AfterDawn: Tech news

BitTorrent user convicted of Internet piracy

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 25 Oct 2005 10:20 User comments (52)

BitTorrent user convicted of Internet piracy A Hong Kong man has become the first ever person convicted of copyright infringement for uploading Hollywood movies using BiTorrent. Chan Nai-ming has been found guilty of illegally uploading at least three Hollywood blockbusters. The three movies named are Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality. The Hong Kong government said it was its first successful action against illegal P2P file sharing. Chan has been released on bail and awaits a sentencing hearing on November 7th.
"This ruling means a lot," said Hong Kong Commerce Secretary John Tsang. File sharing in the country fell by 80% after the arrest according to the Hong Kong customs department. The maximum penalty for the crime is four years and a fine. BitTorrent is widely used for movie and tv piracy because of its fast speeds and reliability. For this reason, several BitTorrent sites have been shut down in the past year and lawsuits filed against users.

Source:
BBC News

Previous Next  

52 user comments

125.10.2005 10:27

does this apply to north america

225.10.2005 10:35

nah, but similar cases will hit north america

325.10.2005 11:09

You mean similar cases will hit the US. Not Canada :D

425.10.2005 11:15

lol, canada says they dont wanna sue people. The new law is its iilegal to upload, not download.

525.10.2005 11:15

Bittorrent is not P2P is it? well yeah I guess it kinda is LOL,file shareing fell 80% in the country, yeah ok what a joke. This guy could of picked some better movies to DL. since when is it illegal to share? In school they allways encourged shareing

625.10.2005 11:30

does anybody have a link to the actuall law on file sharing in britain?? i think its all testicles by the way

725.10.2005 11:32

Uh oh... I was the one that uploaded that workprint of star wars... but they're not looking for me, are they? Nah... they've got bigger fish to fry. LoL

825.10.2005 11:33

like people who download and sell movies right. I feel sorry that they used the guy as bait to make all the other people in hong kong stop p2p-ing

925.10.2005 11:42

NINVIN21 you are an idiot...don't post if ur gonna spread stupid info ashroy01....you wish as for the article...pft they will never stop piracy in china lol

1025.10.2005 12:07
dirkadirk
Inactive

Good story, Im sure it was real hard to find someone named chan in hong kong involved in bittorrent piracy. I guess you can copyright anything these days.. I find it hard to believe that "Miss Congeniality" has ANY intellectual property in it at all.

1125.10.2005 13:42

What can one say about this... Well thats y u should get an IP blocker people its as simple as that... I dont know y people DL the movies cause the quality most of the time is crap sound and pictures... Just wait for the DVD and do a backup, its as simple as that...

1225.10.2005 14:02

its bad enough they got him for only 3 movies instead of like 100 or more.but did you see the movies he uploaded?!it would have been more comical if ISHTAR was one of the movies.maybe GLITTER or a MARY KATE & ASHELY video. i think he should get off for reason of insanity(or stupidity).

1325.10.2005 14:23

how does one block their IP exactly?

1425.10.2005 14:54

its a software called peergurdian. You can download it from this site.

1525.10.2005 16:06
Glitched
Inactive

Or you can get a ip blocker ,which can be costly $$

1625.10.2005 16:14

if it's illegal to download copyrighted material, then what about making a back-up? is that illegal too? and how come the person who uploads it doesn't get into trouble?

1725.10.2005 16:24
Glitched
Inactive

Like making a back-up with the original disc or making a back-up from the thing you dl,Ya ur right the uploaders should get into trouble 2

1825.10.2005 19:45

Man, if I were to upload anything, the only thing I would up from is a DC client. Other than that, I just make a 1:1 ratio from BitLord. Me sharing my likes over the internet is not worth going to jail for.

1925.10.2005 23:33

I don't know..I go to Best Buy a lot and ask about certain software, for instance bought some that cleans up noise after you record off of a mini cassette recorder and paid 69.00 for the software after asking a billion questions..the box was so...uninformative, of course they are going to tell you it's wonderful, great etc..I get it home and it sucked. I'd rather try something before I buy it after paying that kind of money...Same for games, some are outrageous in price only to not be what you expect or buggy. If something doesn't work right, I usually try to e mail the company to see if they can patch it or something, upgrade etc..I guess they can't make it work better if no one tells them eh? I think file sharing has its place if used right.

