Even if they were responsible for a significant chunk of pirated movies, 5 years out of society means they'll probably have to result to living off the government when they get out or more crime and people get less time for violent crimes and I just don't think someone should get less time for harming a human than recording movies even if I don't like piracy.
I agree with you but good luck explaining to the freetards that just because copyright infringement isn't theft doesn't somehow mean that it's right. They're too busy portraying themselves as Robin Hood types and suggesting copyright infringement should carry any sort of punishment, even when it's sensible and proportional, will likely get you more downvotes than you can count.
>Avatar, Clash of the Titans, and Captain America: The First Avenger
Ripley, Ellen: Just tell me one thing, Burke. You're going out there to destroy those DVDs, right? Not to study. Not to bring back. But to wipe them out.
Burke,Carter J: That's the plan. You have my word...
Ripley, Ellen: Then I'm in.
***
Burke,Carter J: It was a bad call.
Ripley, Ellen: BAD CALL???? THESE VIEWERS ARE DEAD BURKE!!!! DONT YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOUVE DONE HERE?!?!?!
Once he's done five years, plus gained the criminal flag of unemployability in legitimate occupation, he should have the skills and connections to start on a life of real crime.
The article doesn't specify an exact law, but five years happens to be the maximum term specified in the NET act - and as the conviction was criminal, that was probably the law involved. That explains the tough sentence: That's the term for commercial, for pro-profit copyright infringement. Under the NET act though, the idea of commercial copyright infringement is broadened to also include supplying infringing works with the expectation of recieving other infringing works in return (which is common practice in the scene, there access to exclusive sites is made available only to those who can supply new releases quickly) and automatically makes it a criminal offence (Not merely civil) when the combined value of infringing works exceeeds $1000.
I'm susprised he got the maximum sentence, considering it was a guilty plea - judges usually go a little easier on those. I can only guess that the prosecution were under some pressure to push for the toughest sentence they could get.
Speaking of downloading movies off the internet. Since I already paid to go see the Hobbit in the Theatre only to find they have filled it with a lot of filler so they could split it up into three movies, does this mean I can legally download the other two parts off the internet?
It's not like it was a once-off offence, or committed in the heat of the moment.
This was a well-organized, professional scam, with a team of people involved. They had no dubious moral justification - this was a deliberate series of criminal acts, committed to make a profit.
If they had instead executed a well-organized insurance scam for several years, or set up an insider-trading ring which ran for several years, they'd probably get similar sentences. To my mind, this is in the same sort of league. Deliberate, dishonest, consistent criminal behaviour for the sake of profit, and with no moral qualms whatsoever.
Send 'em down.
I agree with the "conscious criminals" statement, however..
If they had instead executed a well-organized insurance scam for several years, or set up an insider-trading ring which ran for several years, they'd probably get similar sentences
No. They would now be working for someone in Wall Street. That's the difference between "bail" and "bailed out".
Since the group were making money from the pirated films then i think the fines are appropriate but 5 years in jail? Jail should only be used for people who are a danger to society and need to be locked up, not for someone who made some poor quality copies of some hollywood tat.
How much tax payers money does it cost to lock someone up for 5 years? I bet its a heck of a lot more than the $15000 fine he has to pay.
For a 'crime' that was _prevented_
So no loss actually occurred yet he has to pay restitution for no damages on top of the farcical sentence for not actually harming anyone for conspiracy to do something which causes next to no harm (unless you believe the MAFIAA). He likely even paid for the cinema ticket, too.
Seriously. BUY SECOND HAND.
tl;dr: the record company get around 60% of the purchase price of an iTunes download, the performer gets 10% if they're lucky. See any problems with that?
Longer: Do you know how 'much' the creatives get from a legitimate purchase through official channels? The following numbers are for music and are several years old; if anyone has current ones for music, or similar figures for movies, they'd be most interesting.
"iTunes downloads cost 79p per track. Writer/publisher get 6p, Performer 6-8p, Visa/Mastercard 7p, Apple 12p, and Record Company almost 50p. Sod that. Help yourself to my songs & share them with your friends" (formerly at http://www.tomrobinson.com/records/music/index.htm)"
He's got similar info for the split for an iTunes album in a Guardian article which still is online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/12/post149
So downloading is ok? Then they get nothing ...
presumably the performer is an adult and knew the contract they were signing, and they are ok with this state of affairs ... Disagreeing with the business model is not An acceptable reason to help yourself for free.
And quite rightly.
After recently going to see the Hobbit at the local cineworld I doubt I will be returning for the second film. After getting in on time for the showing I had to sit through nearly 30 min of back to back ads for surface tablets phones and other crap. What happened to paying for a movie then it starting at the time advertised? Instead its hefty ticket price followed a crap loads of ads then don't pirate ads then trailers then the film.
Would have been better waiting for the Blueray at least then I could have skipped the guff and would not have been stuck in a room that I can only describe smelled like fart sweat.
Bollocks.
If you don't like the cinema-going experience just don't go FFS. Nobody is forcing you. As you say, just buy the BD down the road. Take a look at recent box office numbers for Hobbit and Skyfall and you'll see "cinema" is far from dying which is good news for the millions of us who go regularly and enjoy it.
As for the rest of the pissing and moaning, if you do something you know to be illegal you have to live with the consequences even if you think the punishment is excessive. If you disagree, campaign to change the law.
Is the law perfect? No. If sentencing always proportionate? No. Is incarceration productive in the long run from a societal point of view? Probably not. Do we as adults know these things before we step over the line? Yes.
