US Authorities Silence NinjaVideo Founder, Rush Her to Prison
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
That's so absurd. It's like the 1st Amendment doesn't even exist anymore, or the authorities simply don't care it exists.
This is why it's so important to stop the US Government from banning "Twitter propaganda speech" from Middle East, too. If they succeed with that, the next action is doing the same in US.
"Under Turner, prisoner communication may be monitored and regulated, and the content of the communication (i.e., the legal advice) makes no difference in the assessment of the legality of the regulation."
She was sentenced but not yet a prisoner, etc.
There was nothing illegal about incarcerating her sooner rather than later (this is not commentary on the justness or lack thereof of her sentence).
If one says "fuck you" to the judge, instead of "thank you," one is more likely to hear "well, fuck you," back.
"I know it is ridiculous that I'm going away at all... I know, and I know that there is a huge inclination to hate on the judge for giving me such a sentence, but know this, probably any other judge on that bench would have given me what the government asked for... because they are the motherfuckin' government, and could do whatever they want. He gave me less than half of what the government wanted and though it is harsh... we are file sharers ffs... I can do 22 months on my motherfuckin head. In fact for the first time in years, I can probably not dread the first of the month coming around. I'll drop a couple of pounds, pick up another degree or something, and make 17 cents an hour making license plates. //care. Fuck a landlord." http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/showthread.php?20347-My-quot-...
What, you want she should have no personality? That's how she got so loved (and hated) in the first place. That website got 6 million eyeballs a month.
I posted her actual letter to the judge here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464862
"The government cites nothing that warrants reconsideration. Reviewing NinjaVideo’s Facebook page, and a related internet forum, the government finds a woman who is letting off some steam in her online community. In fact, in Ms. Beshara’s post-sentencing musings, she writes (in admittedly colorful language that is fairly common on the internet) to reassure friends and supporters that she will be able to handle serving the twenty-two month sentence. Govt Motion, Exhibit 2. She jokes about maybe losing some weight, picking up a degree, earning pennies making license plates. Id. Reflecting on her actual sentence, she notes that it would be natural to resent the judge that had imposed jail time on her, but she recognizes that she received a relatively lenient sentence. Id. These are not the writings of a defendant who is "likely to flee." Ms. Beshara was writing about serving her sentence, she was retrospective about how it easily could have been worse, how she could have received more jail time. She is preparing to go to jail, not to run from it.
The government does not dispute that Ms. Beshara is not a flight risk. Instead, they present two unpersuasive arguments. First, the government argues that Ms. Beshara poses a danger to the community due to internet postings that the government claims "suggest she may engage in physical violence with her future fellow inmates." Govt Motion at 2. As an initial matter, this is simply not a basis for reconsideration as it is not evidence that Ms. Beshara poses a "danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released." See 18 U.S.C. §3145(a). The government’s position amounts to the bizarre argument that Ms. Beshara should be incarcerated sooner because she will present a danger to "future fellow inmates" once incarcerated. Govt Motion at 2.
Moreover, the postings the government refers to are simply the online bluster of someone who has never spent a moment incarcerated. For example, the government notes Ms. Beshara’s posting that she will "run" her "cell block." Id. at 3. Ms. Beshara won’t even be on a cell block. She is clearly joking, as she jokes about having to make license plates. In fact, subsequent to the posts the government complains about, Ms. Beshara writes, "Nah but seriously guys, this is a sad and tragic situation and I want us to smile and laugh and stay together." See Govt Mtn, Exhibit 3, top of page 3."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78155255/Beshara-reply-to-Gov-s-Mo...
The obvious problem here is sending copyright violators to federal prison for long terms, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Killers and drug dealers often get shorter sentences, and bankers that steal billions don't go to prison at all.
To say this is justice is a stretch.
Running a video site that hosts unlicensed content uploaded by users is what youtube did for years. Where are the prison terms for their founders?
Really the only difference I see is she is black and doesn't have friends in high places. If she sold the site to Google she'd be on the cover of Forbes rather than in jail.
NinjaVideo is a site that's #1 purpose is to upload copyrighted tv shows and movies, hours after their airing. Its defined purpose is piracy.
Clear difference from YouTube here.
As to your "Why aren't they being investigated." comment -- they are, YouTube is quite proactive in automatic removals, DMCA's, detection of copyrighted music, etc.
It's absurd to claim YouTube is not about unlicensed content. The vast majority of their streamed content was unlicensed for the first few years they were up. To deny this is to deny history. It took them a long time to catch hold for video blogging, a lot of which had to wait on people having cameras included with their laptops before it took off. But even now, the unlicensed content is as strong as ever, they just have more licensed content on top of it.
YouTube has deals with major content producers (music labels, movie studios, etc.) which work in the following way: whenever we discover a video that infringes their copyright, they can choose to either block it, monetize it or track it. What blocking means is quite obvious; monetizing means that we put ads in front of the video and share the revenue; tracking means no ads are shown, but the owner can access analytics about the video (how often it is uploaded, how many people watch it, where from, and so on). You can read more about it here: [1].
As you may imagine, this system changes the incentives for copyright owners. When they decide to block some video, all they achieve is making some YouTube uploader unhappy. If they decide to monetize, on the other hand, they start making money from the upload, and the clip becomes, effectively, a marketing tool for their product. If you, say, watch clips from a TV series on YouTube, that may be a signal that you like the series and will eventually watch it on TV or iTunes. What is more, uploaders try to select clips they find interesting and think other people would like to watch – so this in some way turns YouTube into crowdsourced advertising.
(Disclaimer: I work as a programmer at Google and I work on YouTube.)
edit: Downvote all you want, it doesn't change history or facts, much as you may want it to.
Not always. This case was for criminal infringement (and conspiracy). The definition of criminal infringement was expanded by the NET Act a long time ago, but only recently have there been many cases of it making the news.
Here's an article on how the whole criminal infringement thing works if you want to know more:
http://www.ericgoldman.org/Articles/warezcriminalcopyright.p...
Your comment didn't add anything to the discussion and could be replaced by the 'Upvote' button.
Comparing NinjaVideo.net to YouTube is a bit of a stretch. NinjaVideo.net's sole purpose was to host high-quality unlicensed content, they would feature the unlicensed content, and it was clearly what was driving traffic to their website. If you never saw the site, just take a look in the internet archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100104054215/http://www.ninjavi...
Their frontpage was basically a list of links (the administrators curated and posted these links, complete with graphic banners like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20100104054215im_/http://i47.tiny..., and captions like "the DVDRip is here!!! Enjoy" and "here's a Screener for you") to stream whatever new content was on TV that night, or whatever movies had recently been released (sometimes even before they hit theaters). By simply taking a peak at their forum it was pretty clear that the administrators of the site had a relationship with the "uploaders" and commissioned them to upload the unlicensed content to megaupload where it would then be streamed in high-quality using the "NinjaVideo Helper" (basically a java applet that pushed megaupload content to the DivX web player). I'd venture to guess any DMCA takedown notices would be forwarded to /dev/null.
The clearest difference, imo, is that YouTube allows users to upload content (content can be uploaded without the owners of the site ever seeing it). NinjaVideo did not allow users to upload content, the owners added pages which allowed you to stream content hosted on megaupload (for any video to end up on NinjaVideo, the admins had to add it).
The lost opportunity has become a sardonic cliche.
And some waybacks but they don't really show it as it was: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20090601000000*/http://www.ni...
Here's where PC World listed it among it's 2009 100: http://www.pcworld.com/article/174387/2009_pc_world_100_list...
It wouldn't have been allowed to dominate, it would have still been forced to close some sort of way. Before NV, there was Stage6 that provided the same high quality service and it closed up shop.
Does anyone honestly think piracy should go unpunished? People that upload movies, music, games etc should be punished, as they are doing something illegal and and the people downloading should also be punished as they are getting the content without paying the creators.
I'm curious if anyone has any logical argument about why they should go unpunished.
Edit: I hate to be the dude that posts the stupid downvote edit, but seriously, I'm posing a question, I'm not stating what should or shouldn't happen. Please post why or why not you disagree instead of just blindly hitting the downvote. The downvote button is for unsavory comments, trolls, etc
The first one is whether copyright infringement as I think she was part of really hurts content producers. If someone is unwilling to pay a couple dollars for a movie in iTunes, you are not likely to buy the DVD either, thus, it's not a lost sale. If, OTOH, the work gets more exposure thanks to alternative distribution networks and that generates more customer engagement, the content producer wins in the end.
The second is whether books, movies, music and games whose primary purpose is to make a profit can be considered art. I think they can't. The primary purpose - and usefulness - of art is to transform the people who experience it. I don't think laws should protect the business model of selling art and experiences, but their usefulness.
A third question is whether it's even possible to prevent the duplication of digital goods. Most probably it isn't. Businesses must adapt to new realities - should typewriter makers be afforded the right to ban computer sales because they hurt the already established business?
Another one is whether they were turning in a profit. If they were, part of it belongs, rightfully, to the content producers.
Finally, there is her attitude towards law enforcement. I understand her frustration with what she considers unfair laws and processes. I am not sure her attitude is constructive and that sending her to jail was the best way to deal with it. If I were the judge, I'd like to lecture her about what she's doing that can be misinterpreted as threats. Jails are very tense environments and they don't need more agitation than they already have.
Seriously? This is not an issue of whether it financially hurts the content producer, it's that you're getting it without paying for it, and others are paying for it. You're getting access to content that you haven't paid for.
Remember many people outside America can't use Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, etc.
These are ephemeral goods we are talking about. Nobody loses anything if you download a movie. I don't see how it is morally wrong to download something if the creators refuse to take your money.
How does that make it any different?
How about this: famous dress maker designs and creates an extravagant dress and then you, with your fine sowing skills replicate the dress entirely and wear it. Is that not wrong in your eyes?
The above isn't the best example, but I still can't see the reasoning as to why it's not wrong.
Secondly, I don't see why it would be immoral: the designer of the dress is not hurt at all by your copying it. Now, if you claim your dress has actually been made by said designer--e.g. you infringe on his trademark--that's basically fraud and a completely different case.
The real issue is that it seems you define "wrong" as an enumeration of things you shouldn't do, among which you seem to include copying without permission.
You haven't given any reason for it to be wrong. I think that something is not "wrong" or "immoral" by default; unless there's a good reason for something to be wrong, it shouldn't be. And, as copying like this does not obviously harm society, I see no reason for it to be wrong.
The major content producers and their organizations (the RIAA, etc.) are stupid, but I think it's rather hard to allege that they don't have the moral high ground.
It's an entertainment product you can choose to access.
It gets even worse because many people don't live next to a restaurant.
Plus, all these analogies fail at one simple point: when a work is copied, a copy is created and nothing is destroyed except the scarcity someone wants to create for things that, by definition, cannot be scarse.
Piracy, for me is certainly not about not wanting to pay. It's about the feeling that the money I pay mostly doesn't go to creators, but to the companies in-between who doesn't deserve it. I don't want to support such an industry.
It also the fact that I want to push for legal alternatives which are as easy-to-use as piracy today. I want to press a link and have a 1080p DRM-free film download in minutes. The cost is not the issue.
I hope that, within 20 years, sharing will be legal. Just because it's written as illegal in the law today, it's not set in stone. Things can change, and for the sake of the creative people, I hope it does.
I agree, though, that this industry is rotten... A pirated copy of any game, music, or video is not only cheaper and more convenient, but its of better quality (DRM-free). You can't win a fight where you attack both pirates and consumers.
Those who lose are the current artists who remain with the big companies. Hopefully, they'll find a way out of that system.
This, to me, sounds like an inefficient business model.
When you have the funds to fight both your customers and pirates, lobby the government, and constantly man a PR machine, while losing market share, I have to wonder - how much cash are they sitting on?
When I was in the U.K. I was a subscriber of Spotify and I didn't once pirate a song, as it was easily available in high quality.
Yet I still think piracy should be illegal, it has to be! Why should it be legal in 20 years? Shouldn't we just have a way to 'press a link and have a 1080p DRM free film downloaded in minutes' instead of having to resort to an illegal method?
Spotify is exactly what I mean by good legal alternative, except for that I still don't believe the artists are compensated very well. If there are enough reasonably priced legal alternatives available everywhere, piracy will shrink in importance. I say, if there's a last 2 or 3 percent of the population who don't feel like paying for themselves - let them. It's better than this hunt for file-sharers that's been launched by media-companies.
I'm curious to know how the two situations differ. In both cases, parties have entered into contractual agreements to give up a large portion of ownership in exchange for money and other benefits they wouldn't otherwise receive if they tried to bootstrap things on their own. Would you rather people get 5 cents on the dollar from your purchase so that they could save up enough profit to not have to give up so much ownership the next time? Or 0 cents on the dollar from your piracy and not be able to save anything such that they're forced into the same arrangement the next time?
If you get 0 cents with piracy, you will get the same 0 cents without it.
"Piracy, for me is certainly not about not wanting to pay.
It's about the feeling that the money I pay mostly doesn't
go to creators, but to the companies in-between who doesn't
deserve it. I don't want to support such an industry."
