Login:
Password:

Camcorder Pirate Faces Up to 17 Years

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

August 5, 2005, 12:39 PM

It has been going on for well over a decade - as long as camcorders have been small enough to hide away. But up until recently there was no federal law prohibiting it. Now, a 19-year-old Missouri man will be the first person charged under a law enacted in April that prohibits taping movies in movie theaters.

Curtis Salisbury of Saint Charles, Mo. made copies of two movies, "Bewitched" and "A Perfect Man," and then attempted to distribute them on peer-to-peer networks. As well as uploading the movies, Salisbury was also caught downloading other movies and software from the P2P service.

Under federal law, he may be facing up to 17 years in prison.

Salisbury was caught in a June 30 raid on P2P networks in more than a dozen countries, and will face charges of conspiracy and copyright infringement, as well as two counts of the camcorder law for each movie taped.

What is interesting about Salisbury's case is rather than simply uploading the movies and allowing others to download them at no cost like most file sharers, Salisbury was attempting to get payment for download of the movies according to authorities.

While some may laugh at the movies that Salisbury chose to record and pirate -- A Perfect Man was given one star by movie critic Roger Ebert, and Bewitched was a box office flop -- the MPAA doesn't find movie piracy a laughing matter.

According to the MPAA, 90 percent of movies pirated on the Internet while the flick is still in the theater are taped by camcorders, which the industry group claims can severely affect a movie's profit.

However, Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox thought that making a federal case of two sub-par movies wasn't such a good idea. "Maybe the DOJ needs a PR consultant. Do the Feds really want their first landmark case to be about a couple films with lackluster box office returns?" Wilcox asked.

"On the other hand, if the DOJ's intent is to show it will go after pirates of anything, than this first case makes some sense."

Add a Comment (53 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 sbux0124

edited Sep 30, 2005 - 12:12 AM

Just so you all know, I went to school with this guy, graduated last year.... 17 years isn't the maximum, 18 is. And this article is wrong....He got charged with three counts, not two. to update you all, he made a plea bargin to plead guilty and have the three charges reduced to one. It's $500,000 in fines and 18 years if he gets the max. penalty. He said that he didn't think punishment would be that severe and that "they won't make a posterboy out of me"...... but think about it. they will. He's the first to be charged and they're going to make sure people know that they're serious. Whether you agree with it or not, he broke the law. It may be petty, but still.

Score: 0

By kevinmook

posted Aug 9, 2005 - 1:15 AM

Uhm, the actual movie, whether it was a box office hit or not, has nothing to do with it. To the man, 'Bewitched' is no better or worse a movie than 'Braveheart'. It's about setting precedent, nothing more, nothing less. Reviews and dollar amounts of movies mean nothing in the eyes of the law. It's about IP and companies rights to protect their products.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Aug 8, 2005 - 12:59 AM

"yes, but 17 years!! does the punishment really fit the crime?"

Of course not !

He should be sent to a secret prison in Pakistan.

The Computer Rodent

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Aug 8, 2005 - 4:07 AM

dude, nobody is 100 % innocent, look back at illegal things you have done, and consider if they were worth 17 years if you had gotten caught.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 9:23 PM

wise strategy of scaring others out of pirating? yes, but 17 years!! does the punishment really fit the crime? I could see, maybe 1 year. 17 is too, much too long, he is only 19, Think about it, when his time is up, he will have spent 1/2 his life doing time and only a year or so was doing the crime. This is just absurd and shouldn't be so hard of a punishment.

I think what we need in our jury system is to have the jury agree to a punishment for the crime - if I were on jury, I would be tempted to see this guy as innocent due to unfair punishment! seriously, come on...

Score: 0

By kmleow

edited Aug 8, 2005 - 12:57 PM

I agree with you.

17 years, is like what bad rape offenders in my country get.

What's with America nowadays? The big corporations seem to be terrorising; influencing the government to ammend laws and punishments to benefit the greedy people.

Score: 0

By Prodder

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 12:51 PM

I'm glad they got the bas**** - hang him high.

I've lost count of the amount of times I've bought a stack of DVD's only to find that they're all 'cinema' copies with bad sound and some fool rustling a bucket of popcorn next to the camcorder...it's like watching a movie from the perspective of a paralytic 90 year old.

The pirates wised up to the demand for quality a long time ago - honestly, you'd think the MPAA would spend a bit more time going after their own guys who redistribute the high quality pre-release copies, because only about one in ten now is a crappy 'cinema' one.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Aug 8, 2005 - 12:59 AM

you probably got a real good deal on them too, huh? like $1/movie... something that sounds too good to be true probably is indeed too good to be true. funny thing is, you fell for it several times!

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 12:01 PM

Unbelievable.

Score: 0

By desired username

edited Aug 7, 2005 - 5:43 AM

Oh my, I smell another war in the works .... war on drugs ... war on terror ... and now... war on pirates. It's the American way.
Heil Freedom!

Score: 0

By pafinator11

posted Aug 6, 2005 - 4:25 PM

everyday the U.S. is becoming more corrupt. This is the point where one persons rights are taking away from anothers. Why dont they just use fines? If a movie is worth ten or maybe 15 bucks then 100 people downloading is about a 1000 dollar loss. Wich can be given back in a fine in less than 2 weeks. I HATE THE RIAA, MPAA, with a passion and think they shouldn't have been allowed to come this far. Damnit im so effing pissed right now. What is the world coming too?

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Aug 6, 2005 - 4:05 AM

Bubba - "i molested some kids, what did you do?"
Dumb kid - "i brought a camera into Star Wars"
Bubba - "you so perty!"

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Aug 6, 2005 - 1:36 AM

Welcome to the USRIAA!

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 11:29 PM

Seventeen years is more than what most gun toting robbers and rapists ever do for their violent crimes. It's more than you might get for drinking, driving and slamming into a car load of victims who end up dead.

The southern-California geek who crashed the FBI's computer network, and spied on their secret investigations didn't get half the time, even though he endangered the public safety...

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 9:42 PM

What a waste of freaking time.

These people need to go do something worth while.

Unfortunately we have rapests getting out of prison/jail after a few years and this guy will be in longer maybe? Give me a @$!*!&%@ break.

***losers***

It's sh_t like this that makes me want to move out of this country.

Score: 0

By coover

posted Aug 6, 2005 - 3:11 AM

So Pipewrench wants to move out of the country. Hey, Pipewrench!! Where are you going to go? Maybe to China, eh? You know, where just about everything is pirated! Ah, China. The land of the free, where they run over protesters with Tanks. Good place. Don't let the door hit you ....

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 7:43 PM

Extremely valid point. Pirates need to be stopped before they get out of control. It's obviously already too late to do it without someone getting the shaft, but it's better sooner than later.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

edited Aug 6, 2005 - 1:50 AM

And where would you wanna go,then???

This kind of jurisdiction covers the whole lot of the so-called "civilized" and rich countries.

All this are the fruits of the globalization. Go ahead and watch the movie "The Corporation" by Achbar & Abbott. BTW - it's no Hollywood thriller but a documentary....

Score: 0

By Pipewrench

posted Aug 6, 2005 - 2:55 AM

......you're drunk buddy.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Aug 6, 2005 - 6:11 AM

So what are you, my dear?!

An ignorant fool, using bad language to go on ignoring.

"More grip, less low lip."

Score: 0

By Macross74

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 9:33 PM

Great to see that the movie and music industry trying to cover up the fact that they producing utter crap.
If they want people to go to movies and buy music, why dont they actually release something that people can buy other than rehashed flicks and factory made one hit wonder music.
There will be always people that will pirate, but people who enjoy movies and real music will watch and buy them!

Score: 0

By schwit61

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 9:07 PM

Is this really more important than stopping terrorism or white-collar crime like at MCI, Enron and Tyco?

This is just another sign that big business and special interests have bought congress.

This kind of corruption will continue until campaign contributions can only come from registered voters in a candidate’s district.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 7:49 PM

Just think about your logic for a second:

The feds prosecute a movie pirate so the entire rest of the governmental system couldn't possibly be doing anything else?

You're trying to tell me the troops in Iraq and everywhere else around the world took a day off so this guy could be prosecuted?

Please, please, PLEASE try to get real.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 11:33 PM

No Kidding! Look at all of those SOBs, who are reluctant to crack down on the constant deluge of child molesters, who kidnap, rape and murder.

A Parliament of wh***s only cares about the interests of the fascist corporations which contribute to their campaigns...

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 3:51 PM

All of this is turning into a big joke! The DOJ doesn't know if he should bust someone over a movie that flopped! The MPAA and RIAA believe 17 years is nothing and he would get the chair if they had their way.

These "scare" tactics don't scare anyone except people that don't know anything already.

But can you imagine! Going to jail for 204 months because of a Will Ferrell movie!

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 7:51 PM

"But can you imagine! Going to jail for 204 months because of a Will Ferrell movie!"

lol. Yeah... that would totally stink.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 3:21 PM

Another case of trying to "scare" everyone by making an extreme example out of someone.

Score: 0

By tapioka

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 2:03 PM

Is it just me who thinks 17 years is insane? I've seen serial killers getting shorter sentences..

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 7:41 PM

No, you're not alone !

Here is just the point where there is no balance any more - appropriateness they call it.

