Options
Man jailed for two and a half years for recording in a cinema
Terry N
Posts: 5,262
Forum Member
✭
A man has been jailed for 33 months after recording Fast And Furious 6 from the back of a cinema in Walsall.
A judge in Wolverhampton ruled that Philip Danks, 25, uploaded the movie, which was downloaded 700,000 times.
The Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) claimed this meant "millions of pounds" lost for the film's distributor, Universal Pictures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28896675
Bit harsh? What do you all think?
0
Comments
Jesus wept
FACT might want to rethink that acronym
That is particularly tragic:D
Nah. Pretty sure there are warnings saying that you are not allowed to record and that you risk imprisonment.
You reap what you sow.
2½ years seems totally inappropriate for the 'crime', although considering that female estate agent who glassed someone who already had a string of convictions behind her only got a suspended sentence, it's perfectly in keeping with the illogical way the British justice system works.
Except that copyright infringement is not a criminal offence but a civil one and should have been punished proportionate to the offence.
Financial crimes punished to a far greater degree than actual bodily harm - Great world isn`t it?
The British justice system has always been draconian when it comes to any crime involving (theft of) money, especially government money. More so than crimes of harm against the person it usually appears.
Pity there is no theft of anything in this case
But sharing (as in uploading) copyrighted material, is a criminal offence. Distributing pirated material is fraudulent - which is what he was prosecuted for.
It would be classed as copyright theft, as he had no right to copy or distribute the material, which the justice system will probably consider a theft of revenue to the filmmakers.
There is no such thing as copyright theft as there is no theft. It has been demonstrated many times that the 'loss' spoken of in relation to copyright infringement is rubbish.
If we commit fraud, we get jailed.
There is a theft. There is the theft of a body of work for which the creator has the right to charge to view, and protects that right with copyright. That work has been thus stolen by copying it and placing it in the public domain where it can be viewed for free, as that infringes on the owner's ability to charge, not only for profit, but to recoup the considerable cost of creating it. Do you think that entertainment experience should be free?
Another assertion that keeps being debunked
Yes. The poster seems determine to hammer home the legal definition and technicalities and semantics but the fact remains that the bloke is in prison for sharing and selling something that was not his to share and sell.
http://gigaom.com/2012/03/30/why-its-wrong-to-call-copyright-infringement-theft/
https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104/
http://costabotes.com/2013/11/18/piracy-myths-debunked-copyright-infringement-is-not-theft/
http://falkvinge.net/2013/12/23/reminder-1-copyright-monopoly-infringement-isnt-stealing-says-the-us-supreme-court/
The US Supreme Court says it is not theft.
Take it up with the judge.