TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

First Ever Scottish ‘Anti-Camcorder’ Piracy Conviction

A man from Scotland has become the first in the country to be convicted of an offense related to the unauthorized recording of movies in a cinema. The 25-year-old recorded several films with a mobile phone secured within a Heath Robinson-style cloth enclosure and, crucially, got caught uploading them to the Internet for profit.

When it comes to “first ever” convictions, prosecutors in Scotland are certainly racking up the points this year.

In May we reported that Anne Muir, a 58-year-old woman from Ayr, had pleaded guilty to criminal file-sharing offences. She received three years probation.

While Muir’s case was brought following investigations by the BPI and IFPI, this latest case is the work of FACT, the Hollywood-backed Federation Against Copyright Theft.

From their monitoring of the Internet, FACT were able to trace ‘cam’ copies of movies including Big Bang, Four Lions, Iron Man 2, Kick Ass and Nanny McPhee back to Scotland. Hidden watermarks in the recordings led them directly to the Cineworld cinema in Renfrew Street, Glasgow.

In order to build their case, FACT were given access to a database of Cineworld customers who pay a set fee to watch unlimited movies each month. They found that now 25-year-old Christopher Clarke from Glasgow had watched them all.

In May last year a pre-Cannes Film Festival screening of Robin Hood was arranged for Cineworld, a golden opportunity for someone looking to get an early copy of the movie. Clarke took the bait and FACT were waiting for him.

Alerted by FACT, the police stopped Clarke as he left the cinema. They found a mobile phone hidden in a cloth enclosure, fashioned to hide the device and keep it still during recording. It contained a copy of Robin Hood. A subsequent search of Clarke’s flat revealed recordings of other films on his computer.

As we’ve learned from other cases in Britain, making a recording of a movie in a cinema isn’t necessarily illegal. However, Clarke admitted to using his girlfriend’s Internet connection to upload the movies to an unnamed “pay website”, an action which rendered his camming a criminal act.

Clarke pleaded guilty to a charge under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and was sentenced at Glasgow Sheriff Court to 160 hours of community service.

“Following the intelligence development by FACT, there was excellent co-operation from Cineworld, Strathclyde Police and the procurator fiscal to ensure that Christopher Clarke was brought to justice,” said FACT Director General Kieron Sharp.

“This individual was responsible for the recording of five films and their subsequent uploading to the internet for downloading or streaming by millions of people worldwide.”

This first-of-its-kind conviction in Scotland follows a similar English case last year. In September 2010, then 22-year-old Emmanuel Nimley was sentenced to 6 months in jail for recording movies including Alice in Wonderland and Green Zone and subsequently uploading them to the Internet.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

    the thing I don’t understand.. is why would anyone ever pay for a CAM version?!
    seriously, if you’d wait until you could actually buy the dvd, there’d be free, dvd-rips of much better quality.. and if you seriously can’t wait that long, go watch it and pay the people who made it!

    • http://twitter.com/henda__ aaron henderson

      It’s more than likely it’s advertising in which pays the uploader.. As nobody would pay for a cam… No point when you can pay to see the movie in cinemas and get higher quality..

      • Anon

        You have absolutely no idea, do you? There are a whole horde of criminal sites on the net (which I wont mention here to give them free publicity) that actually thrive off people paying subscription fees for what is nothing but warez, yes warez. These sites take pride in having the latest movies for download for their paying members as soon as they are released. Such sites employ people to make CAMs and make money off it.

        The piracy profiteering ring goes deeper than you think. May be TorrentFreak should publish an article one of these days to expose these criminals but I doubt they would do it coz this site is pro-piracy.

        • gae

          Interestingly, home filesharing is what is doing the most to put an end to such paid warez sites, if nothing else it is at least taking money out of the hands of real criminal groups.

        • Dudeguyperson

          dude what the hell? why do you come to this site? your anti-piracy right? its like a black guy posting of a kkk site. your not going to convert anyone. so could you please stop posting here. all your comments seem to do is incite forum fights.

        • Guest

          LOL

          TorrentFreak is not pro-piracy is anti-greed.

        • Anonymous

          TF isn’t really pro-piracy, they just discuss BitTorrent (and other filesharing protocols) and related stuff.

        • Anon

          Why would the site make an article on commercial piracy when it concentrates on file sharing in general and non-commercial piracy? Commercial and non-commercial piracy are way different.

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          TF is pro file sharing. What was being done isn’t file sharing. This guy deserves his jail time.

      • Social commenter

        Lol, i have been to loads of carboots and know at least 4-5 friends who against my advice buy the cams every week because it means they are FIRST before anyone else they know…no matter how shite the quality is or even if the disc works they still buy it then the week after a TS or something might come out so the person at the carboot then sells the better copy etc etc etc.

        Believe me i have seen these people pay upto £5 for the shit. I myself are now into the 3D blurays and only really buy them although i did pick up inception for a tenner last week which included a dvd, bluray and digital copy so that wasnt bad…

        always better to wait for a decent copy otherwise why would you spend all that money on a decent tv and dvd set up just to watch a puppet show with heads bobbing about.

    • Anonymous

      Ever heard of a telesync? Some of them actually look quite decent. Do you really think a 5 year old cares about a tiny bit of color distortion & a little motion blur? Or do you think they’re just going apeshit because their parents just got them a copy of Cars 2 to watch at home?

      • social commenter

        As it goes i just checked out cars 2 and the copy isnt too bad. A few russian titles here n there but other than that not bad…although i myself will wait until i can see a perfect 1080p copy probably around September me thinx [to buy]

    • DarknezzFallz

      The moment i read he was uploading for personal profit… I stopped reading… Sharing is one thing… Sharing with the intent to make money off of it just crosses the line.
      Its idiots like this that are making our communities crumble and fall.

      • Ven

        And he was severely lucky he was in Scotland. He shared 5 cammed movies for profit, I can imagine what that would get him in the US, UK, or other similarly strict places.

        • gae

          Scotland is in the UK….
          ;)

        • Haxor

          in canada that is 20,000 dollars per item plus jail time up to a year.

        • Ven

          @Gae

          My apologies, I meant only that he was tried in a Scottish sheriff’s court and pleaded guilty instead of fighting any higher.

      • Razza

        Why does it matter if he was profiting? The central point of filesharing is that culture should be free. So long as we can get it for free, does it really matter who is making money? I can honestly say that I don’t care if he makes money or the companies make money so long as I can get it for free.

        • Anon

          Punch yourself Razza. Really properly, right in the face. I think you’re broken.

        • Razza

          A proper answer next time? Nah. Never gonna happen.

        • Adam

          We can’t argue with you because we are lucky enough to live in a time when a man is free to form his own ethical values. We can say “My ethics are better than your ethics because your position is weird, selfish, bleak and narrow”, but that gets us nowhere. It’s all philosophical.

          You have the intractable absolutist logic of the message defined by the medium behind you. Art is only worth the canvas it is painted upon.

          In a weird, selfish, bleak and narrow kind of way, you make perfect sense.

          :)

        • Razza

          No Adam, you misunderstand. Art has worth, but that worth is not monetary. Cultural worth is based on how something affects emotionally you or on the beauty it possesses. Commercial worth is based on supply and demand, and since there is an unlimited supply of any digital good, digital goods are commercially worthless. Cultural worth is different from commercial worth, and the two can not influence each other.

        • Razza

          And quit it with that morally relativistic bullcrap. That shit only leads to bad places.

        • Adam

          Money is an ugly but necessary part of the system. It allows us to assign worth to time and effort – a simplified model to transfer the benefits of those two commodities from one person to another.

          Art is those two commodities, so I disagree that it cannot have financial worth. We should work to make it free, but ethically I believe that if an artist spends his time and effort then we should give something back in the form of our own time and effort, conveniently quantified as cash.

          It is a moral argument and we could trade moralistic bullcrap indefinitely. Supply and demand is dead, but the work still has value behind it. Creation is something tangible, and to devalue it because of the medium it is transmitted through is not something I agree with.

        • Razza

          Supply and demand isn’t dead, it’s the heart of economics. The very concept of money only works because of supply and demand. Digital goods have an unlimited supply, and therefore, they are commercially worthless. Artists do not have an inherant right to make money off of something just because they want to. We only give money for work if the work has commercial value. If artists want to get money, they need to offer services. If an artist is contracted to make something for something else, that is a service and that is work they were hired to do. If they just make something, they don’t have any reasonable expectation to make money from it. Money is how we assign value to work, and I refuse to assign artificial value.

          There’s also another key point here; they won’t ever catch me pirating, like they don’t catch most people, so why shouldn’t I? Even a basic understanding of the social contract tells us that the only reason society has to obey laws is threat of punishment. They have no real punishment to threaten (I am not worried about being caught in the slightest), so what’s obligating me to pay?

        • On The Rocks

          This one failed the turing test.

        • Bo Ulrich

          Belonging/adhering to a culture means following the written or inherent rules of that culture.The basis in the filesharing culture is SHARING, meaning giving of what you have without remuneration.The secular society has laws, the idealistic society has rules based on altruism, democracy or hopefully common sense. If you want to have some respect in the group of filesharing, you cannot stress the point of FREE only. At least there is the “cost” of seeding as much as you get. We are all aware of the fact that the most attractive material subject to filesharing has found its way to the net on not quite LEGAL roads, but once on the internet the rules of filesharing applies. Let´s not mix apples and pears.

        • Bo Ulrich

          Belonging/adhering to a culture means following the written or inherent rules of that culture.The basis in the filesharing culture is SHARING, meaning giving of what you have without remuneration.The secular society has laws, the idealistic society has rules based on altruism, democracy or hopefully common sense. If you want to have some respect in the group of filesharing, you cannot stress the point of FREE only. At least there is the “cost” of seeding as much as you get. We are all aware of the fact that the most attractive material subject to filesharing has found its way to the net on not quite LEGAL roads, but once on the internet the rules of filesharing applies. Let´s not mix apples and pears.

        • Anon

          @Razza, you said “Even a basic understanding of the social contract tells us that the only reason society has to obey laws is threat of punishment.”

          So sadly, pathetically, demonstrably false.

          And therein you’ve revealed the morally broken mindset of unlawful pirating in general. Your concept of the “social contract” is so limited and narrow minded, Razza, you actually dismiss the fact that the vast majority of humanity does NOT actually obey laws for fear of punishment but rather because their own sense of fair play coincides with what the law requires, thereby evidencing they obey the law because their moral code tells them it’s right to do. That has nothing to do with “punishment”. That’s what YOU understand.

          And this is true for speeding laws, paying income taxes, pausing at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere at midnight. None of this is enforceable in real numbers and yet people self enforce everyday because they know it’s to the greater advantage and the greater societal good.

          And that, in a nutshell, is why pirates and their political party remain in a tiny embarrassing minority worldwide, a problem to be solved, and why countless billions, literally, do not pirate and understand intuitively why it is moralistically wrong to take something without paying for it, if it was always intended for sale.

          Piracy, and pirates, are self deluding rubbish. Your admission up top is priceless, Razza, and a transparent example of how far lost and misinformed your sense of belonging to an organized society really is. Some people naturally gravitate towards misfit, and willful disobedience. Other take great pleasure in the slow method of steps that within justice and the law eventually renders you just another selfish fuckup in the rearview mirror of history. Your selfish, damaged mindset is precisely why we all are losing internet freedoms. The only good news in your whole damaging rampage is that the people see what you are doing and history will know you and those like you were the fools responsible for the permanent loss of many of the breathtaking possibilities of the web if only you had a developed conscience that aligned with the majority.

        • Razza

          @Bo

          “The basis in the filesharing culture is SHARING, meaning giving of what you have without remuneration.”

          Bullshit. Your sharing doesn’t require you to actually give anything up. I’d buy your “altruistic” argument if people actually gave stuff up without a guarantee of getting anything. As it is, we give up nothing (by putting up a copy for mass distribution) in order to get something (anything anyone else puts up). There is no real cost. Altruism is not present.

          @Anon

          “And this is true for speeding laws, paying income taxes, pausing at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere at midnight. ”

          You do this for your own personal safety. You obey traffic laws because everyone else does and being the odd man out will put you at risk of a crash. You pay income taxes because the government can and will track down people who don’t pay. We can see the truth of how things work in speed limits. No one follows speed limits because they know they won’t be prosecuted for going less than 7 miles over the limit (that number is for where I live). If people really cared about the law for the law’s sake, they’d always drive under the limit. The fact that people drive to the limit of safety and what they might be prosecuted for instead of the limit of the law shows us how the social contract really works.

          Read Rosseau and Grotius. Maybe they’ll drill some sense into you.

          “developed conscience that aligned with the majority.”

          Morality does not belong to the majority. That’s the one lesson you should take from history. When the majority gets to determine morality, freedoms are lost.

  • Quantocks

    watch the scene retards, people pay to press onto silvers and whatever else. the asians love sources and will pay. most people do it for this reason.

  • Pingback: First Ever Scottish ‘Anti-Camcorder’ Piracy Conviction – TorrentFreak | Movie

  • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

    Oh wow a BIG win for FACT at last lol.

    They capture someone and bully them into admitting to filesharing, but on pleading GUILTY to a criminal offence he’s sentenced to 160hrs communist service (sic). I hope he gets a nice new waterproof jacket that wards off blind road drivers heheh.

    So FACT get this major win and the ‘criminal’ gets what? A month of removing graffiti from FACT’s ego?

    LOSE and that’s a FACT

    @ Chris Clarke
    Send an email to enigmax@torrentfreak.com telling him when and where you’re due to do the Communist Service and I’ll try and come help you when I can. Seriously.

    • Anon

      Oh wow may be you should learn to read first before you open your big fat mouth. He was SELLING his CAM recordings for profit.

      • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

        lol. you now moaning about a crappy quality CamRip that no-one would ever buy (and likely wasn’t really for sale anyway) is a terribly pathetic “wow” for you to express.

        You’d get a better response if you demanded I put my panties back on and shut my big fat legs instead.

        • Anon

          Obviously people were buying it and that’s why he was selling them. There are sites on the internet that pays people to get them the latest CAMs and you can deny it as much as you want but these sites do have plenty of subscribers who pay just to get their hands on the latest movies quickly, be it CAM or whatever.

          The article clearly says he was caught uploading for profit. He was obviously doing it on a regular basis to catch the authorities’ attention and eventually get caught. Now if you choose to ignore what is written in the article and start making assumptions on your own, then I guess there is not much point in arguing with you. Its quite obvious you’re the kind of person who chooses what to see and believe in and ignore the rest.

        • http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes

          How can I possibly argue when you so sternly and effectively shut my big fat mouth?

          Fuck off troll – you’re a LOSER and not worth my bandwidth.

        • Anon

          “Fuck off troll – you’re a LOSER and not worth my bandwidth.”

          Haha you just got owned. Typical reply used by internet keyboard warriors when they get owned.

        • Anonymous

          “no-one would ever buy (and likely wasn’t really for sale anyway)”

          Which part of “Clarke admitted to using his girlfriend’s Internet connection to upload the movies to an unnamed “pay website”” did you miss?

        • Anonymous

          “no-one would ever buy (and likely wasn’t really for sale anyway)”

          Which part of “Clarke admitted to using his girlfriend’s Internet connection to upload the movies to an unnamed “pay website”” did you miss?

    • nope You’re wrong

      Enigmax is a she , just so you know ;)

      • Anonymous

        Are you serious? Cause if that’s so, i just jizzed my pants. And Enigmax can have a best round of whatever i can offer.

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        In the interwebz guys are guys, girls are guys and kids are FBI agents in disguise.

        <3

  • No

    I live in scotland and I am discussed with the way people are being dragged through the courts…,i think annonomus should take down the,courts

    • Fred

      yeah, i’m discussed too.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe we should talk about this?

  • LuLz Boat rox

    “In order to build their case, FACT were given access to a database of Cineworld customers who pay a set fee to watch unlimited movies each month”

    Breach of Data Protection Act ? Cineworld ?

    • Fred

      data protection act doesn’t protect you one jot if you do something illegal. i’m amazed that even one person (you) should not know this.

      • Anonymous

        The more reason to always be Anonymous. Or they will buttrape you. Why give your real name, ever?

      • Anon

        FACT isn’t part of the police. They are a private company.

  • Anon

    Serves him right I say. Its not bad enough that pirates are stealing digital products, this guy went a step further to actually make money off it. What a loser! Make your own product and then sell it you pathetic little worm.

    I think harsher treatments should be meted out to criminals like him who profit from piracy.

    • An Unwashed Heathen

      I think loudmouthed, scatterbrained trolls like you should STFU and GTFO.

      • Anon

        Nice, well thought out reply, to what is effectively a very valid comment. Congrats. If I were electric_worry, I would probably call you a troll too but I like to keep myself above these name callings which are best left to people with single digit IQ.

        • Anonymous

          You’ll notice I didn’t call you a troll. I spoke to you about what you said without resorting to name calling. Say it to me or don’t say it at all. But insinuating things about me is not exactly keeping yourself above what you said. And if you’re insulting my IQ, it’s got 3 digits in it. Which must be higher than yours, because by your own argument about name calling being best left to people with single digit IQs, you insulted me and thus proved you have a single digit IQ. What’s a matter? Don’t like people questioning what you say? And rather than reply to them you reply to others and try and act like the better person? You’re only proving you’ve got nothing worth listening to if you can’t respond to the points I brought up.

        • Anon

          “You’ll notice I didn’t call you a troll. I spoke to you about what you said without resorting to name calling.”

          How much can one person lie? I think you should get some sort of award for all the lies. You called me a troll just a few posts above this and not to mention countless other times in past articles, lol.

          “And if you’re insulting my IQ, it’s got 3 digits in it. Which must be higher than yours, because by your own argument about name calling being best left to people with single digit IQs, you insulted me and thus proved you have a single digit IQ.”

          I insulted you but I didn’t stoop to name calling like ‘troll’ and ‘shill’ and instead used your own name to refer to you. But its not like you don’t deserve to be insulted. You insult just about anyone and everyone around here who doesn’t happen to agree with you. You are well known for that here.

          “What’s a matter? Don’t like people questioning what you say? And rather than reply to them you reply to others and try and act like the better person? You’re only proving you’ve got nothing worth listening to if you can’t respond to the points I brought up.”

          What? Don’t tell me you gonna cry over this. I have always replied to you directly when I had something to say to you. Its just so happens I felt like referencing you while replying to An Unwashed Heathen. I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to refer to another person while replying to someone.

        • Anonymous

          Do you really wanna get into who is the liar here? Because a quick check on this entire page shows I haven’t call you or anyone else a troll. Nowhere. So that “a few posts above this” thing is a lie right off the bat. Which makes everything you just said suspect. And if you want to insult me or whatnot, be direct. Don’t aim it at someone else. And also, I’m not well known for that here. If anything I’m known as being one of the guys who responds to guys like you. And who tries to explain things to each and every person who says something like “yeah censor this and that who cares it won’t affect anything else besides this” or “how are the industries supposed to survive with you all thieves thieving”. Check the last few times I’ve responded to you. I said your posts were terrible and you were hurting your cause (that’s not insulting you, that’s insulting your arguments, but not you). But I explained myself and the flaws in what you were saying reasonably and logically. Others can attest to that. Others even tell me not to waste my breath. But I make an effort anyway to show you and others that what you’re saying is wrong. I don’t even advocate piracy half the time in those posts. In regards to laws and lobbying I try and explain how those are detrimental to the rest of us. So you’re obviously now making up things. I think it’s cause the last time we “talked” I kept saying how much you were failing at speaking. Now you’re mad and trying to I don’t know what. But as I’ve said before, it shows how petty you are.

        • Anonymous

          Do you really wanna get into who is the liar here? Because a quick check on this entire page shows I haven’t call you or anyone else a troll. Nowhere. So that “a few posts above this” thing is a lie right off the bat. Which makes everything you just said suspect. And if you want to insult me or whatnot, be direct. Don’t aim it at someone else. And also, I’m not well known for that here. If anything I’m known as being one of the guys who responds to guys like you. And who tries to explain things to each and every person who says something like “yeah censor this and that who cares it won’t affect anything else besides this” or “how are the industries supposed to survive with you all thieves thieving”. Check the last few times I’ve responded to you. I said your posts were terrible and you were hurting your cause (that’s not insulting you, that’s insulting your arguments, but not you). But I explained myself and the flaws in what you were saying reasonably and logically. Others can attest to that. Others even tell me not to waste my breath. But I make an effort anyway to show you and others that what you’re saying is wrong. I don’t even advocate piracy half the time in those posts. In regards to laws and lobbying I try and explain how those are detrimental to the rest of us. So you’re obviously now making up things. I think it’s cause the last time we “talked” I kept saying how much you were failing at speaking. Now you’re mad and trying to I don’t know what. But as I’ve said before, it shows how petty you are.

        • Anonymous

          How can you keep yourself above name calling when you are lower than the shit under my shoe?

      • Anonymous

        Wait. What?

        Are people only allowed to express an opinion here if it’s the same as yours?

        Way to go if you want to promote freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

        • Anonymous

          Haha, funny post under a different name Anon… Go suk some dik. Posting 50 times under a different name doesn’t make you 50 people.

          I see dead IP’s…

    • Anonymous

      What good will harsher sentences do? I’m not saying I’m against them, but what reasonable good do they do? The sentences for anything involving drugs are pretty harsh. And a fat lot of good they do here in the U.S. People still traffic in narcotics. I’m not saying let it slide, but citizens pay the taxes that allow prisons to function. So why are WE wasting our money to house people and feed them and clothe them for something petty? Camming a movie, even if he made profit it isn’t as big a deal as say rape, murder, drug trafficking, etc. There are more serious problems. It’s a waste of resources to pursue harsher sentences in situations like this.

      As for anything else you say, just because something is a crime in the U.S. (which I assume you’re from), doesn’t make it illegal elsewhere. In this case, yes there was a crime committed. But file-sharing as a whole is legal in quite a few countries. Doesn’t matter what you share. As long as it’s not for profit. Same goes for camming. Legal in some places. As long as you don’t profit from it, which this guy did, thus it became a crime. You can’t DEMAND entire countries change their laws to suit you (or your industry, as the case may be). And the same goes for their sentences. I’m sure they have more serious concerns and probably worse criminals than a cammer to catch and worry about.

      It seems like a “win” for FACT, but it hardly is. The guy got 160 hours of community service. Which seems appropriate. Because that isn’t the U.S. and thus they are able to decide what is fair and what isn’t and what is an acceptable punishment. He received his day in court, his sentence and justice has been served. Whether you agree with it or not, you don’t have a say. And your U.S. voice can’t tell a Scottish court how to conduct it’s affairs.

      • Zohan In The House

        electric_worry: Camming a movie, even if he made profit it isn’t as big a deal as say rape, murder, drug trafficking, etc.

        You have gone from supporting file sharing to supporting piracy for profit schemes as well. Well done man. As a file sharer myself, even I don’t condone what this guy was doing. Shame on anyone who condones such act and calls himself a file sharer.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t support piracy for profit. Nor am I condoning his actions. You’re taking what I said out of context and trying to put a spin on it. I was pointing out to Anon, who said there needs to be harsher sentences (and he means in general, not just on piracy for profit, on anyone who file shares) that the courts and prisons have more important issues to deal with and people to house. You’ve made me repeat myself, which I hate doing. The man got caught camming for profit, which is a crime in that country, and received an adequate (by the court’s decision) sentence. I’m not saying it was adequate, what I’m saying is the court felt justice was served and as such, who are we to beg to differ.

          Don’t reply to me if you take what I say out of context, it drives me nuts. Shame on anyone who does that in my book. You’re trying to paint me as the bad guy, when I’m not. Read all of what I wrote, then comment. Don’t just focus on a few key words or a sentence here and there and then throw YOUR spin onto what I said. That’s something the anti-piracy/pro-copyright type industries do. Throw a spin on things to suit them.

        • Zohan In The House

          Don’t reply to me if you take what I say out of context, it drives me nuts. Shame on anyone who does that in my book. You’re trying to paint me as the bad guy, when I’m not.

          You sure are one oversensitive little git, that’s for sure. You tend to think you are above everyone or something. The way you reply to people sounds like you are a whiny little 10 year old girl who throws a tantrum whenever daddy doesn’t fulfill her wishes.

        • Anon

          @ Zohan
          That’s been Electric_Worry’s methods all along, lame and lacking principle or conviction for anything as long as it gets something for nothing. When piracy stops, punishments will falter. If piracy continues, long, life changing jail sentences will give others something to consider before they steal digital products for profit or just to avoid paying for it. Either way it’s a gain to possess the merchandise and not pay the money and so it’s worthy of serious jail time. Digital formats will not become an excuse for stealing and courts will ratchet this up over time to make their point. Count on it.

        • http://www.xbomber.co.uk/ Crash

          How is Electric supporting something by saying it’s a crime but not as serious a crime as others?

        • Anon

          ” it’s a crime but not as serious a crime as others?”

          That’s one of the big failings in pirate strategy. They honestly believe they should have the right to define the degree of severity of their infraction. An unlawfully parked car in a small town has a fine or ten bucks. Try it in NYC and get fined $150. Leave it blocking 2 lanes on the freeway and they’ll take you into custody. Filesharing is contextual. And now that we know that digital merchandise is going to be a large part of industry of the future, only a moron would keep finding ways to steal it so that government is obligated to clamp down.