If you steal money - or moneywise - you'll be sentenced to an extent which doesn't make sense at all, but show you that money is the overall most rated worth these days.

And, guys, it all shows who really makes the rules.

Score: 0

By interested102

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 2:47 PM

Seen?... Seen?... You were in jail with them?

Score: 0

By tapioka

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 4:30 PM

No. It hardly means I was in jail with them. It means I've seen it on the media. Now, moving on to our next chapter, phonetics.

Score: 0

By M1M2Z1

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 2:22 PM

17 years is probably the maximum sentence.

Score: 0

By megarock1

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 1:42 PM

The more they try to bust pirates the more pirates they create. When you're dealing with industries that profit like the music industry at a tune of 16 billion dollars a year it really takes away from the theory they want people to believe - the industry will go broke if people can steal. In fact since Napster record sales have been rising at a record pace, record profits have been recorded and even BMI recorded record royalty profits two years in a row. People see this and then hear what the industry says and come to the conclusion the industry must think everyone is stupid. Most of the people who download stuff never would have bought it in the first place - so are there really any lost profits?

Indeed, stealing is wrong - but who's stealing more from who - the MPAA and RIAA who collect millions in royalties they never pay back out or the small percentage of file traders?

As long as the RIAA and MPAA allow consumers to be overcharged and the performers and artists to be underpaid and ripped off by the labels I'll continue to take whatever I want.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 11:38 PM

How many years, will the corrupt SONY people get for their recent payola scandal. This has been "illegal" since Alan Freed got busted in the late 50's. Maybe 17 years is a fair punishment, for those idiots who must learn again the hard way...

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Aug 7, 2005 - 7:53 PM

It's hard to put a company in jail lol.

Score: 0

By geekboy2000

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 4:04 PM

> Most of the people who download stuff never
> would have bought it in the first place - so
> are there really any lost profits?

Exactly. If the listener truly believes the performance and artist are of value, most will buy it. Or, if after having taken the opportunity to preview exactly what they'll be throwing the dollars at, they make the educated decision that the performance is garbage. The RIAA and others would prefer everyone pay to that out.

Score: 0

By forgie

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 3:03 PM

preach it!

Score: 0

By Maxwolf

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 3:42 PM

Amen!

Score: 0

By Hellgod77

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 1:44 PM

i thinks the fedral law getting involved is crazy any how, if he was busted for p2p violation, that means they had a warrent for that.. not for looking for a camcorder with movies... he needs a good layer and get off, and the MPAA will just have to find a better deal. besided's that one kid will not stop it or stun it, i bet all the ones out there are out of this country (USA) besided's i know what recording a tv looks like from a camcorder, i cant imagine how awful it could look like.. BTW if i had the link, the federal law for states it's not pirating unless your a trasfering i exact digital / or analog recording, well that's by far EAXT, and it's not analog if it's on a digital camcorder.. same with a mp3 a mp3 is not a exact digital copy.

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 1:33 PM

It's the kids own fault for being an idiot and setting up a payment service to download his stolen movies. Just share them on P2P, let a couple of people get it and be done with it.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 12:56 PM

"Maybe the DOJ needs a PR consultant. Do the Feds really want their first landmark case to be about a couple films with lackluster box office returns?...On the other hand, if the DOJ's intent is to show it will go after pirates of ANYTHING, than this first case makes some sense."

I sense sarcasm in that last statement. Wilcox must pirate illegal software himself to have said that...Seriously though, this is why I can sometimes get so upset over this. Even some non-software pirates do not take it seriously. Why would the senior analyst for a "major" (lol) research firm make such a statement? So if he were stealing Episode 3 of Star Wars it'd be a bigger deal? (brain activity)...Well yeah--perhaps, perhaps it is (--since it took more money to make it, but stealing is stealing, and many do not consider piracy as stealing.

Score: 0

By alister

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 2:32 PM

"Maybe the DOJ needs a PR consultant. Do the Feds really want their first landmark case to be about a couple films with lackluster box office returns?...On the other hand, if the DOJ's intent is to show it will go after pirates of ANYTHING, than this first case makes some sense."

They will just blame the laskluster box office sales on the pirated copies of their movie. They will state that if it were not for the pirated copies being sold then the movie would have had more ticket sales.

Alister

Score: 0

By nate

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 1:16 PM

Nobody said it wasn't stealing. But why federally prosecute some 19-year old kid for pirating movies that flopped when you can go after the big guns stealing blockbusters such as Episode 3 and making money from them. That's a pretty weak way for the DOJ to start enforcing their new law.

Think of it this way: why advertise the fact that you just arrested someone for stealing a pack of gum, when hundreds of other people are busy stealing cars? Sure, it's still stealing, but there are bigger fish to fry first. THAT'S the point.

