Jail for

=XDC=FluphyBunny

=XDC=FluphyBunny

=XDC=FluphyBunny

Soldato
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Posts
5,230
Location
North East England
Jail for piracy (not the one legged ones)

Okay thought this would have been posted but I can't seem to see another thread.

bbc

So the guy is the first to pirate a copy of Fast and Furious 6 (well it was a cam copy that he took). Shows off about it and gets caught. Clearly he's not the brightest button as '[he] was caught because he used his hacker name on his dating profile ' (from DM). :rolleyes: In itself funny and also interesting how the term hacker is applied to him.

Now I know its wrong, but a 33 month sentence for a crappy cam or two? I would have thought 6 months would have been more than enough.

So whats the general consensus on the sentence?

Also lol at the 23 million figure in lost revenue :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Lolworthy sentence

You could go burgle someone's house wreck the place and steal all their prized possessions and get nowhere near that

You could also be a blonde estate agent with 17 previous convictions for assault stick a glass in someone's face and walk away from court with no custodial sentence


Usual though when big business is the victim the sentences are excessive
 
The sentence seems about right to me. He knew full well what he was doing and IMO he got off rather lightly compared to similar cases in the past.
 
The sentence isn't what bothers me, he knew what he was doing was illegal and accepted the risks.

What botheres me is the monetary value they attached to it.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) claimed this meant "millions of pounds" lost for the film's distributor, Universal Pictures.
Click to expand...

This is just plain wrong. Are they assuming everyone that downloaded it would have paid for it? Are they assuming everyone that downloaded it won't buy it in the future?

One guy sharing the file 700,000 times just shows how out of touch distributors are with how people want to consume media these days. I know what he did was wrong, but this is not the way to combat it.
 
I think the important point here is that he was selling copies of it. Which is a tad different to sharing it with your mate.
 
[TW]Fox;26792332 said:
I think the important point here is that he was selling copies of it. Which is a tad different to sharing it with your mate.
Click to expand...

This.

Also "Police said that Danks had continued to illegally distribute movies after his arrest in May last year."

That probably didn't help his case!
 
Last edited:
Well deserved, not only was it downloaded 700k times, he continued to distribute pirated films after his arrest. It was probably that last part that did it for him.
 
the 33 months wouldn't bother me so much if, as others have pointed out, jail time for more serious offences were proportionate... You could batter someone half to death and get less.

The legal system is an absolute travesty.
 
comes in cause a guy just downloaded a film when basically he upped the film so it could be downloaded 700,000 times :p

upload sell you going to get screwed.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's a deterrent.
Click to expand...

Fine, but where is the deterrent for violent crime?
I would argue that no where near that amount of people would have purchased that film. The fact that you download it is neither here nor there. The number of times a film is pirated has no correlation to lost DVD sales, as the people who pirate or buy £2 knock DVDs are not the kind to be buying genuine ones anyway.. they'd just go without.

You can do much worse crimes, such as violence against people actual theft and burglary and not even get any jail time.

Makes me sick quite frankly!
 
Last edited:
mattyfez said:
Fine, but where is the deterrent for violent crime?
I would argue that no where near that amount of people would have purchased that film. The fact that you download it is neither here nor there. The number of times a film is pirated has no correlation to lost DVD sales, as the people who pirate or buy £2 knock DVDs are the kind to be buying genuine ones, they'd just go without.

You can do much worse crimes, such as violence against people actual theft and burglary and not even get any jail time.

Makes me sick quite frankly!
Click to expand...

This is the abhorrent nature of things. People's life is worth far less than money, possessions and data.

That is, unless they are famous, apparently?
 
It's probably legally beneficial to break into someone's house and steal their film collection, as downloading iis obviously a much more heinous crime.
 
Have to agree with Mattyfez. There are far more crimes out there that go unpunished or nowhere near as severe a sentence as essentially a crime that doesn't really harm anyone. The lost profits are just a random make-believe number. There's contradictory evidence that pirating has actually boosted film sales as good films will get bought.

I'd rather have rapists, burglars, thugs who commit alcohol fuelled violence, etc. put in jail rather than someone who recorded some crappy film in a cinema.



M.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's a deterrent.
Click to expand...

For future reference, do you accept that giving one person a massively over the top sentence is acceptable. For the purpose of making some sort of deterrent.

IMO that is no different from say giving a shoplifter 3 years in prison etc...

And for your information i am not arguing that i would not do this myself, only that it is not fair.
 
mattyfez said:
the 33 months wouldn't bother me so much if, as others have pointed out, jail time for more serious offences were proportionate... You could batter someone half to death and get less.

The legal system is an absolute travesty.
Click to expand...

yeah it is rather a large sentence in comparison to other offences, he does deserve to be punished but it also seems relatively disproportionate - whether this is a reflection of other sentences being too lenient or his being too harsh is probably another topic... though IMO its a bit of both.

I think the various legal hand waving around the number of downloads and the dubious attempt to attribute a substantial financial loss to that figure is part of the reason. He's been put forth as someone who has caused millions in losses as a result of his actions and I'd presume that has affected the severity of his sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom