Shane Pitman, leader of the warez group Razor 1911: life after prison (2005)

Thank you! Why is the main link a giant screenshot?

Irrelevant due to Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI)

It is interesting to see the raw visceral reaction to the DC council attempting to reduce prison sentences for crimes committed in the city. Congress even got involved to make sure it didn't happen, which has not happened in decades. Apparently a 14 year sentence for carjacking is not enough deterrent, it must be 20 years according to Congress, the President, and even the mayor of DC.

While it's possible that he did it for clout or as a FU to software companies, I think many people, including myself, pirated software in the early days of computing because the software itself was rare and cool. There were no demos back then to try software before you buy, and many people used software like Photoshop, Flash, 3D Max, etc for personal projects that made no profit. Even today, it's hard to justify paying $600 for a program that you aren't sure you actually like just to hopefully create some cool stuff to show your friends.

As for the "people that actually write software", I couldn't care less. It's been shown over and over that piracy never made the effect on thier bottom line that large software companies led many to believe. Simply put, people didn't buy these things because they considered them overpriced luxuries for simple hobbyists. The only choice was to pirate the software, or to never get to use it. As someone who writes software myself, I have no sympathy for people who want harsh punishments for someone who steals their stupid little program. Sure you put hard work into it, but so did a lot of people who offer their software for free. Generally, my thought is that these people are more upset that their software failed to make the impact that they thought it would or failed to generate the profit that they had dreamed of. Piracy was never at fault for either of those. They need to cope

(digging)

A Road to No Warez: The No Electronic Theft Act and Criminal Copyright Infringement - https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refer...

> The Act effected six principal changes to criminal copyright law. First, the NET Act expanded the Copyright Act's definition of "financial gain" to include the receipt (or expectation of re­ ceipt) of anything of value, including other copyrighted works.24 Second, in addition to willful infringement for commercial ad­ vantage or private financial gain, the Act criminalized the repro­ duction or distribution, in any 180 day period, of copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000.25 Third, the Act said that evidence of reproducing and distributing copy­ righted works does not, by itself, establish willfulness.26 Fourth, the Act changed the punishments for criminal infringement. For infringements of more than $1,000, the punishment includes im­ prisonment of up to one year and a fine.

This was passed in 1997 which is what he was convicted under.

The text of the law is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/2265

which... is rather short:

No Electronic Theft (NET) Act - Amends Federal copyright law to define "financial gain" to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, one or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000. Provides that evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

Extends the statute of limitations for criminal copyright infringement from three to five years.

Revises Federal criminal code provisions regarding criminal copyright infringement to provide for a fine and up to five years' imprisonment for infringing a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, at least ten copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $2,500.

Provides for: (1) up to three years' imprisonment and fines in infringement cases described above (exclusive of commercial gain intent considerations); (2) up to six years' imprisonment and a fine for a second or subsequent felony offense under (1); and (3) up to one year's imprisonment and a fine for the reproduction or distribution of one or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000.

Requires, during preparation of the presentence report in cases of criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of live musical performances, and trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, that victims of the offense be permitted to submit, and the probation officer receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim and the extent and scope of the victim's injury and loss, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and adequately reflects consideration of the retail value and quantity of items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed.

---

Note that (2) in the second paragraph is an or, doesn't require commercial or private gain and the expansion of "personal gain" to include "got access to other works."