"I want to pay, but the creators don't get most of the money.
So rather than paying, I pirate instead."
Besides which, your statement that "piracy != lost sale" is demonstrably false. You could have qualified your statement with "in some cases" or "for some people", but such a trivially true claim wouldn't add much to the discussion since the discussion is about what one person does.
The issue also remains, that by buying a product from one of the large companies would mean I'm indirectly sponsoring SOPA. This would not be the case, I hope, when I buy a product from your company.
It's your Birthday. Your friends invited you to the nicest restaurant in town. Very nice venue, food is great. End of meal... time for dessert. Your friends love you and, together, singe you the nicest rendition of 'Happy Birthday To You' you ever heard. Life is good.
This was an illegal performance. Secret police comes in, puts your friends in prison (they stole & performed the song) and also you and everyone in the restaurant at that time go to prison as well because you got the song without paying the creators.
Of course, according to the New extended SuperSOPA law, the restaurant is closed down, and it's owner is sent to prison as well, because he should not have allowed all this to happen in the first place.
Do you really want to live in that Orwellian world?
The modification? -- One Note.
Mid-2010, nine sites connected to movie streaming were targeted by the U.S. government. They included NinjaVideo.net, at the time one of the Internet’s most prominent video streaming sites.
One of her co-founders admitted to making 58k$ off ninja-video.
People playing Nirvana in a garage and singing Happy Birthday to You at birthday parties is not the same thing as downloading material that you have access to buy. It's accepted that we can partake in these luxuries. If we want to profit off them though, we do have to pay a licensing fee.
The current legislation under consideration surrounding copyrights attempts to shift the burden of enforcement from the private, copyright-holding entities to the public, or another private company that is only tangentially related (i.e. advertising platforms).
Obviously photographs and text is a lot harder, but movies are pretty clear due to the cost that goes into production.
What about hulu.com? Should we have a list of "approved" websites somewhere? Also, how do you know that hulu has proper licenses for their videos?
There was a recent case when Amazon licensed (remember, that we're dealing with licensing in case of copyright laws, not selling) "1984" for Kindles for which they didn't have the proper license. Why haven't those people (who downloaded the book into their Kindles) been prosecuted? It would be easy to do, since Amazon had the list of customers. Or should we apply laws selectively?
Prison is not about punishment, in a civil society; it's about isolating individuals with the potential to irreparably harm their community. Unless the copyright holders go bankrupt as a direct, proven result of infringers' actions, there is simply no irreparable harm done: the rightsholder still owns the IP and is free to sell it.
Probation is actually pretty shitty, and in some cases totally effective at ruining your quality of life.
As far as this woman, she ran a video site that had user uploaded content that was streamed to other users. Same business model as youtube and google videos, and youtube has more unlicensed content than ninja video ever did yet isn't being investigated at all.
In Madoff's case, at least some of the money is off short and some is hidden.
What's violent about disobeying a judge?
In any event, we've established that the line isn't (just) violent.
I'm pretty sure most "so-and-so discography" torrents would qualify for the first one.
If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that piracy is illegal, and prevents authors to be payed.
But just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's right. Provided a law is morally wrong, for instance, punishment for breaking said law would also be morally wrong, and should not be supported. You'll probably also cheer to the freedom fighter breaking laws to overcome a dictator.
Interestingly, most Americans would probably deny that anybody has a right to have income, or a minimum level of wealth and health in every other profession (for this would be "socialism"). So, why should authors and investors in creative works have that right?
After all, the authors of most works have been payed. Most of the time, even the investors in these works have been paid as well. What you argue is basically that authors and investors haven't been paid 'enough'. But how do we rationally determine what payment is 'enough' or not?
Of course, these "pirates" are fooling themselves if they think their moral arguments hold. Most of them don't do anything constructive (unlike, say, Open Source developers, or the Creative Commons community).
The issue with digital content versus physical content is that there is no cost of replication, whereas with physical goods the cost of replication goes beyond the initial R&D, it goes into the actual materials, machinery and labour to produce it. I believe this is where the "it's okay to pirate content" comes from -- because theres no 'money lost'.
Your second sentence does not follow at all from the first. When people have a fixed budget, piracy might not change how much they spend, but it will change the distribution of the spending.
For instance, if someone could not pirate, they might buy two albums a month and see one movie in a theater. If they pirate, they can pirate the music, and go out to the movies twice. Same total spent, but the musicians have been harmed, and the movie producers have benefited.
And only wrong things should be punished.
You claim that downloaders must be punished because "they are getting the content without paying the creators". You actually don't have any idea whether this is the case. Please stop pretending that you do know.
For instance, I have often downloaded or streamed content that I've already paid for in two (cable subscription, DVD purchase) or even three different ways.
Who are you to assume that a given customer did not pay the creators?
Frankly, since this fallaciousness is the entirety of your argument, you have a lot of nerve asking others for a logical argument about why a given downloaded should "go unpunished". In this society, last I checked, the default stance on any and all conduct was that it should "go unpunished", as you put it. Only via clear, just laws and rigorous proof should this standard ever be overruled.
Your point has provided none, it's just provided some moral high ground.
You completely ignored everything I said about the uploader too, the focus of my point.
If I was in charge, laws would only restrict the freedom of the people for the safety of others (and even then it would only do so by making harmful acts illegal, not by spying on them or other crazy things). Intellectual property would only outlaw copying for commercial use, which would allow artists to make money from movie theaters, concerts, etc.
I'm sure many problems would arise from such a world, but I doubt that they'll be worse than the problems from the current system, and I'm sure that given time and actually implementing it, the kinks could be worked out.
Libraries are an institutionalised form of piracy.
Am I wrong here? Thoughts? I've just had a philosophical discussion with my Dad about piracy and this was one of the conclusions we seemed to make.
1) "Piracy" is actually copyright infringement.
2) The license to read a book accompanies the physical copy.
3) Libraries are not engaging in copyright infringement.
4) Thus libraries are not engaging in "piracy".
There is nothing "philosophical" about it, it's just plain old common sense.
Difference between Ninjavideo and most other streaming sites is they didn't even try to hide behind safe harbor. Only people who could post links were staff and a handful of trusted uploaders. They plastered banners all over the front page advertising new movies (like "new dvd rip out today woot!"). Talked constantly about how they were pirates.
Even Piratebay comes of as timid and diplomatic. It was just a matter of time before something really bad was going to happen.
EDIT: They weren't just linking to videos, but admitting to uploading them.
"Your Honor,
Firstly, please let me apologize for my use of foul language in the documents that you will see before you. The idea of you reading my statements and seeing them as they are phrased makes me wince quite uncomfortably. I am an incredibly articulate person your honor, but the nature of the internet is one of bluster, and bravado, and scathing comebacks. So do forgive the boorish language as it is the nature of the beast, or at least, the nature of this beast at this very moment.
Sir, I am not belittling my sentence as the prosecution claims. I have no desire at all to go to prison and the sheer thought of it makes my stomach turn. To say that I can do the sentence on my head is to employ the defense mechanism I have always employed when facing something of such magnitude. Sarcasm, humor, and a face of strength. Of course I'm worried, of course I'm anxious, but I cannot show that judge. It is reflex for me to deflect the serious with a wry tone or a joke about "shanks". But it should be incredibly clear that I am non-violent and that those statements are exactly what they were intended to be, jokes. In fact, I say as much just a few posts down. I'm trying to be brave for myself and for those around me. Also, I'm trying to establish as much as I can before I go in so that there is hope of actually being able to free myself of this restitution upon release. I do not want to be destitute for life. I do not want my restitution to haunt me. I want to establish myself and find work. Good work. And that is not easy for a felon.
I do very much regret what this situation has done to my family and my friends and my life, but your honor, as you know... to deny my love for my accomplishment is to deny countless marriages off my website, children named after me, a community so incredibly strong and resilient that I am in hysterics right now thinking about it. And I have never, ever tried to feign sugar coated lies about anything else. Please do not take them away from me in these next few weeks your honor. Those strangers around the world, as well as my parents, lifted me up when I was fetal on my apt floor post raid. There is no threat of recidivism... I can never put myself or those I love through this again. In fact, I listened very closely to what you said at my sentencing about advocacy and the more proper ways of conducting civil disobedience, and that is what we're doing now. I understand I am not a typical defendant your honor, and my "lack of remorse" riles the prosecution, but I would hope that my continued stance about what it is I believe would be considered commendable, even if it is a bit naive and hurting me in this process.
I have no idea if my words here are hurting me or helping me sir. That has always been a problem with me. I am a bit too fast and loose with my mouth, but I am honest sir. I am. I worked a secretarial position up until 6 months before the raid sir. I paid off a student loan with my money. I had intended to pursue a Masters. I wanted to see the world. These were real desires judge, not lofty ambitions. It was what was happening. This was about building an independent media empire. And we actually came close your Honor. We really did.
My intentions for NinjaVideo were altruistic. And I stand by that. Though I worked on NinjaMain alongside the others, my passion has always been my Forum, and that should be evidenced by the fact that I have close to 17,000 posts on that board. I was lonely judge. I always am. And I found those I called kin over these keyboards and wires and cables. My "Lost Tribe" sir. I beg your honor to have mercy and not take them away from me now. I honestly do need this time to prepare myself for my incarceration as well as close off loose ends and suspend my life.
Thank you, your Honor, for reading my letter.
Sincerely,
Hana Beshara"
https://www.facebook.com/notes/ninjavideo/hanas-response-to-...
It's not even listed on the Wikipedia page [42], and can't easily be found in google anymore. The NinjaVideo.net page now has a huge image explaining that the domain has been seized. I'd post the text here, but it'd probably be a copyright violation (and it's embedded in the image).
And this one: http://torrentfreak.com/ninjavideo-founder-sentenced-to-22-m...
And this one: http://www.app.com/article/20120113/NJNEWS10/301130030/-Quee...
And here are the sentencing memo, the government's motion for reconsideration of self-surrender, and the response to the government's motion for reconsideration of self-surrender: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77698613/Beshara-gov-Sentencing-Me...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78155255/Beshara-reply-to-Gov-s-Mo...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78155260/Beshara-motion-for-Recons...
She is a convict. The only reason she was not in jail (where she would have had no access to Facebook or Twitter or other social media) was because they had a shortage of space so were letting her stay out until space opened up.
There is no free speech issue here.
If he was instead trying to make a general argument that convicts should not have their rights restricted while they have not completed their term, or if he was arguing that prosecuting someone for massive willful copyright infringement is a violation of their rights, then I misunderstood.
I think the whole thing is disgusting and wrong. And I think that she was railroaded off because of the views she expressed post-sentencing--they were trying to make an example of her and "send waves through this community"* and she was standing up and taking it while disagreeing instead of bending over and whimpering with remorse. It's cruel, disproportionate, unjust and, frankly, mentally ill. This is not what our justice system is for at all, either prosecuting her in the first place or silencing her by whisking her away prematurely.
*"One of the reasons we targeted Ninja Video was because it had such a strong social element," says Kevin Suh, senior vice president of Internet content protection at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). "We wanted to send waves through this community." http://prospect.org/article/ninja-our-sites
I wish people would reserve down votes for comments that are expressed offensively or are blatantly off topic.
I also want to thank you for registering disagreement even when HN leans the other way. A critical voice helps you see what parts of your arguments are weak or which need to be rethought entirely.
After all, while convicts may, in general, have their rights restricted, it's not clear what state interest is being advanced by hurrying someone off to prison for making jokes on their Facebook page.
Apparently her interim address is
Hana Beshara c/o Alexandria Detention Center 2001 Mill Road Alexandria, Virginia 22314
And she'll be moved to a real prison later, but mail should be forwarded.
As IP is not a human right, non-IP is also not a human right.
BTW - if IP is not a human right, then it's reasonable that people are unnverved by imposing it on them.
Look at it that way - "Do not eat pigs" is also not a human right, and eating pigs is not a human right. It's neutral. Yet some religions demand that you respect this law. All is OK.
But when this law is made universal, and people of other faiths go to jail because of eating pigs it starts to be scary.
"I believe that downloaders are making a moral calculation and coming to the conclusion that the content industry immorally perpetuates an artificial scarcity to maximize their profits at the expense of users and artists. They understand that content is a non-rival good, that unlike an apple, they can consume it without diminishing anyone else’s ability to consume the same thing. They know that the content owner paid nothing to reproduce or distribute the content on the Internet. They also know that the artists who created the original content get a tiny fraction of the revenue. So they are making a moral judgement that the content owners are pricing their product to extract unjustifiable profits and they feel morally justified taking the content they find out there on the web." http://bradburnham.tumblr.com/post/12739727902/i-believe-in-...
File sharing has just been recognized as a religion in Sweden too and all.
In any case, something is very, very wrong here. This should never be a jailable offense, let alone one receiving such a disproportionate sentence (Naval Academy Student Sentenced To 6 Months For Rape http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/09/30/naval-academy-stude...). And then she's just whisked off to the detention center for speaking her mind about it on the Internets.
I've taken to calling the states the United Police States of Homeland Tragedy. I get really sad about how deeply disturbed things have become.