2026.10.2005 0:51
aabbccdd
Inactive

anyone ever used this program "Stealth Surf X-treme" to block there IP and is it better than Peer Guardian which is free . the Stealth Surf X-treme is 30 bucks

2126.10.2005 1:17

I was watching some TV program called "The Bill" (Known to a few of us from UK) and there was a guy who was convicted of illegally downloading and distributing movies and music. He was sentenced to 4 years in jail. Well, my point is people downloadingfor their on personal use are being prosecuted with fines that are far too hefty. And showing stuff like this on TV is just another way of threatning people. Let the punishment fit the crime.. Yes, I know he was uploading :) but even so, if you aren't selling the content you shouldn't have such big punishments! A slap on the wrist, and told not to do it again, If you do, you get fined sayy.. 500 if you do it again.. double it. Just my 2 pence worth. -Mike

2226.10.2005 1:21

I forgot to add.. If you upload content to the internet.. you should investigate into registered trackers. Public trackers are a very bad idea, stick with registered ones such as TorrentLeech, TorrentBytes, BlackCats-Games, etc. Downloads are a lot faster and the community seem much nicer. Requests and filters make sure you get the stuff you want. -Mike -Mike

2326.10.2005 1:55
ashtonjay
Inactive

well simple..dont upload

2426.10.2005 2:00

I find it hard to believe nobody has been sued for this in the US (as one user said). In fact I'm almost sure they have because I've even been warned by the software business alliance or whatever it's called for downloading/uploading one piece of software for a few hours over bittorrent.

2526.10.2005 2:19

Dont upload????? If nobody uploads,then there is nothing to download. After all,it is filesharing...well some of us do anyway.

2626.10.2005 7:20

hong kong.... wow 3 movies... you really have to be at a point in your life where those are the 3 titles your willing to go to jail for.... now that the can of worms are open does anyone want to guess where they got the info about the upload from... good guess the logs after they closed the website and seased the computer some one handed them a list of the ip address of the uploaders and downloader.. now with the latest shutting down of info sites they have more list... and they have all the time they want.... to prosicute those they want go after... anyone ever notice there isnt any judges kids downloading or using p2ps ... someone must have made a deal... also the US will be next... then euorope and thats just for starters.. bad things can only can come to all over those logs....

2726.10.2005 9:56

</i>I was watching some TV program called "The Bill" (Known to a few of us from UK) and there was a guy who was convicted of illegally downloading and distributing movies and music.He was sentenced to 4 years in jail. <i> 1) "The Bill" is a fictional drama series like "Law and Order" 2) The FICTIONAL eposde you mention the guy went to jail for having CD copying machinery and making physical copies of disks. http://www.thebill.com/episodes/episode_358.html <i> I find it hard to believe nobody has been sued for this in the US (as one user said).</i> <i> if it's illegal to download copyrighted material, then what about making a back-up? </i> For downloading? no one in the US has ever been successfully sued or criminally prosecuted. someone would have to fall into a sting where they were unequivocally and directly being informed by someone else that the material was under copyright and that the rights did not extend to downloading. Otherwise you simply cannot prove intent which would be needed. If you look at the various press releases from the RIAA and the mpaa which intentionally obfuscate between uploading and downloading, as well as news outlets that don't understand the terminology, you might think there have been suits or prosecutions for downlaoding, but the FACT is it is not the case. Look for example at the morons at the Times of London: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1841351,00.html on this same story: "Lawyers set sights on film downloading" Err, no, the guy was uploading and ALSO selling the films for a fee! there was also an uploader in sweden convicted yesterday but no downloaders.

2826.10.2005 12:54
dirkadirk
Inactive

This just seems a bit harsh for a non-violent crime, same thing happened to the poor guy who uploaded star wars III earlier this year, he has jail time here in the states ,meanwhile the guy who physicially took the copy from the studio has nothing but fines . Greed thats all it is , pay for our shitty movies and music or..we sue you

2926.10.2005 13:03

Mik3h I watch the Bill too! Fantastic show lol Jin666

3026.10.2005 13:06

The Bill is a fictional program but it is good. What happened to the cd guy: "PC Dan Casper and PC Amber Johannsen investigate a case of CD piracy. They discover CD burning equipment and hundreds of CDs in a house and John Orme is arrested for illegally downloading and distributing the music. Dan is convinced that Orme is covering for somebody else and is determined to find out who." Jin666

3126.10.2005 21:07

Where was that 12 yr old girl from that downloaded the music, she went to some kind of Catholic school or lived in the convent...hard to remember but I think she may have lived there, anyway, she was sued for like 1,000.00 or something...wish I could remember. Found it..here is the story...OMG..it was NURSERY RHYMES...god mom's dont sing those to your children you may get sued...rolls eyes...And TV themes???? The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) threatened to sue a twelve-year-old girl for illegally downloading music from the net. This move was part of a wider lawsuit the RIAA has filed against 261 internet users, who it claims had been illegally distributing an average of more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each. Brianna LaHara from New York was accused of downloading nursery rhymes and TV themes and offering them to other children. Brianna's mother has agreed to pay $2,000 (1,260) compensation to the RIAA. According to reports, Brianna's mother paid a 20 a month subscription fee to a file swapping service and as a result she thought her daughter was free to download files. Related links: RIAA.com" class="korostus" target="_blank">http://www.RIAA.com Related articles: Update! RIAA claims public backs anti-piracy campaign Music downloaders sued by RIAA Back to index

3227.10.2005 0:13

Quote:
The FICTIONAL eposde you mention the guy went to jail for having CD copying machinery and making physical copies of disks. http://www.thebill.com/episodes/episode_358.html
Had you actually watched the show, you would have seen that he had downloaded them, they got his ISP address, got his contact details and payed him a visit. @ Jin - Yeah, I don't always watch it, but it's a real good drama :) -Mike

3327.10.2005 4:11
andmerr
Inactive

Quote:
Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality
image getting busted for flogging the 3 worst movies, they should of paid him for bringing there crap movies to the torrent sites

3427.10.2005 4:12
andmerr
Inactive

Quote:
Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality
imagine getting busted for flogging the 3 worst movies, they should of paid him for bringing there crap movies to the torrent sites

3527.10.2005 5:32

Apparantly the guy was caught by a customs man who was monitoring the site. I think it was easier to prosecute him because he was the seed and therefore held the entire movie and was offering it for download by virtue of having an open Bittorrent. But since every frame of a movie is copyright it's probable the just partial sharing will eventually be a suable thing too. This is just the start. It is illegal in most place to offer copyrighted material for download or purchase or similar. The people who invest the money to make such material are of course going to try to stop people stealing it. I find it laughable how people try to make out the it's all about Big Bad companies and their overpricing etc. It's all about us trying to get something for nothing and then having the gall to moan when the person who own's what you are stealing tries to stop you. If you think movies are expensive then you have the choice not to watch them. You then pay nothing. You cannot blame the companies. If you produced a great song that most of the world loved but didn't get a penny because everyone just traded it then you'd be very angry - because your efforts were your efforts and not for stealing. People have got used to getting stuff for free for a long time now. It may not carry on forever. We've all downloaded various things over the years but the bottom line is this: if you can't do the time then don't do the crime. Don't turn it into some political cause when it's just about personal greed. Leaving MP3s open to download on P2Ps like Kazaa could end up with you being nicked. Now they are hitting Bittorrent. So people are moving to IRC and private FTPs. If you want to d/l you can always find a way to do it but the P2P looks like it's not going to be the safe way from now on.

3627.10.2005 13:42

AnEnigma (Newbie) 27 October 2005 1:07 Where was that 12 yr old girl from that downloaded the music, she went to some kind of Catholic school or lived in the convent...hard to remember but I think she may have lived there, anyway, she was sued for like 1,000.00 or something...wish I could remember. Found it..here is the story.. The Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) threatened to sue a twelve-year-old girl for illegally downloading music from the net. ... This move was part of a wider lawsuit the RIAA has filed against 261 internet users, who it claims had been illegally distributing an average of more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each. Brianna LaHara from New York was accused of downloading nursery rhymes and TV themes and offering them to other children. Brianna's mother has agreed to pay $2,000 (1,260) compensation to the RIAA. perfect example of someone falling for false information. the RIAA is saying downloaing when they mean uploading. They accused her of "DISTRIBUTION" according to the lawsuit. read it. The RIAA has never EVER even TRIED to sue a single person for downloading. Had you actually watched the show, you would have seen that he had downloaded them, they got his ISP address, got his contact details and payed him a visit. I have read th script to the show. it is a fictional show. even though it is fictional the writers had enough sense to have the guy be a pirate of physical disks. wher he got the material from (dowloading) is reelevent to his being arrested or convicted. this is the same as the guy in hong kong. where he got his material from is irrelevent. again I note no one has cited a case where a person ha been subject of either a prosectution or a civil suit, or even a threat of a civil suit for downloading.

3728.10.2005 12:58

In ref to 'The Bill', i was chatting to another member from here about it as it was happening. And i believe that the BPI have paid the producers of The Bill to try and dissuade file sharers. S2K - you shouldn't look into the scripts into the show too carefully. The reason it says he got caught for downloading is because a large quantity of file sharers will think 'oh no, i don't want to go to jail!' and stop sharing. Whereas, if they would have said he would be going to prison for uploading/distributing music, then most of the people who may have been frightened off will just turn to leechers. Seeing as they want to combat uploading rather than downloading, its a win-win situation for the BPI. But for some of us who know the `in's & outs` of file sharing, it just means, seeeeed!!! :) biz

3828.10.2005 22:28

All this talk about sueing and prosecution is confusing me now. If uploading a copyrighted movie, song, game or whatever is illegal, then what is allowed by law to be uploaded? Do they want home videos and other family stuff to be uploaded? or are there 'uncopyrighted' movies around? I don't know much about US copyright laws, but i think anyone can get into trouble for distributing copyrighted material, even if you won't be prosecuted for just downloading. This next question may sound trivial or controversial, but for the love of all things great and small, what is the best free P2P available? Thanks y'all for your information.

3929.10.2005 12:13

lethal B, I have no doubt, but if is anything like in the US the production company is part owned by major rights holders and members of the UK equivalent of MPAA RIAA anyway. The main point is that it is one thing for the general public to be fooled into thinking that it is about downloading, but here on afterdawn were should know better about the facts, and for us the distinction between uploading and downloading should be clear as night and day. The Bill is obviously fiction because like in the US no one has ever been sued for downloading music or film. I think that eventually someone they catch uploading large amounts will be made to cop to downloading as part of a setttlement so that theycan say downlaoding gets you in trouble, but it has never happned in the US or UK and cannot be proven without an explicit admission. If I download a file from web1.0 or web2.0 I have no idea that it is copyright. since this could be domonstrably done unintentionally though http, pop, nntp, p2p, it cannot be proven. It is like if I mail you cocaine and the state goes after you.

4029.10.2005 15:53

Well, if everyone follows the advice people are giving here and don't upload anything, then there wouldn't be anything left to dwonload would there?

4129.10.2005 17:35

vietgrl I don't see any advice either way. Rather simply pointing out that one is a provable offense and/or basis for a civil suit, and one is not. If you are careful about your ip and your methods uploading can be made safer.

4229.10.2005 19:57

Nozza. u got it in one.

4329.10.2005 23:46
homer232
Inactive

Please excuse my newbie ignorance, but I just started using BitTorrent for a few weeks now and it is my understanding through simple observation of the programs operation, that due to the nature of bit torrents, those who download are also uploading at the same time. Is this not a correct understanding of how bit torrent works ?

4430.10.2005 0:42

I got a warning message from my ISP about six months ago regarding downloading a "torrent" file, Its my understanding here in the Americas it is illegal for your ISP to give out your info from your IP Address, I think a couple of Isps got sued over this and had to pay some money to their members. Be Careful Out There!

4530.10.2005 1:12
aabbccdd
Inactive

i dont know about that snipinu if the FBI wants it iam sure they legally get it with no problem

4630.10.2005 7:01
duckNrun
Inactive

ok some quick answers: re: ISP and giving out IP's I believe the company you are referring to was ComCast. I also believe that it depends on the letter the ISP recieves as well as the ISP's sense of legality. For instance, if an ISP recieved a cease and desist DMCA letter stating an IP was logged that IP must forward that email to you and threaten to terminate your service if you do not cease and desist. A good ISP will not provide (nor be required to provide) your personal information under this type of letter. However, when that letter becomes a court order then they will either cave in and give it or they will fight the court order and you will be bale to anonymously appear to fight the John Doe warrant. Re: BitTorrent Yes! When you are downloading you are simultaneously uploading the material you have already acquired. This makes you a distributor and hence liable for uploading (TRUST ME!! lol) quote: ...."someone would have to fall into a sting where they were unequivocally and directly being informed by someone else that the material was under copyright and that the rights did not extend to downloading. Otherwise you simply cannot prove intent which would be needed." Actually intent is one of the hardest things to prove, and one of the easiest. How can it be proven that Johnny INTENDED to violate copyright law by downloading that file? Well a lawyer could argue: #1 what was the filename of said file? If it was file_xyz.AVI his argument is crap however if it is War_of_the_Worlds(1of4).AVI or Starwars_Episode3.mpg then intent can be pretty easily founded. Of course they would have to still prove that the defendant knew or likely had known that the content of these files were copyrighted. They could argue to persuade the jury that EVERYONE knows movies are copyrighted. They could call in witness, peers to testify that when they had watched a movie with the defendant that he too had seen copyright...risk under federal law..etc etc many times in the theater and on DVD/VHS. If the defendant took the stand (would almost have to) they could question how many movies (s)he had seen, rented. They could suppeona bank/credit card records to show how many times he rented from blockbuster etc. His only real line of argument could be he thought it was movie trailers, he thought it was a parody and not the actual movie, his intent was to download legally and the proof that he paid scam site X for a 'license' to do so shows his intent was not to break the law, for that matter he could argue that it was not really him but his computer had been turned into a zombie machine etc etc So as I said, intent easy and hard to prove. It's likely that the lawyers have followed this same line of argument and thats why noone has been screwed for downloading yet. Also makes me wonder what would happen if somebody was 'turned' into 'zombie' uploader or data dump for the 'actual' criminals... lol just some thoughts...

