Man Busted for File-Sharing While House-Sitting
Never bring a laptop full of illegal movies and music to the house of a file-sharing friend.
Here's something to keep in mind: never bring your laptop or desktop while house-sitting for a friend, especially if you're storing movies and music downloaded via file-sharing networks.
In December 2010, a man identified only as "Martin" was house-sitting for an unnamed friend. It was early in the morning when the doorbell began to ring. Draped in a blanket, he dragged himself through the house, half-asleep and sluggish from playing video games long into the early hours. His sleepy demeanor quickly subsided when he opened to door to see three men standing before him, one of them holding up a badge before his face.
Immediately he thought something happened to his friend.
But that wasn't the case. The police came knocking on the door due a warrant to seize all the computers in the house and arrest Martin's friend due to file sharing accusations. They weren't there for Martin, but in the rush to disconnect network cables, yank out hard drives and lug desktops out to the police van, they decided to take his laptop as well.
It was the case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
A few weeks after the police initially stormed his friend's house, Martin received a call from the local police, requiring that he come in for an interview. It was then they informed him that 200 illegally-obtained movies had been discovered on his personal rig, and that he was now being pursued for illegal file-sharing.
"It is now suspected that he downloaded and uploaded particular films,” explained Frederick Ingblad, the prosecutor handling the case. He acknowledged that the police were originally looking for Martin's friend, but as previously stated, Martin happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Given the charges he now faces, Martin seems unusually optimistic. "My friends think that I had bad luck," Martin said. "I hardly know anyone who does not share files, since you have always been able to get what you want. Still, I think the law is right."
Both Martin and his friend stand accused of copyright infringement. Their indictments are expected to arrive sometime this summer.
It's possible that the cases may be dismissed, as a judge previously ruled that an IP address does not equal to a human being. His ruling was based on a recent police raid where a man was falsely accused of downloading child porn, but in fact the culprit was actually a neighbor accessing his unsecured Wi-Fi home network. "The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscriber’s household, a visitor with her laptop, a neighbor, or someone parked on the street at any given moment," the judge said.
Had the copyright holder been denied access to the friend's personal information based on IP address alone, they would have never seized Martin's notebook in the first place.
- Microsoft Acquires Skype for $8.4 Billion
- Teenage Killer Caught Through Xbox 360 Game
- WiMAX Sleeve Gives Korean iPhone Users 4G
- Hating PSN? Man Shoots PS3 With Desert Eagle
- China's iPad 2 Launch Turns Violent
- HP Launches Pre-paid 3G Service for Notebooks
- PSN Still Not Back; Still No ETA from Sony
- New Curtains Block Sound, Bring In Light
- Digital Flower Vase Shares Flowers, Messages
- Why You Should be Grateful For The PSN Attack
- Sony Aims to Have PSN Fully Online By End of May
- Google Announces Music Beta Streaming Service
- FBI Tracking Device Gets Torn Down
- Google to Control Your House With Android@Home
- Zynga, Lada Gaga Teaming Up For... GagaVille
- Minecraft Creator Mulling Over MinecraftCon
- This Ultra-Modern Home is Half Underwater
- revOlve: The Spinning, Self-Recharging Phone
- Meet the Coin Operated Self-Wiping Shopping Cart
Warrant wasn't for him or his property.
So unless he committed a felony while the officers were there, his laptop should be protected by the 4th, regardless if it incriminates him.
What a huge waste of time.
Companies need to learn how to use the nature of file-sharing as a positive instead of going after random people who don't have money.
Can anyone with some law background in this area tell me if its illegal to download a pirated movie (not upload). I BELIEVE the answer is no, it is not Illegal. And then, when does it become illegal? If you upload for some personal gain? If you use torrent software? If uploading the file hurts the copyright holder (I think this is a weak argument)? If your uploading it at no benefit to yourself, what exact law are you violating? And how are you infringing on the movie's copyrights?
Just to be clear I think it's perfectly acceptable to go after sites that host downloads for pirated movies and use that traffic to generate revenue through fees or ads. But seriously, record labels and movie producers need to be welcomed to 2011: the future.
Onion is right. This is a gigantic non-story that will be straightened out when he is arraigned.
"If your uploading it at no benefit to yourself, what exact law are you violating? And how are you infringing on the movie's copyrights?"
"No benefit to yourself"--It's not purely altruism because you're thoroughly intending for others to do the same illegal action for you.
The law is distribution of copyrighted material without permission--there's kind of a big warning on that before every movie starts.
If your friend stole a beer truck and you hop on the truck and start giving cases of beer away, I'm pretty sure you're breaking the law. The difference is that stealing and spreading physical stolen property is a lot more blatant and feels like more of a crime than stealing digital property.
"2011: the future"--You're absolutely right. Distribution systems need to recognize the ease with which digital material can be spread and adopt a system more like Steam that doesn't charge you an arm and a leg for everything unless it's new and you really want it right then. Don't they realize how many awesome 5 year old movies I'd buy for $2 if it was available?
I'm sick and tired of people using "physical" argument over a copy one. If I copy somebodys ford shelby (of course Ford would be pissed), do you really think he would care (other then now somebody has one like him). There is a huge difference, and it's freaking comparing apples to oranges. It's not the same in any way shape or form.
Not to mention you are allowed to copy a movie if you own the movie, but since movies are usually protected were you can't just thrown them in a dvd drive and burn, most people simply download. Of course there are a lot of people just download to download instead of buying. There argument of "i wouldn't have bought it anyways, so they didn't lose any money". Has way way more merit then any type of physical theft comparison.
Stealing 10s of thousands of dollars of movies/games etc isnt a crime? Not everyone working on a movie gets paid millions you know. Most are hard working people who operate cameras, perform maintenance, do graphics design, audio engineering, set design, etc... when you steal a movie you essentially rob from them just as much as those.. movie stars.
With that said, I think the RIAA and MPAA are just as guilty of robbing artists blind too...
=
Stealing 10s of thousands of dollars of movies/games etc isnt a crime? Not everyone working on a movie gets paid millions you know. Most are hard working people who operate cameras, perform maintenance, do graphics design, audio engineering, set design, etc... when you steal a movie you essentially rob from them just as much as those.. movie stars.With that said, I think the RIAA and MPAA are just as guilty of robbing artists blind too...
And who are getting profits from law suits and prosecutions? These people are unaffected in this. They are not being hurt by people stealing because most of the profit that goes to these people is often from customers going to see movies in theaters, or from other such day of release profit generating processes. The big wigs are the ones who often are making money off of the continued sales.
Wish there was an easy solution to copyright protection, inspiring artists and producers to produce quality stuff, and preventing their greed from getting delirious.
So far the Spain solution seems the fair enough. As mentioned in another Tom's' article, it is legal in Spain to share files as long as you don't make profit off it. That restricts the copyright holders attacking at best the torrent and download sites.
Don't they realize how many awesome 5 year old movies I'd buy for $2 if it was available?
Im with you there. A steam like service for movies where i can download my movies where ever i want and drm free other then authentication to download more of what i buy. and i can watch them online or offline? the people who make movies would actually get a lot of money from me. Last time i paid cash for a movie was when VHS was still the main medium. I'm just not a fan of having to keep track of a bunch of box's. I would defiantly re buy all my movies again (which got stolen by a old roomate) which i could not get back unless i wanted to buy it again. A steam like system would avoid this situation all together. I would say i would have hundreds of movies in such a collection on such a service if it were available. Hell i would even buy new movies again.
I'm sick and tired of people using "physical" argument over a copy one.There is a huge difference, and it's freaking comparing apples to oranges. It's not the same in any way shape or form. There argument of "i wouldn't have bought it anyways, so they didn't lose any money". Has way way more merit then any type of physical theft comparison.
There will always be those who can't be bothered to understand why just because the item is easily reproduced it isn't legal or right to do so. If you need more apples to wrap your mind around: how about sneaking into a theater without paying to watch a movie, or hiring someone to clean your house and not paying them? You haven't physically stolen anything, but you have received other people's services without the required compensation. And, that so-called argument that 'I wouldn't have bought the movie anyway' has absolutely zero merit. If you can't or won't pay the cost...don't watch it. It is that simple. If not paying was a valid option, then why should anyone pay? And if nobody pays, why have large crews working for months producing products just to give them away? Hope you like free-ware games and youtube videos.
I would have thought that, at least under the Canadian law (which I know to a degree) this would be classified as unreasonable search and seizure for Martin. They were not looking for him, and so even if they find incriminating evidence on his laptop, he should not be accused.
A society that says "sharing is wrong" will fail sooner or later. Law makers should consider a compromise like collecting a symbolic internet tax from those who declare that they take part in non-profit file sharing. This tax should cover any downloaded content that was ever legally sold or rented.
Seig Heil, your tax dollars hard at work catching these dangerous people.
This happened in sweden... and apparently they don't screw around.
Their search and seizure laws are apparently more hardcore too...
Why do you have to illegally download movies and software? Why simply not do it? It can't be that hard to not go to torrent sites.
What a huge waste of time.Companies need to learn how to use the nature of file-sharing as a positive instead of going after random people who don't have money.Can anyone with some law background in this area tell me if its illegal to download a pirated movie (not upload). I BELIEVE the answer is no, it is not Illegal. And then, when does it become illegal? If you upload for some personal gain? If you use torrent software? If uploading the file hurts the copyright holder (I think this is a weak argument)? If your uploading it at no benefit to yourself, what exact law are you violating? And how are you infringing on the movie's copyrights?Just to be clear I think it's perfectly acceptable to go after sites that host downloads for pirated movies and use that traffic to generate revenue through fees or ads. But seriously, record labels and movie producers need to be welcomed to 2011: the future.
technically is possession of stolen goods, and feinging ignorance in this day and age? cant do that, at least with pirated things.
but he will get off with any lawer because no warrent, unless he committed a crime there
technically is possession of stolen goods, and feinging ignorance in this day and age? cant do that, at least with pirated things.but he will get off with any lawer because no warrent, unless he committed a crime there
What stolen goods!? He did not steal anything... He never physically went to a store and stolen anything, what he has on his computer are nothing more than zeros and ones.
I do not know about sweden or wherver this happened and their laws but how can you be automatically be labled as "stealing movies" by simply having movie or torrent files on your computer!? For all they know he actually have all of these damn movies at HIS own house and ligally wanted to get a copy for his viewing on the computer without carrying all the damn DVDs.
Go pound sand MPAA, I'm tired of you trying to spend my money to protect your property because you cannot compete or are too greedy.
I seriously have not seen such a greedy politician group as we have these days, how can they look themselfes in th mirror everyday after they whore themselves to every big corporation around?
On the sidenote: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews [...] rse-114165
Would everyone please learn the difference between copying and stealing already?
When I was a kid I was always taught that it was good to share. Now I can get sued for it.
What stolen goods!? He did not steal anything... He never physically went to a store and stolen anything, what he has on his computer are nothing more than zeros and ones.I do not know about sweden or wherver this happened and their laws but how can you be automatically be labled as "stealing movies" by simply having movie or torrent files on your computer!? For all they know he actually have all of these damn movies at HIS own house and ligally wanted to get a copy for his viewing on the computer without carrying all the damn DVDs.
I wonder if a person gets caught with say 100 stolen movies, could they just go out and buy those movies and claim that they already owned them? And since even if you have 100 movies, you're likely only being sued for 20 or so of them by whatever publisher, you could probably find those movies used for ~$10 each. $200 is pretty cheap.
Wow, do people still not have a clue about piracy?
FACTS:
Duplication of DIGITAL media is illegal unless you have the permission of the copyright holder.
It is illegal to download/upload digital media without express permission of the copyright holder.
"Fair Use" does not apply to digital media.
Duplication for "backup purposes" is not legal for digital media without the copyright holder's permission.
Does that make it clear? Basically, any copyrighted media since 2000 can not legally be file shared. And any "reprints" (digital) of older media also.
Interesting points about his laptop being confiscated and used against him. It's all going to come down to the wording of the warrant. It appears the warrant was for the building at that address, not the person. And for all computers in that building.
Just because one happened to not be owned by the address's registered occupant, doesn't mean crap.
Same as if you are sitting in your buddies car and get pulled over and the copy find drugs under your seat. You're busted, not him. Or you borrow someone's coat... CYA people, that's what life is about nowadays and no one is above that.
I'd bet that if one took a survey of file sharers, one would find that their income levels are below average. Enforcement isn't going to turn those 200 illegally copied movies into 200 movie sales. This war on piracy is just a ridiculous attempt by big money holding entertainment companies to maintain an obsolete business model by purchasing legislation that they hope scares people into buying their products. Time will show that you cannot stop information sharing. Over time new business models that function within the new paradigm of information freedom will be created. Indeed such business models are already showing up. In any case, you won't squeeze blood out of impoverished turnips. Furthermore, I don't see the value in restricting information from the impoverished that they couldn't pay for anyway.
Stromm... Different countries have different laws.
In Canada it is 100% legal to download/upload music. Movies can not be up/downloaded, it IS illegal.
------------------------------------
You said "Duplication of DIGITAL media is illegal unless you have the permission of the copyright holder.
It is illegal to download/upload digital media without express permission of the copyright holder.
"Fair Use" does not apply to digital media.
Duplication for "backup purposes" is not legal for digital media without the copyright holder's permission."
If you need more apples to wrap your mind around: how about sneaking into a theater without paying to watch a movie, or hiring someone to clean your house and not paying them? You haven't physically stolen anything, but you have received other people's services without the required compensation. And, that so-called argument that 'I wouldn't have bought the movie anyway' has absolutely zero merit. If you can't or won't pay the cost...don't watch it. And if nobody pays, why have large crews working for months producing products just to give them away?
Excellent way to explain the point. While I think the MPAA & RIAA are full of it in many ways, people SHOULD buy what they want / like. The new music system of buying by the song for $1 is better than $12~15 for an album to get 2-3 songs. DRM restrictions are a pain thou. What I buy, should be flexible.
But yeah, all those people in the MOVIE CREDITS, make their living by people BUYING the tickets and DVDs. Avatar, Lord of the Rings, Transformers, etc could NEVER be made if nobody paid to watch them... A good example of a NO-budget sci-fi flick that is free... watch a SyFy original movie on any Saturday night!
When a person can AFFORD to spend $1000+ on a computer system with several TB HDs, can't they buy a $10 DVD or $15~20 BR? I bought TRON:Legacy for $20, for the 2disc Blu-Ray DVD combo (A better deal than $15 for JUST the DVD). After 6~9months, the discs are half off... or they will be on HBO/SHO part of your cable bill. If I remove my internet & phone service, I pay $80 a month for DVR service with HBO, SHO, MAX, Stars, Encore etc.
People tend to NOT WORK for free. We have to pay our bills, feed our kids, put gas in our cars (while the oil companies make record profits and GET $millions back in tax refunds).
I dropped a long term client because she didn't pay for my work in full. One of the computers wasn't doing its job very fast. Which, is nothing *I* could do about it... running a crappy DOS program from 1992 in an XP-Window on a 2.4Ghz 4yr old PC may run like crap. I spent 3 hours rebuilding, updating the WinXP box and making this crap program work as best as it'll ever run. That was MY time I could have spent on a paying client or quality time with my family.
So yeah, my time was stolen. Told them they can call GeekSquad for $50 more an hour and deal with them.
Now, there are all kinds of theft or unfair pricing.
MS overcharges for their OS. $100 for an upgrade disc, $100 for an OEM, $200 for retail version? It makes upgrades/repairs a pain. $100 for retail is at the worst for Win7Pro should be. Linux is free, Apple charges about $100 for a 5 user license for OS-X.
TowTruck companies... nuff said.
Utility companies = complete rip-off.
Intresting thou, the competition and market forces has made MS create a home version of MS-Office for $100~150 (3 user license) which is a much better price than the old $200~250 for a single user purchase.
PS: never EVER buy OEM Office 2010 or online edition. That price is for a single license.
Pay about the same price and a user is able to install on 2 or 3 computers.
There will always be those who can't be bothered to understand why just because the item is easily reproduced it isn't legal or right to do so. If you need more apples to wrap your mind around: how about sneaking into a theater without paying to watch a movie, or hiring someone to clean your house and not paying them? You haven't physically stolen anything, but you have received other people's services without the required compensation. And, that so-called argument that 'I wouldn't have bought the movie anyway' has absolutely zero merit. If you can't or won't pay the cost...don't watch it. It is that simple. If not paying was a valid option, then why should anyone pay? And if nobody pays, why have large crews working for months producing products just to give them away? Hope you like free-ware games and youtube videos.
I'm pretty sure what's "right" and "wrong" is defined by society. A very large percentage of people in our generation have downloaded music through peer-to-peer software or torrents. But that wasn't my point.
If you get caught sneaking into a movie they will throw you out, but I honestly don't think they really care that much. There is value to them for you being in that movie theater. Your analogy with a house maid doesn't really make sense. Also, who really feels good about giving a bonus check to the record label CEO's that are exploiting hundreds of artists who might see a fraction of a percentage of a settlement.
Downloading a movie without paying is pretty lame, but again its free promotion, and a number of those people will end up buying the dvd for bonus content, better quality, or if the movie was any good. I've bought books that I discovered purely through downloading copies of them first.
My point was that this is a social grey area. Sure you can come at us all high and mighty defending the poor labels/producers that you think are losing money from a practice that the government has no ability to control. My point was that in this digital age it doesn't take much creativity/time/money/ or effort to still make money with people sharing your media, or spending the petty cash it costs to have a software engineer come up with a complicated method of securing your digital media against copyright infringement. The drawback to this will always be a drop in circulation, which they DON'T WANT.
These companies are greedy and want the best of all worlds.