Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

BitTorrent Admin Gets 5 Months in Jail

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 27, 2006, 1:18 PM

The first conviction related to the BitTorrent file-sharing network has been handed down, with a 23-year-old Virginia man sentenced to five months in prison plus five months home detention for his involvement in a BitTorrent node.

Grant Stanley of Wise, Va. was also fined $3,000 and would have three years of supervised release. He had earlier pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and copyright infringement charges under the Family Entertainment Copyright Act.

Stanley had run the BitTorrent node known as Elite Torrents with two other individuals. The service had more than 133,000 members and was estimated to have distributed some 2 million movie files, according to a government statement.

"We hope this case sends the message that cyberspace will not provide a shield of anonymity for those who choose to break our copyright laws," United States Attorney John Brownlee said.

The creator of BitTorrent, Bram Cohen, has worked to distance himself from those who have chosen to use the technology for illicit purposes. In November of last year, he signed a deal with the MPAA to shield himself from legal action by the group.

"BitTorrent Inc. discourages the use of its technology for distributing films without a license to do so," Cohen said in a statement at the time.

However, Cohen's agreement appears for the most part to be meaningless; BetaNews searches on various BitTorrent sites turned up pirated software, music, movies, and television shows, indicating it is still easy to obtain copyrighted material through the service.

Add a Comment (48 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By charlespaugh

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 6:25 PM

In our "Scarlet Letter" age of requiring life time registrations for various felonies, how about we require Stanley and all other convicted copyright violators to register with the police, ban them from within 50 ft. of movie theaters, concert halls, and anywhere copyrighted media material may be located or sold. Maybe that will solve the public paranoia? (For those of you who are a little dimwitted, I was being sarcastic)

Score: 0

By mesiex

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 11:04 AM

You share without loosing because music is an unmaterial good. Civilisation is not material. Unmaterial goods are always able to be shared for free,and you really enjoy it. I love sharing ideas with friends and even with unknown pepople.
For big corporations only business matters, with no other consideration. Who is going to talk to them about unmaterial matters? But without an unmaterial civilisation they would never have existed.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Oct 30, 2006 - 10:36 AM

One of the chief aims of the US justice system was to move away from the time when a wealthy or Royal person could have a commoner jailed, killed or financially ruined at a whim regardless of the justice of the situation. It was supposed to guarantee equal access and equal standing under law for any American citizen or organization. We have now drifted far from that ideal in fact where we have organizations that wield tremendous influence and power due to their political and financial clout. That they can criminalize what is an obnoxious yet civil matter and have people jailed on what is really a fining offense and not a hazard to society shows the rot that has eaten away at the underpinnings of our society.

We have serial pedophiles and child rapists who get probation and file sharers that get jailtime...that makes sense. And we wonder why child porn is still a problem.

I guess if the little kids that are getting victimized by pedophiles had hordes of lawyers and made huge campaign donations to our politicians they would get equal justice under the law and be protected from being violently victimized, but since they don't. We will at least have our society preserved from those ever so dangerous "terrorists of intellectual property"...the file sharers...

Score: 0

By cannie

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 8:13 AM

If the air could be sold you should have to pay to somebody for your breath. Consider cultural goods as air, because they are the like air for our minds to breathe. Your mind is like a parachute: it is not worth if it is not open. Cultural goods wouldn't be accesible to all if you had to pay for them. What if Christ had demanded to protect his intellectual property rights?

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 5:33 PM

Just another martyr for the File-Sharing Cause

*Keep Torrent's Alive! DON'T LEECH*

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 12:06 PM

"We hope this case sends the message"

Sends the message that you have nobody better to go after. Yeah, great job :\

Score: 0

By Mutal1ty

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 7:05 AM

for all you guys who can't stand thew RIAA and MPAA, check this out... go do a traceroute on http://www.thepiratebay.org and look at the final host name for a cute easter egg.

click start, click run then type in CMD to open up the windows command console, then type
TRACERT thepiratebay.org

the final server name is: hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org

;) enjoy

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 9:51 AM

Bender rules...

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 11:47 PM

LOL

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 11:07 PM

Fellow U.S. citizens: privacy is dead. It no longer exists. It has been superceded by (a) the need to fight terrorism and (b) protect intellectual property rights. The legal term "reasonable expectation of privacy" which has applied and been applied to so much caselaw, is now being redefined to mean nothing at all.

Score: 0

By glock__17

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 12:35 AM

Then its a good thing I'm not a US citizen.
Fight the power!

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Oct 29, 2006 - 1:59 AM

The legal term "reasonable expectation of privacy" which has applied and been applied to so much caselaw, is now being redefined to mean nothing at all.

That's because a subjective term like "reasonable" has absolutely no place in any legal precedent. The definition of that word can change based on who has the most money, the most to gain, or the most to lose...

Score: 0

By ^M^

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 7:46 AM

And from what I see inhuman is also to vague theses days.

Score: 0

By melkor

edited Oct 28, 2006 - 12:40 AM

you don't actually believe the "fight terrorism" bit do you?

EDIT: that came out way to cynical for even me.

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 10:21 AM

Don't forget it's "for the children", it helps combat child porn too.

Score: 0

By bsf

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 9:22 PM

I think "copyright" need to be totally reformed.
People need to stop thinking that they can make money off ideas. I think it's stupid.

Score: 0

By ukexpat

posted Oct 29, 2006 - 3:59 PM

You obviously have no idea what copyright protects - it protects works of art etc not ideas. There is no protection as such for "ideas". Inventions are patentable, subject to prior art etc etc

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 11:00 PM

I despise RIAA and MPAA and their tactics, which are alienating consumers. However, your statement is inaccurate. You cannot copyright or even patent an "idea". A copyright can only be applied to a tangible result. In this case, the arrangement of bits and bytes which constitute a copyrighted movie file. From a technical and legal standpoint, that holds water. However, charging people rediculous ticket prices for lackluster movies (and CD sales) is obnoxious and repugnant.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 11:18 PM

...not to mention you'd be hard pressed to find a theater that even shows good trailers anymore before the movie, instead treating us to 15-20 minutes of commercials.

Yeah, that's money well spent...

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 8:28 PM

only where the cooperation owns the government can a copyright be turned into a criminal offense and take up the time of our criminal courts, who of course have nothing better to do. yes i really want my tax $ being spent on jailing someone committing copyright violations... bah

Score: 0

By digitalmastermind

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 5:48 PM

"Cohen's agreement appears for the most part to be meaningless"

WTF is that supposed to mean? If it's meaningless then why bother signing it and why hasn't he been sued?

Stanley must not have been rich cuz rich people don't goto jail. They get community service. Looks like they're making an example out of him.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 4:14 PM

I get it now.

File-sharing isn't a real crime, you see.

They see these folks as wanna-be criminals, right? So..

They're doing a public service here.

Ya know, put 'em in prison with *real* criminals...so they can learn to commit *real* crimes.

(The above should only be humorous for a moment, then it should properly scare the s*** out of you.)

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 11:01 PM

bullseye!

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 3:32 PM

This is no different than putting pot smokers in prison and saying that it makes the war on drugs a success. Pure BS.

Score: 0

By RingMaster

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 3:00 PM

Although BitTorrent is a very impressive technology, there must have been foul play with the BitTorrent Admin or at least the users within the network. Of course, as the Administrator, you take that responsibility to keep track of each packet going through your network. If anything, BitTorrent traffic on that network should just be ordered to be blocked, not throwing the admin in jail. But then again, we don't know if the admin or his users did actually use BitTorrent for illicit purposes. They wouldn't admit it, obviously.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 2:39 PM

OMG - that is just - wack. First offense?

If this don't put a chilling effect on Bit Torrent, I don't know what will.

Holy crud. I have seen cases where rapists don't get 5 months for a first offense... By comparison, this just seems incredibly harsh.

Wow.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 9:22 PM

That's where it seems "the law" is really screwed up. Where I live, the punishment for being caught driving without insurance is equal to being caught driving under the influence, each offense receiving the same sentence. Punishments don't always fit the "crime".

Sometimes I don't know who I can't stand more... lawyers or lobbyists.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 6:57 PM

this is a "chicken and egg" thing...it's cybercrime, fairly new compared to the aforementioned offense.

the more criminals support crime and other criminals, the easier it will get for the criminals (note how I don't accuse anyone :D).

The nature of the punishments actually fits though if you think about it. It wasn't a single downloaded, but multiplied so by the fellow criminals. Thus, they made it worse for their crime lord!

Had only one criminal downloaded, only once and not replicate the crime to others, the criminal would maybe only have been fined $250 and 1 week.

I'm sure my analogy will irk some. :D
(I know, I'm a fool for my purchased giant library of DVDs...I'll sell them someday, without having made "backups"!)

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 5:36 PM

Ah, but did the rapists cause anyone to lose theoretical zillions in money?

Score: 0

By techie_G33k

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 8:42 PM

Ya, who gives a F*ck about people having trauma for the rest of there lives, as long as Corp. American get there greedy fingers on more $$.
Fines...fines...fine...that's all that should happen. This is a waste of my tax dollars just to bring more $$ into the already rich an d powerful.

What a F*cked up world we live in!

Score: 0

By Bogunch

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 2:22 PM

"We hope this case sends the message that cyberspace will not provide a shield of anonymity for those who choose to break our copyright laws," United States Attorney John Brownlee said.

Yep - break the copyright laws and go to prison, break the immigration laws and get amnesty!!!

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 9:27 PM

Amen!

Score: 0

By hiyoag

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 1:56 PM

The Family Entertainment Copyright Act was brought to you by the Family Entertainment Copyright Act Lobby or (FECAL).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 4:11 PM

So, is he going to pound me in the a** prison, or white-collar resort prison?

Did no-one here see Office Space?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 11:00 PM

I have a question. In these conjugal visits, you can have sex with women?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 30, 2006 - 9:49 AM

You'll get a conjugal visit every night.

Meet Bubba. You'll be his substitute for a "woman" for the next 4 years.... ;)

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 28, 2006 - 4:44 PM

I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are. We're looking up "money laundering" in a dictionary.

Score: 0

By techie_G33k

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 8:43 PM

Last I knew white collar is almost all gone, but I am sure it's somewhere. It's the same prison, just they separate the violent and non-violent offenders.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 5:35 PM

I get the reference now, it's been awhile since I've seen that movie...it reminds me too much of work.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 1:40 PM

If only sharing my email address were such a crime!

Score: 0

By techie_G33k

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 8:43 PM

It is...but they seem to chase Illegal file sharers more than they do spammers...give me a break.

Score: 0

By bsf

edited Oct 27, 2006 - 9:25 PM

they can't really chase those spammers.
they're payin' their taxes.

illegal file sharers aren't really making that much money, except maybe some of those site owners get some from the ads and popups on their site. so they don't need to pay that much taxes. Then the only way to leech some money out of them is to sue 'em

Score: 0

By techie_G33k

posted Oct 29, 2006 - 3:43 PM

LOL! Ya, good point. Spammers make a ton and pay taxes as advertising, so Uncle Sam is happy.

BTW, when did we start to disgrace Uncle Sam's name so much?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 11:11 PM

I pay my taxes as well...

I can understand music, movies, software, etc. What I cannot understand is television shows. It's been perfectly legal to record TV shows for decades on a VCR (even making incredibly easy to do so eventually with the advent of VCR+ codes). It's legal to do so with a TiVo. They practically shove a "free" one down your throat if you sign up for digital cable / satellite service sometimes. Yet, it is illegal to possess the same content on my hard drives, only obtained from a different source.

Stupid...

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 1:37 PM

Good job DOJ.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 27, 2006 - 5:36 PM

Yeah, good job keeping those mega corps safe.

Score: 0

By soupdawg30

edited Oct 28, 2006 - 3:36 AM

While I do think the sentence is harsh for first time offense you have to admit. These guys knew what they were doing was illegal and they knew it would not be hard for them to be recognized as the leaders of the illegal activities. the law is the law. Yes I am sure money has alot to do with it as well.

Score: 0

By online4cb

edited Oct 28, 2006 - 12:05 PM

When BitTorrent started the law was different. The Act in question was specifically lobbied for (considering this administration, they probably wrote the law) by the entertainment corporations (RIAA & MPAA among others) to protect only themselves from a perceived threat. Even their own research does not support that any of this is costing them any revenue, except maybe by losing paying customers who are fed up with their acts against totally outmatched individual citizens. Entertainment corporate actually believe that the people who share these files would go out and purchase the DVD's or CD's. They would not. They would get a copy from friends or the library and copy them.

It is fair use for a person at home to copy a DVD or CD for backup and their own use, and to copy TV programs for later personal non-commercial viewing as another commenter stated. That is still the law. Now, evidently, we all commit a crime if we give or show those copies to anyone else, even if we don't charge them for the privilege. What a waste of time, energy, and tax dollars.

That said, when corporate music started suing 12 year olds for copying music, I guess the BitTorrent admin should have seen the writing on the wall.

Score: 0

Dec 1 - 9:34 PM ET Alltel breaks in a mobile wallet with mFoundry

Dec 1 - 7:38 PM ET Intel tries to turn the tables on AMD in document discovery dispute

Dec 1 - 6:59 PM ET Palm to restructure yet again, may cut more jobs

Dec 1 - 4:58 PM ET Blockbuster downloads headed for more devices via Live Mesh

Dec 1 - 4:55 PM ET AOL's PlaySavvy speaks to game-shy parental units

Dec 1 - 4:41 PM ET Less bad news than anticipated for the semiconductor industry in 2008

Dec 1 - 3:51 PM ET 'Xohm' makes way for 'Clear,' as Sprint/Clearwire merger moves ahead

Dec 1 - 2:01 PM ET Chasing down the latest Cyber Monday tech deals

Dec 1 - 12:50 PM ET Will 'Cyber Monday' fare better than a weak 'Black Friday?'

Dec 1 - 12:38 PM ET Microsoft Cashback goes offline to Black Friday shoppers