4730.10.2005 14:56
Viperz_7
Inactive

Even better, drop P2P and go usenet - HUGE files, fast downloads, no sharing, no tracking, easier then going to Best Buy.

4831.10.2005 5:25

I tried bit torrents for a few days just because my ISP doesn't provide a free usenet newsgroups. I was paying 12 bucks a month for 750meg limit download daily at a usenet pay site. Unfortunately bit torrents must use P2P to work, and that makes you a distributor of whatever you are downloading and sharing, before you even get to see the movie/file you are dl'ing. It also gobbles up your cpu and HD runs all the time, fans at max, etc. I must have been doing something wrong as I gave up after trying to download a small (to me) 2 gig movie after 3 days of constant running and only getting 650 mb, i gave up and un-installed. Newsgroups are much safer as you can download only, and the ISP would have to hand over your name, to the feds. You are not sharing anything when you dl from the newsgroups. And EVERYTHING is there on those groups for free. Quality is chancy like on mp3 song rips, but good free stuff, and fast dls. I think the lawyers are getting carried away. Time to change my IP address, just for fun. 2 can play the hide and seek game. Really, going after kids for dl songs, and some poor guy gets busted in Hong Kong for a dl of 3 old movies? Doesn't the world have better things to do than opress the little ppl? Come on, you think Dave Chappelle is going to go broke just because someone ripped a copy of his movie rather than outright buy it? That sucker and all those other artists/actors are RICH and will be forever, unless they mis-manage the millions they are raking in.. Give me a break. Lawyers/Feds Please go after some real criminals, and stop with the harassment of the masses, or the public could wake up and revolt against repression one of these days. Im sure that 12 yr old kid was a real big pirate, worthy of all that wasted manpower and dollars. Thanks feds for ridding us of this menace to society! Must have rated right up there with the capture of Saddam. I will sleep better now.

4931.10.2005 14:07

I think another valid argument against "intent" would be: "Sure, I downloaded 800 milliion gazillion copyrighted movies. But when I started to watch each one and saw that each was copyrighted, I deleted it from my computer. The filename 'StarWars_Episode3.mpeg' didn't mention that it was a copyrighted version, but when I found out, I didn't watch it. I was looking for the version that is free to dl & watch, but unfortunately, I never found one. Is the movie any good?" :-P

5031.10.2005 17:16

I was the 3erd person to comment on this thread Why aint it there no More?????????????????? WTF

511.11.2005 14:04

If I turn on my tv and record shows, movies, videos, concerts, live performances, band performances, or anything else on our VCR, DVD Recorder, or Digital Video Reorder (TIVO etc.), I am 100% legal. However if I download the exact, same, identical program to watch, it is illegal!!!??? I really do not get it. Also, I can capture in MP3 format FREE internet radio station songs, and this is also legal. But download that same song in MP3 and it is illegal!!!??? Beats the heck outa me???

524.11.2005 16:38

Yep its all a bunch of garbage, They have record buttons on VCR's But its illegal to use them? Thats what they sell blank tape/discs for,they know what people are doing. Just like it's illegal to have crack and weed, But they sell crack pipes at the getty mart, and head shops. If they wanna stop the problems and want to get ride of these things Go after the main source not us (bittorrent) People are money hungry thats all it is Nice posts everyone I learned alot.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive