Man Arrested For Movie File-Sharing

[Mulboyne]

Asahi: Police arrest man over file-sharing of "Wanted"
Police on Thursday arrested a 33-year-old man on suspicion of distributing the Hollywood thriller "Wanted" over the Internet ahead of its release in Japan. Kazushi Hirata, of Sendai, is suspected of violating the Copyright Law. He is the first person arrested in Japan over alleged file-sharing of a movie before its release here. According to the Kyoto prefectural police's high-tech crime squad, Hirata made the movie, starring Angelina Jolie, available through the Winny file-sharing software program with Japanese subtitles. "Wanted" opened in the United States on June 27 and is scheduled to be shown in Japan starting Saturday. Kyoto police had been investigating the case since receiving a complaint from Universal Pictures, the movie's U.S. production company, which had not given Hirata permission to distribute "Wanted." Kyoto police said they do not know how Hirata obtained a copy of the movie.

REMINDER: Before you think of commmenting on this news, remember that forum rules say "Absolutely no warez or otherwise illegal links or discussion will be permitted. This includes "theoretical" discussions and euphemistic references. A few of the prohibited topics include: bootlegs or illegal downloads of commercial software, movies, music making backups or copies of copyrighted material filesharing copyrighted material decrypting or bypassing copy-protection.

[Iraira]

but, talking about sex with animals is still permitted, right?

[Western All Stars]

It sure is chilly in here. Though, I think nowadays there's so many legal sites streaming TV shows and movies, such as Hulu.

[plastiktec]

Hulu seems like it has some good streams for legal videos. know any legal sites that can be viewed from japan??

[Big Booger]

How did they catch him? Did his ISP give him up to the coppers or what? Did he use Winny 24/7? Is this the first time he was busted for something like this? There's very little background as to what exactly happened. How can the prove this guy is the guilty one? Perhaps a roommate was involved? An unsecured wireless access point?

And where did he get the subtitles from in the first place?

[Charles]

It sure is chilly in here.

I love that Chilling Effects website. I copied and pasted a DMCA notice by Dow Chemicals from that website, when I needed to file one myself. Managed to wrest back control of my own content quite easily.

[GomiGirl]

Damn pirates - hope they cuts his balls off.

Sorry - am in no mood to discuss the "rough deal" this thief received for his crimes.

Theft like this is not funny and it is not clever and it hurts real people.

I may as well leave my front door open and invite people to come in and steal my TV for the theft caused by pirates. I work damn bloody hard and so do my staff - we all have rent to pay and mouths to feed. Piracy is theft pure and simple. Pity I don't have the legal clout of universal to protect my copyrights.

[Caustic Saint]

Copyright infringement is not theft. (That's why we have a different term for it.)

Stealing your TV would be theft, as that act would deprive you of a physical object you own. If this guy did not steal a physical copy (film on reels/platters), then what he did is not theft.

Also, anybody who's ever benefitted from (or aided and abetted in) copyright infringement has no right to be damning this guy.

[bolt_krank]

I agree with Caustic Saint here.
Copyright infringement is not theft. The only thing it is stealing is potential profit.

I do agree that the ease and which copies of such material can be gained is affecting the industry. But where to draw the line ?

Recording a TV show without the broadcaster's permission is still illegal as far as I know.

[Socratesabroad]

Copyright infringement is not theft. (That's why we have a different term for it.)

Stealing your TV would be theft, as that act would deprive you of a physical object you own. If this guy did not steal a physical copy (film on reels/platters), then what he did is not theft.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Stealing the TV is one form of theft known as larceny [theft of a physical object], but theft doesn't have to involve taking a physical object. Throwing your trash in an unrelated business' trash bin and stealing cable are also both forms of theft [known as theft of service] and are a better analogy to illegal D/Ling:

Unauthorized downloading may not be larceny, but it still seems to fit under the broad notion of theft. Even though the copies cost nothing to produce, the data in them has value. Downloaders acquire that value without paying for it. Some say they're not causing any real losses because they buy new copies of the downloaded files they like. But that rationalization wasn't persuasive to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who flatly declared in his concurring opinion in MGM vs. Grokster, "Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."

Theft like this is not funny and it is not clever and it hurts real people.

I may as well leave my front door open and invite people to come in and steal my TV for the theft caused by pirates. I work damn bloody hard and so do my staff - we all have rent to pay and mouths to feed. Piracy is theft pure and simple. Pity I don't have the legal clout of universal to protect my copyrights.

I heartily concur, especially since once my studies are finished I hope to write my own software. My sentiment's been underscored by living here in China, wheresome 80 to 90 percent of software installed on computers is pirated]. And what about TV/cable - all forms of media in China are gov't controlled, so non-gov't cable TV (i.e. Western [even if it comes from the Philippines, HK, or Singapore]) is technically illegal (as is porn).

The mainland Chinese gov't prohibits all Western cable TV [except in special zones like Beijing hotels frequented by foreigners], so any access I would have would necessarily be illegal. Should I forego watching simply because of principle?

[Socratesabroad]

On a less serious note, "the movie...available through the Winny file-sharing software program"

There are people still using Winny?!?!

[Charles]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Stealing the TV is one form of theft known as larceny [theft of a physical object], but theft doesn't have to involve taking a physical object. Throwing your trash in an unrelated business' trash bin and stealing cable are also both forms of theft [known as theft of service] and are a better analogy to illegal D/Ling:

Your analogy is a little off here. Throwing your trash in your neighbor's bin does involve taking a physical object: unoccupied space in the bin. But I think you're trying to make a distinction here between theft of physical goods and theft of tangible goods. The distinction is subtle.

I heartily concur, especially since once my studies are finished I hope to write my own software.

You can only hope for the great good fortune of your software being widely pirated. The top pirated softwares are also the top revenue-generating softwares. Piracy is an index of success. Pirated products almost never deprive an author of real sales, it is almost always pirated by people who would never buy the product. Microsoft, for example, used piracy to their advantage, their products would never be entrenched in markets like China without piracy. Office was left without copy protection for many years, to help establish their monopoly, and once it totally dominated the (real and pirated) market, they moved to DRM.

[GomiGirl]

Well whatever you people think - ie people who do not create original works but would rather use somebody elses for free - it sure does feel like theft.

It is NOT a victimless crime. Potential profit - what do you is used to pay the rent? Dust off those business 101 books and take a look.

When somebody has stolen work that you have produced without your permission, then get back to me and tell me how you feel.

[Mennon]

I love it. I can [Mod Edit]. It's awesome. That's the point. It's good for me. If you are worried about losing money when people pirate your stuff, then [Mod Edit].
Consider this. I would never have paid to see The Dark Knight at the cinema, or to rent the DVD. I have very little interest in it. If I ever saw it, it would be when it is on tv in the distant future. But [Mod Edit]. But I might have really loved it, and then gone out and bought the special edition DVD gold plated boxed set for $200 when it came out. Not to metion queued in line for two days to see the thrid installment at the cinema. [Mod Edit]

The way I see it is that now entertainment companies invest in my time, and if their product interests me, I will more than likely invest my money in a DVD for the special features, or a CD for the artwork, or go to the cinema next time for the experience. If they think I'm going to spend 2000 yen to see Angolina Jolie blow something up at a cinema (again), or pay 3000 yen(!) for a CD with one hit and ten ordinary songs on it, they are history.
I love it.

[Western All Stars]

I think Larry Lessig gave a good speech about copyright issues and the law at a TED conference. I'm sure we could each come up with a dozen "what if" scenarios that might be against the law but go against common sense. (i.e. What if I buy a video in the UK on holiday and bring it back to Japan? Would that be considered infringing on the producer's rights because I'm watching it in an unauthorized geographic location?)

Here's something scary: the average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal songs. Now, consider the implications if the police or airport security start checking ipods for illegal music.

The way the laws are now is screwed up, and as Lessig puts it, it's creating extremists on both sides. There are pirates who distribute copies of commercial products, and there are companies that threaten to sue girl scouts for singing the Happy Birthday song.

