Comments on: Camcording ‘pirate’ jailed for 2 years

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:33:52 +0000

su going to code. report.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:18:24 +0000

CODE NO CAMCORDING GO PRISON

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:53:22 +0000

It’s not a keyboard warrior statement – I would not spend two years in jail for recording ONE movie. The others where probably downloaded and deleted after use. I’d rather get my own justice in and go out with a bang. You’re also an idiot, above poster.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:07:38 +0000

Ignoring the keyboard warrior statements above and the dilution of other offenses – if the idiot was stupid enough to do it and stupid enough to get caught then the gene pool isnt missing the retard , let him get a bumming marathon in jail .

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:57:48 +0000

fuck that. I’d jump over the table and stab their fucking lawyer.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:24:35 +0000

Some media outlets (that I think are shills for the MPAA/RIAA) are saying that this guy got 21 YEARS in prison, not 21 months….. which I think was an intentional oops.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:49:30 +0000

Just goes to show you where there priorities are. Camcording a movie is as serious an offense as hacking military records, white collar crime and distribution of child porn?!

The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a few years, you’ll get a lighter sentence for murder than if you’re caught bootlegging a movie.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:23:29 +0000

Just the standard technique for being able to say the most audacious lies and damaging slander against someone. Use plenty of “might have … ” , “could have … “, and precede the baseless accusations with with “we don’t know if … ”

“forensic analysis indicates … ” is another good one. A term usually reserved for fingerprints, DNA, and other identifiers that, while not proof positive, indicate an extremely strong possibility of a match. In this case it’s more like “the files were made on a computer … the defendant has a computer “