Software Pirate Made To Pay Up....

[-Vormav-]

Considering how much he has been making per year, that seems like a pretty mild slap on the wrist. And I'd wonder why not much came of this the first time that he was 'caught.'

[samartin]

Dashiell Ponce de Leon of Richmond, Texas, earned approximately $192,000 by selling pirated software and games online.

Hmmm I think that's his lifetime earning not annual. I would say he hasn't got off lightly in that case...

[-Vormav-]

Hmmm I think that's his lifetime earning not annual. I would say he hasn't got off lightly in that case...
Ahh...right. Read that part wrong. :banghead:

[MorituriMax]

Actually, it was the actual value of all the copies he sold at his reduced (I guess less if he was a pirate) rates, not his lifetime earning potential... grin.. he probably wished he had just gotten a job at mcdonalds to make his money now.

[percydaman]

wow thats a pretty hefty penalty for whats basically an unviolent crime.

[Slurry]

wow thats a pretty hefty penalty for whats basically an unviolent crime.

That's because it's more important to protect corporate money than private citizens. The corporate money is what puts politicians in power, who in turn make laws that keep wealthy people wealthy.

Art

[thedaemon]

That's because it's more important to protect corporate money than private citizens. The corporate money is what puts politicians in power, who in turn make laws that keep wealthy people wealthy.

Art

Well said, welcome to a capitalist society, where money is the objective. Selling illegal software is wrong, in more ways than one. He got what he deserved though.

[JeroenDStout]

"Texas man given 46 months in federal prison, ordered to pay $1.154 million for latest charges."
In Dutch the notation of large numbers goes with a '.' instead of a comma, so I read 1154 milion and was quite shocked.
Then, when I found out what the real amount was my shock continued.

That is a lot of money :scream:

[MorituriMax]

Well said, welcome to a capitalist society, where money is the objective. Selling illegal software is wrong, in more ways than one. He got what he deserved though.

My mom pointed out once that the difference between stealing a Sports Car and stealing a copy of an expensive program is that there are a limited number of Cars but an unlimited number of potential copies of the program.

Wonder when this guy will come up for parole..

[thethule]

Wait, his name is Ponce de Leon????? Come on...there MUST be another Seinfeld lunatic like me on these boards...... Or am i really so sad that i am the only one who would remember the joke name of one of the films that elaine and jerry argue about seeing at the cinema?

[-Vormav-]

That's because it's more important to protect corporate money than private citizens. The corporate money is what puts politicians in power, who in turn make laws that keep wealthy people wealthy.

Art


:rolleyes:

[JeroenDStout]

My mom pointed out once that the difference between stealing a Sports Car and stealing a copy of an expensive program is that there are a limited number of Cars but an unlimited number of potential copies of the program.

Wonder when this guy will come up for parole..
Borrowing someone's sportscar at night without him ever noticing or having disadvantages of is still illegal - and quite rude :p

[slaughters]

wow thats a pretty hefty penalty for whats basically an unviolent crime.I'm confused. You're saying it's a bad thing that software pirates get assessed "hefty" penalties?

[Rabid pitbull]

My mom pointed out once that the difference between stealing a Sports Car and stealing a copy of an expensive program is that there are a limited number of Cars but an unlimited number of potential copies of the program.

Wonder when this guy will come up for parole..


Actually they are both stealing, and any argument likewise is bad advice. I bet your mother would have not said that if she was writing the code 14 hours a day, and her salary was dependant on the success of the application.

[Slurry]

:rolleyes:

LOL

Um...as intelligent and informative as your response was, would you care to elaborate?
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, what are your opposing arguements?

Art

[slaughters]

..the difference between stealing a Sports Car and stealing a copy of an expensive program is that there are a limited number of Cars but an unlimited number of potential copies of the program...So we agree.

The punishment should be greater for stealing software because with cars there is a least a limit to what can be stolen, but with software there can be a unlimited number of crimes commited. :)

[MorituriMax]

Borrowing someone's sportscar at night without him ever noticing or having disadvantages of is still illegal - and quite rude :p

Yeah, but what if I can sit in my garage, make an identical copy of it for the cost of a CD-R disk and drive off in it instead?

;)

[MorituriMax]

LOL

Um...as intelligent and informative as your response was, would you care to elaborate?
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, what are your opposing arguements?

Art

From his smiley I think he was trying to point out that the whole "evil rich corporations" paying "corrupt politicians" to run over ma and pa is perhaps a bit cliched? Consider that the top one percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top five percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

So given those statistics, it's no wonder that some people roll their eyes when people roll out the whole "rich people are evil and put down the little man." argument..

Heh, at least that's what I think his smiley meant...

Have a good one!

[Nathellion]

Yeah, but what if I can sit in my garage, make an identical copy of it for the cost of a CD-R disk and drive off in it instead?

;)

You're missing the point. Intellectual property is property regardless of the raw materials it does or doesn't use and the time it takes to replicate.

[MorituriMax]

So we agree. The punishment should be greater for stealing programs because with cars there is a least a limit to what can be stolen, but with software there can be a unlimited number of crimes commited.

I can't agree with that completely.. yes stealing programs is wrong, but if we follow your logic to its obvious conclusion, we would have to have the mandatory death sentence for anyone who commits assault on someone, because if they attacked one person, then they have the potential of killing thousands at some point in the future. After all, if they can do it once, they can do it an unlimited number of times.

Heck, if someone steals something from a local Wal Mart when they are 13, then we need to take into consideration that they will steal again or worse an unlimited number of times. Under that system, we just throw the kid into prison for life right now instead of waiting to see if he will actually DO it.

My point is that there is a difference between stealing something from a limited pool (cars, stereos, tvs) as opposed to an unlimited pool (software, recordings of music). I'm not condoning one or the other, I just think there needs to be some kind of common sense distinction between the punishment meted out for software theft and murder.

After all, look at what Martha Stewart did.. she ruined many lives because of her actions, and she should have known better because of her background. What happened to her? They locked her in a country club for a few months.

Grin.. I digress.. wasn't meaning to drag this out, but wanted to make the distinction clear. We need to sit down with people and make todays laws adapt to the new crimes that come from todays computer world. The old laws just can't cope with the kinds of crimes that are routinely committed with computers.

have a good one!

[MorituriMax]

You're missing the point. Intellectual property is property regardless of the raw materials it does or doesn't use and the time it takes to replicate.

Sure... but it isn't a car. I'm not arguing against intellectual property. I am pointing out that there IS a difference. A disk full of 0s and 1s isn't the same thing as a car made of metal, rubber, glass, and plastic.

We can only take a topic like this in little baby steps.. heh.. if we can't agree on the basics then we can't move on to solutions for this new kind of crime.

Have a good one!

[MorituriMax]

One point. I absolutely agree the pirate deserved to be punished. And I'm not saying the punishment he did get is wrong. I'm just throwing out ideas since I have run across this topic in the past and you all seem like very intelligent people who are better situated to talk about software theft and it's practical effects on society.

Just want an intelligent discourse, play devils advocate sometimes, and bounce ideas off you guys and gals, not trying to flame anyone!

Cheers!

[Nathellion]

Sure... but it isn't a car. I'm not arguing against intellectual property. I am pointing out that there IS a difference. A disk full of 0s and 1s isn't the same thing as a car made of metal, rubber, glass, and plastic.

We can only take a topic like this in little baby steps.. heh.. if we can't agree on the basics then we can't move on to solutions for this new kind of crime.

Have a good one!

I agree that there are distinctions, but it seems like you're saying that stealing software isn't comparatively much of a crime.

