So long and thanks for all the fish

[Jimbo]

EDR,

Agreed.

What's most disturbing is the seemingly prevailing attitude that this kind of thing is somehow OK or justified.

No amount of justification can make outright and organized theft OK. Anvil's attempt at justifying theft because of the "significant monetary obstacles" falls flat. A company or an individual should have the right to sell or give away their product as they see fit. If no one buys a product because it's too expensive then that company will go out of business. A high price of an item does not justify theft.

NSXs are too expensive too. Perhaps, if someone set up a facility were stolen NSXs could be test drove by potential buyers then more people would appreciate the NSX and in the long run it would really be good for Honda. There's absolutely NO difference.

Robin did wrong and he's admitted such. I'm certainly willing to give him a second chance, but I too have to admit I'm really surprised and disapointed at the opinions here.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
http://homepage.mac.com/jimanders/PhotoAlbum1.html

 

[mikec]

I think we may all (mostly all) be voicing such an accepting opinion because we all do it. All of us who went out to buy an mp3 player for our cars; if it weren't for kazaa and other sharing of mp3s, would we have wanted one so badly?

The point i'm reading is that robr admits what he did is wrong and is paying the price. Is the price too high? thats not for me to deceide, and he's not asking us to. I think his attitude is commendable. He is saying goodbye for 18 months, and we are wishing him well and safety with the promise of welcoming him back in 2004.

I for one, wish you well robr. Good luck and take care.

------------------
keep the shiny side up
MikeC 01 #46

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by erobbins:
I'll keep my comments to myself, but suffice it to say that I do not agree with what seems to be the popular view here.

Eric, I'm not sure which viewpoint you believe is popular here. I see at least four different viewpoints expressed here:

1. What Rob did should not be punished (usually for unstated reasons but which by inference means either because it's not "wrong" or because it's wrong but it happens all the time);

2. What Rob did is wrong and should be punished, but the punishment he is receiving is out of proportion to the offense (usually unstated whether this is based on "gut feel" or based on an understanding of typical sentences for other criminal infractions);

3. What Rob did is wrong and he is receiving appropriate punishment (again, usually unstated whether this is based on "gut feel" or based on an understanding of typical sentences for other criminal infractions); or

4. We hope for the best for Rob in getting through his time in prison (sometimes, but not usually, accompanied by one of the first three opinions outlined here).

Eric, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you do not agree with the "popular view". WHICH popular view? Counting posts, the most frequently expressed opinion is number 4, wishing Rob well without stating an opinion on the rightness of the charge or the appropriateness of the sentence. Are you saying that you hope for the worst for Rob and his prison time? Or something else?

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 02 September 2002).]

 

[anvil]

Jimbo and Eric,

Let me hasten to say that I did not endorse "theft" as you termed it Jimbo. What I said was that over a five to ten year period available computers were *not* used, because there was no necessity to use them. Many fine software packages were introduced and ignored, ... and many of those companies that produced that software are gone. I am no administrator nor do I have control of any budget.

I did personally purchase equipment and software for myself and, when the organization began to buy computers, I tried to get others to use software that I had found helpful. I received no benefit from anyone for encouraging others to do what would help them. Saying "I use software and I am happy with it!" does not persuade people. They have to use it, ... they have to be convinced that it is better than the alternative.

I never said that the software was priced too high. I did say that people are reluctant to pay the price before they are certain of the usefulness of the product. Shareware and demos of game software available on the net is a recognition of the idea that using software sells software.

All I said was that in my experience it was necessary to get software into people's hands before they would think about purchasing it. I never endorsed an organized effort to avoid purchasing software. How you in the industry go about merchandizing software is up to you. I'm just telling you how things went in my experience.

I do think the punishment for Robert was excessive because a stiff civil fine would have been effective since he was not making millions on his illicit activity (or so I understand from Robert's comments and the news accounts cited). Spending the remainder of your life explaining a criminal prosecution and time in prison is a lot more severe than paying a fine. Everytime Robert tries to get a good job, the first thing that is likely to be noticed is this part of his history. What are his chances then?

The real question is what punishment would have stopped him from repeating the offense. I think both would work, but the fine would be more humane.

Call me soft, but don't say I endorse "theft."

Jimbo and Eric, I am not an enemy of the software industry. I am one of millions of people who balance cost versus benefit against my paycheck everyday, ... but unlike many I see a valuable place for computers and encourage their use. And having had this discussion, I will pledge to encourage those who hold the purse strings to find out what software their employees are using and make certain that it is appropriately owned.

I hope this is enough of an olive branch.


anvil

 

[erobbins]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Eric, I'm not sure which viewpoint you believe is popular here.

Primarily numbers 1 and 2, above, as well as others.

EDR

 

[erobbins]

Originally posted by anvil:
How you in the industry go about merchandizing software is up to you.

There is so much in your post that I'd like to pick apart, but this is a car forum - not an intellectual property law forum.

The above quote sums it up, though - the decision to have shareware or demos of products available should be left to the property owner.

Also - there is a BIG difference between giving a friend, relative or coworker a copy of some software you think they would like for themselves (in the hope that they will purchase it) and being the ringleader of an international software distribution crime ring for half a decade.

I've said enough... I think people know what side of the fence I stand on.

EDR

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by erobbins:
there is a BIG difference between giving a friend, relative or coworker a copy of some software you think they would like for themselves (in the hope that they will purchase it) and being the ringleader of an international software distribution crime ring for half a decade.

I'm not sure that there is any difference at all. In both cases, making unauthorized copies of software is theft, pure and simple, whatever the motivations may be.

Let's use another example. Suppose you buy a licensed copy of a software product for $500, and you sell copies to a dozen friends, relatives, co-workers, etc for $50 each. And let's say the law enforcement authorities found out. Would they convict you of a felony? Would you receive 12-18 months in jail for doing this?

The reason I ask, is that I think the punishment for copying software for profit should be as great, or greater, than the punishment for copying software when it's not done for profit.

I don't know what typical sentences are for copyright infringement via unauthorized copying of software, but such sentences should make sense - the more severe the infraction, the greater the penalty. And copying for commercial gain is a more severe infraction, and deserves a more severe penalty. Based on this logic, then if Rob's sentence is out of line, then it's unfair, pure and simple.

Of course, I am also realistic enough to know that fairness is rarely a means of arriving at decisions in our legal system. The resources available to one side or the other in a case are a far better predictor of verdicts and sentencing than fairness. Those who mention Johnnie Cochran should realize that his services are normally available to multi-millionaire athletes, and not to middle-class computer programmers.

 

[Jimbo]

Anvil,

Olive branch accepted, but I don't think it was needed in the first place. I wasn't attacking you, I was simply noting that your post used the argument and premise....

1. Software wasn't being used.

2. People are often reluctant to purchase software because of the price.

3. Easy access to software helps eventually to make sales.

4. Merchants may find that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

I agree with all the above points that you made. However, these points are moot. If companies wanted their software to be freely distributed then let them give out demo copies or crippled free versions, or let them give it out for free period. Many companies do that now, including big companies such as Apple and Microsoft.

My point was and is...that the ends do not justify the means. A company has a right to have their product and intellectual property to be sold in a manner how they see fit. If the software doesn't get used and is ignored, then that company will suffer the consequences. So be it.

I think my stolen NSX analogy is perfect.

As I said before, I think we all wish Robin the best and hope he makes out OK. I don't want this to turn into a public spanking session for him, but l am surprised at the reaction and sentiments that somehow software theft is a victimless crime...and that somehow because someone didn't profit from their activities, that it's somehow alright.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
http://homepage.mac.com/jimanders/PhotoAlbum1.html

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by Jimbo:
l am surprised at the reaction and sentiments that somehow software theft is a victimless crime...and that somehow because someone didn't profit from their activities, that it's somehow alright.

Jimbo,

Do you feel that someone should receive punishment that's harsher when not profiting from such activities, than someone who does in fact profit from them?

 

[galvatron]

I don't know what typical sentences are for copyright infringement via unauthorized copying of software, but such sentences should make sense - the more severe the infraction, the greater the penalty.

I'm not sure what is considered typical either. Compartively, to some other people, rob got a light sentence:
http://www.cybercrime.gov/ob/Pattanay.htm http://www.cybercrime.gov/sankusSent.htm

I'm not really sure what these people did that warranted such a drastic sentence compared to rob's. Truthfully, I'm shocked that someone could go to prison for this. I don't understand how downloading mp3s is not considered a crime and these people are going to prison for years.

 

[blurr]

Originally posted by Jimbo:

I think my stolen NSX analogy is perfect.

-Jim

Actually a stolen NSX analogy is very flawed. If you steal "pirate" software there is no monetary loss to the manufacturer for that copy you are using. Only the potential loss of profit. If you steal a car there is a real loss in that each car produced costs the manufacture money. "Material costs and labor for each individual unit" The cost of software is generally recouped after the first few thousand copies are sold.

That said I am not for all out software piracy. In fact it costs me money. There are likely millions of pirated copies of software I helped to create being traded on the net. I do however think that the pendulum has swung to far towards the "rights" of copyright holders. There are ways to make money in any medium and the Music and Film industries are really trying to hard to stop the new mediums and not looking hard enough into how they could be profitable.

Individual piracy can in some forms help companies to continue to exist. I will use 3d animation software as an example.

3DSmax is the largest 3d software package in the entertainment industry. They are the largest because of piracy. They are not the best but kids (mid to late 90's) got 3DStudio of BBS's then FTP sites and learned how to use the software. When they all worked their way into jobs creating games and TV shows that is what they knew how to use. Thus the companies they started and/or work for bought it. The 3D software makers are now starting to see this and are beginning to offer free copies for non profit use.

 

[Jimbo]

nsxtasy wrote....

"....Do you feel that someone should receive punishment that's harsher when not profiting from such activities, than someone who does in fact profit from them?...."

While I do believe that whether or not someone profited from a crime is something that can be taken into account when determining the punishment, I do believe it's a peripheral issue.

For example, let's say we have an altruistic thief, a "Robin" Hood who breaks into a jewerly store and gives Rolex watches to the needy. Does the fact that he personally did not profit from this make his crime any less of a crime? Does it matter to the victim of the crime? Was it any less of a crime and a loss to the victim? I don't think so.

However, if somone breaks into a store and steals food because they're hungry, then yes, I do believe that their situation should be taken into account.

Let's get back to my NSX analogy. What if someone stole your NSX and proceeded to let others drive it and experience it. They didn't profit from this theft, they just thought it was a cool thing to do, so that others could see what a NSX is all about.

What's the difference between this "altruistic" thief and the garden variety thief would stole someone else's NSX in order to profit from the parts? In both cases they thought it was OK to take something that didn't belong to them. *WHY* they did it, is not all that important to me.

Or what about two thieves who steal two similar NSXs. One thief gets $40K and the other settles for $15K. Should the thief who profited "more" be punished more severely because he's a better "salesman"? Or vice versa? I don't think so.

No, in general, I don't think whether or not someone profited or not makes too much a difference in cases like these. IMHO, it just seems like justification.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
http://homepage.mac.com/jimanders/PhotoAlbum1.html

 

[milz50]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:


The reason I ask, is that I think the punishment for copying software for profit should be as great, or greater, than the punishment for copying software when it's not done for profit.

Let's look at these situations in these two dimensions.

1) The profiting from the illegal distribution of software.

2) The damages caused by distribution of the software.

nsxtasy, you seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that one who illegally distributed 12 copies of a program for $50 a slice should be punished the same (or more) as one who distributed thousands of copies for free.

I agree that a pirate that profits should be punished at least as harshly as one that doesn't, ceteris paribus (as long as the damages are held constant).

In the two scenarios that are being compared, the damages (opportunity cost of the software company), however, are completely different, and thus will be a consideration when evaluating the degree of the crime.

Had Robin(hood) profited from his actions, he may have received a longer sentence.

 

[blurr]

Originally posted by galvatron:
I don't understand how downloading mp3s is not considered a crime and these people are going to prison for years.

Downloading MP3's is considered a crime. In Fact Certain Record Labels are now pushing for prosecution of some individuals using Kazaa, Morpheus, ect..

In the past they avoided going after individuals for PR fears.


[This message has been edited by blurr (edited 02 September 2002).]

 

[Jimbo]

Blurr,

Surely you don't mean to suggest that just because there's no hard costs involved, that software or music theft is any less of a crime?

So, therefore I assume we can also justify copyright and trademark theft as being non-crimes, we can also not be upset over plaigerism or any other crimes involving intellectual property.

Or how about theft of services? Is it OK not to pay someone for a service they provided, simply because there's no hard cost outlay?

No, I'm afraid just because there are no hard costs involved, that it doesn't make it OK.

And while some companies may have profited from the unintended consequences of software piracy and theft, it hardly justifies it. It's up to the owner of the product to make those determinations. If a company wants to give out free copies of software it's up to them.

The ends do not justify the means. I'm also sure that there's some wonderful and precious babies born to rape victims as well. It's hardly an argument to condone rape.

-Jim



------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
http://homepage.mac.com/jimanders/PhotoAlbum1.html

 

[Lud]

Downloading MP3s is NOT a crime.

Downloading MP3s of copyrighted works that you are NOT LICENSED TO USE is the crime. There is a BIG difference, thought the RIAA and others would like to lump it all together and ban the technology because they are afraid of it.


Jimbo - Software piracy is wrong, but your analogy to theft of a car is fundamentally flawed. Theft of physical property deprives the owner of the stolen good, while the theft of intellectual property merely deprives the creator of the pecuniary benefits of the idea. Both are wrong and both are illegal, but at the same time there is a world of difference.

 

[blurr]

Originally posted by Jimbo:

Surely you don't mean to suggest that just because there's no hard costs involved, that software or music theft is any less of a crime?

Lesser crime, yes. Still a crime, yes.

So, therefore I assume we can also justify copyright and trademark theft as being non-crimes, we can also not be upset over plaigerism or any other crimes involving intellectual property.

I can't think of a single instance of intellectual crime that warrents Jail Time. It goes from a situation of costing nothing from society as a whole to costing us all money for Pison upkeep. It is a civil matter not a criminal matter.

Or how about theft of services? Is it OK not to pay someone for a service they provided, simply because there's no hard cost outlay?

All Services I can think of have hard costs associated with them.

The ends do not justify the means. I'm also sure that there's some wonderful and precious babies born to rape victims as well. It's hardly an argument to condone rape.

The ends often justify the means any many cases throughout human history. To pull some wierd off the wall analogies out of my head as well:

Just look at what the US is doing right now. Why even talk about attacking Iraq? They havn't attacked us yet. But we are going to attack them and get rid of their leader to avoid them possibly doing something drastic in the future. Do the ends justify the means? What if we had killed off Hitler in '39. Would the ends have justified the means?
[/B][/QUOTE]

-matt

[This message has been edited by blurr (edited 02 September 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by galvatron:
I'm not sure what is considered typical either. Compartively, to some other people, rob got a light sentence:

http://www.cybercrime.gov/ob/Pattanay.htm http://www.cybercrime.gov/sankusSent.htm

I'm not really sure what these people did that warranted such a drastic sentence compared to rob's.

It's clear to me that the Department of Justice issues a press release whenever they want a prison sentence to be used to "set an example". Therefore, I can only conclude that such instances do not represent typical treatment under the legal system for such offenses.

I don't know what is a typical sentence for violation of software copyright laws, and apparently neither does anybody else who has posted to this thread. Which means you're all talking out of your @$$ when decrying such sentences, and also talking out of your @$$ when you rail against those who decry such sentences.

As I see it, if Rob's sentence is harsher than normally the case for a small group of individuals sharing software among themselves, then it's inappropriate. If it's typical, then it's appropriate. And until I hear from someone who is knowledgeable about what is and what isn't typical of such cases, no one can convince me of much of anything here. Except that maybe some people just look to bash others because they think that any sentence given for any offense is too light, and others look to bash because they think that any sentence given for any offense is too severe.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 02 September 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by blurr:
Just look at what the US is doing right now. Why even talk about attacking Iraq? They havn't attacked us yet. But we are going to attack them and get rid of their leader to avoid them possibly doing something drastic in the future. Do the ends justify the means? What if we had killed off Hitler in '39. Would the ends have justified the means?

I would suggest that we stick to the discussion of the case at hand, rather than trying to use political situations that are hardly analogous. As Lud pointed out, even a case of auto theft is not at all analogous. It's not going to illustrate anything here to refer to a hypothetical military attack on a foreign country, in the future OR in the past.

 

[Jimbo]

I agree that from a legalistic point of view that stealing someone's auto is perhaps different than software theft or piracy.

The NSX analogy was meant to highlight the ethics of the situation.

For me, there would be no difference if someone stole my NSX out of my driveway or if they stole my software.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
http://homepage.mac.com/jimanders/PhotoAlbum1.html

 

[huckster]

since my response and responses like mine seem to have touched a nerve, let me clarify.

theft is wrong, no matter how it is done, or what is stolen.

stealing physical property and stealing intellectual property are not the same. there are many businesses past and present that have represented a SIGNICANT part of our economy that have stolen technology. dating back to the english legal system, copyright laws were in place and copyright violations occured. This was considered a civil case, not criminal, and not jail time(of course back then lack of ability to pay could result in jail time).

so, i stand by my contention that jail time for intellectual theft is mindboggling, especially if 'not for profit'. i wont go into any litany about 'big brother' or federal intervention on the behalf of business interests, but it sure seems like they want to make a point, doesnt it?? And dont you think it odd that such a thing gets suffucient limelight to make the WSJ???

our judicial system is not fair, and based on my rudimentary knowledge of this event, i do not think that criminal prosecution and jail time was warranted. i suspect this case is, and was intended to be, precedent setting.

supply more information about the particulars and maybe i'll reverse my opinion...

