SA's first online pirate gets five year suspended sentence

Even the director of the movie understands better than SAFACT, so why is this even an issue?

The director of Four Corners, South African Ian Gabriel, told htxt.africa that he was philosophical about the effects of online copyright infringement and that while it will have cost the production company some viewers, others who would never have heard of the film may now have paid to see it.

“I think the way people think now * digitally * they don’t see piracy as piracy any more,” Gabriel said, “They see it as sharing. We will definitely not get as many people to the cinemas as we would have if the film were not pirated.
Click to expand...
 
what was the actual charge he pleaded guilty to?
 
Justice suspended

So ... what are the chances of this guy (the first in 50 years to face this kind of charge) actually being charged with the same offence in the next 5 years? Not really good. I suspect this was a marketing exercise for the film.
 
Last edited:
R13... said:
I guess those who paid for the production and distribution felt different.
Click to expand...
Then they need to work on improving their marketing methods. They want to sell people movie theater tickets when what the people want, is to watch it in the comfort of their homes at their leisure. Instead of finding ways to give the people what they want, they wish to force people to go to movie theaters. I for one would be more than happy to pay a small fee for digital downloads of movies and series. In fact, I do pay a small fee, but it goes to my ISP, not the movie produces - because the movie producers don't want to offer it that way.
When the same issue existed with music, iTunes showed that there could be a business model that served the interests of the users as well as the music producers. Of course the people who aren't happy is the middle men who get cut out.
 
twhitehead said:
Then they need to work on improving their marketing methods. They want to sell people movie theater tickets when what the people want, is to watch it in the comfort of their homes at their leisure. Instead of finding ways to give the people what they want, they wish to force people to go to movie theaters. I for one would be more than happy to pay a small fee for digital downloads of movies and series. In fact, I do pay a small fee, but it goes to my ISP, not the movie produces - because the movie producers don't want to offer it that way.
When the same issue existed with music, iTunes showed that there could be a business model that served the interests of the users as well as the music producers. Of course the people who aren't happy is the middle men who get cut out.
Click to expand...

Just because their marketing sucks or their business model suck, doesn't give people the right to just help themselves to content they are not allowed to have
 
R13... said:
I guess those who paid for the production and distribution felt different.
Click to expand...

Times have moved on, they should too. Digital distribution is the future. If they want to curb piracy then they will need to introduce proper digital channels.
 
milomak said:
what was the actual charge he pleaded guilty to?
Click to expand...

Norton uploaded a torrent link and seeded a digitial version of Four Corners, a film about gangster life in the poor communities of the Cape Flats, to popular sharing website The Pirate Bay in November last year. The file, Norton says, was created after ripping a DVD purchased by a friend from a street vendor.
Click to expand...

Something with copyright infringement, public distribution by uploading or otherwise offering to share copyright-protected content?
 
cfilorux said:
So ... what are the chances of this guy (the first in 50 years to face this kind of charge) actually being charged with the same offence in the next 5 years? Not really good. I suspect this was a marketing exercise for the film.
Click to expand...

I would not even have known of the film.

Still not watched it though.
 
So his ISP would have been approached in order to find out his identity.

Which ISP was this?
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Times have moved on, they should too. Digital distribution is the future. If they want to curb piracy then they will need to introduce proper digital channels.
Click to expand...

No problem with that. I too agree that if they change their distribution model where home users can obtain a movie at the same time as the big screen it would actually make them more money. Some of us would still go to the cinema and the anti-socials would have a way to watch the latest movies legally. Then you will get those who would still pirate the movie even if it were free and there's nothing you can do about those because they're not lost business that's just how they perceive value which after all is how pricing works. The right price is the one the customer is happy to pay based on their perception of the value you offer.

In modern business price is not based on what it costs to make the product - it is perceived value. So both the business and the base dwelling geek mustn't equally not bemoan the price.
 
I think this was the expected result from the beginning. I had a chat with the attorneys at the beginning and I was quite sure it would end up in a plea bargain. If it was not for the plea bargain, imprisonment would have been the end result.

I also think this is a great case for the state, even if it ended up in a plea agreement and suspended sentence. This case will now become the cornerstone of all future cases where people upload and share torrent files in South Africa.

So, the moral of the story here to other people is: be careful of torrents....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter