Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion

Man jailed for two and a half years for recording in a cinema

Terry NTerry N Posts: 5,262
Forum Member
✭
in General Discussion #1
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? :confused:
«134

Comments

  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,258
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    LOL. Jailed for recording that crap?
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    The Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) claimed this meant "millions of pounds" lost for the film's distributor, Universal Pictures.

    Jesus wept

    FACT might want to rethink that acronym
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    A fine or community service for something like this should be sufficient. I think only those who commit violent crimes should be imprisoned.
  • MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    dee123 wrote: »
    LOL. Jailed for recording that crap?

    That is particularly tragic:D
  • Philip WalesPhilip Wales Posts: 6,373
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    ^^agree it seems stupid, when we have bankers and MP's that have stolen millions are basically allowed to get away with actual monitory theft.
  • sonicshadowsonicshadow Posts: 8,388
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    Dan Fortesque wrote: »
    A fine or community service for something like this should be sufficient. I think only those who commit violent crimes should be imprisoned.
    This.
  • SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    Terry N wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28896675

    Bit harsh? What do you all think? :confused:

    Nah. Pretty sure there are warnings saying that you are not allowed to record and that you risk imprisonment.

    You reap what you sow.
  • TrollHunterTrollHunter Posts: 12,496
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    What a ****. Having had the misfortune to view some of the films recorded in a cinema from a video camera, he deserves everything he gets for having the audacity to upload such shíte to the internet. Audience members' conversations being picked up by the microphone, people wandering past the camera, crappy quality purporting to be 720p, muffled sound, often foreign subtitles throughout the film.

    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.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #10
    Saigo wrote: »
    Nah. Pretty sure there are warnings saying that you are not allowed to record and that you risk imprisonment.

    You reap what you sow.

    Except that copyright infringement is not a criminal offence but a civil one and should have been punished proportionate to the offence.
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,631
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    A woman got community service and a 2 year suspended sentence recently for glassing a stranger in the face for her 18th offence which puts this 33 month jail sentence in a warped perspective.

    Financial crimes punished to a far greater degree than actual bodily harm - Great world isn`t it?
  • NamiraNamira Posts: 3,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    What? That film was all over the internet already. I was reading a story a while back about a man who burned a dog alive....he got 9 months. 2 and a half years for making a dodgy recording from the back of a cinema? Ridiculous. Here's an idea, why don't they reduce the insane prices for seeing a film in the cinema? It's extortionate.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    TrollHunter wrote: »
    What a ****. Having had the misfortune to view some of the films recorded in a cinema from a video camera, he deserves everything he gets for having the audacity to upload such shíte to the internet. Audience members' conversations being picked up by the microphone, people wandering past the camera, crappy quality purporting to be 720p, muffled sound, often foreign subtitles throughout the film.

    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.

    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.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #14
    idlewilde wrote: »
    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
  • rbdcayrbdcay Posts: 12,041
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #15
    People are warned what the penalties are. There is even anti-piracy ads at the beginning of films. Its up to them if they don't want to obey the rules and to reward them with a lenient sentence for stupidity is just daft. I think this is a fair sentence.
  • SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #16
    TheTruth1983 wrote: »
    Except that copyright infringement is not a criminal offence but a civil one and should have been punished proportionate to the offence.

    But sharing (as in uploading) copyrighted material, is a criminal offence. Distributing pirated material is fraudulent - which is what he was prosecuted for.
  • killjoykilljoy Posts: 7,920
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    It's not the recording in the cinema that he has got sentenced for, it is selling the bootleg copies ~ and the fact he carried on doing after being arrested.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #18
    TheTruth1983 wrote: »
    Pity there is no theft of anything in this case

    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.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    idlewilde wrote: »
    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.
  • daver34daver34 Posts: 825
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    Why do the majority of bankers get away with fraud/manipulating the markets, look at the massive settlements(fines) US levies on companies, but no jail time.
    If we commit fraud, we get jailed.
  • pugamopugamo Posts: 18,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    Way harsh.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #22
    TheTruth1983 wrote: »
    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.

    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?
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    idlewilde wrote: »
    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.

    Another assertion that keeps being debunked
  • SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #24
    idlewilde wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Copyright infringement is not theft

    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.
  • SaigoSaigo Posts: 7,893
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    TheTruth1983 wrote: »
    Another assertion that keeps being debunked

    Take it up with the judge.
Sign In or Register to comment.