A man who allegedly uploaded a copy of the film "Flushed Away" onto the Internet after getting a copy from an Oscar voter faces a felony charge. Salvador Nunez Jr., 27, was charged with copyright infringement and faces up to three years in prison if convicted. He was scheduled to appear in court March 1.
Prosecutors said he obtained a copy of the movie after it was sent in advanced to his sister, an Oscar voter and member of The International Animated Film Society.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences received a tip in early January that someone put "Flushed Away" on the Internet, and a digital watermark identified it as an Academy screener film.
When interviewed by FBI agents, Nunez acknowledged he uploaded "Flushed Away" and the Oscar-nominated film "Happy Feet" onto the Internet, court documents said. However, investigators only found a copy of "Flushed Away" in his computer hard drive. "Flushed Away," won four prizes on Feb. 11 at the Annie Awards, honoring achievements in feature film and television animation.
News source: MSNBC
Prosecutors said he obtained a copy of the movie after it was sent in advanced to his sister, an Oscar voter and member of The International Animated Film Society.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences received a tip in early January that someone put "Flushed Away" on the Internet, and a digital watermark identified it as an Academy screener film.
When interviewed by FBI agents, Nunez acknowledged he uploaded "Flushed Away" and the Oscar-nominated film "Happy Feet" onto the Internet, court documents said. However, investigators only found a copy of "Flushed Away" in his computer hard drive. "Flushed Away," won four prizes on Feb. 11 at the Annie Awards, honoring achievements in feature film and television animation.
News source: MSNBC
Best scenario is to either: 1. don't do any thing illegal
or 2. a. overwrite the data using axcrypts shredder and
b. should have stored it on an encrypted AES 128/256 hidden truecrypt partition (plausable deniability) with password and hash key on removal usb key.
c. used Vistas AES-128/256 bitlocker drive encryption with a removal USB key
d. in all cases password protected his PC.
3. made a copy and posted it to someone else or used Filezillas FTP TLS/SSL encryption to send it to someone else. Obviously seeding on a torrent is pointless as once the main tracker is found all the seeds/leechers IP addresses are compromised. Though if you have a dynamic IP address you still have some deniability.
No i'm not encouraging people to distribute copyrighted material, I think that it's wrong but I can understand why people do it.
Last edited by Z3r0 on 24 Feb 2007 - 09:44
thanks salvador...
will he go to court for both films or only one?
The point at which it is EASILY recoverable is before the space is overwritten. Then it just gets harder the more times you do it.
Send his drives to a data forensics specialist, and they'll find Happy Feet on there.
The point at which it is EASILY recoverable is before the space is overwritten. Then it just gets harder the more times you do it.
Send his drives to a data forensics specialist, and they'll find Happy Feet on there.
And this right here is a bunch of BS in every way. FACT IS they can't even undelete something overwritten 3 times.
Please post your link for this proof of recovering something overwritten 1000 times.
Let me guess, you work for the RIAA/MPAA? Trying to promote your scare tactics.
The point at which it is EASILY recoverable is before the space is overwritten. Then it just gets harder the more times you do it.
Send his drives to a data forensics specialist, and they'll find Happy Feet on there.
And this right here is a bunch of BS in every way. FACT IS they can't even undelete something overwritten 3 times.
Please post your link for this proof of recovering something overwritten 1000 times.
Let me guess, you work for the RIAA/MPAA? Trying to promote your scare tactics.
No... He watches NCIS.
The point at which it is EASILY recoverable is before the space is overwritten. Then it just gets harder the more times you do it.
Send his drives to a data forensics specialist, and they'll find Happy Feet on there.
And this right here is a bunch of BS in every way. FACT IS they can't even undelete something overwritten 3 times.
Please post your link for this proof of recovering something overwritten 1000 times.
Let me guess, you work for the RIAA/MPAA? Trying to promote your scare tactics.
Yeah I don't get this. When you empty your recycle bin, windows marks the file as unallocated space. This doesn't mean that the file is gone, it just means that the file is no longer recognized by the file system and can be written over. When this happens, there is no way you can recover that file once it has been totally written over.
If there was a way to recover a file after being written over 50 times I would think that you would see 50TB of data on a 50GB drive, which is obviously not the case.
The point at which it is EASILY recoverable is before the space is overwritten. Then it just gets harder the more times you do it.
Send his drives to a data forensics specialist, and they'll find Happy Feet on there.
1000x, come on, I don't think so. But that is a good one.
The point at which it is EASILY recoverable is before the space is overwritten. Then it just gets harder the more times you do it.
Send his drives to a data forensics specialist, and they'll find Happy Feet on there.
And this right here is a bunch of BS in every way. FACT IS they can't even undelete something overwritten 3 times.
Please post your link for this proof of recovering something overwritten 1000 times.
Let me guess, you work for the RIAA/MPAA? Trying to promote your scare tactics.
Not to mention that its not the same HD space being overwritten each time. Youll have data overlapping at different times for different files all over the place. You cant just roll back a segment of the hard drive by anything static if that was even possible as youd be overwriting the file at different times and varying amount of times. Simply put even if you could find what the 1000th bit of data was it would be impossible to piece together the happy feet movie because the other 99.9% of the movie wont be in its 1000th rewrite but its 7th or 2000th or whatever.
Can't be done.
I mean, how many news headlines do you see that say "motorist issued ticket for speeding"?
for me ticket prices in theaters is rediculous nowadays anyways at that 7-8+ dollars per ticket... thats alot to ask when most movies aint worth it... some are but most aint.
thats why i rarely goto theaters anymore.... i think 5 dollars should be MAX you have to pay to see a (average) film (which are most scary movies as they churn those out 24/7 and most of em SUCK) in the theaters... cause they already shaft u a sh*tload of money from buying there overpriced popcorn/candy etc etc.
while i agree the ticket prices are too high and the concessions are too high and the total cost for even 2 people to go to the movies outweighs the actual "value" or "novelty" of going to the movies, in all fairness having worked in a movie theater in the not too distant past i can at least offer the information that ticket prices are pretty much set by the movie studios, and the theaters retain only a small portion of ticket sale revenue.. they have to charge high prices on the food items to pay the employees, since that is their main source of revenue
if i've got to pay to see a movie, i'd rather turn on the cable company's video on demand service and get some new release for $3.99 and watch it in the comfort of my own home, with my own freshly popped microwave popcorn (not theater popcorn that can sit there for up to 3-4 days during a slow period, with fake, nasty butter [it's not actually butter]), and an unlimited number of refills of soda, or beer.
that is of course assuming the VOD even works (which it didn't when we tried watching Click).... so much for paying $110/mo for digital cable and internet..... i won't admit to downloading Click and watching it, but .. we did get to watch it.
going to the movies = too expensive
VOD, cheap, easy to use = but not if it's not working or not available
buying the dvd = who said i want to own it?
downloading = they wonder why people download movies based on those three things...
Then these same people will go whine about how high their taxes are because they lock everyone up for anything and everything.
At least the comments get slightly more realistic scrolling down...
3 years in prison for uploading a movie, and people think thats acceptable? Not only have the movie companies tricked you into believing the crap at the cinemas these days is worth the price - everyone is righteous, and in total agreement with their tatics.
Ask yourself, when was the last time you actually saw a good movie at the cinemas? Its the movie studios that should be doing time , for the drivel they produce.
Finally someone that picked up on this...
(I guess that her copy was watermarked, so when they came for her, she didnt take long to point the finger at her brother)
Should be a civil matter only.
Should be a civil matter only.
Agreed
Stealing is stealing. Whether it's jewelry, a pack of gum, or intellectual property.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.