back to article Fast And Furious 6 cammer thrown in slammer for nearly three years

A man who illicitly recorded action film Fast And Furious 6, uploaded it to the internet and then sold copies online has been locked up for nearly three years. The jail term was handed down to Philip Danks, 25, of Livingstone Road, Bloxwich on Thursday, according to the Walsall Advertiser. A copy of the Universal Pictures' …

Page:

  1. i like crisps
    Trollface

    BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

    If i was the Beak i would have let the bloke off and sentenced Universal Pictures to 10 yrs inprisonment for actually making F&F6....no early release and no parole.

    1. Havin_it
      Joke

      Re: BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

      ^This. I'd have advised the lad to go for an insanity plea.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      Re: BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

      And what about those who actually download and watch it?

      1. TitterYeNot

        Re: BRITISH JUSTICE....Best in the world!!

        "And what about those who actually download and watch it?"

        Compensation for brain damage and mental scarring I would have thought, if there's any justice in this world...

  2. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Sir

    I would like to see a table where all the crimes in this country and their respective sentences were all compared and ranked accordingly.

    I really want to know if the judges consider copyright infringement more serious than rape or burglary for example.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Sir

      "Potential revenue", man.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sir

      The bastard who did this, for example, only ended up serving four years.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7577646.stm

      Property, you see, especially that belonging to the Corporations is worth more than a human being.

      1. Cliff

        Civil --> Criminal

        I still don't quite get how what is surely a civil offence at its heart is handled as criminal by the courts? How is it the state's job to do corporation's enforcement for them?

        These are real questions by the way. If a client doesn't pay an invoice, it's civil, and up to me to take the guy to court, and at worst he'll pay the invoice plus interest. If a company digger runs me over and I want compo for time off work, I can take them to court as a civil action and maybe get some reparation. If I slander Jeffrey Archer and he takes me to court he can win significant damage from me, but none of these are criminal, none carry prison sentences. We don't have debtors prisons. So how does beach of licence become a criminal thing with real prison sentences and the state paying for the enforcement. It seems kinda fucked, y'know?

        1. Vic

          Re: Civil --> Criminal

          I still don't quite get how what is surely a civil offence at its heart is handled as criminal by the courts?

          He was charging for each copy - that means it's a commercial endeavour, and so covered by the notorious Seciotn 107 of CDPA '88.

          That makes it a criminal offence.

          I've offered my vote to any politician who will repeal this legislation. None have taken me up on the offer...

          Vic.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Civil --> Criminal

          "I still don't quite get how what is surely a civil offence at its heart is handled as criminal by the courts?"

          If he had merely recorded or uploaded the files then it would have stayed in civil court.

          _Selling_ the items in question is what got him criminal charges - the anomaly here is that the stuff which was torrented was treated as if he as also sold it at the same value in order to reach the criminal threshold.

        3. SolidSquid

          Re: Civil --> Criminal

          The copyright act was amended a while back so that commercial copyright infringement was considered a criminal offence rather than a civil one. If he hadn't been selling them then it would have been much tougher for them to try and get him charged under criminal law

      2. I'm Brian and so's my wife

        Re: Sir

        That is a disgraceful situation and outcome.

        There are plenty of injustices on a daily basis, but being a cyclist, I have a particular beef with drivers who kill and get 6 month suspended sentences and possibly a point or two on their licence. If they'd used a hand-held weapon, such as a knife, then they would probably be looking at a couple of decades in jail.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: Sir

          So many cyclists look to ignore any traffic rule as if being on a bicycle gives them any special exemptions. Especially sport cyclists who always think they're at the Tour and any road is dedicated to them. People on motorbikes are no better. Just, a car is bigger, heavier...

          Also intention in crimes is punished more. This guy didn't fall into a cinema with his camera unintentionally pointed at the screen while recording. Nor he was selling copies by mistake.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Cyclist

            There definitely are some cyclists who go through red lights, and infringe other rules. But then there are MANY who don't. I'd estimate the proportion who break rules willy nilly as around the same for motorists who do that.

            The fact remains that the metal box is going to cause more harm than a bike ever can

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

              1. Tom 260

                Re: Cyclist

                "But not one of them killed the 1754 people who died on UK roads in 2012"

                Statistics will tell you anything, mainly because the majority of pedestrians killed in collisions with cyclists are on the pavement.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Cyclist

                There certainly are annoying twats on bicycles who jump lights and such.

                But not one of them killed the 1754 people who died on UK roads in 2012,

                Not true. At least some of those 1754 were cyclists who killed themselves through their own stupidity. Hopefully they didn't injure anyone else while doing so.

                I certain;y see plenty of cyclistrs on my daily commuyte who seem determined to remove themselves from tne gene pool, ignoreing red lights, cycling on the road right beside the dedicated cycle lines.

              3. JEDIDIAH
                Devil

                Re: Cyclist

                > But not one of them killed the 1754 people who died on UK roads in 2012, killed entirely by motorists.

                Not directly at least. You can still cause plenty of havoc on the road by simply being a menace to navigation. Someone can easily cause an accident and fatalities by pulling some stupid stunt that everyone else has to react to.

            2. LDS Silver badge

              Re: Cyclist

              "The fact remains that the metal box is going to cause more harm than a bike ever can"

              That's something cyclist should be aware of but prefer to ignore, as they think a cyclist "always has precedence", even if in a dark night without any bicycle light...

              I'm always very careful when I have a cyclist in sight, because there's a good chance he'll do something stupid.

              But back to the "crime" - a car accident may involve a voluntary act or not. Most road accidents are not voluntary, although there could be behaviours that could lead to a bigger responsibility (alcohol, drugs, careless driving, using a (smart)phone, etc.) and should get a bigger punishment - not always happen, true. Not all crash are judged the same way.

              But if you perform a crime voluntarily, and you know it is a crime, why shouldn't you get a punishment? Stealing is a crime. Even if you do it with a camera in a cinema.

              If someone with the same camera would film you in bed with someone, from outside, and publishes it, what punishment would you ask for? Nothing because he didn't really steal anything? Or your privacy is veeeeeery important, but movie theatres can close because people steal movies?

              If someone makes copies of your private photos from your phone while repairing it, and publishes/sells them, what punishment would you ask for? Or after all he didn't steal anything, it's just a copy, thereby he should not deserve any real punishment, just some time cleaning parks?

              It's always easy to assert something is not a crime, as long as it doesn't touch us very close. Then, torture and death are not enough....

              1. JEDIDIAH
                Linux

                Re: Cyclist

                Stealing is not something that can be done with a camera.

                Words have particular meanings. When you LIE about them you abdicate any moral authority you might have. Just as in programming, the law requires precision and even a misplaced single character can gravely alter the meaning or even functionality of something.

          2. Frankee Llonnygog

            Re: Sir

            You don't see many cyclists riding along while updating their Facebook page and yelling at the kids in the back

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

              Re: Sir

              Sentences, imho, should reflect the crime to some degree.

              Imprisonment should primarily be about protecting the public from harm due to the nature of the offence etc. - I don't see how this is relevant in this particular case.

              Financial crimes should be punished financially. Community service, reduction of priveledges such as accessing the internet (if relevant to the crime) - curfew orders based on time/location etc.

              For example, this guy was guilty of selling someone else's intellectual property via the internet. Lots of community service, a fine and no internet for two years would be more applicable than locking him up at the taxpayers expense - what value do I get from the transaction as a taxpayer? Do I feel safer because he's locked up? Hardly.

              If someone were caught selling bootleg copies at the market a punishment of community service, not allowed near a market for 2 years etc. would be more applicable.

              I just don't see the value for me. It looks like the police are now sponsored by the corporations, so the honest thing to do would at least make the corporations pay for the incarceration - but that would be admitting that the police were effectively (if not directly) on the payroll, and even the myopic general public might be able to add things up at that point, the politicians can't have that.

              1. LDS Silver badge

                Re: Sir

                Ask people who used to live renting movies legally and now lost their jobs if the believe some community service is enough....

                1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                  Re: Sir

                  "Ask people who used to live renting movies legally and now lost their jobs if the believe some community service is enough...."

                  Classic misdirection.

                  I stopped renting because it was cheaper to BUY the material in question. So did most other people.

                  Especially when renting a DVD which wasn't new release had a 50:50 chance of finding the disc so badly scratched it wouldn't play - you might get your money back but the frustration factor is enough to make you go elsewhere, and video shops found that DVDs had much shorter lifspans than VHS tapes

                  The physical rental market was faltering _long_ before downloading became ubiquitous - and it was netflix which laid the deathblow, not "piracy"

              2. LDS Silver badge

                Re: Sir

                "Financial crimes should be punished financially"

                Are you sure? Some financial crimes can have big impacts on people lives, and create big damages. Do you believe Madoff didn't deserve jail time? Or people at Enron?

            2. LDS Silver badge

              Re: Sir

              I see people on bicycles on phone calls and texting...

    3. Jonathan Richards 1

      Re: Sir

      > I would like to see a table ...

      You could set about compiling one from the information presented here:

      UK Sentencing Guidelines.

      33 months is less than one would get for a rape conviction (guideline 4-19 years).

    4. Aitor 1 Silver badge

      Re: Sir

      I can tell you that driving over a cyclist on a straight road is cheaper...

    5. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Sir

      This is a thief. He had stolen and resold stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?

      1. Wade Burchette

        Re: Sir

        @LDS - "This is a thief. He had stolen and resold stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?"

        To be a thief implies something physical was taken. You cannot steal an image. By your logic, if I sneak into a movie theater then I am a thief because my eyes saw an image I did not pay to see. This is copyright infringement. It is still wrong. But it is not the same type of crime as theft because he did not rob the studios. Actual factual theft, not your pseudo-theft, is more serious because the owner is denied the right to use what is his. This copyright infringement did not stop the movie from being played in the theater.

        1. LDS Silver badge

          Re: Sir

          I wish someone one day will make copies of some of your "private" photos or the like and publishes/sells them. Then I'm not sure your stance about "it's not stealing because nothing physically was taken" will still hold.

          Stealing doesn't imply "physical goods" implies "damages". It's the damage that leads to punishment, not the removal of something "physical". Or is I steal a Porsche and leave a Trabant it's not a crime because there is still a car? Or there is still a damage - a financial one, because the latter value is far inferior? Or there is something called "ownership" that means you can't do everything you like with something that is not yours? If you sneak into a movie theater you are still commiting a crime, or do you mean that sneaking into private properties is not one?

          I understand that almost everybody here probably download music and movies illegally, but at least, don't try to assert it's right and those people who steal for your downloaded should get little punishment because otherwise your download sources will drain and you're too coward to steal yourself...

          1. Vic

            Re: Sir

            don't try to assert it's right and those people who steal for your downloaded should get little punishment

            The phrases "it isn't stealing" and "it's right" are entirely different and mean different things.

            Breaching copyright isn't right, and is punishable. But that doesn't make it stealing. Stealing has its own definition, and this isn't it.

            Vic.

            1. LDS Silver badge

              Re: Sir

              Copyright and patents exists to avoid to "steal" ideas. Or do you imply that industrial espionage in not "stealing"? Copy-right exists exactly to rule about rights of copying someone else work. Because in this case you can steal without actually removing the original. But it's still stealing if you damage the owner and profit from it. You all try to absolve yourself "hey, it's a copy, after all, I'm not stealing, I'm not a thief". No. You're stealing someone else property - intellectual or not -, and you're a thief.

              1. Vic

                Re: Sir

                Copyright and patents exists to avoid to "steal" ideas

                No they don't. Infringing on copyright or patent rights does not deprive the original holder of that property, and is therefore not stealing. That doesn't make it right - but it's no more stealing than it is paedophilia.

                Or do you imply that industrial espionage in not "stealing"?

                I don't imply it - I'm outright stating it. Industrial espionage is not stealing, nor is it arson - it is industrial espionage

                Copy-right exists exactly to rule about rights of copying someone else work.

                Correct. No argument there whatsoever.

                Because in this case you can steal without actually removing the original

                No you can't. Stealing would deprive the original copyright holder of his property such that he can no longer exploit it. So you *could* steal his (copyrighted) manuscript, but you cannot steal his materiel by way of copying it. It's just not possible.

                You all try to absolve yourself

                No. No-one is trying to absolve anyone. Copyright infringement is wrong, and there are few more vocal about that being wrong than I. But trying to claim that it is "stealing" just makes you look ignorant - it isn't stealing, it isn't treason, it isn't GBH. It is wrong, but it isn't tax evasion.

                Vic.

              2. The First Dave

                Re: Sir

                The clue is in the name - "Copyright" is all about "Copying" - nothing to do with theft.

              3. JEDIDIAH
                Linux

                Re: Sir

                > Or do you imply that industrial espionage in not "stealing"?

                You have a pathalogical need to distort language and the law in order to make a point.

                To an objective observer, that makes your point seem much less valid. If you feel compelled to lie and commit fraud to make your argument then your position must not be very sound.

          2. Down not across

            Re: Sir

            I understand that almost everybody here probably download music and movies illegally, but at least, don't try to assert it's right and those people who steal for your downloaded should get little punishment because otherwise your download sources will drain and you're too coward to steal yourself...

            When did anyone infer that upoading the movie was right? The point is it is not stealing. It is copyright infringement. I don't recall anyone even suggesting that infringement wouldn't be financially damaging.

            As for the examples in your post, I'm afraid they're rather poor.

            Posting someone's private photos online is not stealing, but has potential to break number of other laws depending on the exact case.

            Stealing the Porsche is still stealing whether you leave a Trabant in its place or not.

            Assuming everyone here downloads music and movies illegally is bad generalisation. Since you've been here long enough (judging by having a badge) you would know that actually in general commentards are not advocating privacy at all and more for the content owners to provide content in convenient and reasonably priced manner. I think you will find that a lot of commentards are payhing for their content via services like Netflix or Lovefilm.

            1. LDS Silver badge

              Re: Sir

              My example shows that when it's your damage then the punishment needs to be big, when it is someone else, especially if it is a bad big company, and you get an advantage too, then punishment should be mild. Unluckily, Law can't reason this way.

              I have a Sky subscription, and all the movies/series I watch come from there. I still buy music on CDs because I don't trust downloads/streaming, and I don't need every and each song released.

              But I know too many people who don't pay any subscription but watch a lot of movies and series, and see too many portable hard disk shuffling around with a lot of illegally copied movies on them. I know people with dedicate machines to download torrents day and night.

              All of them with incomes good enough to pay for a subscription or the like. But hey, why pay when you can get for free, and use those money from something else, maybe a new bigger TV, a new smartphone, and holiday? People are greed. Hollywood people are greed and try to make you pay over and over for shitty contents, and other greed people steal them because instead of sending a clear message to Hollywood, they are the same type of greed people and want those contents.

              It's true not everybody does it, but the percentage if high enough to make it a real damage to the owners, and that could be a crime, even if you don't like the owner. Stealing from a thief is still stealing.

              1. depicus

                Re: Sir

                Not quite sure you understand the definition of theft so here it is.

                "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

                Note the key words property, permanently depriving. Both categorically deny you can "steal" a film.

                1. big_D Silver badge

                  Re: Sir

                  @Vic, @depicus

                  Exactly, you can deprive the artists / copyright owner of possible income due to copying, but you don't actually steal his product.

                  Both are obviously abhorrent, but copying isn't theft.

            2. JEDIDIAH
              Linux

              Re: Sir

              > Posting someone's private photos online is not stealing, but has potential to break number of other laws depending on the exact case.

              This tangent highlights an entirely different problem. We have a public discourse on this subject that is dominated by the crass interests of publishing corporations. The idea of a "personal paper" is completely overlooked. The law and most public perspective treats every worthless scrap of paper as some masterpiece that needs to be protected from harm lest someone publish it without permission.

              The issue of "personal papers being stolen" really does not fit into the current framework at all.

          3. Someone Else Silver badge
            Mushroom

            @ LDS -- Re: Sir

            I understand that almost everybody here probably download music and movies illegally, [...]

            Then your "understanding" of "almost everybody here" is even more brain-dead than your understanding of copyright infringement.

            LDS, Abe Lincoln once said: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Although that horse as clearly left the barn in your case, here's a nice bowl of STFU to help keep you from degenerating from blithering idiot down to fucking moron.

      2. DiViDeD Silver badge

        Re: Sir

        "...thief.. blah blah .. stolen .. blah .. stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?"

        Actually, more like, how would you feel if you were selling photos of your house, and he came along, took his own photo and started selling that.

        Theft involves depriving somebody of something. He didn't nick the cinema screen, he just took pictures of it.

        What he did was not right, but it isn't something we should be wasting the court's time with, ffs.

      3. JEDIDIAH
        Mushroom

        Re: Sir

        > This is a thief. He had stolen and resold stolen goods. How much would you ask if someone robbed you?

        Been there. Did that.

        I asked for monetary damages. I had to. "The law" had no interest in prosecuting the offender.

        Now these were real damages, not something just imagined or a matter of wishful thinking. This was a repeat offender that had a trail of victims going in both directions. As I already said: "The law" just wanted to ignore him.

        Eventually got the money back. A good lawyer helps. Now that's sorted, I am not sure I want to spend the cost of Harvard tuition to keep him locked away from the world. The public record of the court case will do enough to slow him down in future.

        Again. These were REAL damages and not just some made up sh*t.

    6. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Sir

      I agree, although I see a big difference between recording it for your own "enjoyment" or maybe giving it to a couple of friends and selling copies to anybody and everybody.

      If he was selling it at 1.50 a pop, then he deserves whatever is thrown at him, but as has been pointed out, this is essentially a civil offence, not a criminal one...

    7. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Sir

      I can tell you that theft in the U.S. is ALWAYS punished more than violence.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    3 days ago?

    Have you lot been asleep?

  4. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    It was subsequently downloaded more than 700,000 times

    I don't believe for a second that 700K juveniles want to download this.

  5. phil dude
    Thumb Down

    weekend..

    this is why El Reg has a weekend edition, to cover issues that are not mainstream...

    I mean, how could this ever affect any of us...

    P.

    1. phil dude
      Coat

      Re: weekend..

      This is clearly an absurd situation, and I invite the negative reaction disproportionate to the original story.

      P.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019