[GomiGirl]

I agree that the laws are screwy and are not in touch with reality. But people who crack apps and then distribute them are thieves.

Take a walk in the shoes of a person who works hard to make something just to have it stolen - I am sure none of you work for free so why should I?

We all might have to agree to disagree on this point.

[omae mona]

Well whatever you people think - ie people who do not create original works but would rather use somebody elses for free - it sure does feel like theft.

It is NOT a victimless crime. Potential profit - what do you this is used to pay the rent? Dust off those business 101 books and take a look.

When somebody has stolen work that you have produced without your permission, then get back to me and tell me how you feel.

I'm amused by this "potential profit" and "victimless crime" argument. You never see people arguing:[LIST]
[*] It's OK to steal food from the supermarket if I leave an envelope with enough money to cover the cost the supermarket paid. Then all the supermarket has lost is their potential profit. The food wasn't that tasty anyway, so it's not like I would have bought it at the ridiculous price the supermarket charges.
[*]It's OK to steal a car from a car dealership as long as I leave an envelope covering raw materials and labor costs. The dealer markup is ridiculous anyway. If they charged something fair I would have gone by the books and paid it!
[*]It's OK to steal a book from a bookstore if I leave behind some blank paper and ink to replace the material I took.
[*]It's OK to run out of the doctor's office without paying the bill]Funny how the only time people advocate stripping somebody of their "potential profit" is the situation where it's still pretty hard to get caught by the police: pirating movies or music. What an amazing coincidence!

[omae mona]

I love it. I can watch a movie or listen to music without ever having to pay for it. It's awesome. That's the point. It's good for me. If you are worried about losing money when people pirate your stuff, then save money by downloading movies and music for free like I do.
Consider this. I would never have paid to see The Dark Knight at the cinema, or to rent the DVD. I have very little interest in it. If I ever saw it, it would be when it is on tv in the distant future. But I downloaded it, and watched it. It was an okay movie, but I am glad I didn't pay for it. But I might have really loved it, and then gone out and bought the special edition DVD gold plated boxed set for $200 when it came out. Not to metion queued in line for two days to see the thrid installment at the cinema.
That didn't happen. I actually fast forwarded to the end to see what happened, then I deleted it.
The way I see it is that now entertainment companies invest in my time, and if their product interests me, I will more than likely invest my money in a DVD for the special features, or a CD for the artwork, or go to the cinema next time for the experience. If they think I'm going to spend 2000 yen to see Angolina Jolie blow something up at a cinema (again), or pay 3000 yen(!) for a CD with one hit and ten ordinary songs on it, they are history.
I love it.

At the moment I'm in the middle of test driving a BMW Z4 I "liberated" from the local dealer late at night a few weeks ago. After trying it for a few weeks, I decided there is no way I am going to pay the extortionate price they are asking. The car is just not that great and frankly I never would have paid that price. Look, if the car was *really* awesome, then I probably would have been so happy that I paid the dealer over and above their asking price! But as it turns out, they produced another piece of crap relative to the high price they're asking. I didn't pay. I am ticked off, in fact, that BMW wasted my time on test driving this abomination.

I've cleaned the car and rolled the odometer back to zero, and will probably drop it back off at the dealer sometime next week. Gotta run now. I hear police sirens outside my place and want to go see what's going on.

Seriously, I love this new-found sense of power that consumers have that THEY get to decide when, how, how much, and if they pay for products or services, regardless of what the producer is asking. Again, note that the only industry where this happens is the one where it's pretty hard for consumers to get arrested doing this.

[Socratesabroad]

I agree that the laws are screwy and are not in touch with reality. But people who crack apps and then distribute them are thieves.

Take a walk in the shoes of a person who works hard to make something just to have it stolen - I am sure none of you work for free so why should I?

Like I said earlier, I'm in total agreement.

This actually dovetails with the China Demands Software Secrets thread.
Software and movie piracy is rife in China]have[/b] to use pirated software or their studies/job performance would suffer. Put simply, Chinese will use pirated software until something else comes along. Plus, it seems the new Linux flavor touted by the gov't was just a bluff, so the Chinese'll go back piracy.

[Ptyx]

Some friends of mine created a company some years ago. They're making plugins for audio and music software, it's called Ohm Force.
In the first month their first plugin was released they got pirated by a famous warez group called Radium. One of my friend told me it was like a consecration for them to have their software pirated by such a prestigious group. They were users of radium releases themselves.
That was 6 or 7 years ago, i believe radium doesn't exist anymore, my buddies company is still alive and kicking and their products used by big selling acts line NIN, The Chemical Brothers, Depeche Mode, Prodigy etc...
Now they didn't become succesful because of radium but it certainly didn't hurt them all that much and brought along tons of users.
When those users integrates a company there's a good chance that they're going to ask for my friends products.

[Socratesabroad]

Your analogy is a little off here. Throwing your trash in your neighbor's bin does involve taking a physical object: unoccupied space in the bin. But I think you're trying to make a distinction here between theft of physical goods and theft of tangible goods. The distinction is subtle.

No, you're wrong and my analogy is quite apt.

As to the first point, when I worked construction for a gen contractor, the higher ups once got furious with a sub for throwing his trash into a rented trash hopper they had rented for the site. This was theft of service, they explained to me, since they paid for the trash service (i.e. the company that owned and picked up the hopper) and the sub had not.
Theft of Service

Theft of Service
No person shall place any solid waste in a solid waste container for which they are not paying for service. Placing solid waste in a container for which you are not paying for service is Theft of Service.

And lest you pass this off as some sort of local/regional quirk, you should be aware of that this is the standard industry interpretation.


As to my second point, an illegal D/L is like throwing trash into someone else's bin. Illegally copying a movie/song does leave the original, just like dumping trash into someone else's bin doesn't affect whether or not he has trash service, but the song owner is still suffering a loss of revenue, much as the payer for the trash service is footing the bill for trash dumped by others.

[Big Booger]

There are countless ways to view content for free. That's why I think copyright on shit like movies, games, books, video and audio is bullshit. You can watch videos, listen to music, read books all freely at the library.

Should we ban libraries because they are allowing people to watch, read and listen to content completely free without paying the original creator? Aren't libraries just as guilty as any place else on the web like the PirateBay or whatever?

If not, what's the difference?

[omae mona]

There are countless ways to view content for free. That's why I think copyright on shit like movies, games, books, video and audio is bullshit. You can watch videos, listen to music, read books all freely at the library.

Should we ban libraries because they are allowing people to watch, read and listen to content completely free without paying the original creator? Aren't libraries just as guilty as any place else on the web like the PirateBay or whatever?

If not, what's the difference?

The libraries have paid for their materials and have effectively entered into agreements with the owners/publishers that 1 person, per purchased copy, may read the books, watch the videos, or listen to the music at any time. You paid for that with your tax dollars which went to the library. It's not free. It is, though, a very good deal for those who bother to get off their ass and go to the library. Everybody's happy: the taxpayer, the library, and the publisher.

[Big Booger]

The libraries have paid for their materials and have effectively entered into agreements with the owners/publishers that 1 person, per purchased copy, may read the books, watch the videos, or listen to the music at any time. You paid for that with your tax dollars which went to the library. It's not free. It is, though, a very good deal for those who bother to get off their ass and go to the library. Everybody's happy: the taxpayer, the library, and the publisher.

Homeless people have access to the library and they didn't pay shit... While technically the taxpayer paid for it, I am sure they didn't pay out the ass like we all do if we buy it individually.

I think piracy serves a serious purpose. It puts checks on shit ass content that's over priced. You make the price so competitive that it makes a person think twice about pirating it, then I think you've won. If you overcharge for crappy ass shit, then you've lost. If you put out some quality content out there then people will be willing to spend money on it. Otherwise just deal with it.

There are other ways besides libraries to view free content. The internet is full of it, with free and pirated shit all blended together. There are paperback swaps, Freecycle, Hulu (has been mentioned), last.fm and so on.