[percydaman]

I'm confused. You're saying it's a bad thing that software pirates get assessed "hefty" penalties?

no I basically believe he got what he deserved. Im just concerned with overflowing prisons. I would like to see just as severe punishment, just a little more creative. Like instead of him languishing in prison, getting raped by a bunkmate, how about keeping him out of prison, but forcing him to actually work to pay off his fines, and sending bubba by his house every night so he doesn't miss that part of his new life as well. :thumbsup:

[slaughters]

...A disk full of 0s and 1s isn't the same thing as a car made of metal, rubber, glass, and plastic...Actually you're kind of wrong there. If stolen, they *are* the same thing. Both represent lost income to the guy who made them.

Now I patiently wait for the often used, cliched argments presented by software pirates

It's not a crime because:

(a) It's made on the computer, so nothing physical is stolen.

(b) I'm just trying it out, I'd never have bought it anyway, so they lost no money.

(c) They charge too much. I'd buy it if it was cheaper.

(d) They are large evil corporations who "can afford it"/"deserve to be punished" (variation of then "I'd buy it if it were cheaper" argument)

(e) It's cheap to make, so stealing it is not a crime (variation of the, "nothing physical is stolen" argument)

[MorituriMax]

I agree that there are distinctions, but it seems like you're saying that stealing software isn't comparatively much of a crime.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to murder.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to shoplifitng.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to fraud.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to child molestation.

Which of those four should we make software piracy equal to? :)

I there a valid distinction between a violent or non-violent crime when it comes to determining the punishment for the crime? Should we punish someone more if the crime is more likely to be one that can be perpetrated an unlimited number of times just as easily as once, even if it has only BEEN commited once? Errr... if the guy can make 100,000 copies but only makes 50 copies should we punish him for those other 99,950 because he can?

After all, he only actually STOLE 1 copy. HE didn't go back the other 49 times, or 99,950 times.. There is no way we could punish someone for car theft and charge him with the theft of more cars if he only took one. Yet we do that without a second thought in this case because we don't know yet in the body of the law if it is appropriate to say he actually made money off copies of software.

Software is different from Hardware. My underlying point here is, did the company actually prove to the court how much money they actually lost due to his piracy? Did they prove that all the people who bought copies of the software would have gone to the company if they DIDN'T have access to illegal copies? And if they had been unable to buy the program legally at the regular price, then would the company actually have LOST money due to that non-existent sale? Can they sue people who don't buy their program at it's full price off the store shelf because they don't make money from them?

8 )

[MorituriMax]

Actually you're kind of wrong there. If stolen, they *are* the same thing. Both represent lost income to the guy who made them.

Ah, cool point..

John Smith buys the COPY of the program from sofftware pirate. Company makes no money. Company doesn't lose the cost of the program and it's packaging. Company sues pirate.

John Smith doesn't buy program from company at regular or discounted price because he can't afford it at full price. Company makes no money from sale that never happens. Company sues John Smith because they didn't make the sale.

Hypothetical offshoot:
John Smith moves into new house. Installs a windmill and solar panels for electricty. Can the electric company sue him because he isn't paying them for electricity like everyone else in his neighborhood?

How does the company actually prove that every copy that pirate sold was a copy that a consumer would have bought from them anyway?

Shouldn't the pirate be liable only for an actual loss to the company?

If nothing else, can you show me if there is a hole in my logic?

Have a good one.

[helicopterr]

I agree the man got off too easily. He should have his hands chopped off and his eyes gouged out for messing with the software corporation's money. :twisted:

On a slightly more serious note, I think the monetary payment and the jail sentence is tad too much and long. Maybe the guy deserved it and maybe he doesn't but that thats not the point. I don't think it is good policy to criminalize something too much unless it is absolutely necessary. People respond to incentives and when they see that the cost of piracy has gone up so much, they either get out or seek to reduce cost to continue doing it. I personally believe that people in general will only share their revenue in order to reduce cost. For those who chooses to stay in, the higher the cost of getting caught, the more incentive they have to gang up with other people to average the cost even though his own cut might be reduced. So if such harsh policies continue to be imposed, we might not be looking at underground organizations rather than indivduals doing this sort of thing.

[gmask]

Hypothetical offshoot:
John Smith moves into new house. Installs a windmill and solar panels for electricty. Can the electric company sue him because he isn't paying them for electricity like everyone else in his neighborhood?

Your argument above would only make sense if John Smith was syphoning electricity from the power company but since wind and the sun are for the time being free to anyone to utilize then it's irrelevant if that's where John Smith gets his power. It is also ironic that you'd use this example since most power does not come from either of those sources... which is too bad.

At any rate the resources and ability to write code is not a resource that rains down on us from outerspace.

How does the company actually prove that every copy that pirate sold was a copy that a consumer would have bought from them anyway?

If the pirate sold copies then you can assume that there were consumers ergo sales were made... guess who has to eat the deep discounts??

Shouldn't the pirate be liable only for an actual loss to the company?

Wether he sold or gave away copies does not matter.. those are still copies that might have been sold that are now loose on the internet and will most likely continue to circulate.


>>If nothing else, can you show me if there is a hole in my logic?

you know what they say about holes.. ;-)

[slaughters]

...d, we might not be looking at underground organizations rather than indivduals doing this sort of thing.I bet if you go to the countries were most of the pirating is done (Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.) you'll find that large criminal organizations are the norm, not the exception in the software pirate business. Note that this is in countries where there is very little punishment for crimes of this kind.

The image of the lone geek burning CD's in his apartment to sell to his friends is more of a myth than it is a reality in todays world.

[gmask]

After all, he only actually STOLE 1 copy. HE didn't go back the other 49 times, or 99,950 times.. There is no way we could punish someone for car theft and charge him with the theft of more cars if he only took one.

Let's say he stole or maybe he bought a Porsche.. then using a magical replication machine made hundreds of them and sold them for $20 each. He may never have stole a single car but by copying their car and selling it at a ridicously low price he is denying Porsche the profits for their labors and ideas. Of course most of those buying the copy probably never would have paid the "real" price but now those who could afford will have to question why bother to pay the "real" price when I can get a perfect copy for next to nothing.

The above example to a degree is a real one because there are people who make "kit cars" that look like ferrari's etc and they have been sued for copyright infringements.

The issue of pirating isn't so much about theft as it is about undermining the value of a product by dumping cracked copies of it into the market place.

On the otherhand if a developer of a competing software makes a worthy product and can sell it for less then this is good for the market place and consumer. But taking a developers product and selling it for less simply because "you can" and because the computer allows to make limitless copies effortlessly (cracking software is not exactly legitimate R&D either) is not fair competition or healthy for the market place.

[helicopterr]

John Smith doesn't buy program from company at regular or discounted price because he can't afford it at full price. Company makes no money from sale that never happens. Company sues John Smith because they didn't make the sale.

Hypothetical offshoot:
John Smith moves into new house. Installs a windmill and solar panels for electricty. Can the electric company sue him because he isn't paying them for electricity like everyone else in his neighborhood?



Before I began, I want to just want to define cost as the combination of time taken, money spent and risk taken. Unless you think the cost of pirating software aside from legal consequences is just as difficult is just as buying it, you reasoning is flawed. People always seek the most profitable route even when they are flush with money.

Installing a windmill and solar panels for electricity implies a cost that has to be paid in order to incur the benefits. The cost of getting electricity includes the money used to purchase the solar equipment, the time used to install the equipment as well as the inconvienience that comes with a solar panel. Because the installer of the solar equipment is not using any of the electricity company's services, it is up to the electric company to adjust its rates to match the cost of installing a solar sytem.

On the otherhand, pirating software implies that the user is using the services of the software company at a reduced cost as opposed to using a alternative that does not involve the services of the software company. Thus, it is, in some cases, detrimental to other users as well as to the software company because they have to now adjust the official cost to either match the cost of the "illegal alternative" or ask the government to impose a additional cost to pirating software so that the cost of buying software and pirating software are the same. Guess which path they are going to take to maximize profits?

[Nathellion]

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to murder.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to shoplifitng.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to fraud.

...isn't comparitvely much of a crime, compared to child molestation.

Which of those four should we make software piracy equal to? :)

I there a valid distinction between a violent or non-violent crime when it comes to determining the punishment for the crime? Should we punish someone more if the crime is more likely to be one that can be perpetrated an unlimited number of times just as easily as once, even if it has only BEEN commited once? Errr... if the guy can make 100,000 copies but only makes 50 copies should we punish him for those other 99,950 because he can?

Yes, I think he should be punished more harshly for the sake of deterrance, but I don't think it is that simple. If there is evidence that he was planning on producing the other n,000. Kind of like being charged with attempted larceny.

After all, he only actually STOLE 1 copy. HE didn't go back the other 49 times, or 99,950 times.. There is no way we could punish someone for car theft and charge him with the theft of more cars if he only took one. Yet we do that without a second thought in this case because we don't know yet in the body of the law if it is appropriate to say he actually made money off copies of software.

Yes, if someone stole a car, reverse-engineered and began making and selling that model at a cheaper price, he would be punished much more severely than if he had just stolen the car. This scenario is highly unlikely though, for obvious reasons.

Just because replicating and selling stolen cars is harder then doing so with software, you think that people should get punished more severely? If anything people who steal software should be punished more severely to make the risk of stealing offset the ease of.

Software is different from Hardware. My underlying point here is, did the company actually prove to the court how much money they actually lost due to his piracy? Did they prove that all the people who bought copies of the software would have gone to the company if they DIDN'T have access to illegal copies? And if they had been unable to buy the program legally at the regular price, then would the company actually have LOST money due to that non-existent sale? Can they sue people who don't buy their program at it's full price off the store shelf because they don't make money from them?

The point is not to be absolutely just, but to deter. Software piracy has the potential to severely damage companies. Whether or not in every unique case such damage will occur is irrelevant. The point is to deter all cases.

Cheers. :)

[MorituriMax]

1. If the pirate sold copies then you can assume that there were consumers ergo sales were made... guess who has to eat the deep discounts??

2. Wether he sold or gave away copies does not matter.. those are still copies that might have been sold that are now loose on the internet and will most likely continue to circulate.

>>If nothing else, can you show me if there is a hole in my logic?

3. you know what they say about holes.. ;-)

1. If you go to buy a car and you have a limit of $1,000 dollars. You see two cars for sale, one old truck for $300 dollars and a Porsche for $50,000 dollars. You buy the old truck. Should the guy selling the Porsche be able to sue you since he didn't make the sale, after all you WERE going to buy a vehicle and why should he suffer because you didn't have the money and went elsewhere?

Your point that there were customers is not that valid, since they wouldn't not have been consumers beyond their financial limits. And in this case they don't eat the deep discount because the copy that was bought in this case was created using the resources of the pirate, his electrical power and disk burner. If the company presses 100,000 copies of a program at $20,000 dollars a pop and only sells 1,000 copies, are they entitled to sue 99,000 people who own computers because they (a.) weren't ever going to buy their program, or (b.) can't afford the program at $20,000 dollars in the first place?

2. My point is that the copies only sold because they were within the financial means of the buyers, whether because they were poor, or just rat bastages with the money but not the morals. The original company did not directly lose anything other than having its intellectual property rights abus.. err, raped.

3. heh heh...

[helicopterr]

I bet if you go to the countries were most of the pirating is done (Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.) you'll find that large criminal organizations are the norm, not the exception in the software pirate business. Note that this is in countries where there is very little punishment for crimes of this kind.

The image of the lone geek burning CD's in his apartment to sell to his friends is more of a myth than it is a reality in todays world.

I understand where you are coming from but understand that in those countries, legal troubles is only one of the risk involved as gang violence among other things also has to be taken into account. It just shows that in a society without strong official legal regulation like the United States, natural regulation in the form of criminal organizations naturally arise.

[gmask]

I can't find the link.. I think it was on wired.com but recently a DVD pirate was busted in China who was American, wealthy, and a bachelor geek to the max. Basically it seems that this guy was rich so it's puzzles me as to why he'd bother with pirating..rich but cash poor as they say??? Seems like he shipped some of his own merchandise as well.

Here's a different link..
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122797,00.asp

Ah here's the link..

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.10/guthrie.html


I bet if you go to the countries were most of the pirating is done (Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.) you'll find that large criminal organizations are the norm, not the exception in the software pirate business. Note that this is in countries where there is very little punishment for crimes of this kind.

The image of the lone geek burning CD's in his apartment to sell to his friends is more of a myth than it is a reality in todays world.

[Lyr]

There is alot of hypocracy on this topic. If someone steals an image, the work of an artist and uses it as thier own this community gets out it's pitch forks. If someone steals a program, the work of a programmer you get pages and pages of justification on why it's not a big deal, nothing was lost blah blah blah. If you think it's ok to pirate, since "nothing was really lost", how do you feel about plagirism? I mean technically nothing is lost right?

[Slurry]

So given those statistics, it's no wonder that some people roll their eyes when people roll out the whole "rich people are evil and put down the little man." argument..

Heh, at least that's what I think his smiley meant...

Have a good one!

Hi MorturiMax,

I won't bother arguing the statistcs. I can't be bothered to verify them but I am sure you are accurate anyway. :)
However, none of that negates my statement that political parties canvas the rich for campaign donations and once in power, these wealthy few reap the benefits of the laws and policies that the politicians put in place.
It may seem cliche but that is how the world works. I am not calling anybody evil or passing judgment. It's simply the truth.
The rich and powerful don't want the middlle and lower classes to become wealthy. If they did, they current power wielders would get less and have to share more of the pie.
I'm no conspiracy theorist. It's simple logic.
I mean, shouldn't Reagan's trickle-down-effect have kicked in by now? Hahaha :D
Let's say there was a war, (without getting political), select companies would be awarded (or given priority) lucrative contracts for rebuilding a country. Those companies tend to be political and financial allies of those currently in power. It happens everywhere in all levels of society.

Let's put it in perspective:


Violent Crimes

Homicide: Average sentence = 12.4 years. Average time served = 5.9 years.
Rape: Average sentence = 9.8 years. Average time served = 5.4 years.
Sexual Assault: Average sentence = 6 years. Average time served = 2.9 years.

Copyright infringement and violation of the Communications Act are felonies under federal law and carry maximum sentences of up to five years in jail and/or a $250,000 fine.
When a copy of Star Wars was leaked, George Lucas had the FBI investigating it. Does the average citizen get that kind of attention?

In a sense, you prove (or at least support) my point. The small percentage of the population with the money (and paying the big bucks), ie the super-rich, get to make the rules as it benefits them.

Anyway, getting off topic. The guy did a bad thing. He got caught. He's paying the price. ;)

[Gentrifier]

Sweet. Just desserts. Since it's yet unknown whether or not large fines and prison sentences are actually a deterrent, I think it's fine to start big. If it doesn't scare the bejesus out of those who are doing the mass distribution of pirated software, then we'll have to find a threshold that does scare them. Obviously, I'm not advocating life sentences or the death penalty, but you can make life very, very painful without resorting to such measures.

If these penalties only deter the criminal activities in the U.S., then they're doing their job. Other countries will have to take equally harsh measures (assuming they work) for this to really be effective. In the mean time, we're right to try to enforce our own laws and hope others follow suit.

Alec

[strangelife]

Old Ponce De Leon did a bad thing. No doubt. I do think he's paying an excessive price for his actions though. Given that Texas is a big proponent of zero-tolerance policies, I'm not overly surprised by the verdict. "Don't mess with Texas", indeed.

[csutcliffe]

The guy did wrong and should be punished as should all software pirates. The problem is, that drug dealers, who have a far more detrimental effect on society than software pirates, can get similair punishments for making a lot more money in a far more attrocious way.

The question is, from my point of view, is that did ponce de leon or whatever his name is, get over severely punished - or are other forms of crime not punished severely enough. Only thing I do know is that this won't be the last time that we see imbalanced justice.

Anyhow, with a name like that are we sure this isn't a wind up?

[MorituriMax]

There is alot of hypocracy on this topic. If someone steals an image, the work of an artist and uses it as thier own this community gets out it's pitch forks. If someone steals a program, the work of a programmer you get pages and pages of justification on why it's not a big deal, nothing was lost blah blah blah. If you think it's ok to pirate, since "nothing was really lost", how do you feel about plagirism? I mean technically nothing is lost right?

We're just having a friendly discussion.. I am not judging anyone here who participates one way or the other.. my premise wasn't that nothing was really lost, it was that perhaps the way we determine the actual value of what was lost may not necessarily be keeping pace with what technology allows people to do when it comes to data crimes.

[MorituriMax]

The guy did wrong and should be punished as should all software pirates. The problem is, that drug dealers, who have a far more detrimental effect on society than software pirates, can get similair punishments for making a lot more money in a far more attrocious way.

The question is, from my point of view, is that did ponce de leon or whatever his name is, get over severely punished - or are other forms of crime not punished severely enough. Only thing I do know is that this won't be the last time that we see imbalanced justice.

Anyhow, with a name like that are we sure this isn't a wind up?

Heh... with Nicolas Cage naming his newest baby Kal-el after Superman, that one doesn't surprise me as much.

I guess the whole thing boils down to the law trying to keep up with how the world changes. The Internet may be the single largest enabler for intellectual property theft there is since it gives anybody with an internet connection the same distribution power as only the major companies used to have.

Plus with so much content on a medium which the tech-savvy can abuse, it's no wonder that third world countries are the biggest abusers.

[kabojnk]

He probably made more money than Lightwave did. Poor them.

Anyway, I would have felt a small bit of sympathy for the bloke if it weren't for the fact that it wasn't his first offense. Plus he was living in Texas. I don't mean to label, and anyone with hard evidence can feel free to rebuke this, but any hardliner state won't be as sympathetic to criminals. He should have moved to Vermont and did his business.

[gmask]

1. If you go to buy a car and you have a limit of $1,000 dollars. You see two cars for sale, one old truck for $300 dollars and a Porsche for $50,000 dollars. You buy the old truck. Should the guy selling the Porsche be able to sue you since he didn't make the sale, after all you WERE going to buy a vehicle and why should he suffer because you didn't have the money and went elsewhere?

Argh.. but an $300 old truck is not an exact copy of a $50,000 porcshe is it???

And in this case they don't eat the deep discount because the copy that was bought in this case was created using the resources of the pirate, his electrical power and disk burner.

Since it may cost developers a significant amount of money to complete one version of the software then they pirate is liable fo that cost of selling one piece of software that they did not develop or legaly license for resale.

2. My point is that the copies only sold because they were within the financial means of the buyers, whether because they were poor, or just rat bastages with the money but not the morals. The original company did not directly lose anything other than having its intellectual property rights abus.. err, raped.

Your point is less than moot because as explained in my other posts the fact that there are cracked versions of the software around interferes with the sales of the legit versions.

So let's say you had $300 dollars and you were standing in front of what you thought was a Porsche dealership and somebody told you could buy a Porsche for $300... Or let's say you got this offer online and instead of the porsche you got an old truck, or one infected with a virus or trojan horse?

At any rate in regards to this case the offender clearly did not learn anything from being busted once but considering that he thought he had discovered a way to grow money on trees be selling illegal copies of software then it's clear why he returned to his old ways and no he'll pay the price in cash and his freedom... most people would prefer to be free and poor than in jail... in this case greed got the better of the defendant.

[-Vormav-]

A couple points that have already been mentioned, but I think need to be emphasized a little bit more:
1) This is his second offense. He already got it easy once before (a very mild tap on the wrist: "well as long as you're truly sorry, we'll let you off!"), and look what happened: He just kept on going at it. What a surprise.
2) We're not talking about some kid in highschool that downloaded a copy of Max to play around, or a college student that burned a copy of Photoshop for a friend. This is someone that made his living stealing other people's work and selling it, and a very nice living at that. He had it coming to him.
3) In copyright law, restitution for losses to the victims (the copyright holders) is manditory.
He could have had it worse. They could have given him 5 years in prison.


Everytime someone actually gets in trouble for pirating, I always hear people arguing in favor of the thief because there are lots of bad drug dealers in the world. Give me a freaking break... He got caught, and the fact that there are other worse people in the world that maybe the FBI should be catching instead is no reason for the courts to give the guy a break a second time.

The reason the fine is so much higher than, say, rape, is not because the big bad evil corporations are ruling the courts, but because there were over 200 victims involved - so it all adds up very quickly. It's a somewhat valid point though; fines and jailtime for murder and rape should be significantly higher than copyright theft, since those are significantly greater crimes. Does that mean we should alter copyright law, so that the companies that are having their software stolen aren't even given full restitution, just to make things fair? No.

[JeroenDStout]

Yay for -Vormav- :)

I'd say, though, that prison is no place for a software criminal. He needs to be restricted from the internet :p I don't believe prison will teach him anything he won't use for profit afterwards.
School very much like prison in the sense of social terms. Prison is very much school in the sense of people learning new abilities from eachother.

[gmask]

Well Non violent offenders shoudl allways be seperate from viuolent offenders but honestly for most people prison is a deterent to some degree to obey the law.

However for sociapaths prison is not a deterent and prison does not cure their problems.


Yay for -Vormav- :)

I'd say, though, that prison is no place for a software criminal. He needs to be restricted from the internet :p I don't believe prison will teach him anything he won't use for profit afterwards.
School very much like prison in the sense of social terms. Prison is very much school in the sense of people learning new abilities from eachother.

[JeroenDStout]

Well Non violent offenders shoudl allways be seperate from viuolent offenders but honestly for most people prison is a deterent to some degree to obey the law.
I'd rather see him do social work :shrug: he hasn't done anything physically wrong so chances are he's just a geek with ego. It wouldn't be a danger to make him do community work, I guess.

[PhantomDesign]

That's because it's more important to protect corporate money than private citizens. The corporate money is what puts politicians in power, who in turn make laws that keep wealthy people wealthy.

Art
If the big guy is right, then the big guy deserves to win. If the little guy is right, the little guy deserves to win. It is not the job of the courts to rule in favor of the big guy or the little guy, but to rule in favor of law and justice.
:deal:

[jbo]

If the big guy is right, then the big guy deserves to win. If the little guy is right, the little guy deserves to win. It is not the job of the courts to rule in favor of the big guy or the little guy, but to rule in favor of law and justice.
:deal:

i think you missed the point. of course he's wrong. of course the court should not rule in his favor. the point is, if he had stolen from a private citizen -- even at gunpoint, the penalty probably would not be as severe.

[PhantomDesign]

i think you missed the point. of course he's wrong. of course the court should not rule in his favor. the point is, if he had stolen from a private citizen -- even at gunpoint, the penalty probably would not be as severe.
The severity of the crime seems to be subjective in this discussion, but I will refute your point that he didn't steal from private citizens. . . from personal experience.

Before I knew better, I was once cheated into buying what I thought was a legit copy of 3DS Max for $100. . . OUCH! Not only did he steal from Discreet, but he stole from me!

[Slurry]

Phantom Design,

Please read what I posted carefully. I said nothing about right or wrong or courts ruling in favour of somebody with money.
I was responding to an earlier poster who thought the penalty for selling pirated software was severe compared to other transgressions such as violent crimes.
I merely pointed out that piracy is handled with severity largely in part because those who it affects the most have large amounts of money and therefore the means to influence what and how laws are made.
Read more of the other posts by me and others in this thread for a more detailed account of that opinion. ;)
Thanks,

Art

[gmask]

i think you missed the point. of course he's wrong. of course the court should not rule in his favor. the point is, if he had stolen from a private citizen -- even at gunpoint, the penalty probably would not be as severe.

Hmm I think that is debatable.. of course if robbery at gunpoint was as common as piracy then things would be different.

[Lyr]

Phantom Design,


I merely pointed out that piracy is handled with severity largely in part because those who it affects the most have large amounts of money and therefore the means to influence what and how laws are made.
Read more of the other posts by me and others in this thread for a more detailed account of that opinion. ;)




Well piracy is prosecuted on a federal level, violent crime is handled on a local level. The difference in penalty may be due more to that than who the crime affects.

[jbo]

The severity of the crime seems to be subjective in this discussion, but I will refute your point that he didn't steal from private citizens. . . from personal experience.

Before I knew better, I was once cheated into buying what I thought was a legit copy of 3DS Max for $100. . . OUCH! Not only did he steal from Discreet, but he stole from me!

yes, but that's not what he's being punished for. i suppose you could say he stole from private citizens (though really you couldn't. it's your responsibility to not buy things that are obviously stolen goods.) but it's not really relevent because that's not the crime he is charged with.

[MorituriMax]

He probably made more money than Lightwave did. Poor them.

Anyway, I would have felt a small bit of sympathy for the bloke if it weren't for the fact that it wasn't his first offense. Plus he was living in Texas. I don't mean to label, and anyone with hard evidence can feel free to rebuke this, but any hardliner state won't be as sympathetic to criminals. He should have moved to Vermont and did his business.

Or moved to Florida and enrolled himself in the child services branch of government as a clerk or janitor.. nobody would ever have found him again.

[MorituriMax]

Your point is less than moot because as explained in my other posts the fact that there are cracked versions of the software around interferes with the sales of the legit versions.

Nothing I have said thus far applied strictly to people who can AFFORD to buy a given piece of software. I'm aiming more at people who DON'T have the money to buy it legally, thus their money would never find its way into the coffers of the geniuses and wizards who give us those applications. Personally I am glad I bought Lightwave, Rhino and Adobe CS Suite legally, it sure beats waiting for the darn pirates to get around to supplying me upgrades.. :deal:

Do you also regard people who could never afford the program but get it anyway from whichever source as culpable in the downfall and lack of sales of a given company? Heh, in which case I might point out that if somebody has more money than they need to survive then they should donate it all to disaster victims or be prosecuted for neglecting those same victims.

:bounce:

[Fides]

I'm not overly surprised by the verdict. "Don't mess with Texas", indeed.
Speaking of which, is it still a $500.00 fine for littering? :eek:

[MorituriMax]

Argh.. but an $300 old truck is not an exact copy of a $50,000 porcshe is it???

Nope, and Rhino3D ain't Maya... but they're both in the same category.. grin.. or are you telling me a pirated CD of 3DsMax is the same quality as a fully registered and packaged copy of Maya?

Heh..

[MorituriMax]

So let's say you had $300 dollars and you were standing in front of what you thought was a Porsche dealership and somebody told you could buy a Porsche for $300... Or let's say you got this offer online and instead of the porsche you got an old truck, or one infected with a virus or trojan horse?

Ah, but that's exactly what I said earlier.. a car isn't software. If I buy a stolen car, that's still a car that can't be duplicated for 60 cents and some blank CDs. You can't treat them the same in real life. It's also one less porsche on the street whereas a pirate can make as many copies of a program as he wants.

I'm also not going to have the police bust in on me while I'm running the program, well if someone had reported to the police that I had illegal software on my system and they decided to chase me down. With the porsche, they're on me as soon as somebody reports THAT SPECIFIC PORSCHE stolen and they chase me down. Nobody back at the company that wrote the software is going to feel a great disturbance in the Force if I install an illegal piece of software on my computer. Yeah, yeah, unless it is written to do so and that wasn't blocked by the rat bastage thief.

At any rate in regards to this case the offender clearly did not learn anything from being busted once but considering that he thought he had discovered a way to grow money on trees be selling illegal copies of software then it's clear why he returned to his old ways and no he'll pay the price in cash and his freedom... most people would prefer to be free and poor than in jail... in this case greed got the better of the defendant.

Yeah, I'd make a terrible criminal because I have a strong guilty conscience when it comes to trying to get over on someone. Plus, I'd be mortified if they paraded me in front of my parents for committing a crime. And I moved out years ago for pete's sake!

Seeya

Maybe a few years in jail will do this guy some good..

[MorituriMax]

Everytime someone actually gets in trouble for pirating, I always hear people arguing in favor of the thief because there are lots of bad drug dealers in the world. Give me a freaking break... He got caught, and the fact that there are other worse people in the world that maybe the FBI should be catching instead is no reason for the courts to give the guy a break a second time.

In and of itself, it's a valid point if the software thief isn't using the money he gains to, say, fund Al Qaeda or a Drug Cartel. If it's someone who is pocketing the money, I wouldn't consider him any worse than anybody else committing fraud.

You're also right, he doesn't deserve a third chance, if he was stupid enough to get caught twi... uh do the crime twice... heh.

The reason the fine is so much higher than, say, rape, is not because the big bad evil corporations are ruling the courts, but because there were over 200 victims involved - so it all adds up very quickly. It's a somewhat valid point though; fines and jailtime for murder and rape should be significantly higher than copyright theft, since those are significantly greater crimes. Does that mean we should alter copyright law, so that the companies that are having their software stolen aren't even given full restitution, just to make things fair? No.

Amen.

[MorituriMax]

i think you missed the point. of course he's wrong. of course the court should not rule in his favor. the point is, if he had stolen from a private citizen -- even at gunpoint, the penalty probably would not be as severe.

I thought he DID steal from private citizens? Aren't the programmers who wrote the software and the guys who own the companies who market it private citizens?

He just didn't use a gun... though why he would need one for his "profession" is a mystery.

:hmm:

[MorituriMax]

Speaking of which, is it still a $500.00 fine for littering? :eek:

Shudder.. god knows what they do to you at a Highway Rest Stop if you litter while transporting pirated software across the state line into Texas.

:banghead:

[Scotti Leslie]

Kal-el.......? Really?
Kal-el Cage?
Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hoo Boy

[jbo]

I thought he DID steal from private citizens? Aren't the programmers who wrote the software and the guys who own the companies who market it private citizens?

He just didn't use a gun... though why he would need one for his "profession" is a mystery.

:hmm:

no, he did not steal from private citizens(at least not for most software). while the programmers/artists are affected by piracy, they were not robbed as they do not own the software. software is generally owned by corporations, and corporations by definition are not private citizens. for example, if a corporation is sued, and does not have enough money to pay up, the owners of the corporation cannot be held accountable, and can keep all of their personal, private citizen money. it doesn't work the same way for a privately owned business. so yes, his theft certainly affected private citizens, but he did not directly steal from them. i am in no way saying that what he did was right, or any less bad because of that, just that the law in this country treats it as though it is worse to steal from corporations.

as for the gun thing i don't understand what you mean. of course he wouldn't need a gun. that's the point. he is every bit as much a theif as an armed robber, but at least he didn't put himself in the position of being a potential murderer if something went wrong. i don't think that what he is doing as bad as if he were a violent criminal, but he's treated as if it were worse. i'd much rather someone stole something from me electronically than if they shoved a gun in my face.

[MorituriMax]

Kal-el.......? Really?
Kal-el Cage?
Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hoo Boy

Yep, no kidding.. guess after Dweezil and Moon Unit somebody was jealous.. heh.. at least he'll probably go to private schools, his dad being as rich as he is.. think if the kid ever grows up and becomes an actor.. will he even need to take a screen name?

[MorituriMax]

no, he did not steal from private citizens(at least not for most software).

..snipped for brevity..

as for the gun thing i don't understand what you mean. of course he wouldn't need a gun.

Roge and roge.. bout the gun thing.. I guess I was being fecetious.. sorry.. good points though, I learned something new..

Thanks and seeya!

[xino]

Speaking of which, is it still a $500.00 fine for littering? :eek:

Shudder.. god knows what they do to you at a Highway Rest Stop if you litter while transporting pirated software across the state line into Texas.

:banghead:


I sure as hell hope the people who perpetuate these lies get beaten down with a law book. Urban myths on this forum? How sad.

[MorituriMax]

I sure as hell hope the people who perpetuate these lies get beaten down with a law book. Urban myths on this forum? How sad.

Which one is the urban myth?

[RocketBoy]

and corporations by definition are not private citizens.
Strangely, if we want to get really technical here, in the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that all corporations are in fact considered to be private citizens, and should thus be treated as such.

Here is one commentary on that ruling:
“The ruling held that a private corporation was a ‘natural person’ entitled to all the rights and privileges of a human being. It was one of the greatest blunders in legal history, and it triggered the corporations’ 100-year march to global power.“ (Adbusters #31, Aug./Sept. 2000.)

This doesn't really add to this particular discussion, but I love to throw around what little knowledge of Law I have whenever I get the chance.

[jbo]

Which one is the urban myth?

the one about littering. it's not a 500 dollar fine. that's ridiculous. everyone knows it's a hangin'!


rocketboy: well... i guess i stand corrected. so why can't corporations vote then?

[PyRoT]

I personally think that 1.15 million is too big a fine. There are other crimes where people don't get a tiny fraction of that sort of penalty. What worries me is how he is expected to pay that off? It's quite possible that it will take a lifetime. What if he can't pay it off? Who pays? his family? I agree we need deterrents but maybe you don't need such big ones. Perhaps some research on deterernts would be neccesary.. for example, does hearing about someone getting a $50k penalty make less likely to stop pirating compared to hearing of a $1m penalty?

I know fo a study in Australia which looked at accident rates before and after a doubling of the penalties for drink driving. Interestingly, accidents increased. Not sure if it was significant or not but at the very least, the larger penalties didnt seem to matter. Sure..differet situation but I seriously doubt that such a large fine wil deter many ppl..

I think that such judgements should take into account that people who buy pirate copies would often not buy those products original. Thus, good large scale study of the population could determine a general rule of thumb so that it can be assume that - for example - only 10% of the pirated worth is actually lost by the company.

Tomek

[PhantomDesign]

yes, but that's not what he's being punished for. i suppose you could say he stole from private citizens (though really you couldn't. it's your responsibility to not buy things that are obviously stolen goods.) but it's not really relevent because that's not the crime he is charged with.
I didn't know it was stolen... Now it is very obvious, but it wasn't so obvious when I was just starting out in 3D.

[mynewcat]

yes, but that's not what he's being punished for. i suppose you could say he stole from private citizens (though really you couldn't. it's your responsibility to not buy things that are obviously stolen goods.) but it's not really relevent because that's not the crime he is charged with.

Illegally copying software is always going to be less of a bad deed than stealing an expensive car because stealing the car prevents the manufacturer from potentially making a sale (to the thief) and also deprives the first party of their car.

Copying software only deprives the manufacturer of potential sales, it does not deprive any individual from owning that piece of software.

So in piracy the actual effect of the crime is deprivation of potential sales to a manufacturer.

If you then take into account how many people would have actually bought the software instead of using it, you can arrive at the damage caused to the manufacturer.
You cannot calculate the potential damage caused by someone having a car stolen, which they may or may not have come to rely on.

As an overly simplistic example, a person on a desert island running a pirate copy of 3ds Max cannot be said to be harming the manufacturer.

So there are cases where piracy is in actual fact a harmless act, in all practical ways, not including morally.

I think individual software piracy should be considered a tort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort), not a crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime), a crime being an offense against society.

I'm not saying that software piracy isn't an offense.... but I think it's worth putting it into perspective, especially when I see that apparently in the UK people can be given an "unlimited" fine... which is ridiculous.

I think in many ways, there's a lot of hoo-haa about piracy, and it puts people on the back foot; never questioning the unfair business practices that corporations legally manage to get away with (charging the UK super huge fees, exploiting bands, colluding to keep prices high, trying to keep an old pricing strategy in spite of no distribution costs etc.)

It's like in the UK, people are always mouthing off about "dole scroungers" on benefits, but take it as a given that people are going to do their very best to avoid paying inheritance tax, who'll have offshore accounts in tax havens etc.

It [this argument] smacks to me as the masses turning on themselves over petty arguments while corporations continue to exist as entities with no social responsibility.

As a final point, I feel that all high end software companies like Autodesk and Maya benefit from pirates using their software as they become proficient in that tool and increase the available pool of labour for companies that may consider buy thinr products.

So I'm not saying piracy is all good or all bad, but I think people ought to take a few more factors into account before they make any kind of judgement.

[Fides]

I sure as hell hope the people who perpetuate these lies get beaten down with a law book. Urban myths on this forum? How sad.

Well, when I lived there, you could drive down the highway and see signs that said 'Don't mess with Texas. $500.00 fine for littering'

From the dontmesswithtexas.org (lol) website:
Avoiding a fine or jail time is always a good idea. You can be fined up to $500 for tossing your trash on Texas highways. Repeat the act and you could face a fine of up to $2,000 and up to 180 days in jail.

[PyRoT]

Illegally copying software is always going to be less of a bad deed than stealing an expensive car because stealing the car prevents the manufacturer from potentially making a sale (to the thief) and also deprives the first party of their car.

Copying software only deprives the manufacturer of potential sales, it does not deprive any individual from owning that piece of software.

So in piracy the actual effect of the crime is deprivation of potential sales to a manufacturer.

If you then take into account how many people would have actually bought the software instead of using it, you can arrive at the damage caused to the manufacturer.
You cannot calculate the potential damage caused by someone having a car stolen, which they may or may not have come to rely on.

As an overly simplistic example, a person on a desert island running a pirate copy of 3ds Max cannot be said to be harming the manufacturer.

So there are cases where piracy is in actual fact a harmless act, in all practical ways, not including morally.

I think individual software piracy should be considered a tort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort), not a crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime), a crime being an offense against society.

I'm not saying that software piracy isn't an offense.... but I think it's worth putting it into perspective, especially when I see that apparently in the UK people can be given an "unlimited" fine... which is ridiculous.

I think in many ways, there's a lot of hoo-haa about piracy, and it puts people on the back foot; never questioning the unfair business practices that corporations legally manage to get away with (charging the UK super huge fees, exploiting bands, colluding to keep prices high, trying to keep an old pricing strategy in spite of no distribution costs etc.)

It's like in the UK, people are always mouthing off about "dole scroungers" on benefits, but take it as a given that people are going to do their very best to avoid paying inheritance tax, who'll have offshore accounts in tax havens etc.

It [this argument] smacks to me as the masses turning on themselves over petty arguments while corporations continue to exist as entities with no social responsibility.

As a final point, I feel that all high end software companies like Autodesk and Maya benefit from pirates using their software as they become proficient in that tool and increase the available pool of labour for companies that may consider buy thinr products.

So I'm not saying piracy is all good or all bad, but I think people ought to take a few more factors into account before they make any kind of judgement.

*Applause*

However I do have a question... We buy games for enjoyment though what if this person on a desert island is getting enjoyment out of 3D max? I guess the simple answer would be "Educational Version" though I'm wondering if you have a different answer.

On the benefits of pirates to Autodesk for example, it is true, many 3d artists started off with a copy from a friend or a very personal learning edition from the net. However.. I have heard that a lot of people use 3d max illegally while still making money off it. This I believe is the problem as I don't think there is anything wrong in someone using a pirate copy to learn a program if it just means that they dont have watermakrs on their renders.. though I do think it's wrong to then go and make money from your work while still using the unpaid for version.

Tomek

[mynewcat]

Well, when I lived there, you could drive down the highway and see signs that said 'Don't mess with Texas. $500.00 fine for littering'

From the dontmesswithtexas.org (lol) website:


To be honest, I dont have a massive problem with that - littering is a crime against society and it's totally unecessary, a crime of pigs.


I must admit, I hate people who walk along and drop litter as they go, they're like cows obliviously sh*tting where they stand.

edit - that's two farmyard animals in one post. Cool.

[mynewcat]

*Applause*

However I do have a question... We buy games for enjoyment though what if this person on a desert island is getting enjoyment out of 3D max? I guess the simple answer would be "Educational Version" though I'm wondering if you have a different answer.

Tomek

I think whether he's getting enjoyment or not, he's not harming Autodesk because he cant purchase the software - basically, it's no skin off their nose at all so why would they care?

(in this simplistic example)

Like drug companies refusing to let people make cheap clones... if you cant sell the drugs because people cant afford them, it's no skin off your nose if they live or die... so let them live.

*Applause*


On the benefits of pirates to Autodesk for example, it is true, many 3d artists started off with a copy from a friend or a very personal learning edition from the net. However.. I have heard that a lot of people use 3d max illegally while still making money off it. This I believe is the problem as I don't think there is anything wrong in someone using a pirate copy to learn a program if it just means that they dont have watermakrs on their renders.. though I do think it's wrong to then go and make money from your work while still using the unpaid for version.

Tomek

Sure, I agree, after all, they are benefiting from it, and it was created with the express purpose that people pay for it in order to use it.

The other thing to consider is that people who are using pirated software are in competition with people who pay, which is directly unfair to them as well.

[marcusss]

Regarding the original case,

I think it is obvious that the sentnece is way too much. Think about it: the jail time: ok, well deserved for a second offense. But the fine: more than 1.5 million dollars, wich is the FULL retail price of EVERY copy of sofware he sold, the juge assuming that every illegal copy sold was a sale lost to the Corporations owning the sofwares. Just think about the packaging fees, retailer and transporter fees, as well as the product support, administration costs, etc... Assuming that a company that sells a product lets say 3000$ loses a full 3000$ if a copy is not sold is ridiculous, that is without taking into account the fact that every illegal copy sold does in no way egal the same amount of lost sales for the company.

In my mind, the guy should have his jail time sentence, as well as being forced to repay every penny he made selling these illegal copies (190k$ +) and maybe a mandatory fine of 50k$, and that's it. Speculating on the hypothetical lost profits to the companies is, in my opinion, very far from rigourous judicial thinking that trys to avoid inadequate inferences.


what do you think?

Mark'Huss

[Lyr]

In my mind, the guy should have his jail time sentence, as well as being forced to repay every penny he made selling these illegal copies (190k$ +) and maybe a mandatory fine of 50k$, and that's it. Speculating on the hypothetical lost profits to the companies is, in my opinion, very far from rigourous judicial thinking that trys to avoid inadequate inferences.


what do you think?

Mark'Huss

Ok, keep in mind that in the US, the judge interprets the law, he does not get to change it (that is for the legislative branch to do). So he is only following the guidlines of the law regarding punishment. So your reference to rigourous judicial thinking may be more applicable to way things are done in Canada than in the US. Personally I think it is a waste to put this person in jail, he should be out in society working to compensate those he stole from. The massive fine is punishment enough.

[xino]

Sadly, I think some people missed the joke (or lack thereof).

Of course you can be fined $500 but that's if you're a prick, refused to cooperate, the cop is pissed for soem reason, etc. Notice that the law states up to $500. Every law that I am aware of has that sort of inclusion with it.

But saying "omg if you litter in texas you have to pay 500!!11!!one?!!" is just absurb. That's like me saying everyone up north is rude. While some people may agree witht he statement, it doens't make it truthful, hence the urban myth. Much like the urban myth that people still get hanged down herein Texas. That's Mississippi thank you. ;)

I personally believe that the whole "Don't Mess with Texas" slogan started because of the size of this state. Have any of you been here? My god, it takes forever to get out of this state. It's more cost effective to have a higher ceiling on fines than it does to employ major cleanup crews (and before another myth starts, yes we have cleanup crews too).

But I digress and I seem to have hi-jacked a little bit.

Personally I think the fine should be only equally to the amount of money he made. let him pay his way back to society with jail time. But anyone who thinks he should be put into a normal jail/prison is a fool. I really do believe there should be different prisons for the different types of crimes committed, but that is a whole other subject.

[PhantomDesign]

Personally I think the fine should be only equally to the amount of money he made. let him pay his way back to society with jail time. But anyone who thinks he should be put into a normal jail/prison is a fool. I really do believe there should be different prisons for the different types of crimes committed, but that is a whole other subject.

That would be no deterent at all! If I robbed a bank for $1,000,000 should I get off with a $1M fine and 2 months of jail time? That's a complete joke, because if that's the case, the ONLY thing stopping me from planning a bank heist right now is my conscience.

[xino]

you added words into my post that I never put there.

first off if you rob a bank for 1 million and you only get two months of jail time, your society has issues that you can't even discuss on this forum. fining someone is NOT a deterrent. He made about $200,000.00 US. Yet he got fined for ove a million. Do you honestly think he can pay that back legally while paying for rent/mortage, food, kids, etc. ? If you honestly think it's possible show me how because obviously my money isn't being spent properly.

Fining someone a gross amount does nothing but hurt society. Will he ever be able to get a high paying job after his jailtime? Possible but statistically improbable. SO basically you've putting him in debt while he has to borrow even more money to pay off. So not are you only hurting him financially, but the city and state taxes, the local citizens who are doing the right thing by making them pay for his interest on taxes, you even possibly causing his children and grandchildren to be in debt. There is no possible way how you can justify making him pay that much money back and he only should actually owe about 1/10th of that amount. There is no legal way for him to pay all of that off unless he gets a large life insurance policy and then signs the city/state as his beneficiary.

I say fine him for the amount he possibly stole and then give him a larger jail sentence in a minimum security prison.

[rock]

Anyone with a sound judgement will see that the penalty outweighs the crime - far too harsh that I hope the judicial system, like software, upgrades itself constantly. In Canada, 12 years ago, Karla Holmoka gets twelve years by plea bargaining her way out, implicating her then husband Bernado for the kidnapping, raping, video taping, killing, and dismemberment, and concrete-casing the bodies down a lake of two young teenage girls. Although it is generally agreed upon that both are at fault, Bernado gets life, Karla gets 12 years. She will be out within this year. Her life will be freer than the guy who has to pay 1.x millions for the somewhat vapor software figures that companies usually advertise to justify their loss of sales. Is this the same company that make up their numbers like Enron, robbing millions of stockholders of their life earnings and investments? Is this the same company like Martha Stewart OmniMedia, who at least has the power and connection to insider trading, having an advantage over common people who are always behind in the financial news? Is this the same company who gauge up the gas and oil prices when opportunies and hurricanes sweep by? Is this the same judicial systems who sent up supreme court justices to vote along their party lines? I could go on and on. We need some common sense, some fair judgement. The guy is twice guilty, the crime is not absolute, but the punishment needs to be debated, be creative and not be rushed.

[jbo]

you added words into my post that I never put there.

first off if you rob a bank for 1 million and you only get two months of jail time, your society has issues that you can't even discuss on this forum. fining someone is NOT a deterrent. He made about $200,000.00 US. Yet he got fined for ove a million. Do you honestly think he can pay that back legally while paying for rent/mortage, food, kids, etc. ? If you honestly think it's possible show me how because obviously my money isn't being spent properly.

Fining someone a gross amount does nothing but hurt society. Will he ever be able to get a high paying job after his jailtime? Possible but statistically improbable. SO basically you've putting him in debt while he has to borrow even more money to pay off. So not are you only hurting him financially, but the city and state taxes, the local citizens who are doing the right thing by making them pay for his interest on taxes, you even possibly causing his children and grandchildren to be in debt. There is no possible way how you can justify making him pay that much money back and he only should actually owe about 1/10th of that amount. There is no legal way for him to pay all of that off unless he gets a large life insurance policy and then signs the city/state as his beneficiary.

I say fine him for the amount he possibly stole and then give him a larger jail sentence in a minimum security prison.

while i agree that it's too much, i don't think you are looking at things realistically. he will declare bankrupcy, and that will be that. besides, i don't think he'll need to worry about paying rent if he's in prison. basically this just means that they will take everything he has. i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but if he declares bankrupcy, his future earnings will not be subject to the fine.

[xino]

Contrary to popular opinion, legal fees (fines) and college loans are not wiped clean when you declare bankruptcy.

[jbo]

wow, i looked it up and you're totally right. i guess he's totally ****ed for life then. i wonder what kind of a chunk of his salery they will take.

[PyRoT]

That's what I was thinking all along, not only is his life scrwed but taht of his family and maybe future family. I wonder if the damage done to any children he may have now or in the future along with his family and general life quality is actaully worth the trouble he caused to the software companies. Sure, he needs to be punished but make the fine a a realistic amount of money and not basically his 'life'. This situation just further supports my signature quote by Betrand Russell. Especially for the judicial system authorities...

Anyway, I'd suggest that he flee the country :D

[visionmaster2]

how could people buy illegal soft or games...everybody know here, how to find them free on the net. And, there is a lot of demo version and educationnal version avalaible. the editor of software made a lot of progress for us to trying, using and buying soft when we are able to make money with it.

Did the "custommers" of this guy go to justice to ? i think they should be .

this man made really bad things by selling software, but i dont think the prison is good for him and for the society. it could be really dangerous after that experience in jail.
this sentence for this crime should be only : money.

sorry for my bad english.

[xino]

wow, i looked it up and you're totally right. i guess he's totally ****ed for life then. i wonder what kind of a chunk of his salery they will take.

Sad isn't it?

The fine doesn't fit the crime in my opinion. If you give him large enough of a jail sentence (not huge like the current fine) he can pay back to society by working on a chain gang or something like that. Alot of prison work is really needed by our society and by him working there for 5-10 years should make it possible to "repay" society.

[MorituriMax]

To be honest, I dont have a massive problem with that - littering is a crime against society and it's totally unecessary, a crime of pigs.


I must admit, I hate people who walk along and drop litter as they go, they're like cows obliviously sh*tting where they stand.

edit - that's two farmyard animals in one post. Cool.

Is that the drinking game you play with your friends?

"Cow!" Everybody lunges for their shotglasses..

[MorituriMax]

Ok, keep in mind that in the US, the judge interprets the law, he does not get to change it (that is for the legislative branch to do).

Ha hahhahha hahhahhahhahhahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa cough sob.. stop stop...

Kidding.. can you say 9th circuit court?

Grin... in a perfect world all judges would interpret the law...

Seeya

[bluemagicuk]

Good .. anyone who profits from someone elses work and doesnt pay the creator should get what he deserved like in this case !!

[valentine]

That's because it's more important to protect corporate money than private citizens. The corporate money is what puts politicians in power, who in turn make laws that keep wealthy people wealthy.

Art

absolutely...
let us all praise our god of gaining and yield - "what a wonderful world" *sing*! :sad:

regards
jannis

[PyRoT]

Good .. anyone who profits from someone elses work and doesnt pay the creator should get what he deserved like in this case !!

I'd like to see you justify this punishment as just. Keep in mind the fine he will most likely never pay off, the financial trouble he will suffer all his life..which may be passed down to his family and any potential children. We shouldlook at how much a certain amount of money affects different people and not give such sorporate fines to normal citizens. This is perhaps part of the law that allows corporations to have the same rights as individual citizens.

[Lyr]

I'd like to see you justify this punishment as just. Keep in mind the fine he will most likely never pay off, the financial trouble he will suffer all his life..which may be passed down to his family and any potential children. We shouldlook at how much a certain amount of money affects different people and not give such sorporate fines to normal citizens. This is perhaps part of the law that allows corporations to have the same rights as individual citizens.

I'd like to see you justify that this debt will be passed onto his children. I know for a fact that the IRS can't even pass on debts owed to them to the children of the debter. I would be VERY suprised if corporations got that priveledge. As far as I have seen debt ends with death in the USA.

[PyRoT]

I'd like to see you justify that this debt will be passed onto his children. I know for a fact that the IRS can't even pass on debts owed to them to the children of the debter. I would be VERY suprised if corporations got that priveledge. As far as I have seen debt ends with death in the USA.

Sorry. I didn't mean the debt would be passed on to the children as I wasn't sure that such a thing can happen. What I meant was that if he doesn't make much money and he is being forced to pay off such a fine, his children would suffer due to the lack of money. Since poverty appears to preidct divorce pretty well, a family break up would also not do anyone any good.
It's a complex issue though. You have his wrongdoings, the real losses to the companies, the issue of an appropriate penalty and perhaps, the ethics and wrongdoings of the company itself...

[xino]

I'd like to see you justify that this debt will be passed onto his children. I know for a fact that the IRS can't even pass on debts owed to them to the children of the debter. I would be VERY suprised if corporations got that priveledge. As far as I have seen debt ends with death in the USA.

Some debts can in fact be passed down after you die. Why else do insurance policies pay out so much? Unless you actually think that a funeral should cost over $100,000 US. ;)

[bluemagicuk]

I'd like to see you justify this punishment as just.

Ok


Dashiell Ponce de Leon of Richmond, Texas, earned approximately $192,000 by selling pirated software and games online. However, he got caught--twice. And even though he got off with the settlement of a civil action suit the first time in 2001 (a settlement that included a written apology for his actions), this time he got the proverbial book thrown at him.

This is the second time he was caught ... the "Ponce" LoL was stupid enough to go back to an illegal activity that he had already been caught and warned on.

If he had kids his actions would not be reflected on his kids as a punishment. If he did have kids the worst financial problem they would have would be any inheritance when the Ponce died.

I think the fine is a tad bit large , but who knows what other assets he already has ... and i can think of a few people that have been caught for one thing but the cops did not prosecute on other criminal activites the individual was making money from.

I agree with you, it is complicated , but he knew what he was doing .. i have little sympathy.

Here in the UK a ponce is defined in slang as a criminal...maybe he was doomed from birth http://www.poopgang.com/files/0001/shrug.gif

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.