Monday, April 26th 2004
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
By CURT ANDERSON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- An international effort to dismantle major Internet piracy groups has identified more than 100 people in the United States and abroad involved in the theft of more than $50 million in music, movies, games and computer software, U.S. authorities said.

Synchronized searches by the FBI in 27 states and by other authorities in 10 countries beginning Wednesday resulted in the seizure of more than 200 computers, including 30 servers used as storage and distribution hubs for the material, Attorney General John Ashcroft said. One server contained over 65,000 titles.

"This is thievery," Ashcroft told reporters Thursday. "This is criminal."

The initiative, dubbed "Operation Fastlink," is the largest of its kind undertaken by the Justice Department against piracy of intellectual property over the Internet. The film, music and software industries have been pushing for greater criminal prosecution while in some cases pursuing their own civil cases.

Industry officials applauded the enforcement action.

"Today is a good day for creative artists," said John Malcolm, chief of antipiracy operations for the Motion Picture Association and a former senior Justice Department official. "Without copyright protection and enforcement, piracy will dramatically and deleteriously impact the future of the American film industry."

Although no arrests were announced, Ashcroft said charges would be brought against some of the people. They could face copyright infringement and conspiracy charges, among others, punishable by up to five years in prison on each count.

Full Text of Article/Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_story.asp?category=1700&slug=Internet%20Pirates

"They could face copyright infringement and conspiracy charges, among others, punishable by up to five years in prison on each count."
Is it the conspiracy charge that carries the prison term?
I thought that more severe punishment for copyright infringement was contained in a bill that just came out of a House subcommittee.

Curious... they state that "One server contained over 65,000 titles."

Everybody knows that the average size of an ISO image file is about 700mb(about the size of a cd)

So if 1 title(1 movie or game for example) is about 700mb in size... then 65000 titles are 45500000! mb in size.

I want that 45 million megabyte hard disk from that server! I didn´t know they manufactured those.

Cough Cough, I smell bullshit.

Also...

Who controls the whole software search inside the confiscated server? A 12 year old kid can plant ISOS on a pc and then arrange the dates so it looks like the microsoft central server for example, is the center of all worldwide piracy.

Or maybe it is.... but anyway...

WHO CONTROLS THAT IN THEIR DESPERATE SEARCH FOR RESULTS THE POWERS THAT BE ARE NOT PLANTING OR MODIFYING EVIDENCE IN ANY WAY IF ALL THESE PROCESSES WERE DONE IN CLOSED DOORS AND NO LIST OF THE SOFTWARE FOUND ON THE MACHINES OR IDENTITIES OF THE SUSPECTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED YET?

But that bill isn't law yet Lachatte (whew)

"Today is a good day for creative artists," said John Malcolm, chief of antipiracy operations for the Motion Picture Association and a former senior Justice Department official. "Without copyright protection and enforcement, piracy will dramatically and deleteriously impact the future of the American film industry."

Oh no, with all this "piracy" the MPAA can't afford those stupid special effects and may have to actually make movies with plot to get people to see them!

""This is thievery," Ashcroft told reporters Thursday. "This is criminal.""

It's copyright infringement, and it's civil


... idiot.

maybe that's why they haven't charged anyone yet. they're flipping through their lawbooks looking for something criminal to charge them with. I have a feeling when it goes to trial the defense attorneys will have a field day. unless the government can prove an intent to make money. from what I gather is all sharing

Carla, that's what I meant.
What law is the reporter referring to?
What is the "criminal" activity? Under what law? Ashcroft said that charges would be brought against "some of the people." Are they "flipping through their lawbooks looking for something criminal to charge them with"?
Ditto, MP3user.
Okay, mroop. It's all yours...

"Piracy" busting sale

Pay the US DOJ 10,000$ to raid one school/office/daycare to search for "pirated" material.

Purchase 10 raids, get the 11th free!

Man, best government money can buy!

Ashcroft is a FUCKEN idiot!!!! It's NOT piracy and criminal!!!! It's called copyright infringement and it's civil you arrogant bastard ASS CROFT!!!!!

"This is thievery," Ashcroft told reporters Thursday. "This is criminal."


I dream of a day when our political leaders are held accountable for their words.

It's obvious WHY they're rigging the law so that such "infringement" is reclassified as "criminal": They KNOW that people convicted on criminal charges -- ANY criminal charges -- can't vote or otherwise participate in the political process, so their goal is systematic disenfranchisement of the populace based upon the seemingly most trivial of situations. And yet, we have reached the point where rapists, sodomites and mass murderers -- people who DO cause serious harm to society -- are being treated with more mercy in many circles than are digital consumers.

P.S. This is also the same country that convicted Martha Stewart, yet let Kozlowski and the other crooks at Tyco essentially off the hook. And it didn't matter to the "guvmint" that one of the jurors on the Stewart case lied about his own criminal record to get on the jury; they got their conviction, didn't they, so why have another trial?

Again . . . we have reached the point where mere abstract, material THINGS are far more worth "protecting" and "defending" than individual freedom and liberty -- qualities which, evidently to T.P.T.B., are VERY cheap, expendable, and dime-a-dozen indeed.

However . . . insofar as the counterfeiting of PHYSICAL goods (CD's, DVD's, software programs etc., as I frequently see now and then on the street in New York City) . . . how much is one willing to bet that those being busted for same are illegals from Mexico and other areas around the world? (Which, if that's the case, explain why we almost never hear their names or where they're from.) What's really sickening is how those in power now fanatically REFUSE to distinguish between such a class and the average people at home, to them it's all one and the same.

"This is thievery," Ashcroft told reporters Thursday. "This is criminal."

This is what he and his but t-buddies around congress thinks.

Speaking of the government, I just read and submitted this article (but I'm not sure if they'll post it) about a kid whose art teacher turned him in for drawing anti-war, anti-Bush sketches. The highschool's administration called in the Secret Service to question the 15 yr.old.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/04/27/artwork.investigated.ap/index.html

I'd like to know how many of those 65k files were cracks, nfo or text files, installed programs (with a phethora of dlls) or misc garbage files. For all we know, they raided someone's cookie jar.

This does nothing to change things. People want to share, and there's nothing that will stop them. Even if the government pulls the i-net plug, trading will still happen. It's like the anti-smoking bans... they're not doing anything to deter smokers (just p*ss them off).

Ashcroft is a joke, a pethetic one at that. What worries me though is what sort of havoc will Bush and his cronies enact before we can oust them?

"This is thievery," Ashcroft told reporters Thursday. "This is criminal."

I believe that when he said this he was talking about the governments actions in seizing the computers of individuals for "piracy."

"unless the government can prove an intent to make money."

An intent to make money is not required for criminal copyright infringement.

"What is the "criminal" activity? Under what law? Ashcroft said that charges would be brought against "some of the people." Are they "flipping through their lawbooks looking for something criminal to charge them with"?
Ditto, MP3user.
Okay, mroop. It's all yours..."


Here you go. This appears to be from May 2001:

"Congress has distilled the crime of felony copyright infringement to four essential elements: (1) a copyright exists; (2) it was infringed by the defendant, specifically by reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted work; (3) the defendant acted "willfully"; and (4) the defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 2319(a), (c)(1). Further elaboration on these elements, if necessary, can be found in the recently published manual, Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes (2001). Criminal copyright infringement is discussed in depth in chapter III of the manual."

A. Large Scale Infringement Without Profit Motive

Infringement without profit motive is far more common in cases of Internet-based copyright infringement than it is in the physical world. Until recently, the prosecution was required to prove that copyright infringement was done willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Now the law provides for prosecution in the absence of these monetary considerations. Specifically, the current statute, as codified at 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2), allows for prosecution in cases involving large scale illegal reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act willfully, but without a discernible profit motive. Congress specifically made this change as part of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-147, 111 Stat. 2678. This statutory amendment was enacted as a response to United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), in which a Massachusetts District Court held that electronic piracy of copyrighted works, which could not be prosecuted under then-existing copyright infringement laws if the defendant did not realize a commercial advantage or financial gain, could not be charged as a wire fraud. For a more extended discussion of charging mail or wire fraud in infringement cases, see Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes § VI.B.1.

Cases alleging illegal distribution of copyrighted materials without commercial gain have been charged all over the country. In August 1999, the first person was convicted for illegally posting computer software programs, musical recordings, and digitally-recorded movies on his Web site, and allowing the general public to download and copy these products free of charge. The Oregon defendant pleaded guilty to a felony. See United States Attorney's Office, District of Oregon, First Criminal Copyright Conviction Under the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act for Unlawful Distribution of Software on the Internet, August 20, 1999 (http://www.cybercrime.gov/netconv.htm). In addition to Oregon, other significant cases have been charged in the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan without allegation of commercial gain. For additional information about cases charged under the NET Act, see http://www.cybercrime.gov/iplaws.htm#Xb.

Prosecutors should not hesitate to utilize this avenue of enforcement. In many cases the damage to the victim may be enormous although the infringer is not profiting financially. In fact, because the copyrighted materials are provided without charge to the entire Internet-using public, the demand for the infringing goods provided for free may increase dramatically and result in great potential loss to the rights holder.

http://www.cybercrime.gov/usamay2001_5.htm

Tinker, i hope we can oust them criminals, but i be afraid diebold already has em reelected !!!!10/4 flbgbt

Oh yea, lets see 50mil$ in songs, and doing riaa math is about 500 songs !!10/4 flbgbt

Mroop. So the laws have been changed over the years to include people who distribute copyrighted material without commercial gain? It's a felony under federal law?

That is correct. It seems that the laws were updated to account for the internet, which has made wide scale distribution of copyrighted materials relatively easy to accomplish.

Easy point - if they (p2p users sharing music illegally) were going to be charged criminally, why do they (IF they don't decide to settle) go to civil court, as opposed to criminal?

You can read 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2) here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html

You can read 18 U.S.C. 2319(c) here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html

c)

Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(2) of title 17, United States Code -

(1)

shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;

(2)

shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

(3)

shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.

"Easy point - if they (p2p users sharing music illegally) were going to be charged criminally, why do they (IF they don't decide to settle) go to civil court, as opposed to criminal?"

I don't understand your question. The RIAA files civil suits. The FBI prosecutes criminal actions.

"Ashcroft is a FUCKEN idiot!!!! It's NOT piracy and criminal!!!! It's called copyright infringement and it's civil you arrogant bastard ASS CROFT!!!!!"

It would seem that you are the idiot. So much ignorance. : )

"The RIAA files civil suits. The FBI prosecutes criminal actions."
Thank you, mroop. It explains Operation Fastlink's motives as opposed to the RIAA subpoenas and potential civil suits if copyright infringers don't settle.

Thank you moopie. 10 in 180 days....I can deal with that

"It would seem that you are the idiot. So much ignorance." NO I don't think so you idiot!!!! That may be what a certain secret provison in the law says, but using the word piracy and criminal for copyright infringement is FUCKEN BULLSHIT!!!!! That hidden evil part of the law censored from us needs to be abolished!!!!!!

Aww the sweet sound of an arrogant lawyer weenie....sort of like a fingernail down a chalkboard.

"That may be what a certain secret provison in the law"

I hate those darn secret provisions. : )

"That hidden evil part of the law"

I agree. Those hidden evil parts of the law are the worst! : )

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=criminal+copyright+infringement&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

The kicker seems to be the value placed on the works in question. What the court will finally have to decide is whether or not a copy has any intrinsic value. Since the original is still unadulterated and in the hands of the owner, in the case of music, and a copy is lossy at best, does it have any relational value to the original? Is a photograph of a Picasso valuable? Is a DVD rip merely a "facsimile" of the movie? Case law has yet to be established on this point, and that will be the crux of all this action against filesharers.

It's the retail value of the item being copied, not the value of the copy.

"(4) the defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period."

Mroop.. that is a high burdon of proof.
they have to bring forth logs and SOLID EVIDENCE that someone sent (at an assumed going rate of $80 a game) more than 300 copies in a 180 day period.

even on t1 lines i'm unlikely to be able to pull that one off.

that is 210 gigs of data at 700mb's a piece by the way.. I'd be hard pressed to do this if i were to force it down people's throats on the net.

to give you an idea of the demand required to pull this off. there is a popular series being traded online that is not licensed yet called naruto. a rediculous number of people demand this file.

it would take approximately 1300 uploads of this file (the entire population of that irc channel, which is immense) for it to be 210 gigs.

a correction.. it would be 30 copies.. which, over the period of half a year is an unreasonably small number to base a felony case upon. It looks like the sellout of our population began a year earlier than we thought. Time to call for amendments.

the phrase "one or more works" especially permits the use of this law as a tool by corporations to opress the public.

Yeah, you're not allowed to give away copies of games that someone else spent their time and money creating and is now trying to sell to make a living. You are truly being oppressed by The Man.

Under the NET act, exchanging an infringing copyrighted work for another infringing copyrighted work is equivilent to exchanging one for money.

"Yeah, you're not allowed to give away copies of games that someone else spent their time and money creating and is now trying to sell to make a living. You are truly being oppressed by The Man."

more thoughts from someone who obviously takes the simplistic worst case scenarios and tries to apply them to the REAL world.
in the real world, copying and sharing has been an embedded value for decades, if not longer.

The software industry has continued to make money despite "piracy" rates of circa 30%, with peer to peer making up only a miniscule fraction.

Software industries in particular give people a very big incentive to buy the title if they like it.
Namely, you don't get updates if it isn't a valid serial number.

"NEXT!"

"Under the NET act, exchanging an infringing copyrighted work for another infringing copyrighted work is equivilent to exchanging one for money."

I fail to see the parallel -_-;

does it not disturb you that if you are put in charge of taping shows for your family that you will have distributed 10 copies of "one or more" copywritten works in less than 180 days?

that would make you prosecutable.

the fact that it doesnt account for changes in price or inflation means interests can manipulate this law and bring people into its scope by raising their prices, but the most disturbing point in this law is that it says "one or more", meaning every single person in the united states who has electricity and a recording device is guilty already.

you tape the 40th episode of the simpsons.. you give your friend a copy of the tape.

you taped last night's west wing.. you give your mom a copy of the tape

you make a copy of your cd and give it to a friend who is exceedingly short on cash.

and that could be the activity of a common consumer in one week alone.

imagine the 12 weeks of time in which they state this can happen!

Well that puts me in the dog house, I routinely record 30+ shows a week to share with friends without cableTv.

Btw, does this also carry out to manufacturers of Tivo-like devices? The broadcasts are being stored (in volume) for distribution to multiple viewers ... possibly multiple times. So it's okay to record tv shows to a Tivo system but illegal to transfer to pc hd? When exactly does this become an illegal act? It's okay to share with friends but illegal to share digitally? Where does fair-use stop and the feds step in?