

Imagine BitTorrent Group Sysop Speaks Out as He Heads to Prison - anons2011
http://torrentfreak.com/imagine-bittorrent-group-sysop-speaks-out-as-he-heads-to-prison-130121/

======
digitalengineer
_These IMAGiNE members were charged with several counts of criminal copyright
infringement and they eventually received prison sentences ranging from 23
months in prison up to five years". ... "_

 _“... he mentions that in his opinion the case should have been a civil one,
and he doesn’t see why copyright infringement is a federal offense."_

Can anyone elaborate _why_ is it a Federal crime, like say kidnapping or
bankrobbing?

~~~
chewxy
I'm not American, but doesn't federal crime simply mean that the crime does
not fall under the jurisdiction of states?

I can totally understand why it is a federal crime - copyright has to be
enforced across the country. It'd be rather senseless to enforce copyrights by
states.

Now, the real issue of course is as what he said: Why is this a crime?
Shouldn't this be a civil issue, to be settled between the two parties? This
is the part about copyright enforcement laws I don't get: how is it a crime?

~~~
zokier
> Shouldn't this be a civil issue, to be settled between the two parties

I kinda understand at least one reason why it's not that simple. In high
profile cases like this, you could have hundreds of copyright holders wanting
action. Coordinating all those people could be impossible, and thus legitimate
cases would fall flat on their faces just for lack of cooperation.

~~~
chewxy
If the copyright holders are unable to form a class action suit against one
tiny group... I don't see why they should be entitled to going 'one level up'
and getting federal involvement and making it a crime.

------
rtpg
I can't imagine anyone going to jail so long for a non-violent crime....
though it's hard to understand where the limit is. I'd also like to see some
people thrown in jail for other non-violent crimes.

Punishment seems hard to get right.

~~~
tucson
Would be interesting to see statistics of average sentence per crime.
Something that would rank all crimes from highest average sentence to lowest,
and where visitors can vote for sentences to go up or down. Crowdsourcing
justice? Or is it better to leave justice in the hands of the few?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>Something that would rank all crimes from highest average sentence to lowest,
and where visitors can vote for sentences to go up or down.

Sounds like something extremely likely to have the "voters" self-select in a
way that biases the results. You can easily imagine e.g. prison companies
exhorting all their employees to vote in favor of excessive sentences for the
things in danger of having their excessive sentences reduced or eliminated,
with the argument that if it happens they'll lose their jobs.

But more than that, it seems pretty obvious in general which crimes have
excessive penalties: It's the non-violent not-for-profit ones with felony
penalties. I'm sure you can think of specific exceptions (e.g. "not-for-
profit" state-level espionage), but in general it's a very good heuristic.

In particular, the "assume profit from volume" characteristic of some of these
laws is a major failure that needs to go. With the drug laws the limits are
set sufficiently low that you have recreational users who just buy/have a lot
at once entirely for personal use being prosecuted as distributors, and with
copyright the number of copies made is so far abstracted from the actual harm
to the copyright holder and is so hard to accurately measure that making it
the deciding element in criminal law is a blunt instrument at best and to be
less kind is exactly the sort of thing that can lead to the felony prosecution
of someone like Aaron Swartz. If the government wants to prosecute someone for
engaging in a for-profit activity, they should have to actually prove that you
made a profit from it.

------
zokier
Frankly I think he just sounds like the bitter old man he is. At least the TPB
guys are idealistic in a cute way, but Cherwonik just seems self-entitled and
grumpy.

I might add that the continuous allegations of bribery and corruptness does
not really help his case.

~~~
ithcy2
Agreed... I think his punishment is ridiculous, but his own justifications are
equally so. He comes off like a whiny teenager who's been caught sneaking out
with the car. And I don't think his "I bet I paid a thousand or so for
hosting" complaint is going to win him any sympathy. To the uninformed, that's
just going to sound like a burglar complaining to the judge that burglary
tools cost money.

------
viseztrance
In for a penny, in for a pound.

I wonder if he would had made any money from this, a better lawyer would had
better represented him in court, and thus serve a lesser sentence. That is,
even while facing more serious charges.

------
lucian1900
I don't understand why criminal copyright infringement exists. If there is no
copyright holder to sue, then by all logic the works should be in the public
domain, thus no copyright to begin with.

~~~
samwillis
Not all copy right holders have the financial means to sue for copyright
infringement. It should be a criminal offence, what is wrong is the level of
punishment associated with different levels of infringement.

~~~
icebraining
_Not all copy right holders have the financial means to sue for copyright
infringement._

That _might_ be a good reason for funding state-provided attorneys. It's a
terrible reason for making it a crime.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Providing state attorneys is a bad idea in general. You'll immediately get
frivolous lawsuits everywhere if the attorneys don't have discretion to
decline cases, and if they do then all you're doing is having the state
prosecute a de facto criminal case where the penalty is a fine, except that
you've unjustly reduced their burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt
to the preponderance of evidence.

Having _for-profit_ copyright infringement be a misdemeanor is not without
reason. But it should have to be _for-profit_ , i.e. actual money is proved to
go into their pockets, not assumed to be for-profit based on circumstantial
nonsense, and the penalty should be very low for first time offenders and no
more than a year in any case.

