David Lambert

re: "You keep using that word"

Uh, I transcribed a definition from the dictionary. And then I commented on how the situation could be interpreted as "sheltering". At most I used the word twice, once as a quote from the dictionary. And I don't recall a Seinfeld episode remotely like this (I'm not a total Seinfeld junkie in any case).

Let's go back to the dictionary and see what it means to "shelter" something:

Shelter: To provide cover or protection for.


So, if the OP is "covering" for his co-worker by knowing about the crime and not turning him in, then his management could consider him an accessory after the fact.


Uh, no. The reason there is a crime called "accessory after the fact" is because there's such a thing about knowing it happened in the past, sheltering the criminal, and letting that person get away with it.

Doogie, you are refering to an "accessory BEFORE the fact", which is considered a greater crime. Usually it's a fine line between that and co-conspirator.

But re-read my post: I'm not suggesting that the OP will get arrested. I'm suggesting it may get him in trouble with his management. Let's take an example: I work for a bank, and live near the bank. A guy named "Pete Robber" holds up the bank, and as he runs away from the bank he's being chased. He ducks into my house to elude capture. I'm home, and he threatens me to be quiet. When the police move on from that part of the neighborhood, he runs off and successfully escapes. A week later I haven't said anything, and Pete's caught passing a marked bill at the store and is arrested. During questioning it comes out that he eluded escape by hiding in my house. Will the police arrest me as an accessory after the fact? Doubtful, especially as I was threatened. But it's possible that the bank - not having as much sympathy for my fear in light of the threat - will fire me because I didn't help the police capture the robber.

The OP's in a similar situation, except for two things: 1) the crime isn't as serious as a bank robbery, although it IS still a crime, and 2) there may or may not be an implied threat that the bootlegging co-worker will stalk him or strike him with a wrench, but management may have less sympathy since at most its an implied threat and not a direct one.


I've said my piece, I'm not going to continue to debate all this. What's the right thing to do is up to the OP. Good luck with your decision!

adamblast

I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the MPAA or RIAA, or anyone pirating music or movies for their own use.

If they're trying to make money off it, then I'd tell them they're idiots who deserve to be caught.

If they're doing it on company time, with company resources, I'd tell them to stop or I'll have to protect my own position with the job by reporting them.

RockStrongo

I was referring to the finale where they all got arrested for not helping someone who was being mugged. This whole thread somewhat reminds me of that episode for some reason.

I think you are incorrect.

Sheltering would be giving him aid somehow. Knowing about an action and actually helping are different. If you want to stand behind your statement, please provide proof that someone just knowing that someone is selling bootleg DVDs can possibly be arrested (of course, some states may actually have laws about that since every state is different).

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/293/293lect04.htm

accessory after the fact -- this remains, in some jurisdictions, a separate and less serious offense for giving aid and comfort (harboring) to a fugitive. The law sees it as a separate offense because it's really helping someone avoid arrest or escape punishment more than helping someone commit a crime. Accessories always have a claim to less punishment.

http://www.netlaw.co.nz/crime.cfm?PageID=320

(1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him, in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.

I know alot of people who download music off the net. I am in NO WAY legally obligated to turn them in. Period.

Psych1

I'm very surprised at some of the responses here from some who should know better.

There is a great deal of debate over software theft, time-shifting, backing up your own stuff, making a copy for a friend, and more. But, sometimes there is an obvious time when someone crosses over the line from right to wrong. This guy has crossed that line. If we don't do something to stop him - who will?

RockStrongo

I think it is purely a moral question as to whether or not to turn him in. I have not seen any proof that you are legally required to do so.

Since it is a moral case only, it is subjective.

Everyone has their own opinions and has the right to their own decision. We shouldn't criticize each other for our differences.

Now, those that defend the actual act of copying and selling the DVDs are incorrect since it is currently against the law.

David Lambert

As I said, I'm done contributing to the debate. However, I just wanted to jump in and point out that you're already twisting my words to suit your arguement!

I said it before and I'll say it again: re-read my post: I'm not suggesting that the OP will get arrested. I'm suggesting it may get him in trouble with his management.

Explain to me how you can guarantee that this person won't suffer in their job or career path at their present employer if it became known that they had knowledge of this criminal activity and didn't say something to management.

Of course, if the OP has no career goals, it's not a problem whatsoever!

RockStrongo

No, im not twisting your words. Please go back and re-read your post.

Your original post quoted my post about whether or not there were legal or moral obligations and your post specifically said that the prosecution may not go after you....

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Lambert

So, if the OP is "covering" for his co-worker by knowing about the crime and not turning him in, then his management could consider him an accessory after the fact.

You were obviously trying to say that it was somehow against the law to not turn him in and you might be prosecuted for it. Obviously, if your helping him in someway then you are an accessory, but merely knowing of the act does not qualify.

I agree that there is a slim possibility that his job could suffer, but your argument also defends those who said that his life or health could suffer if he DID turn him in.

David Lambert

I see where the confusion is. My mistake, when I said "the prosecution may not make an issue of it", what I MEANT by "the prosecution" was "the entire process of Law and Order: from police to DA's office". That's clearly my error, I didn't make my meaning clear: I was in a hurry and used a short label when a longer explanation was needed. In that case, I understand why you were debating the way you were. My apologies. I am trying to say that it's doubtful that he'd even be arrested/booked on an "accessory after the fact" charge, because of the situation.

Go back and re-read that now that you know what my intent was, and perhaps you'll understand what I'm trying to say. It's less that the law would pursue him even a little bit, but that his employer might seize upon a legal term like "accessory after the fact" and use it to justify discipline (up to and including termination). I guess it depends on how his company's policies read, and whether a vindictive manager could twist them to justify whatever he wants to do to the OP if the OP didn't turn the crook in.


re: "I agree that there is a slim possibility that his job could suffer, but your argument also defends those who said that his life or health could suffer if he DID turn him in."

And certainly there is a slim possibility that his health or life could suffer if he did turn the fellow in, which is why I suggested using an anonymous method of turning the person in, such as an ethics hotline.

So there are "slim possibilities" of some sort of retaliation if you do either thing. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, eh? Not necessarily, especially as "right" thing to do is also the "safer" thing to do: leaving an anonymous tip (which, if later on management comes to you, you can always describe the details of how the tip was left and what exact wording was used, to prove it was you who left it...better yet, make it a computer print-out note and mail a copy to yourself and keep it sealed).

Why is it "safer"? Because once the guy gets busted (and sooner or later he will), there's no telling what he'll say under pressure. "Well, everybody knew about it...Jim for instance! And Doug and Mary and Sandy!" Even if the OP isn't named, one of those others might name him down the line. Heads could roll. Being the one to bust him safeguards your position in the company, and doing it anonymously means that the bad guy cannot retaliate later on.

RockStrongo

No prob.

I understand your point a little better now.


Yes, leaving an anonymous tip would be smart, but if your the only one who knows (who hasn't bought from him ), he might be able to determine who it was that reported him. Of course every situation could be different.

Again, I think its completely a moral issue whether or not to turn him in. Some would say your obligated and some would say not. I just happen to be one who says there is not a moral obligation. Everyone has their own morals/opinions.

toddly6666

In the whole scheme of things, bootlegging is no big deal. It's a meaningless law created to support greed. It's a created law that has nothing to do with ethics and morals. It doesn't even fall into the classic catagory of "stealing". On both sides of the coin - A CD/DVD consumer and the movie company/music artist - do not actually suffer. If there is no suffering, then there is no big deal. It's not about the movie company/music artist making LESS money, it's about them not making MORE money. Bootlegging should be praised and supported anyway, because it's a good way of attacking corporations, especially since the trend nowadays is to be "against corportations."

