• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" Uploader Sentenced to One Year in Prison

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kame-sennin

Member
A New York City man who admitted to illegally uploading an unfinished copy of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" a month before the movie's release was sentenced Monday to one year in federal prison.

Gilberto Sanchez pleaded guilty in March to uploading a copyrighted work being prepared for commercial distribution, saying he bought a "workprint" copy of the 20th Century Fox film for $5 on a street corner near his Bronx home in March 2009. He then uploaded the movie to Megaupload.com, and publicized it with links on two other websites.

The studio moved quickly to have the file removed, but federal prosecutors argued that "the damage was done and the film had proliferated like wildfire throughout the Internet, resulting in up to millions of infringements." Indeed, Fox estimated the Gavin Hood-directed movie had been downloaded roughly 4.5 million times by its May 1, 2009, theatrical release. The $150 million "Wolverine" grossed $179 million in North America before going on to earn $373 million worldwide, leading to speculation as to whether the leak helped or hurt the box-office performance. Although the workprint contained a reference to Rising Sun Pictures, the Australian visual-effects studio that worked on the film, the source of the leak has never been determined.

Describing Sanchez's offense as "extremely serious," U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow also imposed on the 49-year-old man one year of supervised release and numerous computer restrictions.

"The federal prison sentence handed down in this case sends a strong message of deterrence to would-be Internet pirates," U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. said in a statement. "The Justice Department will pursue and prosecute persons who seek to steal the intellectual property of this nation."
Click to expand...

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36014

I personally don't think anyone should do jail time for copyright infringement. Seems overly harsh to me.
 
A year in jail for that... Shudder to think what kind of punishments crooked CEO's have gotten! Nothing, makes sense. Crazy world we're in, some shitty companies can lobby the fuck out of a government and get away with it, whilst some poor schmuck gets thrown in jail for uploading a crappy movie.
 
MlNyG.gif
 
Honestly, I think the year of supervised release should have been the sentence instead of actual prison time. Granted, the sentence still wasn't the 50 years + hard labor + daily rape + 400 million in damages corporations usually demand to terrify their subjects into behaving.

Sorry "LAW IS LAW"-GAF, I just can't feel IP infringement of this sort, where the vile criminal wasn't even profiting off his "stolen goods", rates prison time in a nation where prison has been made a mockery of already.

I await the copyright protected future where half the country is paying constant automatically deducted fines for listening to copyrighted music audible in public spaces, without an ear canal license.
 
One year? That's it? He cost Fox at least between $ 45 - 90 million of actual monies and he only gets a year in jail?

What is wrong with this world?
 
I've never understood the mentality of people who upload pirated stuff (for free). What do you get out of it? It certainly can't be a sense of altruism, as you're robbing those responsible for creating it of millions of dollars.

I have no sympathy for this guy, and I'm amazed he only received a one-year sentence.
 
The punishment is certainly on the harsh side, but I wouldn't say extremely so. Punishing the original uploader rather than the hundreds of downloaders seems a smart way to go about things.

DominoKid said:
i say he's a saint. saved me from wasting money on that POS movie. although i cant get that time back...
Click to expand...
Wait, so you're admitting to downloading the movie? :/

Shotgun Kiss said:
I've never understood the mentality of people who upload pirated stuff (for free). What do you get out of it? It certainly can't be a sense of altruism, as you're robbing those responsible for creating it of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...
It genuinely is a sense of twisted altruism. "Please seed" etc. even Nice Guy Greg has a version with "downloads movie he doesn't like, seeds anyway". It's a fascinating phenomenon.
 
So I can get drunk and kill someone with my car, and receive a lower sentence. But if I upload a shitty movie, I can get a year. Yeah, the system works fine.
 
ReconYoda said:
So I can get drunk and kill someone with my car, and receive a lower sentence. But if I upload a shitty movie, I can get a year. Yeah, the system works fine.
Click to expand...
The problem there is the leniency of the car punishment, not the harshness of the uploader punishment. Drunk drivers are the scum of the earth and - if they end up killing someone - should be given at least a decade of jailtime.
 
Kaijima said:
Honestly, I think the year of supervised release should have been the sentence instead of actual prison time. Granted, the sentence still wasn't the 50 years + hard labor + daily rape + 400 million in damages corporations usually demand to terrify their subjects into behaving.

