main
Report a problem

Hong Kong man loses appeal in internet piracy case

Slimy   on 19 May 2007 - 05:06 · 17 comments & 9381 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Chan Nai-ming, a 38-year old Hong Kong man convicted of sharing pirated movies, has lost his final appeal in the territory's highest court and will now have to finish serving a three-month prison sentence. He used the screen name "Big Crook" and is believed to be the first person to receive jail time for distributing movie files using BitTorrent. Chan was originally charged in April 2005 for copyright infringement after uploading and distributing three Hollywood movies — Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality. He was sentenced in November 2005 and had served several weeks in prison before filing a series of appeals.

Chan's lawyer argued before the Court of Final Appeal that he only uploaded the movies and did not distribute them, but the court dismissed the distinction: "He plainly succeeded in distributing copies of the films in question. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed." The Hong Kong government said Chan's conviction was a milestone in the fight against illegal online sharing of intellectual property and that since his arrest illegal file-sharing had fallen by 80%.

News source: CBC News

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 17 additional comments
#1 Sheppard on 19 May 2007 - 08:30
3 months for software piracy, it could have been a LOT worse, take it like a man and do the time.
(3 replies) #2 ThaCrip on 19 May 2007 - 08:33
that rediculous! ... he was shareing 3 movies and got 3months in jail? ... dont make sence to me cause theres lots and lots and lots of people doing exact same stuff.

i dont really see a big problem with it as long as he was not selling the movies for profit.
#2.1 leesmithg on 19 May 2007 - 09:28
By sharing the movies someone has lost money and profits.

If someone came around to your house and took your computer and gave it to someone, then 'thats all right', as he was not selling the item for profit.
#2.2 Harsesis on 19 May 2007 - 10:44
Quote - (leesmithg said @ #2.1)
By sharing the movies someone has lost money and profits.

If someone came around to your house and took your computer and gave it to someone, then 'thats all right', as he was not selling the item for profit.


If he made a copy of my computer and gave the original back I wouldn't really mind...
#2.3 zivan56 on 19 May 2007 - 20:03
Quote - (leesmithg said @ #2.1)
By sharing the movies someone has lost money and profits.

If someone came around to your house and took your computer and gave it to someone, then 'thats all right', as he was not selling the item for profit.


From what I have read, he never broke into a studio and stole the original. So your analogy fails there...
#3 Julius Caro on 19 May 2007 - 08:53
(1 reply) #4 kelvinlok on 19 May 2007 - 10:48
SHAME ON THE GOVERNEMENT
A man who used video camera to record female's underware does not need to serve the time but software piracy needs!
#4.1 em_te on 20 May 2007 - 06:41
Well, underground warez is not as big a piracy issue than movies.
(4 replies) #5 Croquant on 19 May 2007 - 12:27
This is just a public relations thing. The PRC government knows as well as you and I that software piracy is a thriving underground industry in China, but they're not about to do anything serious about it. Yes, they'd like to see legitimate software sales take off, but they know that there's a snowball's chance in hell that that's going to actually happen, so they play the PR game and randomly arrest the odd pirate here and there to make a good show of it. You know, they have to show Microsoft that they're at least doing something or Microsoft might not play ball with them anymore... and they can't have that.
#5.1 dmbandfan22 on 19 May 2007 - 14:22
It's the Hong Kong SAR court system. They're fully autonomous and independent from PRC courts.
#5.2 chilliadus on 19 May 2007 - 20:45
Quote - (dmbandfan22 said @ #5.1)
It's the Hong Kong SAR court system. They're fully autonomous and independent from PRC courts.


Yeah I noticed the PRC flag which really should be
#5.3 Croquant on 20 May 2007 - 07:34
Quote - (dmbandfan22 said @ #5.1)
It's the Hong Kong SAR court system. They're fully autonomous and independent from PRC courts.

Oh, sure. Completely independent. No political interference from the PRC government.
If you believe that, I've got some Florida swampland I'd like to interest you in.
#5.4 ALUOp on 20 May 2007 - 11:08
Quote - (Croquant said @ #1)
Quote - (dmbandfan22 said @ #5.1)
It's the Hong Kong SAR court system. They're fully autonomous and independent from PRC courts.

Oh, sure. Completely independent. No political interference from the PRC government.
If you believe that, I've got some Florida swampland I'd like to interest you in.


The common-law legal system is the best thing Hong Kong inherits from the British rule.
It is currently the last resort people have to go against government's wrongdoing.
It is as independent from the Hong Kong government as before.
After the handover, although it is not 100% independent from China, it is close enough.
Sure, China did override a final court decision once a few years ago (that was really bad), but the decisions were made independently; it was just sad that the stupid then CE Tung asked the Chinese government to overrule that final court decision just to stop some potential immigrants from China.
#6 Fred Derf on 19 May 2007 - 18:56
Perhaps if his online persona had not been "Big Crook" then the court may have been more reasonable with him.
(1 reply) #7 Solidstinch on 21 May 2007 - 23:14
No one lost money by him sharing movies. Now if it could be determined if those people that downloaded it would have bought that movie if they had no means to download it...then yes, profits were lost.
#7.1 C_Guy on 22 May 2007 - 16:41
Let's go with this logic!

Everyone should share movies. Then, no one ever has to want to buy them, so no one does. Then Hollywood can't afford to make movies anymore so soon there won't be anything left to steal.

As the courts have proven, crimes like this have no justification.
#8 C_Guy on 22 May 2007 - 16:35
Yeah I'm sure he uploaded it for safe-keeping, not for distribution

3 months is nothing. Obviously he wanted to go to prison - why else would he knowingly violate a law where jail time is a known consequence?

Hopefully this sends out the message that consequences should (and will) be paid for stealing and illegally making media available for download.

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.

Advertisement (Why?)