You can view magazines at most doctor's offices... should they be charged a higher than average fee for allowing their customers to read those magazine willy-nilly? Department stores usually display movies on the televisions for sale. I have sat through an entire movie once or twice before soaking it up. Should I have paid for that?

Many universities host movie nights where you can attend free screenings of films. Should they be charged for piracy for doing that? Hell I have had college professors show a room full of students pornography. Should he have paid for each one of us to view it? (And what's up with fucking "fair use?" ).. it's okay for fucknut teacher's and educators to pirate but little Timmy in his basement whacking his weasel to Wanda does Wisconsin that he downloaded from a torrent file gets slapped with copyright infringement. What a load of shit.

[Mennon]

Guys, you can argue about it all you want.
What you have to do now is you have to produce a product and offer it to me for free, then charge me for support and/or extra features. If you're product is good enough, I will pay for that. If it's not, hey, at least i didn't lose any money finding out.
I am an Australian Rules football fan. Last year I paid the AFL 6000 yen to get access to streamed games. Now I have to wait three, sometimes four days for them to put a game up, and then I get to watch it in such poor quality that I can't see the ball most of the time. That's when it's not buffering.
[color="Red"]Mod Edit - discussions of this subject matter is against the rules of the board[/color]
It's not about the law, it's about service and quality.

[Gilligan]

I think piracy serves a serious purpose. It puts checks on shit ass content that's over priced. You make the price so competitive that it makes a person think twice about pirating it, then I think you've won. If you overcharge for crappy ass shit, then you've lost. If you put out some quality content out there then people will be willing to spend money on it. Otherwise just deal with it.

My problem with this argument is that if the content really is crap, why would you want to own / use it, free or otherwise?

The way things are supposed to work is that if something is crap or is overpriced, the intelligent consumer chooses not to buy it and looks for something that is better or is more reasonably priced. This action by the consumer is meant to signal to the maker that they should either produce better quality content, re-price their products, or go out of business.

In all honesty, I don't believe for a second that the intelligent consumer says, "Aw, this product royally sucks! I think I'll just take it and use it without paying."

[GomiGirl]

BB - now you are getting into a different area. Screening of movies for free is fine - charging people for it is not. ie making money out of screening something where the original copyright holder isn't seeing a royalty.

Screening something that has been purchased for personal use is fine AFAIK the same as recording a TV show for personal use. When you take that recording and then try to sell it or otherwise make money off it, then this is illegal.

The same exists in digital format. Taking something and putting it up on a website that is an income producing one is kinda lame - making money off somebody else's efforts is wrong.

Don't get me started about the whole SEO and comment spammers thing. Those guys really piss me off.

Perhaps I should make a list of people who piss me off. I am kinda pissed off today so perhaps I should.

[Western All Stars]

BB - now you are getting into a different area. Screening of movies for free is fine - charging people for it is not. ie making money out of screening something where the original copyright holder isn't seeing a royalty.

At least in the States, even screening a movie for free can be illegal. According to the MPAA's website, you first need to pay for a "performance license".

They also have a legal options to piracy page that might be worth checking out. I'm sure a lot of these free content sites are blocked outside the US though. I'll be back in Japan next week and try some out.

[Big Booger]

The thing is, especially with movies, TV shows, songs, etc... the advertisements seem so damn good but when you actually pay to go see the content, often you wind up disappointed. It has happened to me weekly (I am a huge movie fan). I see typically 4-7 movies a week. (maybe a little more than I should). Of those, once or twice a month I go to the theater. Other than that, I rent a DVD, watch on TV, or internet it. (some shit you can't get in Japan, and in that case there's often only one or two choices, one being legal the other not.) Many of the movies are shit. If I am not satisfied with a physical good that I purchased I can usually return it.. but not so for fucking digital media. I think that's bullshit.