Why is there no law against buying and selling reproductions of famous artwork such as Picasso paintings? Anyone can sell reproductions of famous paintings. It's not an ethical issue. So what happens when someone of the Picasso family pays off the government and makes a law that it is illegal to sell reproductions of Pablo's artwork. Does that newly created law make it unethical all of a sudden? There is no difference between a reproduction of a famous piece of artwork and a reproduction (bootleg) of a DVD/CD.

There is something especially wrong, as someone said in an earlier post, when all of the bootlegging accesories (DVD/CD burners-recorders, DVD-Rs) are being sold cheaply and available at normal stores. Something's a little fishy there...

A normal person would not turn that person in that is copying DVDs at work or wherever. If you wanna be jerk, then by all means, turn that person in.

I'm only against bootleggers selling bad copies or DVDs that destruct after one viewing (such as many Asian DVDs, i.e. Bollywood dvds). If it's one's job to pirate, then do it well, and don't sell crappy copies. If the person is making crappy copies, then turn him in by all means!!

RockStrongo

I see your point, but still think its thin.

For example, internet gambling/fantasy football are immediate grounds for dismissal at my company. If I know that someone is doing it and he/she gets caught, I highly doubt that I will get canned for just knowing about it.

That could potentially be a lawsuit against the company for firing me without any proof or even a valid reason.

Still, I know that anything can happen.

I think its more likely that he would know who it was and kick that person's ass for telling on them. Who knows though.

SFranke

I would if I knew to whom he should be reported.

RockStrongo

[email protected]

jk, actually, its...

http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/

[email protected]

Then, they send out their swat team with MPAA written on their jackets.

RockStrongo

I can understand why its against the law, but I agree that it does not necessarily hurt anyone.

I highly doubt that Hollywood has had to lay people off due to bootlegging. It seems like the last that I heard, they were breaking records with ticket sales and so on.

In my case, I actually had some bootlegs of Star Wars (I wont say how I got them). I had them during the time that SW was not available. When SW DID become available, I threw them away and bought the retail copies.

George Lucas STILL made money off of me even though I had boots.

Same story for the Indy trilogy.

masetodd

High morals are one thing, but snitches are another. I find that it's usually people who are jealous or insecure that do the "reporting to authorities". They can't understand how someone else can operate ouside the box, and it makes them afraid. "Maybe if I tell on them, the world will go back to its nice, safe state, where everyone obeys orders and no one thinks for themselves....blah blah blah."

DoogieHowser

Dude, you watch too much TV. You would have to give aid to someone, like telling a bank robber they can hang out in your basement while the heat dies down. However, just knowing who the bank robber is and not telling is not a crime. But in all reality, we are not even talking about theft here. Not like taking something from someone and depriving them use. Instead you are depriving someone what? Thoughts about greater profits. LOL. I would guess that most of the people who copy crap would not buy the stuff if copying was not available. Second, I bet some of the people who copied stuff, at some later time did buy the original DVD because they liked it so much and wanted it.

costanza187

Nobody likes a tattletale!

jk4w

Something I hate more than anything is a Rat.

bboisvert

Apples and oranges, in my opinion.

There's one thing about buying a 'boot' of something that is not yet available (Star Wars, Indy, whatever) to watch while waiting for the 'real deal'. You're right, no one is getting hurt in this situation.

But some guy selling $5 copies of Spider-Man or Shrek 2 out of a backpack at work *is* hurting content providers... even if overall box office is still healthy.

If someone buys a copy of Shrek for $5 from this fuckwad, he's not going to drop another $15 at Wal-Mart to get the 'real thing' later. Idiot pirate makes $5 for knowing how to run a DVD burner, but the people who actually made, distributed, and invested in the movie get squat.

Sure, this is small potatoes compared to total revenue and Bob the Set Painter probably isn't going to lose his job. But it doesn't make it right -- for the buyer or the seller.


It's illegal, it's morally questionable, it's shady, and it has no place in the workplace. I have no issues with turning this person in. People go to work to, you know... work. They shouldn't have to put up with a "Psssst, buddy... wanna buy a watch?" sort of atmosphere. This person's supervisor is likely to agree.

Jah-Wren Ryel

95+% of the people buying these bootlegs for $5 are going to watch the film once, maybe twice and then let the disc rot away on the shelf or just toss it out.

So, if instead of selling bootlegs, he was lending out legit copies how is the end result substantially different?

bboisvert

Things would be radically different, since he would be "lending out" the disc for a limited time (for a quick viewing period) and then getting it back.

But your point is really moot (isn't it)? He isn't lending out a disc to a friend. He's burning copies and selling them for profit-- to friends, complete strangers, or anyone else who will produce a Lincoln for him. Pretty huge fucking difference, no?

DVD Polizei

There could be positive outcomes from so many people copying movies. The same theory applies to music and carries over into software as well. If you really love the title, you will go out and buy the official version. If not, then you probably wouldn't have bought the official version in the first place.

My main concern with this discussion, is that we are tunnel-visioned on catching those evil movie rippers, while permitting other crimes pass us by. I've seen guys talk about how they would never pirate a movie, but watch their damn movie on a warez WinDVD Platinum version, or as some have mentioned, listen to MP3's from the net.

Copying movies and selling them for a profit is illegal. Whether it's wrong or not, is up to your own personal values. Just because something is illegal, does not necessarily mean its wrong.

The argument that ripping movies is depriving companies of profits is a very old argument, put out by the companies themselves, in order to INCREASE their product prices. What many don't realize, is bootlegs, MP3's, and pirated software, are owned by those who wouldn't have bought the official versions in the first place, so they should not be included in the theoretical lost profits categories these companies just love to publish in news reports and their own FAQs.

How to stop all of this? It's simple. Sell a damn DVD 2-Disc Special Edition for $5. Movie studios could triple their profits almost overnight and would put bootleggers out of business. Permanente. But they won't. Why? Because it's much easier charging quite a chunk for their product, while at the same time knowing their consumer will believe their tall tales of pirating costs and will continue to pay high prices.

If anything, bootlegging of music, movies, and software, has actually DECREASED what the consumer pays for legitimate products. I am in no way supporting bootlegging, but it does have its positive effects. Maybe someday we will be able to buy a new DVD movie 2-Disc release for $5.

Tarantino

Eh, I could care less if people copy DVD's or not.

Jah-Wren Ryel

You are answering a question I did not ask.

Let me state the premise again - ~95% of the people buying the bootlegs will watch the movie once or twice and then let it sit unused - as if they no longer had it in their posession.

I want to know WHY lending is OK and copying is not WHEN THE END RESULT IS THE SAME - i.e. LOSS OF SALES.

Whether the guy charges for copies or not, whether he charges for renting or not - is immaterial because the end result is still the same either way.

whomod

What that post reminded me of actually was a story i read in TIME magazine a long while back by Lance Morrow I beleive. In the story he recounted how in the old Soviet Union, there was a statue of a young boy who supposedly was a hero of communism. The story goes something like this:

The boy lived in a farming community with his parents. Of course the farms were all property of the state and it was illegal to sell your own crops for personal profit. Well, it seems the parents were doing just that.
The boy being a good little authoritarian, decided to turn his parents in. After all.. they were breaking the law!

Well, the parents were taken away or killed or something...can't recall. The townspeople were incensed and turned on the boy and killed his rat azz. So that is why he became a hero of communism. For being a martyr for blind obedience to the state and all it's laws. Even above and beyond the obligations and loyalty to family.

Needless to say, after communism fell, the statue was promptly and gleefully destroyed.

Or so I recall reading....

Which is why in my post, I said he'd make a good communist.