Jail for

Guy is either completely stupid or very arrogant if he continued to distribute after his arrest. He'd have got a much lighter sentence otherwise. One thing courts really hate is defendants taking the proverbial.
 
He took an illegal video and uploaded it for others. I don't see the issue with the sentence.

Sure, I may have downloaded illegally in my time, but I've never been stupid enough to upload something for others, and I get DVD quality screeners of cinema releases at the same time they come out in the cinema due to my job. Temptation is there but it's just a stupid thing to do.
 
i can kind of understand the sentence being harsh when other crimes are less as this was something he planned out and executed over a long period of time in such a way to show he knows it's illegal, where as say beating someone up in the heat of an argument, although terrible and of course far worse of a crime, is something that can almost understandably happen, humans can lose control for that tiny moment and get lost from rational thinking and make very stupid mistakes almost subconsciously.

what people should go to jail for for even longer time is having vague thread titles. why do people feel the stupid need to do that?
 
Last edited:
A bit harsh. But I hope they do the same with drunk drivers and drivers that break the speed limit.
 
Yes its harsh when you compare it to other crimes.

But why are you comparing it to other crimes? The judge doesn't? They look at the crime in question, look at the sentencing guidelines for that crime and see where it fits on the scale for that crime ONLY and sentence the person solely base on that crime alone.

I could say that again, only the crime he is charged with.

That's it.

They don't look at Tom, Dick and Harry got less for murder, rape and arson. That's not how it works. They don't look at the sentencing guidelines for murder when they are sentencing for theft.
 
As I'm sure some of those posting in this thread already know, and for general information purposes only, you don't necessarily have to intend to profiteer from such distribution to get a slap on the wrist from the state. I only make this point as I've inferred from other threads that intending to profit from piracy is what some assume to be the line in the sand that puts you under the barrel of a criminal offence. Further to that, you can also become criminally liable if it can be established that you have knowingly prejudiced the copyright owner, which has a much wider reach. Of course, the former is easier to establish than the latter, but the point stands.
 
Xordium said:
Wow 33 months. You could get bladdered run over and kill 5 people and still be out 3 months earlier.
Click to expand...

In the interests of science I'd like you to test that hypothesis. It will be of benefit to humanity to see how long you are banged up for and to see who bangs you while you are banged up. :p
 
I personally know of someone that killed someone when drink/drug driving and they got 24months. 5 people might tip it over the 33month mark though!
 
Made an example of because of the sheer amount of money these companies can push regarding this sort of thing.

Sentencing in relation to crime severity has been total balls for a long time now.
 
The moral limits of markets. Apparently "23 million" of the billions these guys make equates to 32months of a persons life. And even so, the "£23 million" is just a complete guess at best. How do they even know that the people who downloaded the film would even pay for it if it wasn't available to pirate? My guess is less than half.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Yes its harsh when you compare it to other crimes.

But why are you comparing it to other crimes? The judge doesn't? They look at the crime in question, look at the sentencing guidelines for that crime and see where it fits on the scale for that crime ONLY and sentence the person solely base on that crime alone.

I could say that again, only the crime he is charged with.

That's it.

They don't look at Tom, Dick and Harry got less for murder, rape and arson. That's not how it works. They don't look at the sentencing guidelines for murder when they are sentencing for theft.
Click to expand...

Yes thats true but it also highlights the point why would such a crime carry a 33 month sentence where violent crimes, arguably of much greater impact on the victim, carry lesser sentences. I would argue that we should be comparing the sentence and questioning out legal system.
 
probably just doing it to make an example in some attempt to make people stop pirating.

as others have said, maybe they might want to look at why peeps are pirating. using the old steam argument i'm pretty sure i could download a game from steam faster than i could drive to the local xtra vision to buy it.
 
Jokester said:
I personally know of someone that killed someone when drink/drug driving and they got 24months. 5 people might tip it over the 33month mark though!
Click to expand...

I know a guy who ran over and killed a 4 year old kid whilst speeding (36mph 20 metres into a zone where it drops from 40 to 30). He got 2 years too.

What the judge completely failed to take into account was the fact that it was 11pm and the kid was alone. The guy simply didn't see him. I mean who at that time of night expects a young child to be out by themselves?
 
Dis that sounds like there was something not being mentioned by your friend, as to go to jail for such an offence would require it to be dangerous driving or similar, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there was much more to it than the guy just being 6mph over the limit at the time of the accident (it's rare for anyone to go to jail for a simple accident that results in a death, usually there will be other factors such as drinking, drugs, unsafe vehicle, being banned at the time of the accident).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom