32 pointsby ndsipa_pomu4 months ago10 comments
  • LeoPanthera4 months ago
    If you only read the headline you'll miss critical information:

    > A 37-year-old Tennessee man was arrested Thursday, accused of stealing Blu-rays and DVDs from a manufacturing and distribution company used by major movie studios and sharing them online before the movies' scheduled release dates.

  • BearOso4 months ago
    > The DOJ claimed that "copies of Spider-Man: No Way Home were downloaded tens of millions of times, with an estimated loss to the copyright owner of tens of millions of dollars."

    Except those weren't prospective buyers--they were downloads, which don't have a direct 1-1 mapping. On top of that, you can only infer they were people who thought the movie was worth downloading if it was free, not that they would have purchased it at the retail price. Who's to say it wasn't downloading for convenience, i.e. to use on a plane or something, and the person hadn't already bought a license another way? The total loss was probably 10s of thousands at the most.

    • wakawaka284 months ago
      Did you miss the fact that he stole the movie before it was released from the DVD publisher?

      There's not a 1-1 relationship between DVD buyers and pirates but some people just want to watch the movie or save it for posterity, and don't care what format it's in. There is definitely a cost to piracy. But nobody knows exactly what that cost is.

      Wanna know what's really stupid? Some people pay $20 or more to rent or buy a digital copy of a movie through a service that can pull the content any time. Compared to that, the hard copy is a fantastic value.

  • ranger_danger4 months ago
    Worth nothing that this wasn't some teenager who casually downloaded a movie and left it seeding overnight. They were stealing DVDs from the factory and ripping those, even selling them for profit, and people found enough evidence left behind to even get him arrested in the first place for it... so monumental levels of stupidity and provable intent are here.
    • qwerty4561274 months ago
      Nevertheless this seems a waste of resources for the feds to bust as long as there are many really dangerous criminals, doesn't it? Gangs terrorize the streets, corrupt politicians ruin the economy, foreign nation states operate huge covert operation networks but the feds rather hunt DVD rippers LOL
      • ranger_danger4 months ago
        Why are chefs baking bread? There's buildings to construct.
      • LexGray4 months ago
        If every book, video, and painting is ripped off and shared for free why would any sane person pay? Of course the feds are going to act to defend the big budget spectacles which distract us from the corrupt clown show that is our world.
        • qwerty4561274 months ago
          > If every book, video, and painting is ripped off and shared for free why would any sane person pay?

          What about games? Do you mean the people buying games on gog.com are insane? I already spent over a $1000 there although I technically could easily pirate almost any of their games. At the same time I don't buy anything from Steam because I hate DRM. And the only place where I often buy digital books is HumbleBudndle - also because DRM-free. If something is both cheap (or not so cheap but still possible to afford and visibly great value) and DRM-free I see no incentive to pirate it for anyone who is not extremely poor (so they wouldn't buy even if there was no option to pirate).

      • 4 months ago
        undefined
    • joshuamcginnis4 months ago
      And he was doing it for movies that hadn't even been released yet.
  • croes4 months ago
    > bypassing encryption that prevents unauthorized copying

    That statement is obviously wrong

    • readyplayernull4 months ago
      Meanwhile encryption itself will become illegal, unless it can be backdoored.
    • geor9e4 months ago
      Most English sentences can be read in different ways with different meanings, so one must always gage the probability that the author is rational and intended that meaning

      probably no: (successfully) prevents (all) unauthorized copying

      probably yes: (exists to) prevent (at least one instance of) unauthorized copying

    • conradev4 months ago
      Why? Aren’t Blu-ray discs encrypted?
      • necovek4 months ago
        Did it prevent unauthorized copying?

        (Not sure if OP referred to that though)

        • croes4 months ago
          Exactly, the encryption didn’t prevent unauthorized copies.
      • Volundr4 months ago
        Even DVDs are. It's just been broken for years.
  • kelseyfrog4 months ago
    Using state violence to enforce intellectual property is morally bankrupt. Reserve that hammer for pastors who prey on kids.
    • ameister144 months ago
      Using state violence to protect property is literally one of the main reasons for having a state at all.
      • aydyn4 months ago
        Intellectual property is not property, its a misnomer. A bluray disk is property. Do you own it or no?
        • gruez4 months ago
          >Intellectual property is not property

          Look up the definition of "property". You'll find that it says nothing about it needing to be tangible. It literally just means "something that can be owned".

          • aydyn4 months ago
            Then do you own your bluray or no?
            • oniony4 months ago
              You don't own the bluray you stole from your employer.
              • aydyn4 months ago
                Lets say hypothetically you bought it from BestBuy. You own it or not?
                • oniony4 months ago
                  You own the physical disc, but I would imagine the content is licensed.
                  • aydyn4 months ago
                    What you are saying is inherently contradictory. The "physical disc" is comprised of tiny peaks and valleys. If I "own the disc" why can I not do whatever I want with those peaks and valleys?
                    • oniony4 months ago
                      No, what I'm saying is not at all contradictory. The separation between the physical medium and artistic work it carries is not a complicated concept to understand.

                      It is for the same reason you do not own the story in a book you buy. You have a physical stack of paper that's yours to do whatever you want with: read it for your pleasure, prop open the door with it, burn it if you like. However the concept of the story that the book conveys – the particular ordering of the words – is not yours, it (by default) belongs to the person who created it, as they put effort into the creation of that art.

                      Imagine the world you are fantasizing. You spend a year writing a book, you go to a publisher to have it published. You give them a copy for consideration. You don't hear anything back and then, later, find they have taken your story and published it themselves. It becomes a top selling book. Intellectual property rights are originally envisaged to protect artistic creators from this exploitation, otherwise why would they bother to create in the first place?

                      (Unfortunately, there is still a lot of large organisations exploiting artists, as they largely control the media that exposes people to art in the first place. This means artists have to sign away their rights in order to get an advance and the promise of exposure.)

                    • ameister144 months ago
                      Ownership is classically a combination of a bundle of rights. You have most of those rights, but you do not have all of them.
        • LeoPanthera4 months ago
          He was stealing the discs. Those are actual property.
          • aydyn4 months ago
            I am disputing the point about intellectual property.
        • ameister144 months ago
          He stole those too
        • 4 months ago
          undefined
      • kelseyfrog4 months ago
        False. It's to protect citizens first and personal property second. Private property is invalid and a legal construction and assumes the personhood of corporations. It's this false equivalency that gives these orgs power over us. Our legal system should prioritize actual people. Anything else is morally bankrupt. A lot of people get mad because hearing the truth hurts.
        • tzs4 months ago
          > Private property is invalid and a legal construction and assumes the personhood of corporations

          Interesting claim considering that private property predates corporations by centuries.

          • kelseyfrog4 months ago
            I simply don't care. If private property was a natural right we wouldn't need it artificially supported by governments.
            • lostmsu4 months ago
              Like citizen rights?
              • kelseyfrog4 months ago
                No. Like intellectual property rights. I don't do gotchas. I have no obligation to be held to someone else's idea of consistency.
        • 4 months ago
          undefined
      • timewizard4 months ago
        To protect real property. Violations of copyright should be strictly civil issues. Why are the people who arrest murderers and vandals involved in this?
        • floydnoel4 months ago
          they don’t really worry about murderers nor vandals
        • jebarker4 months ago
          I honestly don't see why the cops should arrest someone that burgles an office building (say of a film producer) and not someone that gives away the content they paid to make for free. In what way is it different?
          • timewizard4 months ago
            If I take your property you cannot have it or use it.

            If I copy your content you still have it.

            It's not an exigent issue that requires officers with guns to solve.

            • jebarker4 months ago
              Ah, yes, that's a good argument for property definition. I agree that it seems excessive to use armed force to enforce this, I was more questioning how to differentiate the two situations in law so cops don't have to exercise that judgement.
    • kyrra4 months ago
      All adults in a position of power over kids can do this. Many children are abused by teachers as well.

      https://www.pennlive.com/news/erry-2018/05/5e56fa19a94444/ch...

      • EA-31674 months ago
        While true, most groups of adults with power over children don't have a wealthy, trans-national organization that spent decades shuffling them around, hiding their crimes, and silencing victims.
        • sdsd4 months ago
          If you read the article in the comment you're replying to, the whole point is that despite having a wealthy, transnational organization, the Catholic church is not an outlier, and in fact, abuse is higher in many orgs that don't do the things you describe (eg, evangelical churches, sports, and school).
          • EA-31674 months ago
            I did read the article, but the obvious rebuttal is that "abuse is higher" really translates as "abuse is more frequently reported, confirmed and punished." It's not shocking that an organization which has dedicated a vast amount of time, effort and money to hiding its misdeeds has... hidden some of its misdeeds.
            • sdsd4 months ago
              >It's not shocking that an organization which has dedicated a vast amount of time, effort and money to hiding its misdeeds has... hidden some of its misdeeds.

              If you go this way of thinking, you can just as easily come out on the opposite end. Maybe the Catholic Church is in fact hiding less than these other orgs, and that's why we associate them with abuse. If the known rate of abuse is mostly correlated to an org's skill at hiding, then who knows how much abuse happens anywhere.

    • pipes4 months ago
      Do you see any potential down sides f the state decided not to protect intellectual property?
      • 4 months ago
        undefined
      • 4 months ago
        undefined
      • ForTheKidz4 months ago
        Large swathes of the US economy are based on holding and licensing IP. Why would anyone subscribe to Disney+ if they could get the same service for $1 a month from anyone?
      • kelseyfrog4 months ago
        We would return to normalcy. That makes some people angry.
        • 4 months ago
          undefined
    • tiahura4 months ago
      don't do the crime if you can't do the time

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sHA7Uuz4oY

    • varelse4 months ago
      [dead]
    • ranger_danger4 months ago
      You're not wrong, but I would say this is a little bit more than just IP theft, as these charges are technically criminal in nature. Physical theft and fraud, bypassing encryption explicitly for unauthorized copying (regardless of what it was), etc.
      • fibers4 months ago
        that logic can be applied broadly to the unbelievable amount of ip theft that LLMs train on
        • ranger_danger4 months ago
          I'm pretty sure courts have already ruled that to be fair use, and either way I don't think it's appropriate to compare the two like that, I consider it a false equivalency.
  • markus_zhang4 months ago
    Shouldn't do that without enough protection.
  • catlikesshrimp4 months ago
    I am more interested in the malware by russians distributed instead or along the movie rip than in the movie.
    • redrove4 months ago
      An MKV file is virtually safe for all intents and purposes.

      Sure there could be some kind of vuln in the media player you’re using to open it and it could contain a payload but there’s so many media player and OS combinations that this becomes extremely unlikely. I have never heard of this happening.

      • progbits4 months ago
        Aren't most media players (by market share) just wrapper around, most often out of date, libffmpeg? Famously a huge pile of old C/assembly? I'm not shitting on ffmpeg, it's a great project but let's call it what it is.

        "Virtually safe" is nowhere near accurate.

        • vagrantJin4 months ago
          Haha, you are most certainly shitting on ffmpeg, however politely you might go about it.
          • progbits4 months ago
            I meant it like: it's the best we got, but that doesn't mean it's perfect.
    • HPsquared4 months ago
      Official media is more likely to come with malware. Sony rootkits being one infamous example. Or, depending on perspective, all the "telemetry" and advertising built-in to Windows these days.
  • rad_gruchalski4 months ago
    Poor man, oppressed by the rich of Hollywood. Maybe Carlson interviews and Trump pardons him. /s
  • ndsipa_pomu4 months ago
    This does raise the question of whether Meta (and others) will face any fines for training AI on copyrighted books etc.
    • zamadatix4 months ago
      This is about a guy stealing pre-release media with the intent to sell it and then distribute exact copies prior to release. I wouldn't extrapolate too far what that means in regards to the AI training story just because both involve movies as, even if it were considered the same type of copying, the rest of the situation is very different.
    • CursedSilicon4 months ago
      Corporations facing meaningful consequences for their actions? That'll be the day
    • 4 months ago
      undefined
    • varelse4 months ago
      [dead]