          Seriously.
          Pirates are stupid. Investing your time struggling to get “something for nothing” while they truncate our freedom on the internet speaks for itself, how fucking dumb you are.

        • Anonymous

          @ Zohan

          Why am I a little git? Because I don’t like having people twist my words? I’m not better than anyone, but you’re the one twisting what I say and basically talking sh*t about me and acting holier than thou on me? And I’m not supposed to defend myself or call you on it? I’m not mad or anything or throwing a tantrum. I just don’t like when people do that. I mean you basically ignored everything I said, focused on half a sentence and then ran with that. I stated several times it is a crime, he got caught, he got sentenced and that’s good. I just said, in response to Anon, who wants harsher sentences in general, how would that do any good? We have harsher sentences already for many other things. Guess what that curbs? Jack. Squat. Has no effect whatsoever. Besides further overcrowding our prisons, tying up courts, and wasting taxpayer money. I mean seriously, focus on everything I said or just ignore me and my comment. But don’t nitpick and then essentially b*tch because I’m correcting you and defending my words.

          @ Anon

          Lame and lacking principle and conviction? Really? I have principles and my convictions. I’ve stated that other times and it’s easy to prove that. I defend my words and explain them. I tell a few people on here to watch the profanity because young people are on this site too. And you’re saying I lack all that? Lol. And geez what a hypocrite you are. “while they truncate our freedom on the internet”. Just a few days ago I said pretty much that exact thing to you, and you went off on a tangent about shopping malls and how cameras in them violate your privacy and you hate it and they should be destroyed. Now you’re saying something completely the opposite. You are only making it harder to believe anything you say, and it’s easy for anyone to see that.

        • Anonymous

          OMG Anon you are such a sad fuk…

        • Anon

          @electric_worry

          I am not contradicting myself and I never have. You must have been talking to another Anon. I am sure as hell not the only one here.

          I don’t remember ever saying cameras in shopping malls invade my privacy lol. Why would it invade my privacy if I wasn’t stealing anything? Similarly speeding cameras on streets can never invade anyone’s privacy unless someone is speeding. Malls and streets are not places to carry out private activities, so no question of privacy even arises.

          Its sick to see that people are using excuses like Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy and Data Protection Act blah blah blah to carry out illegal activities behind closed curtains.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon

          How dumb are you? No one is using Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy as an excuse to carry out “illegal activities”. Bearing in mind “illegal” depends on the country you live in. Because as I’ve told others (namely Jack and the other Anon, apparently) file sharing is perfectly legal in quite a few countries. And as has been proven by this article, even camming is legal in some countries. But that’s not the point I’m making. My point, is the people who demand censorship are in fact infringing on the rights of other people. Or better said, will infringe on the rights of others. If you censor this one thing for this group then eventually another group will say censor this for me and then another and another. And eventually everything will be censored and free speech will be a thing of the past. Also, as far as privacy, they can investigate whatever they want. But they have to go through the courts to do so, which they’re trying to get laws passed that change that and cut out the “middle man” (courts) so to speak. And they’ve already shown they don’t care about people’s privacy. The hotfile related article the other day is proof of that. Asking for the information on ALL users, when not all users are doing anything wrong. That’s the thing about the anti-piracy crowd, they’re so set in their point of view and believe they are so in the right, they can’t see that their actions and the things they want done are contrary to quite a few Constitutionally protected rights. They can’t see that they are trying to set in motion laws that will undermine and ignore said rights. And if you look and could read, you’d see I’ve never advocated file sharing (in any of my comments). But I do understand why it’s done. Unlike yourself. And I don’t twist things to suit my argument one way or another. I said one thing, in the other comment, when I thought you were the other Anon, and real quick you seized upon it and tried to spin it to “downloading is equal to free speech”. When that’s not what I said at all. I already stated once I don’t like having my words taken out of context, I won’t repeat myself on that point.

          And my bad on thinking you were someone else. But given the screen name and essentially same word for word things you both happen to say, it’s an understandable mistake.

        • Anonymous

          @ Anon

          How dumb are you? No one is using Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy as an excuse to carry out “illegal activities”. Bearing in mind “illegal” depends on the country you live in. Because as I’ve told others (namely Jack and the other Anon, apparently) file sharing is perfectly legal in quite a few countries. And as has been proven by this article, even camming is legal in some countries. But that’s not the point I’m making. My point, is the people who demand censorship are in fact infringing on the rights of other people. Or better said, will infringe on the rights of others. If you censor this one thing for this group then eventually another group will say censor this for me and then another and another. And eventually everything will be censored and free speech will be a thing of the past. Also, as far as privacy, they can investigate whatever they want. But they have to go through the courts to do so, which they’re trying to get laws passed that change that and cut out the “middle man” (courts) so to speak. And they’ve already shown they don’t care about people’s privacy. The hotfile related article the other day is proof of that. Asking for the information on ALL users, when not all users are doing anything wrong. That’s the thing about the anti-piracy crowd, they’re so set in their point of view and believe they are so in the right, they can’t see that their actions and the things they want done are contrary to quite a few Constitutionally protected rights. They can’t see that they are trying to set in motion laws that will undermine and ignore said rights. And if you look and could read, you’d see I’ve never advocated file sharing (in any of my comments). But I do understand why it’s done. Unlike yourself. And I don’t twist things to suit my argument one way or another. I said one thing, in the other comment, when I thought you were the other Anon, and real quick you seized upon it and tried to spin it to “downloading is equal to free speech”. When that’s not what I said at all. I already stated once I don’t like having my words taken out of context, I won’t repeat myself on that point.

          And my bad on thinking you were someone else. But given the screen name and essentially same word for word things you both happen to say, it’s an understandable mistake.

        • Guest123

          I have a complaint about 1 thing you said Electric. Banning people from putting up cammed copies of movies isn’t censorship. Censorship is banning something because it has objectionable content. The cammer didn’t create anything original, so he isn’t being censored. If the copyright holder was prevented from releasing his work, that would censorship. You could still claim that this is wrong, but it’s not censorship.