 

[MAJOR STONER]

Can you do me a favor?

Can you try and find out why it is that you can't have a "Fu Manchu" mustache in prison? I have always wondered what the official explanation was, if there is any.

Too bad they don't allow soap on a rope, either.

Hope you get to check in from time to time, or get a printout of the site.

Remember, the more things change, the more things stay the same.
http://home.earthlink.net/~lucy4/_uimages/pysche.jpg

 

[erobbins]

Originally posted by Lud:
Downloading MP3s is NOT a crime.

Downloading MP3s of copyrighted works that you are NOT LICENSED TO USE is the crime.

However, one can presume that if you are licensed to use the copyrighted work, then you have access to it other than through something like Morpheus, Kazaa, etc.

Furthermore, purchasing a license to see/hear/read the content of a particular work does not necessarily permit you to see/hear/read the same work through a different medium.

In fact, The Digital Millenium Copyright Act has several provisions which prohibit the transfer of a work from one media to another, or products/services which are designed to accomplish this.

Example: I buy a CD or DVD published by Sony at the store. Sony CDs have copy protection on them, as do all DVDs. I choose to "RIP" tracks or the video to an MP3 or MPEG file. I have just broken the law, as did the authors/publishers of the application I used to do it with.

That's the law. If you don't like it, make it your business to change it.

EDR

 

[erobbins]

Originally posted by blurr:
It is a civil matter not a criminal matter.

No, it is a criminal matter, although that does not preclude the party that suffers damages from pursuing it in civil court.

I don't know why people complain when someone is found guilty (or pleads guilty) to a crime and is sentenced according to the law. Punishments are meant to fit the crime, with very few exceptions, and this is not one of them.

EDR

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by erobbins:
I don't know why people complain when someone is found guilty (or pleads guilty) to a crime and is sentenced according to the law. Punishments are meant to fit the crime, with very few exceptions, and this is not one of them.

However, the prosecution usually has the discretion to apply any of a variety of charges, which may range from the mildest, to the most typical, to the most severe. And, for a particular offense, there is usually latitude within the law for applying a range of punishment; a sentence can be unusually harsh, or fairly typical, or unusually lenient.

This is true of most areas of criminal law. You can kill someone and receive a death sentence, or you can kill someone and receive probation (or even not even be charged), or lots of other options in between. The specific circumstances of the offense and the offender's prior record (as well as other factors) play a part in determining which charges are brought, and, if found guilty, what sentence is given.

As quoted in the article in the Wall Street Journal, the experts in the field of copyright law feel that the charge and sentence handed down in Rob's case was far harsher than typical under the circumstances. For example:

"The penalty is completely disproportionate to harm that is caused," said Marci A. Hamilton, a specialist in copyright law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.

"Things have tipped too far," said Miriam Nisbet, legislative counsel with the American Library Association, which often testifies on copyright issues. "We are very much for protecting authors, but some sort of balance is very important."

some security experts, such as Lois Jacobson, chief executive of MIS Training Institute, a Framingham, Mass., security operation, wonder if law-enforcement resources wouldn't be more effectively used against potentially more serious problems, such as corporate computer break-ins.

That is the opinion of the experts in this field that were quoted in the article. And until and unless there is a post from someone with similar expertise in this particular branch of law enforcement who can provide a similarly informed counterargument that covers what charges (if any) are commonly brought under these circumstances, and what sentences (if any) are commonly applied to those found guilty, the only guidance I see is that of the experts quoted in the article. And, despite the extreme arrogance expressed in your post, yours is obviously not based on any similar level of expertise in this field.

Suppose someone broke into your home, and held you and your wife hostage at gunpoint. Let's say you got into a scuffle with him and the gun went off, killing the intruder. If you were then charged with and convicted of first degree murder, and given the death penalty, would you still be saying, "I don't know why people complain when someone is found guilty (or pleads guilty) to a crime and is sentenced according to the law"? Would you claim that the million dollars spent on prosecuting you would be the best use of those taxpayer dollars? Food for thought...

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 04 September 2002).]