Pirating doesn't pay.

[Pullmyfinger]

The man behind the 2009 leak case of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" has been punished. Gilberto Sanchez, a New Yorker who admitted to illegally uploading the unfinished copy of the 20th Century Fox film, was sentenced to one year in federal prison on Monday afternoon, December 19.

The sentence was said to be one of the hardest punishments given for an internet piracy case. Lisa E. Feldman, the assistant of U.S. Attorney told Variety, "We believe this is the longest sentence ever imposed for a defendant charged with uploading a single copyrighted film to the internet."

Sancez, who lived in Bronx, was convicted by U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow of spreading a nearly final "workprint" copy of the movie to Megaupload in March 2009, around one month before the film was released. The judge described his actions as "extremely serious."

"Although Fox was able to get defendant's 'Wolverine Workprint' removed from his Megaupload account within approximately one day, by then, the damage was done and the film had proliferated like wildfire throughout the intertet, resulting in up to millions of infringements," said the prosecutors in court documents.

After uploading the film, Sanchez also publicized it by sharing links on two public sites, allowing anyone to have free access to the movie. U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. said, "The federal prison sentence handed down in this case sends a strong message of deterrencee to would-be Internet pirates. The Justice Department will pursue and prosecute persons who seek to steal the intellectual property of this nation."

The leak case had stolen the attention back in 2009. Despite the case, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", which was released on May 1, 2009, grossed a massive $373 million worldwide. It led some film observers to debate on whether the leak impacted the film's performance on box office.

 

[Slick]

Will this stop pirating?

I doubt it.

Will it scare them?

Yes but greed always has a way with some folks.

 

[Auggie]

Perhaps it created a new audience?

Millions wouldn't have paid to see it even if it wasn't available for free. They would have done something else, like watch regular TV or play a game or something else.

 

[Chucky]

Perhaps it created a new audience?

Millions wouldn't have paid to see it even if it wasn't available for free. They would have done something else, like watch regular TV or play a game or something else.

Can you explain that to me again please. I am in a slow mode mood.

Thanks.

 

[tboy]

Can you explain that to me again please. I am in a slow mode mood.

Thanks.

I think he means that maybe some people watched it because it was free therefore creating the possibility of a new audience or creating a new consumer. Maybe later on when the next one came out they might go out and buy it.

This wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. I know kaspersky software used to be free, Weezer promoted a new album by giving it away (among others), Lady GaGa did it with a new song, and that's why many manufacturers offer free samples of their goods. Recently Red Flag Deals has promoted many OEMs giving away not just trial samples, but full retail versions. I know I received coupons for a full sized box of baby wipes (I love a clean tushy), some cat food, a box of vector cereal, a whole whack of things. The cashier at Shoppers Drug Mart noticed and asked "where do you get all these coupons".

I believe in file sharing movies but only if the movie is a couple of years old. I firmly believe this because I find it LUDICROUS that on demand providers still want top dollar for movies that are 10 yrs old.

I also don't have a problem downloaded UFC fights because frankly, if I paid for them? I'd be after a refund because 99% lately have been NO better than the fights on spike.

 

[Swagger]

I find it LUDICROUS that on demand providers still want top dollar for movies that are 10 yrs old.

Fuck me and here I thought I was the only one thinking that way.

 

[Guido]

Pirating doesn't pay but it sure saves us money.:yahoo:

 

[Auggie]

Good points, tboy.

When radio came out, an industry was horrified that sheet music would start to decline in popularity - people were getting entertainment for free. People still bought sheet music of all the new sounds they were hearing.

In the 1930's, radio stations hired orchestras, the music industry didn't want records played because they thought it would cut into sales. They didn't realize a new market was created, when a court ruling allowed records on the radio people bought even more of them.

When video first came out Hollywood was aghast at people being able to copy movies off TV for free. They didn't realize that a new audience was created, more people than ever became interested in movies and started buying entire libraries of them.

 

[Analme]

Fantastic points gentlemen, I now will feel much better as I download a few movies too watch later this evening.

 

[Maurice Boscorelli]

Like the boys eating around the table in reservoir dogs arguing over the tip for the meal.

Auggie has me convinced too.

Let the guilt free pirating commence.

 

[tboy]

Like the boys eating around the table in reservoir dogs arguing over the tip for the meal.

Auggie has me convinced too.

Let the guilt free pirating commence.

Considering that up here in the great white north, the government collects a royalty fee from all recordable media sold. Whether they give that to the artists or not, isn't my problem.

I had a discussion with a struggling musician about this topic. She said "downloading is wrong, we're ripping off musicians".

I said (very similar to auggie's points):

Back in the 1800s and prior, when you wanted to hear music, you hired a musician.
Then in the late 1800s, technology was developed (edison wax cylinders) that allowed people to buy media with music on it.
Then in the 30s, records became widely and cheaply available to everyone. Musicians were now paid to do something once, and get paid repeatedly for it.
Then in the 20th century, technology was developed to allow people to share music cost free so now musicians can no longer do something once, and get paid multiple times for it.

My logic is: technology allowed musicians to get paid over and over. Then that same technology put an end to that. The issue isn't whether music should be shared or not, it is that the musicians these days just were born at the wrong time. Plus if they don't want people sharing their music without paying them, don't put it into a technology that is easily copied (in other words, only play live).

I equate this to me installing a new toilet for a customer. I don't get paid every time they take a dump. Or I make custom 3D signs. I don't get paid every time someone reads it.....

(on a similar note, the same thing applies to satellite signals and not paying for them. I say "if you don't want me receiving them without paying you for it, don't beam it into my house!!!)

 

[Robintheboywonder]

(on a similar note, the same thing applies to satellite signals and not paying for them. I say "if you don't want me receiving them without paying you for it, don't beam it into my house!!!)

Oh dude, you don't know how much I cried when I lost my DirectTV satellite. I all of a sudden became a happy boywonder when I discovered Dishnet then went absolutely batshit when they killed those cards.

Thank God for video streaming!

 

[tboy]

Oh dude, you don't know how much I cried when I lost my DirectTV satellite. I all of a sudden became a happy boywonder when I discovered Dishnet then went absolutely batshit when they killed those cards.

Thank God for video streaming!

I hear you...I know a number of people who got burned. IMO this is like the electricity providers providing access to electricity in front of the meter (in other words, power usage that won't be recorded). I don't know of ANYONE who wouldn't take advantage of this.....

 

[Auggie]