Sorry "LAW IS LAW"-GAF, I just can't feel IP infringement of this sort, where the vile criminal wasn't even profiting off his "stolen goods", rates prison time in a nation where prison has been made a mockery of already.

I await the copyright protected future where half the country is paying constant automatically deducted fines for listening to copyrighted music audible in public spaces, without an ear canal license.
Click to expand...

This. Also, the U.S. attorney refereed to his copyright infringement as 'stealing', which is troubling since a prosecutor should understand the legal definitions of the words he uses. Theft wasn't committed, the guy made copies of something he wasn't legally allowed to make copies of.

Copernicus said:
One year? That's it? He cost Fox at least between $ 45 - 90 million of actual monies and he only gets a year in jail?

What is wrong with this world?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Aside from the absurdity of sending someone to prison for copyright infringement, I doubt he cost Fox that much. The following X-men film also had a mediocre box office performance, suggesting that the films are selling poorly due to quality (specifically, the bad reputation of X3 and Wolverine, in my view).
 
kame-sennin said:
Are you serious? Aside from the absurdity of sending someone to prison for copyright infringement,
Click to expand...
You should honestly define that absurdity. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think it is an obvious one lacking in debatable quality.

I doubt he cost Fox that much. The following X-men film also had a mediocre box office performance, suggesting that the films are selling poorly due to quality (specifically, the bad reputation of X3 and Wolverine, in my view).
Click to expand...
A huge part of negative press the film receive pre-release was due to impressions from the workprint. You'd have expected a few more people going in without that press to try the film out before word-of-mouth killed it. Not exactly $90millions worth, of course, but still a fair bit. The leak killed that somewhat.

Strafer said:
A year for some lame virtual crime. Okay.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a virtual crime. It was a real crime. We can debate the finer points of the punishment, but so many people in this thread seem to be brushing it off as if he didn't actually do much or wasn't deserving of punishment. Clearly that is not the case.
edit - Or even worse they say what old Salvor is saying below me, which is ridiculous. His actions cannot be defended as just or "okay" in this matter. The law doesn't bend to the notion of "yeah but he infringed a shit copyright, not a decent one!"
 
Copernicus said:
One year? That's it? He cost Fox at least between $ 45 - 90 million of actual monies and he only gets a year in jail?

What is wrong with this world?
Click to expand...

And yet he saved society at least between $ 45 - 90 million by them not paying for that shitty movie. At the of the day, his action was a net welfare benefit.
 
Suairyu said:
The punishment is certainly on the harsh side, but I wouldn't say extremely so. Punishing the original uploader rather than the hundreds of downloaders seems a smart way to go about things.
Click to expand...
You're fine with these companies lobbying a government, working jointly to create a monopoly. But oh no, when someone uploads a shitty movie that makes more than enough money, he needs to be put in jail. You have your priorities skewed. These companies need to be dealt with before they can be the victim of anything. Voting wont work since they can lobby away all they want, so anything but a lobby against these companies is condoning them in my opinion.
 
msv said:
You're fine with these companies lobbying a government, working jointly to create a monopoly. But oh no, when someone uploads a shitty movie that makes more than enough money, he needs to be put in jail. You have your priorities skewed. These companies need to be dealt with before they can be the victim of anything. Voting wont work since they can lobby away all they want, so anything but a lobby against these companies is condoning them in my opinion.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you arguing here? These companies have influence in politics therefore their legal rights are revoked until we clean house? Or is it that because the criminal act was done against an entity that isn't entirely moral then the criminal should be let off?
 
Suairyu said:
IA huge part of negative press the film receive pre-release was due to impressions from the workprint. You'd have expected a few more people going in without that press to try the film out before word-of-mouth killed it. Not exactly $90millions worth, of course, but still a fair bit. The leak killed that somewhat.
Click to expand...

You're right about that part, I forgot about that. I do think what this guy did was really shitty, or at least highly negligent. As an artist myself, I would be LIVID if someone leaked something I was working on before I even finished it (although, the studio leaker bears the brunt of that responsibility). As for whether or not he hurt sales, it's a totally hypothetical argument, but I will concede that he's responsible for at least some of the damage to the film's reputation.

Suairyu said:
It genuinely is a sense of twisted altruism. "Please seed" etc. even Nice Guy Greg has a version with "downloads movie he doesn't like, seeds anyway". It's a fascinating phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that fascinating. Humans were sharing works of art and literature without the author's permission thousands of years before the concept of copyright or intellectual property were ever invented. For the vast majority of human history, once someone told their story out loud, it no longer belonged to them and could be retold, edited, altered, printed, or copied however the listener saw fit. I'm not making the argument that copyright is wrong - I think when the government handles it properly it benefits society - but "file sharing" is human nature.

Suairyu said:
You should honestly define that absurdity. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think it is an obvious one lacking in debatable quality.
Click to expand...

Primarily because the man is not a threat to society, nor does he have anything to atone for. He owes Fox reasonable punitive damages, and a probationary period to guard against repeat offense is warranted. But locking him away doesn't benefit Mr. Sanchez, society, or Fox in any material way.
 
Suairyu said:
What on earth are you arguing here? These companies have influence in politics therefore their legal rights are revoked until we clean house? Or is it that because the criminal act was done against an entity that isn't entirely moral then the criminal should be let off?
Click to expand...
The former. Completely revoked no, but rules on petty perceived damage like this can only be objectively discussed until these monopolies have been thoroughly purged.
 
msv said:
The former. Completely revoked no, but rules on petty perceived damage like this can only be objectively discussed until these monopolies have been thoroughly purged.
Click to expand...
To be honest I think that's a ridiculous position to have. While the studios no doubt over estimate the damages to all arse end and back, to say this is petty is just wrong. There was a very clear crime being committed here. You can't say "oh well it was against one of the big boys they deserve it". That's OWS/stop the dock workers levels of arbitrary silly.
 
Suairyu said:
To be honest I think that's a ridiculous position to have. While the studios no doubt over estimate the damages to all arse end and back, to say this is petty is just wrong. There was a very clear crime being committed here. You can't say "oh well it was against one of the big boys they deserve it". That's OWS/stop the dock workers levels of arbitrary silly.
Click to expand...

Way off topic, but there was more to that story than originally reported: http://cleanandsafeports.org/blog/2...ica’s-port-truck-drivers-on-occupy-the-ports/
 
Suairyu said:
To be honest I think that's a ridiculous position to have. While the studios no doubt over estimate the damages to all arse end and back, to say this is petty is just wrong. There was a very clear crime being committed here. You can't say "oh well it was against one of the big boys they deserve it". That's OWS/stop the dock workers levels of arbitrary silly.
Click to expand...
You're so overly concerned about a minor problem, which status as a problem is actually debatable (piracy can be a stimulator instead of a detractor). In light of this your stance on it being a 'very clear crime' is absurd and premature. And calling OWS silly... I can get that you don't agree with the point completely, but it's undeniable that the time for protest is here, the US and many other governments are in dire need of reform.
 
I didn't call OWS silly, I called their dock occupation silly. It was arbitrary and hurt a bunch of 99%ers, but the justification being they werent 99% enough. My comparison was between that and your "they're too big they can take it" stance.
 
Hm, not sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, a year in prison seems high. On the other hand, I don't think he should have just been slapped with a $500 fine or anything either.

However its a step in the right direction to focus on uploaders, not downloaders.
 
Suairyu said:
I didn't call OWS silly, I called their dock occupation silly. It was arbitrary and hurt a bunch of 99%ers, but the justification being they werent 99% enough. My comparison was between that and you're "they're too big they can take it" stance.
Click to expand...
It's not that they're too big, it's that they have far too much influence on the government (as do many other companies). Therefore, the discussion on piracy in the government and the judicial powers is not objective in any way. From there on you can conclude that cases like this shouldn't be supported in any way until the companies' grubby fingers are removed from the political system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is the 4.5 year prison sentence enough?
49
795
bender replied
Utah woman who wrote a children’s book about dealing with grief after her husband’s death has been sentenced to life in prison for his murder
2
52
477
roosnam1980 replied
X-Men ‘97 Season 2 | Official Trailer
17
114
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Jonny Somali sentenced
19
395
sCHOCOLATE replied
Man throws girl from 4th floor window, gets 5 years in prison (British justice)
16
417
Fbh replied
Top Bottom