SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BBC reports that computer programmer Philip Danks for has been jailed for 33 months after recording Fast And Furious 6 from the back of a cinema after a judge in Wolverhampton ruled that the defendant uploaded the movie, which was downloaded 700,000 times. As well as putting the film on the internet, Danks offered to sell copies of the film using his Facebook profile.
The judge who sentenced Danks said his behavour was "bold, arrogant and cocksure". Police said that Danks had continued to illegally distribute movies after his arrest in May last year. Fraud investigators quickly traced him after they noticed his online ‘Thecod3r’ tag attached to the video was identical to his profile on dating site Plenty of Fish. Danks was arrested by police after a special ‘webwatch’ team was set up by LA-based Universal Pictures, who raided his home in Bloxwich, Walsall on May 23 – less than a week after the video surfaced online.
The court heard that despite making some money from sales of the film on Facebook and by personal delivery his real motive was ‘street cred’. "The first person with a pirated version attracts much kudos," said Ari Alibhai, prosecuting on behalf of the Federation Against Copyright Theft. "He wanted recognition from the community."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday August 24 2014, @01:39PM
Yes, I'm aware that the GPL relies on copyright. RMS addressed this issue, saying he is not in favor of abolishing copyright. He would rather reform copyright, not abolish it. The brilliance of copyleft is that its strength is tied to copyright's strength. The real abusers of copyright have always tried to have it both ways, demanding that we pay for every copy, and then trying to cheat their way out of their own obligations in the copyright system they helped make. They have all kinds of tricks to get out of having to pay artists. Work for Hire. But if they can't get the artists to agree to that, they have other ways. Their cheating is so bad and so common that we have a term for one form of it: Hollywood Accounting. Law suits and strikes are all too common in Hollywood. In their eternal quest to take in and not pay out, they sometimes try fiddling with copyright law. But when they do, they also strengthen copyleft, which they do not want to do. Copyleft helps expose their hypocrisy.
What I think is that the necessary reforms would change it so much that it should no longer be called copyright, because it would no longer be about the right to make copies. So why not abolish it? The name causes much confusion, as there is no distinction between uses. They're trying to punish ordinary citizens for sharing a few files, treating the file sharer as no different from the operator of a factory that produces counterfeits. That is how Jammie Thomas ended up socked with a $1.92 million dollar fine for making available 24 songs. Even the industry was a little scared by the extremity of the verdict, fearing that the punishment was so over the top it would undermine, not strengthen their cause.
Where I think the law could go is towards things that are not naturally private or anonymous, such as paid public performances, and other public uses. Forget trying to sweep up file sharing and lump that activity in with other uses that can be proven. A restaurant that plays music for the patrons cannot hide. I haven't thought of a good, catchy name for it, in part because I haven't figured out what it should cover, and the name should reflect that. Performance Right? But what of people who do free performances? The Star Wars Kid can't hide what he did, and it certainly was a public performance, but should he have to pay? Maybe the name should be Profit Right? In any case, I am also not at all sure it's a good idea. Maybe restaurants should be able to play whatever recordings they want, without having to pay anyone. What if a patron brings a music player and speakers to a restaurant, should he or the restaurant have to pay someone something? Will take much thinking to work it out.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Sunday August 24 2014, @10:31PM
LOL, one of those posts is "better" than the other!
How about this:
1 - Works are copyright by default for a period of one year.
2 - At any time copyright can be converted to copyleft, which decays over ten years but is refreshed every time a new version is released. There is no limit to the number of refreshes.
3 - Copyright works can have their one year period refreshed by a fee that is set by the CPI. As soon as it's no longer profitable and the fee is not paid it becomes part of the commons. The number of "refreshes" has a maximum limit equal the decay period of copyleft.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25 2014, @02:36AM
It was not meant to be a public performance. If he had remembered to take the tape with him, no one would have ever known about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Kid [wikipedia.org]
The schoolmate who found the tape should have given it back to Raza or quietly erased/destroyed it. What was done impacted negatively on Raza and his family and ultimately invaded their privacy in spite of all the subsequent publicity!...