As for stealing shit, I agree it's not good to take someone's hard earned directly from the maker. But I know a lot of pirates who feel they aren't really shafting the content maker, instead they feel they are ramming it up the ass of "the man". They feel they'd never purchase the shit anyway so why not just download it. What harm does it cause if you never were going to buy it in the first place? Thus no sale was actually "lost" due to the download.

Now for software and shit like that, I dunno. There are plenty of freeware/shareware/ad supported offerings to justify not stealing paid for applications. I guess other content like that in the public domain also would apply here as well. So maybe I just nullified any point I was trying to make.

I guess there are many sides to this issue. It'd be great if there was an all you can download option that compensated all artists equally via your ISP. I think this model would be quite successful and would stop piracy. Of course huge corporations think this is an awful idea because they want to price gouge their customer base by chargin a la carte rather than buffet style. I also think you'd see a larger variety of artists and content creators with this system. As it stands now huge companies control what gets produced and sold to a large degree.. that's so fucked.

For example recording artists are paid royalties albeit probably miniscule from the sale of blank CDRs (audio type only I believe). I feel if you use these type of CDRs then you should be able to download freely... they are getting a royalty. Why in the hell would they get a royalty for buying BLANK CDRs when you have to pay for the music to begin with... if you copy it a thousand times for your own personal use... what the fuck is up with paying a royalty for those thousand CDRs... it's bullshit. It's like double dipping your balls in the mouth of a prostitute and she has the audacity to charge you twice for that service. You paid by the hour and she's now charging you for each sexual service... I don't like that at all. That whore wouldn't get my business ever. I want her body for the time that I paid for it. If she's going to start charging per sexual service then fuck her (note: This is just an example, as I am not into prostitutes that much. LOL) Though I have to admit the culture of prostitution does intrigue me for some eerily creepy reason...

I think all creators of digital content should subscribe to a buffet model. They make available their content (it gets spread all over the world to many users) while being paid from ISP providers. It's kind of hard to download shit without an ISP. Even if you used a library or university connection, they would have to pay a monthly royalty for that connection.

I guess what I am basically getting at is instead of charging bit by bit, you get one flat rate from every ISP, even it it is pennies, each time your software is downloaded the ISP keeps a log and generates income to all the content providers all over the world. This would be a hell of a mess when it comes to actually paying it out.. but I am sure it could be done.

And then I think the problem of piracy would be nullified, artists and content creators would be paid, and everyone would be happy. But it'll never happen because it's quite complicated to pay everyone their dues and all that shit. It's just an idea I think many pirates might just agree to.

[hundefar]

I guess what I am basically getting at is instead of charging bit by bit, you get one flat rate from every ISP, even it it is pennies, each time your software is downloaded the ISP keeps a log and generates income to all the content providers all over the world. This would be a hell of a mess when it comes to actually paying it out.. but I am sure it could be done.

I hope that this is within the rules, if not please just erase it. I am not sure where the limits are. But since we are talking about a situation that doesn't currently exist, I assume it is OK.

There are several reasons why this can't be done. First you would have to install deep packet inspection hardware and software, and actually scan the content that users were downloading. Think about what this means: ISPs that are reading all of your data. There's a serious privacy problem there.

Then comes the next problem: What if people start encrypting their traffic or circumvent the ISPs DPI in some other ways? What would such measures be worth?

And then there is the problem of the flat rate. Why should I pay a lot to my ISP so my neigbour could download loads of porn? (Yes, porn is copyrighted material too). Next problem is that there is more copyrighted material being shared than most people think. What about books for instance? The flat rate model would become very expensive. I have heard people claim that it would be cheap, but they often forget that people should pay for porn and books and what not.

And what if someone opens up a cheap ISP where they don't pay the flat rate? Then everyone would move their business there.

Really, people should realise that the world has changed, and when you can copy something without loss of quality. It loses it economic value. Fighting this, is as silly as fighting all of other forms of technological progress. I am a musician myself, I have released many a records and also worked in the recording business for more than 10 years. People should just come to terms with this new situation, instead of talking about "stealing" and what not.

The days when you could control your information, be it music, text, film or whatever are over. Get used to it. Adapt.