Grow up.
The cinema is not dying but you have to get drinks, e.g. Bloody Mary/Whiskey,beers invokes toilet visits, so not recommended and enter 15minuts after the declared time.
Actually if I go to see a movie and don't get proper (and enough incl. during the projection) drinks I consider it wasted time.
On the topic: 5years for copyright infringement is totally out of proportion. ("Piracy" happens in the high sees) and who the heck watches CAM?
I love the excuses of freetards for stealing movies, music or whatever else they feel like taking. Do artists get a bad deal from music corps? Sure.. so lets make that better by stealing the few cents per song they would get if we weren't a bunch of thieving chavs.
And oh.. wow.. the big bad movie industry.. they definitely deserve everything they get.. because, you know, even the cameramen and makeup artists get the same millions as everyone else.
What surprises me is it's always someone elses job to pay for a movie, thus generating the guilt-free concept that it's okay to blag a copy because they're making money hand over fist without my contribution.
I said this before and I'll say it again.. some people deserve groups like the MPAA and these guys are some of them.
They copied some content - nobody died, no babies were eaten, no women were raped, no old dears got battered for their pensions, nobody lost an eye.
Some film content got copied and shared - big deal. When you pay £30 for a family of 4 to see some reconstituted shit in 3D and £6 for popcorn, I don't feel overly sympathetic to the movie studios if some people watch a copy of their content for free.
I heard (from someone that used to work as a projectionist) that cinema's make very little, if anything from the ticket prices, which is why the food and drink costs so much.
My home setup is far better than the last Odeon I visited. I complained and got free tickets (although I haven't been back since to use them) because the room was uncomfortably cold (the air con was broken), the bass speakers had blown (distorted sound), you could see the shadow of the fixings holding the screen up through the screen, there was banging going on during the film (they were fixing the air con) and there was the standard problem of bleed through of the bass from the screen next door. Couple that with the usual games of chance: will there be idiots on mobile phones or other disrespectful people spoiling it for others and along with the cost, hassle to get there and back and the fact that the blu-ray release isn't far behind these days means I haven't been to the cinema for years. I wait for the blu-ray and buy that instead. I considered The Hobbit to check out the new technology (I'll only consider IMAX these days, as the higher price usually means a better experience and less idiots in the audience) but at this rate I'll probably end up waiting for the blu-ray of that too. The only film that I feel may have been worthy of the full cinema experience that I waited (and waited) for the home release of was Prometheus.
From what I've seen, the sort of people that are content with a cam copy would definitely not have paid to see it at the cinema. It's hard to believe that people still accept that level of quality. I'd blame the (lossy) MP3 generation, but (from what I've seen at least) it's often their parents, especially those who are poorer and less technically savvy that find this method of delivery acceptable. Then they claim the movie is rubbish because (unsurprisingly) the fuzzy copy they saw didn't show off the $100,000,000 special effects. On the other hand, perhaps that makes for a levelling of the playing field, requiring a decent story (something quite rare in Hollywood, where proven revenue streams and sequels are king).
Perhaps Kickstarter for movies is the future - I'm looking forward to Elite: Dangerous in 2014. That's where a fair chunk of my cinema money has gone (and on blu-rays, once the price is acceptable - early adopters are burned for double dips and extortionate over pricing e.g. the Alien box set, The LoTR theatrical set - I've learned my lesson and will wait from now on). Have I deprived Hollywood of a sale?!
Went to a cinema a while ago, big screen, fancy seats, free nibbles in the waiting area etc.
The sound was absolutely appalling, so load and booming and banging. The movie seemed to be slightly out of focus, there was motion blur, and most importantly was several degrees too dark. All the darker detail was all stuffed right up.
Went to another cinema, in a different part of town more recently. Smaller place, much steeper slope to climb, really ridiculous prices for food and drink.
Even more of an assault on the ears, noticeable damage to the screen, similarly badly projected, detail all dark and blocked up.
NEVER EVER AGAIN will I go into a cinema. They are just total nasty rip offs.
Whatever the movie, I can wait for the bluray to come out, where I can watch it in a civilised fashion.
P.
In the (UK) press the other day there were articles about how the rise in digital downloads, both legal and not, when compared to the reduction in CD sales is virtual proof that illegal downloads are crippling the music industry.
No mention that we're in an effing recession, transport (rail and petrol) prices are shooting up massively above inflation and along with rising food and fuel bills a lot of people have better things to spend money on than overpriced and, subjectively, all too often poor quality music.
"…helping to reassure consumers that the movies and TV shows they watch online are legitimate and secure, not stolen…"
This reminds me a lot of the Microsoft Windows Genuine Advantage whose stated goal was to reassure users that their Windows software was not pirated. Completely ignoring the fact that mostly, end users and consumers don't give a shit about whether their copy is legitimate, they just don't want to be assumed guilty.
I took my son to see Rise Of The Guardians at the local Odean. There were three showings of the 3D version and only one showing of the 2D version. I paid 21 quid (with the glasses) for tickets, nearly 3 quid to park and then got 8 quid lifted out of my wallet for a hot dog and a small water. I can't see how these pirates managed to keep copying the films myself :) It's an expensive business!
"nothing was stolen"
"they charge too much"
"they dont understand the market"
"cinema tickets cost too much"
"it didnt come out here same time as us"
"tickets are cheaper in US"
winge winge winge
Get a fucking grip freetards - you are stealing, even if you dont sell / pass it on.
Even if you dont stop - just admit it to yourselves, stfu in guilty silence and stop trying to defend your actions
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
