A man (34) has been sentenced to one and a half years of hard labour for the wicked crime of distributing anime online over dying P2P network Share, in what were the first arrests for Share use. The judge presiding, displaying an admirable understanding of the economics of intangible “property”, admonished him thus “It was like you were distributing bread you’d shoplifted from supermarket shelves”.
The unfortunate example apparently had engaged in some competitive sharing (just as fansubbing groups are notable for doing, we might note), with his success at bringing raws to the network earning him much esteem, or so the prosecution claimed. The defence for some reason chose not to mention his good character (?) in bringing Gundam to the masses.
The judge piped in: “Your action was as if to steal bread in great quantity, and without eating any yourself, redistribute it to others for free. In place of wickedness, your crimes were motivated by a desire for note”.
The defence offered this, though to no avail: “The defendant has not stolen anything. It is not appropriate to put this on the same level as a malevolent crime”. Via the Kyoto Shimbun.
The police have been tight lipped over how they caught these two, and looking at the details of the case (particularly the bragging on the boards aspect) my suspicion is that they may not have had their encrypted communications cracked so much as been chased down through use of non-anonymous boards; of course since this dampens any terror value it would not be something the authorities would care to emphasise.
Whatever the case, P2P users in Japan or elsewhere would be well advised to speed their migration to fully decentralised and anonymous actively developed P2P networks, of which Perfect Dark is now the best example.
Am I wrong in thinking that the police have to make their methods of evidence collection public when a case goes to trial? I was under the impression that this was what stopped them tricking people into believing they’d broken Winny’s anonymity for very long.
>Your action was as if to steal bread in great quantity, and without eating any yourself, redistribute it to others for free.
Somehow copyright cases inspire the most flawed analogies.
Is eighteen months of hard labor better or worse than being saddled with a two million dollar fine for sharing songs?
Okay, this wasn’t meant to be a response to that post, but since it is anyway I’ll address a point in it. I don’t think the police have to divulge their methods if there’s a possibility that it would jeopardize ongoing investigations. I think there’s some consideration for that in the US and possibly in Japan. Or maybe the trial was conducted in closed court, and that’s why nothing got out.