Toshiba Employee Arrested For Selling Software To Break Copy Limits

JoshuaInNippon writes "A Toshiba employee in western Japan has been arrested on charges of copyright violations for selling software online that breaks copying limits on certain Japanese digital TV recording and playback devices. The software specifically overrides limits on a program called 'dubbing10,' which is used in devices sold by companies such as Sony, Sharp, and Panasonic. It is believed that the man generated thousands of dollars worth of earnings for himself by selling to at least 712 people, including one teenager who then resold the software to another 240 people. This is the first disclosed case in Japan of someone being arrested for selling such limit-removal software for digital TV recording. Since it sounds like he has already admitted to selling it (although he denies creating it), and due to the generally high conviction rate of those arrested by Japanese police, his future does not look so bright at the moment."

Argument

[headkase]

If there was mutual trust between customers and copyright holders this situation wouldn't exist. People are stealing because they know intuitively in their gut that they are being ripped off, see: The Public Domain [thepublicdomain.org]. And copyright holders are failing to meet the needs of their customers - nobody wants digital restrictions yet they insist to maximize that little thing called profit. It will come back to bite them in the ass, it already has.

Toshiba: guilt by association?

[InakaBoyJoe]

Notice how the article reports that the suspect is a "Toshiba employee" even though his activities have nothing to do with Toshiba (as far as we know). That's how things work in Japan (and Asia in general) -- the company, relatives, etc. share some responsibility for an individual's actions simply by association.

Re:Argument

[Beardo the Bearded]

Same thing here. I'm not going to pay hundreds of dollars to watch Battlestar Galactica one time when I could just get it from the library. Neither would I want to wait for 12 months for the DVD release of "V" to catch up on the first four episodes.

I blame scour.net since it let me get mp3s for free in 1999. They should be shut down.

Re:Argument

[Microlith]

People are stealing because they know intuitively in their gut that they are being ripped off

They -think- they are being ripped off, but they would do so even if the prices were truly reasonable. The p2p audience seems to consist of pack-rats and freeloaders, with a tiny subset of people who take a moral (and sometimes hypocritical) stand.

copyright holders are failing to meet the needs of their customers - nobody wants digital restrictions

No argument there, but making a case against it is hard. Progress is being made, with the rapid death of DRM on music distributed via iTunes and Amazon.

Re:Hmm

[xOneca]

WTF? Selling a crack? It should be free!

Re:Argument

[headkase]

And Black heroine? 1925? That should be public domain.

Re:Argument

[Sabriel]

Wall-E on Blu-Ray for $18? Awesome! Oh, wait, Amazon's warning me about something:

Please note: Your order contains at least one Region 1 (Canada and U.S.) encoded DVD. Region 1 DVDs might not play in DVD players sold in the country where this order is being shipped. Please also note that some Region 1 DVDs contain a Regional Coding Enhancement. Some of our international customers have had problems playing these enhanced discs on their “region-free” DVD players. Learn more about DVD region encoding and formats. To modify your order, edit the quantities below.

Hmm. It also seems the DRM on the disc won't let me make a backup in case of the kids wrecking it either. What was that you were saying about Disney's confidence in its customers?

Re:Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest people will pay for something if they feel that the price point matches the perceived value, rather than do without it.

There, fixed that for you.

The following rant is not aimed at realityimpaired, since he stated he uses open source alternatives for ethical reasons. His post simply provided the best springboard for it (sorry).

Movies, recorded TV shows, and software aren't food. You don't need them. If the vendor is charging more than you think it's worth, use a substitute, or do without it. There is no, I repeat no, justification for stealing something just because you want it. Period. Arguments about "perceived value" and "cognitive dissonance" are the self serving claptrap of a generation of precious babies. These people show what you get when parents stop beating their children and schools stop flunking the stupid and lazy, and it isn't pretty. There is such a thing as too much self esteem. Yes, the rules apply to you. No, pirating movies isn't "civil disobedience". Civil disobedience is the breaking of minor laws in service of a greater moral goal, like ending discrimination based on skin color or sexual orientation. "Gives me teh free tunez" and "I want a pony" are not examples of greater moral goals. If you feel strongly that copyright and patent law are out of control, stop buying copyrighted material, use open source software, play an instrument, use the vote, campaign, write letters to your congresspersons, write amicus briefs for the court. Emulate Eric Raymond or Richard Stallman. As for movies, music and software, pay the money, use something cheaper, or pass your time some other way.

Re:Argument

[ultranova]

The p2p audience seems to consist of pack-rats and freeloaders, with a tiny subset of people who take a moral (and sometimes hypocritical) stand.

The very fact that there is content available through P2P proves you wrong: someone went to the trouble of ripping, disinfecting, and uploading the game/movie/music in question. P2P couldn't exist if only a "tiny subset" contributed their personal resources; they would very soon run out and the system would collapse.

Re:Argument

[mpe]

Yep, they are selling inferior products at an elevated price and then are surprised people try to find ways around it ?

From the customer's POV the likes of DRM create an inferior product. There is no situation where they add any value at all. But they do add cost, which is likely to be passed on to the customer. The idea that adding DRM could reduce prices just dosn't make much sense.

Re:Argument

[ultranova]

We all know that contributing upstream bandwidth that you're already paying for anyways is NOT the same as paying $10 for a DVD, otherwise we would be doing that.

Many times I see people keep on seeding, even if the file is in multiple small RAR files (yes, some morons still distribute gigabyte files formatted for floppies). Those RAR files are utterly useless once their content has been extracted, and take up valuable hard disk space, yet people still leave them there and the torrent program - which also consumes resources - running.

Also, given the choice, I'd rather pay $20 to a pirate than $10 to a media company, since the latter will use the money against me. It is unwise to fund your enemies.

And that an encoding and seeding job can be done by one person or a small team but lead to thousands of people getting it, so yes it is a "tiny subset" that contributes meaningful work (time and effort to encode and edit), while most 'contribute' something that requires no effort on their part.

Apparently there's enough people contributing their efforts that everything that gets released in a digital format - and many things that got released in analog ones - appear on P2P within days of their release, if not earlier, usually multiple times. The reason there's no more people ripping movies and disinfecting software is that even the current labour force is ridiculously oversized relative to the task.

Nearly everyone in P2P community contributes everything they can be reasonably expected to, and many people far in excess of that. It is your argument that is absurd, saying that people dublicating effort only 2-5 times rather than 1000 times over makes them freeloaders.

And while I think copyright laws are too strict and prosecuting for reverse-engineering is horrible, I have to rage a bit at the "evil corporations pay only a small % of sales to artists, so it's okay to copy" argument. What percentage of money from P2P downloads go to the artist? What is 1% of zero?

I haven't made any such argument. I'm against copyright simply because it is sick that our entire society and communication technology is getting twisted out of shape just to financially benefit people who make pop songs. And, as the secret ACTA negotiation process once again demonstrates, it seems impossible to have copyright that stays reasonable, I say we're better off without it.