        • Anonymous

          @ Guest123

          What you said is true. But banning something is also technically violating rights. As I pointed out, file sharing is legal in quite a few countries. Regardless of what’s being shared (Hollywood blockbusters, platinum selling albums, etc.) We’re in agreement on that, right? And not all websites operate within the reach of U.S. law. Quite a few operate in countries where the U.S. has no jurisdiction and where the laws are in favor of file sharing. So while banning some content might be okay and in accordance with U.S. laws and whatnot, they can’t do that for every website or service and all that jazz that operates in places where it is legal. That would be in violation of the laws of said countries. And they can’t force banning said content on any country outside of the U.S. Because U.S. laws only apply in this country. You can’t force someone to follow your rules and laws and all that. The best they could do is ban/block said content in the U.S. I should clarify, make it so U.S. users cannot see that content, not necessarily ban/block it at their points of origin, unless of course their points of origin are in the U.S..

          And I think, my point on “censorship” is probably stated wrong (on my part). Yes, as you pointed out banning something isn’t censorship. That is correct. But what I mean is it will lead to censorship. As you said “censorship is banning something because it has objectionable content”. However, people will always try and twist something to suit their beliefs/needs/etc. I think we can agree on that. So what starts off as banning copyrighted files will lead to censorship. People with various beliefs and arguments will eventually cite that (banning copyrighted files) as a reason to ban (and/or censor) other things. They’ll say “you banned this and blocked access to this now do it for us”. (I have a major headache right now, so I can’t really think up a good example to show my point.) You at least get that right? What I’m saying I mean. People will see it as censorship. Banning I mean. And this will upset quite a few people. Even ones who don’t file share, or people who don’t care at all one way or another. They may misunderstand the difference between banning and censoring and will argue that it is a violation of free speech. What happens then?

        • Guest123

          @electric

          I agree that U.S. law should not determine what happens to sites hosted in foreign countries, although given the internet’s global nature, I would like to see a basic international standard of rules created and applied. No argument there.

          As to your second paragraph; we can and should react when that happens, but we can’t just use the slippery slope and assume it will. Preventing someone from putting up something they did not make and preventing someone from using art to make a statement are two different beasts. It will be hard to legally justify one using the other. I will stand with you when that happens, but until it does, we can’t assume it will.

          Just don’t call it something it’s not. Infringment on rights; perhaps.
          Censorship; no.

    • Anonymous

      You post the same thing every article. You are boring me. I doubt if your are even human.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Agreed. Serves him right because he was profiting over it. But disagreed, pirates of digital products are sharing for absolutely no profit. And they happen to buy those stuff they share so Mr Anon, shut up ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

    By ‘Pay site’ they are no doubt referring to one of the locker sites.
    the sites while free have download limits, delays and captchas designed to infuriate the free user and try and extract a subscription out of them.

    For him to be guilty of uploading for profit, It need not be for direct monetary gain or be guaranteed a benefit but would be guilty if there was a referral scheme whereby he profited from subscriptions generated by his upload even if that payment is ‘in kind’ eg an extension of his own subscription.

  • Anonymous

    He does not seem a clever guy to cam movies without going to the cinema anonymously and not to forget to change the cinema now and again. No encrypted drives and not uploaded from other computers/Internet connections.

    Using such a high built recording cam phone seems beyond him. So it seems to me someone else set him up to do this. Too bad recording was not to an encrypted drive that loses access once delinked.

    Only one other thing wrong. Those to stick their hand into the fire sometimes get burned.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      See, here’s what I don’t understand…

      He *paid* to get into the movie theater and watch unlimited movies in a month
      He *paid* money for his camera and tapes, etc.
      He sold the tape, true…

      But he was *paying* the industry on a revenue stream. Now, he’s less likely to pay for movies and the piracy moves elsewhere.

      Good job guys, on screwing yourselves out of a paycheck!

      • Anon

        The industry doesn’t need a paycheck from a guy like him who will essentially cost them a thousand other paychecks.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          [citation needed]

          Here’s a little help
          “Media piracy in emerging economies” – Joe Karaganis
          GAO report on piracy – Government Accountability Office
          Channels & Conflict: Response to Digital Media Distribution, Impact on Sales and Internet Piracy – Michael D Smith

          Study up, bro

  • Anonymous

    Are some of the people here really defending piracy for profit?

    I sometimes download stuff myself, but I think that people who profit from uploading deserve to be caught and fined.

    • Fred

      that makes real sense – because getting paid for it is worse how exactly? it makes no difference to the people who’s work you’ve given away for nothing, as they get nothing either way. moreover, what about all those people that run all those sites you download from? they make money from it and therefore, according to you, deserve to be caught and fined. that’s like saying watching child pornography is ok, but selling it is bad. talk about two faced.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think that equating CP and movie piracy are really in the same class, do you?

        I was referring to the fact that people here have generally espoused the notion that profiting from piracy is bad. The usual line is “sharing is caring” (which quite frankly is a trite and meaningless sound-bite used by those who have no better justification). Most of the time I see them saying things should be free, so for them to condone piracy for profit seems hypocritical to me.

        Perhaps I didn’t make things clear enough for you in that respect.

        Still, I think equating CP and piracy is way out of order, and that it was done purely as an inflammatory statement, and is a tactic that I can imagine might be used to demonise file sharers in the eyes of the gullible public.

    • Razza

      Why should we care if people are profiting from piracy? So long as we don’t have to pay, who cares who is making money. The central point of piracy is that culture should be free, not that no one should make money off of culture.

      So long as we get it for free, it doesn’t matter who is making money. Common sense people.

      • On The Rocks

        This one failed the turing test.

        • Razza

          Congratulations on the repeated platitude. You can’t beat me, so you hide. I remain, as always, unimpressed with the local stock.

        • On The Rocks

          This one failed the turing test.

  • Fred

    is no one else surprised at the lengths these people will go to to catch one person uploading bad quality cam captures for (i can’t imagine) very much money at all? they watermarked the movies, they went through the rigmarole of getting the database of cinema patrons, then staged a ‘special’ screening, all to get this one person. from their point of view it’s no doubt meant to put off others from doing it, but given their finite resources i would have thought they could spend their money catching someone a bit ‘bigger’ in the scheme of things (such as the person running the site that was paying him).

    • Anonymous

      “they watermarked the movies”

      All movies destined for cinemas are watermarked, they have been for years. It wasn’t done just to catch this one person.

      • Lucy

        No one suggested it was numb nuts. The suggestion related to the fact that they watermarked the movie to begin with (ie: why do you think “they have been for years”). If the filth catch you for speeding it’s not like they set up the motorway cameras (or whatever) just to catch you – but the fact remains that they spent time and money to set up the cameras at all.

      • Lucy

        No one suggested it was numb nuts. The suggestion related to the fact that they watermarked the movie to begin with (ie: why do you think “they have been for years”). If the filth catch you for speeding it’s not like they set up the motorway cameras (or whatever) just to catch you – but the fact remains that they spent time and money to set up the cameras at all.

        • Anonymous

          Hey Lucy. I’m not sure who’s the numb nuts here, but I suspect it’s you.

          They obviously watermark the film to find the source of distribution for any shared film, be it a projector operator, audience member, or whoever. Just like they watermark screeners, etc. Is that so wrong?

          It’s not as if it’s difficult for them, or they have to go to any great lengths to do it, is it?

          And frankly, I wish that there were more speed cameras. One on every lamp post would be good.

        • Serf

          yes in my town they fought the court to get the red light cameras out of the city and won. They removed all the cameras now here in College Station Tx.

    • Anon

      Its important to put guys like this cammer behind bars to set an example. You might not think much of it but these cammers actually do more damage to the industry than those who upload dvdrips 3 or 4 months after a movie has been released. Most of the profit from a movie comes within the first 2 or 3 weeks that it runs in theaters and leaking a movie on the internet illegally during this period is the worst thing possible from a studio’s perspective.

      There is really nobody bigger to catch. Its the small individuals like him who make up the so called “big” scene groups.

      • Anonymous

        If you lived in Holland between 1940 and 1945. You would have been a member of the NSB.

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » First Ever Scottish ‘Anti-Camcorder’ Piracy Conviction

  • silversurfer

    lmfaoooo phone cams are totaly crap no wonder he got captrued ripping plp of no dout thay grassed him up

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mathew-Lisett/666201726 Mathew Lisett

      phone cams crap, i take it you didnt know the recent super 8 was done on the iphone 4 and others have aswell. the reason the guy got got was becuase they were profit motivated for business and didnt remove the anti piracy marks, and the marks are 100% why he got caught.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mathew-Lisett/666201726 Mathew Lisett

      phone cams crap, i take it you didnt know the recent super 8 was done on the iphone 4 and others have aswell. the reason the guy got got was becuase they were profit motivated for business and didnt remove the anti piracy marks, and the marks are 100% why he got caught.

  • Anonymous

    Usually i side with p2p but when it comes to cammers it sends the wrong message and anyone for profit makes the p2p community look bad. I think anyone camming deserves what they get.People are willing to wait til it comes out on dvd….WAITS FOR TROLL RESPONSE TEAM TO REPLY. Goes over to fridge grabs a soda and some cookies.hmm wait oh shit i have crackerjacks.

    • Razza

      Why should we care who is profiting? So long as the culture is free, does it really matter who makes money from it? Congratulations to him for being industrious and finding a way to make money, and shame on him for being fucking stupid doing it. What else is there to say?

      • Anonymous

        you asked and answered your own question.

        • Razza

          No Sausage, you misunderstand. I’m congratulating him for doing it. I’m only saying shame on him because he was stupid enough to get caught. If he wasn’t caught, there would be no shame, and I would have only good things to say.

      • On The Rocks

        This one failed the turing test.

        • Razza

          Congratulations, you can parrot something that someone else said yesterday. Have a cookie.

        • On The Rocks

          This one failed the turing test.

        • Razza

          Have 2 cookies.

  • Duke

    Strangely enough, I’m pleasantly surprised by this. FACT have gone after someone infringing copyright, and they’ve actually used copyright law to do it, and done so correctly! There was no use of the Fraud Act, or trademark law – there was no charging with the wrong offence (as in the Muir case), they seem to have used the law as it was designed – for stopping people making, for sale, copies of copyrighted material.

    That said, there’s still issues with procedure; whether FACT were given the evidence (as usually seems to be the case) etc… but a good start.

  • An Unwashed Heathen

    @I_am_a_sausage_not_a_hotdog and @Duke

    I agree.
    I even agree, in some small part, with the troll. Is it a blue moon or something?

    The cammer WAS selling, which among firesharers makes him an actual pirate. He probably lost more money than pocketed, but still…

    Now in contrast, financially speaking, your average filesharer is a loss leader. The filesharer makes no profit whatsoever, beyond a loot of downloads. In fact, he loses money, in storage, hardware, and internet connection, and possibly software.
    As for seeds, somebody had to have ripped a CD and/or DVD, so somebody payed for a piece of plastic with microscopic grooves imprinted on it. Again a loss.

    So for most of the MAFIAA’s cases, the claims they make against firesharing are 99% pure distilled bullshit. Just not in this case. In this case, they had the right target….for once.

    • Anonymous

      See the thing is the industry spread propaganda like all the world governments spread lies.They will bitch and complain that they are losing money yet the transformers movie just made 1 billion dollars and they are still whining.Or in my state in Florida u2 in concert and it’s estimated at 780 million dollars.I mean seriously? losing? losing what?They are in the market to take from the public and not make entertainment better nor innovate.The industry should be thankful for the Internet.

    • Anonymous

      See the thing is the industry spread propaganda like all the world governments spread lies.They will bitch and complain that they are losing money yet the transformers movie just made 1 billion dollars and they are still whining.Or in my state in Florida u2 in concert and it’s estimated at 780 million dollars.I mean seriously? losing? losing what?They are in the market to take from the public and not make entertainment better nor innovate.The industry should be thankful for the Internet.

  • starwhite

    Heres my take on this story: first of all I want to emphasize I’ve been sharing files for 12 years all NON profit. Basically you share files…anyone who takes a movie, software, or game and charges for it is a SCUMBAG. True P2P is sharing and caring about everyone. We started sharing to protest the insane high price of media. And I have 100′s of Terabytes of stuff I’ve uploaded & downloaded. In no way do I want to associated with this pathetic loser. Of course the RIAA & MPAA would lump us all together. I admit if I had tons of money I would pay for all my stuff…but I would miss interacting with people. In a world gone insane with war, famine, poverty we were reaching out to one another to share. IF this could be adopted globally I am sure the world would be a better place.

  • Reidyrips

    what a croc of shite Long live pissin piracy im a pairate alway willl be, why pay for summat you can get for free!

    • Reidyrips

      you might have seen some of my uploads on line gooogle Reidy lol

    • starwhite

      I would pay something if I had it. I’m not rich! As an example my Mother is 76 years old and an invalid due to multiple strokes. All she can do is watch TV helplessly in a wheel chair. She gets a retirement (barely enough to live on) from AT & T worked for over 30 years. She must subscribe to direct TV. They charge her $90.00 an month for about 250 channels. On top of that she must sit helplessly by and watch 20 minutes of commercials. Thats unfair. If they’re going to charge so much for programming there shouldn’t be all those commercials. I see it as double dipping. When I was growing up we had an antenna on the roof. We knew the TV commercials were there to pay for programming and suffered through them. Now its all GREED. I would absolutely pirate direct TV because in my mind just by watching the commercials I’ve paid for it. Its like games, $40.00 for a new game??? Insane. I might be able to pay 99. cents if it were worth it.

      • Anon

        You think $1 is a proper price for a new game. Really? Even a cup of coffee from the cafeteria costs about $2.5. Do you have any idea about the production cost of these big games? Just to give you an example, it took 100+ million dollars to make GTA 4. The gaming market isn’t as big as the movie market. Do you honestly think its possible to make any profit by selling at $1 per game? Obviously such idiotic comments can only come from laymen who never worked in any industry and have no knowledge of economics.

        As for Direct TV. Whoever asked you to take all 250 channels? If you need that many channels, you should be prepared to pay $90. I don’t know how it is where you live but where I live I can pick and choose which channels I want. 5-10 channels is good enough for me and I basically pay chump change to them at the end of the month.

        Coming to the ads, you can bitch about ads all you want but TV would have been a hell of a lot more expensive if it wasn’t for the ads. You seem to have no idea about the product cost behind every show that airs on every channel. They run into millions of dollars and its the ads that support these cost, not your paltry $0.36 per channel. But then again, if you were smart, you would have worked around these ads by using a PVR. That’s what most people who hate ads do.

        • Guest123

          Pretty good trashing you gave him. It is nice to see one of these “I should never have to pay more than $1 for 20 hours of entertainment” get whipped.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          There’s some things to note about the argument. The value he gains from DTV is different from price. I can understand that he doesn’t want to pay so much for internet and channel watching. That’s fine, but he does regardless and the efforts to change that lie beyond his control in complex definitions of who can and cannot share the line, driving the price down. I don’t agree with everything he says, but there’s a lot more here than I believe you’re giving him credit for.

        • social commenter

          May i just point out Anon that what you say about game cost is NOT necessarily true…during the mid 80′s and early 90′s when gaming was still in it’s infancy and companies like OCEAN, EA sports, USgold etc were charging top prices for games that were not really worth it a games company came on the scene run by 2 brothers and they started selling games for £2 here in England while the above mentioned companies and others were selling theirs for around £9-12 per game…..the name of this company was CODEMASTERS i think you may have heard of them ?
          If it wasn’t for them releasing their games at low prices back then all the games today would cost a lot more as it forced the big companies at the time to reduce their games to around £6.95 etc

          The only reason i can see for games these days to be over priced and extortionate is because where as once upon a time there was 1 or maybe 2 people working on a game, games that won more awards at the time than some of the drivel today, where as today they employ hundreds of thousands of designers and musicians and managers and coffee fetchers etc etc etc with each designer dedicated to doing the animation of a characters hair or how the dynamics of a bloody football flies through the air.

          Also i do believe that year upon year the games industry has sold more and more and virtually taken over the movie industry in fact some could say they are one these days due to the interlink of games properties and the movies they are based on.

          Also another point that all those trolls that bleat on about lost revenue here and lost revenue there fail to mention or care about is all those second hand dvd and games stores that have popped up especially here in the UK !!!

          Every second hand copy of black ops they sell is one less the games company sells and correct me if i’m wrong but when they sell it new for £40 then the person trades it in for £15 just for the shop to resell it at £30+ how much of that does the games industry actually see ? So think to yourself before preaching about the cost of games if i had a games shops and sold 600 black ops for say the 360 and a week later i got 400 of those people back to trade in at £15 and i resold those 400 copies at say £30….how much would that money would the games company see ?

          The way i see it they wouldn’t and they would just announce that they have lost those 400 sales to piracy which would be bullshit…the same goes with the music industry and the movie industry….i also believe it states the item cannot be resold but hey i guess it is easier to go after one guy who cannot fight back than a whole company with lawyers isn’t it.

          As usual this is just my opinion which i have the right to express and you will find that everything i have said is correct probably because i’m older than most trolls on here and know more than most people forget.

          Personally i dont mind paying £10 for blurays & £15-20 for a console game and if i wait a few weeks i can get 2 console games for £20 [£10 each]

  • Reidyrips

    what a croc of shite Long live pissin piracy im a pairate alway willl be, why pay for summat you can get for free!

  • Pingback: First Ever Scottish ‘Anti-Camcorder’ Piracy Conviction | Links Daily

  • Mike

    Ven means Scotland has an independent legal system.

    Scotland is in the UK “but has an independent legal system” (which is respected all over the world).

    The UK is not strictly speaking a country it is a union of countries and crown dependencies. See wiki.

    This guy was an idiot he went to the same bloody cinema for all movies on a subscription based pass – so they could correlate data on him. Lesson learned for all yee camers.

    If he was selling, and let’s take this with a pinch of salt were FACT are concerned, the sentence does not show the judge had full confidence in that claim. It is far to low even for Scots law.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, looks like the Kangaroo Courts have lost their minds.
    http://www.total-privacy.se.tc

    • Guest

      Wow, looks like you have lost your mind.
      http://www.diespammerdie.se.tc

      FLAGGED

      • Anonymous

        the spambot is bugged :p But I’ll just click the like button :p

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/24n4nqb

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Pingback: ryanfiend - First Ever Scottish 'Anti-Camcorder' Piracy Conviction

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/3umps6f

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/24n4nqb

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/24n4nqb

  • social commenter

    Hey can i just say it is a really great read every time i come onto this website and check out the net news…you guys amuse me and some of you even know what you are talking about…i love the arguments and the slagging off etc etc…

    Don’t get me wrong though it isn’t that i’m taking the piss n all that shizz it’s because that is what debating and making your point is all about and this site never fails to make that point.

    On the point of Trolls though i wish all the world governments or the NWO would just have a hunt to kill policy on them ya know like when you can hunt bears in the US ;) because i am 100% sure that if there were less Trolls around the world would be a better place.

    Right or Wrong file sharing is here to stay and as it was the tenth birthday of bit torrent the other day i think only a Troll would disagree…

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/297sxrk

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.