Score: 0

By Julesword

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 4:22 PM

>why federally prosecute some 19-year old kid for pirating movies that flopped when you can go after the big guns stealing blockbusters such as Episode 3 and making money from them

Their purpose is to frighten people into buying more product. If you are a teenager downloading movies, what is more of a deterrent, for someone like you to be jailed, or for them to jail some members of the Russian mob making a living at it? If they go after the big guys, it won't scare the typical pirate, and there will be little effect on lowering piracy among normal people. Sounds like a pretty wise strategy to me.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 2:07 PM

Agreed. If i was serving in that jury. during deliberations i'd try convince the other panelists to draft a collective statement & request to have it read by the foreman when delivering the verdict(& if not allowed, for sure hand it to the press afterwards):
"Open-ended question to the DA & Judge: There is nothing wrong with espousing morality, honesty & personal accountability-- but with so many cases that simply don't make it to court due to an overburdened system-- we the jury are not very happy that we were legally compelled to serve in this case, at a substantial financial loss individually; noonwithstanding all other associated costs. What point is being served here, dragging a teenager to federal court for two movies? That's not even worth the resources needed to investigate initially, even if this had been settled prior to trial. As a civil case in some local small claims court this matter would hardly justify the allocated resources. This is a perfect example of the expression,"Why make a federal case out of it!" And now we get to possibly turn some poor kid into a hardened criminal because of minimum sentencing requisites.
It seems to us he's not the only one showing very poor judgment & decision-making here: all public parties involved in allowing/creating this case would soon be out of a job in the private sector.

Score: 0

By bounty1990

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 1:43 PM

Good point nate:) If only the DOj thought like that.

Score: 0

By leeintl

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 2:32 PM

The movie industry and people at the RIAA has lots of money and power to do what they want to do. They are "pressuring" the feds to get someone unlucky enough to be made an example.

Score: 0

By kmleow

posted Aug 8, 2005 - 1:01 PM

He was unlucky to be chosen as the white mouse.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 2:46 PM

They are shooting themselves in the foot though-- not just image-wise... what jury will cooperate with putting away a kid, barring additional heinous behavior & long rap sheet...

Score: 0

By skua

posted Aug 5, 2005 - 3:33 PM

I saw a pirated copy of Titanic when it was still in the theater. It looked OK... but it was obviously shot with a hand-held camcorder. Even though I had already seen the film I went to the theater to see Titanic... being a fan of special-effects films and disaster movies I wanted to see it on the 'big-screen.' It was basically worth it.

"According to the MPAA, 90 percent of movies pirated on the Internet while the flick is still in the theater are taped by camcorders, which the industry group claims can severely affect a movie's profit."

What Hollywood is REALLY worried about is that as a pirated movie is circulated it can ruin box-office reciepts because people find out in advance that the movie TOTALLY SUCKS and won't go see it. They want your $10 in their pocket before they show you their latest lousy film. They've hardly been able to come up with an original idea in the past 5 years or so! What are they going to do when they run out of movies to remake?

Hollywood churns out a lot of crappy movies. Why? Because they make money even on the crappy films. If they want to make even more money... then start making better films that people will WANT to go see. Oh yeah... bring ticket prices down to a reasonable level and force the theaters to stop raping me for stale popcorn and flat sodas. That might help some too.

The whole industry from start to finish is a convention of idiots... who are laughing all the way to the bank.

Score: 0

By psenechal

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 6:37 PM

What's next? Are people going to start getting prosecuted for using a camcorder at Disneyland without getting Disney's approval? What if I record my kid watching the Buzz LightYear stage show in Tomorrowland and share it on the internet? Am I breaking any Pixar copyright laws?

Our legal system is just getting ridiculous. Now we're going to spend our time and tax dollars on prosecuting and jailing kids copying movies instead of removing drug dealers, thieves, and murderers from the streets. Are we just so lazy that we figure 19 year old kids are easier to catch and prosecute than real criminals?

I caught my next door neighbor's kid connecting to my wireless router (because I didn't think anyone near was intelligent enough to hack into my network). Am I going to turn him in for stealing my internet connection? Of course not...what's the point of prosecuting a 17 year old kid who wanted to chat with his friends, but his parents are too stuck in the 60's to let him have internet access. I could go on for days...leave the poor kid alone.

Score: 0

By j0eStEr

edited Aug 5, 2005 - 9:29 PM

OMG I SOO Agree Skua! Especially on the part when all your money goes to Popcorn and a Flat Soda which is liek another 10$. and the ticket is an extra 10$ so thats 20$ u spent ona s***ty movie probably. 3 out of 10 is s***ty.

Score: 0

By kmleow

posted Aug 8, 2005 - 1:02 PM

I thought 7 out of 10 is s***ty

Score: 0