6 ms·

"Bridi, 50, was arrested on Sunday in Cyprus on an INTERPOL Red Notice. Correa, 36, was arrested yesterday in Olathe, Kansas, where he will appear in federal co

"Bridi, 50, was arrested on Sunday in Cyprus on an INTERPOL Red Notice. Correa, 36, was arrested yesterday in Olathe, Kansas, where he will appear in federal court. Ahmad, 39, was not arrested and is still at large." An INTERPOL Red Notice! You'd think these are terrorists, human traffickers or drug lords. Nope, they share films before the films are supposed to come out. I understand that one should not try to profit from piracy. I also understand that the people who are orchestrating the operations that lead to films being leaked ahead of time should indeed be stopped, but isn't this all a bit overly dramatic, when there are real problems to be dealt with in the world?

0x262d 6y ago
that's all well and good, but some very rich people could be even richer, and that's what is really important to law enforcement. another substantiating example is here: https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft
- 0x262d 6y ago
  How this works seems, at first approximation, pretty simple to me. The monetary loss (possibly quite large here) is the financial incentive to punish a crime. And the amount of money the affected person or corporation still has, after that, is the power they have to pursue punishment. Therefore, by the market incentives our society knows, loves, and endlessly promotes, extremely rich profiteers tend to get first and best justice, regardless of the social value of pursuing it. Here, I think it's negative social value to punish these people, although reasonable people can probably disagree on that. An interesting corollary is that if a crime causes money to be transferred from someone with less power to someone with more power (power being generally approximated by wealth), then there will be an overall negative incentive to pursue justice, at least as far as those two parties are concerned. This certainly doesn't explain all criminal justice, there is some basic functioning of society to be upheld etc. But it arguably explains a lot of which injustices do and don't get punished that you can see daily just by reading the news.
antihero 6y ago
It makes perfect sense when you realise that law enforcement's historical and primary goal, over and above protection of us, is the protection of capital.
- tanzann 6y ago
  Isn't that caused mainly by lobbying and so? Some context. Generally speaking money in practice means power just because it allows lobbying and hiring good lawyers. And power basically is ability to have someone else solving one's problems.
  - antihero 6y ago
    It started like this! The first formal police force in Britain (and I think the world) was created to prevent theft at London docks. The first in the USA was born of people catching and beating runaway/errant slaves which were at the time considered capital.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    "Lobbying" just means presenting your position on an issue. Money can help with making a persuasive presentation, to a point, but lobbying per se is never the cause of the problem. You can blame that on the people with way too much power who listen to the lobbyists and do as they ask—instead of actually doing their jobs and representing the interests of all their constituents.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      This is an extremely linear way of looking at public corruption. It's all well and good to say that politicians should act morally, but if you don't do what you're told, you won't get the money, and you won't keep the job. You'll be replaced by somebody who does what they're told. We're filtering for trash. It's weird that you're even combining this with a defense of cash payments to politicians from special interests. You characterize bad governance strictly as a moral failure, but defend bribes as an mostly irrelevant rhetorical addition to the persuasive presentation of one's position.
rolph 6y ago
at least wait until the material is being sold on disk, at that point any number of people can watch a single disk and the theatre has made its payday on screen when you copy theatre screeners or cam the movie thats poking a stick right in a sleeping bears eye
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  What percentage of people who would watch a 'cam', but not watch the movie legitimately later, would have paid? If I had to guess I'd go <1%. What percent could, even if they wanted to pay, watch the movie legitimately in their country? Does it matter if you watch a cam if you're not even able to pay for the movie? The thing about movies is that they're also part of societal culture - in The West at least. In my personal opinion copyright is all kinds of messed up, and limiting the length of copyright terms (to say 7 years from public release) first would somewhat legitimise such harsh actions.
  - rolph 6y ago
    camming is a concretely tangible theft. when a movie is being sold on disk after theatre showings close out, there is already a return for investments and disk sales are just gravy. disks are played many times lent out to family and friends watched in recap after the theatre and donated to thrift shops. a large group of people can "steal" by watching for free multiple times, but millions have been made in theatre wages paid and investors pacified. when a movie is cammed this cuts into the revenue. i believe in a co-existence being possible however thats short circuited by the one "free" view == one lost/stolen sale mentality.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      >when a movie is cammed this cuts into the revenue. // Is there proof of this?
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      They paid for the ticket didn't they? And even if it was a projection room cam they could have offered a seat there and yet they didn't so no material loss to claim. You can't claim that my tree falling on your grass did damage to your hypothetical Porsche and claim losses of it. They still got their share of the fixed pie. Theft isn't infringement.
nfriedly 6y ago
I was curious, so I went and looked up what a Red Notice is: > What is a Red Notice? [...] Information related to the crime they are wanted for, which can typically be murder, rape, child abuse or armed robbery. [1] Using it to go after people who share movies for free seems like a gross abuse of the system. [1]: https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices
- tpush 6y ago
  Nonsense. If you read your own link red notices are simply issued for wanted criminals likely to flee to another country; what crime was committed is largely irrelevant. This is opposed to yellow notices, which are for missing persons.
  - casefields 6y ago
    Also important to add that red notices themselves are not arrest warrants. People get that confused.
  - buzer 6y ago
    According to the rules of Interpol, it should only be used for serious crimes. There should be some kind of non-exhaustive list, but it's probably not public. Article 83 @ https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/5694/file/24%20E%20RPD%20UPDATE%207%2011%2019_ok.pdf https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/5694/file/24%20...
renewiltord 6y ago
Fans of government enforcement always find this surprising. "We should pass this law so the government can stop child abusers! If we restrict it to child abuse it can't be used. We will trust the enforcers.". Some time passes and then the surprise "Wait, but all that guy did was smoke weed / share a movie / connect to a WiFi access point. Why is he being prosecuted under this law?". Typical, repeatable, thoroughly enjoyable to watch in its predictability. If only there was a way to profit off it. Another example for funsies: https://rsf.org/en/news/romania-tries-use-gdpr-force-journalists-reveal-sources https://rsf.org/en/news/romania-tries-use-gdpr-force-journal...

0x262d 6y ago

that's all well and good, but some very rich people could be even richer, and that's what is really important to law enforcement. another substantiating example is here: https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft https://www.gq.com/story/wage-theft

0x262d 6y ago
How this works seems, at first approximation, pretty simple to me. The monetary loss (possibly quite large here) is the financial incentive to punish a crime. And the amount of money the affected person or corporation still has, after that, is the power they have to pursue punishment. Therefore, by the market incentives our society knows, loves, and endlessly promotes, extremely rich profiteers tend to get first and best justice, regardless of the social value of pursuing it. Here, I think it's negative social value to punish these people, although reasonable people can probably disagree on that. An interesting corollary is that if a crime causes money to be transferred from someone with less power to someone with more power (power being generally approximated by wealth), then there will be an overall negative incentive to pursue justice, at least as far as those two parties are concerned. This certainly doesn't explain all criminal justice, there is some basic functioning of society to be upheld etc. But it arguably explains a lot of which injustices do and don't get punished that you can see daily just by reading the news.

antihero 6y ago

It makes perfect sense when you realise that law enforcement's historical and primary goal, over and above protection of us, is the protection of capital.

tanzann 6y ago
Isn't that caused mainly by lobbying and so? Some context. Generally speaking money in practice means power just because it allows lobbying and hiring good lawyers. And power basically is ability to have someone else solving one's problems.
- antihero 6y ago
  It started like this! The first formal police force in Britain (and I think the world) was created to prevent theft at London docks. The first in the USA was born of people catching and beating runaway/errant slaves which were at the time considered capital.
- nybble41 6y ago
  "Lobbying" just means presenting your position on an issue. Money can help with making a persuasive presentation, to a point, but lobbying per se is never the cause of the problem. You can blame that on the people with way too much power who listen to the lobbyists and do as they ask—instead of actually doing their jobs and representing the interests of all their constituents.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    This is an extremely linear way of looking at public corruption. It's all well and good to say that politicians should act morally, but if you don't do what you're told, you won't get the money, and you won't keep the job. You'll be replaced by somebody who does what they're told. We're filtering for trash. It's weird that you're even combining this with a defense of cash payments to politicians from special interests. You characterize bad governance strictly as a moral failure, but defend bribes as an mostly irrelevant rhetorical addition to the persuasive presentation of one's position.

rolph 6y ago

at least wait until the material is being sold on disk, at that point any number of people can watch a single disk and the theatre has made its payday on screen when you copy theatre screeners or cam the movie thats poking a stick right in a sleeping bears eye

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
What percentage of people who would watch a 'cam', but not watch the movie legitimately later, would have paid? If I had to guess I'd go <1%. What percent could, even if they wanted to pay, watch the movie legitimately in their country? Does it matter if you watch a cam if you're not even able to pay for the movie? The thing about movies is that they're also part of societal culture - in The West at least. In my personal opinion copyright is all kinds of messed up, and limiting the length of copyright terms (to say 7 years from public release) first would somewhat legitimise such harsh actions.
- rolph 6y ago
  camming is a concretely tangible theft. when a movie is being sold on disk after theatre showings close out, there is already a return for investments and disk sales are just gravy. disks are played many times lent out to family and friends watched in recap after the theatre and donated to thrift shops. a large group of people can "steal" by watching for free multiple times, but millions have been made in theatre wages paid and investors pacified. when a movie is cammed this cuts into the revenue. i believe in a co-existence being possible however thats short circuited by the one "free" view == one lost/stolen sale mentality.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >when a movie is cammed this cuts into the revenue. // Is there proof of this?
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    They paid for the ticket didn't they? And even if it was a projection room cam they could have offered a seat there and yet they didn't so no material loss to claim. You can't claim that my tree falling on your grass did damage to your hypothetical Porsche and claim losses of it. They still got their share of the fixed pie. Theft isn't infringement.

nfriedly 6y ago

I was curious, so I went and looked up what a Red Notice is: > What is a Red Notice? [...] Information related to the crime they are wanted for, which can typically be murder, rape, child abuse or armed robbery. [1] Using it to go after people who share movies for free seems like a gross abuse of the system. [1]: https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/Red-Notices

tpush 6y ago
Nonsense. If you read your own link red notices are simply issued for wanted criminals likely to flee to another country; what crime was committed is largely irrelevant. This is opposed to yellow notices, which are for missing persons.
- casefields 6y ago
  Also important to add that red notices themselves are not arrest warrants. People get that confused.
- buzer 6y ago
  According to the rules of Interpol, it should only be used for serious crimes. There should be some kind of non-exhaustive list, but it's probably not public. Article 83 @ https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/5694/file/24%20E%20RPD%20UPDATE%207%2011%2019_ok.pdf https://www.interpol.int/en/content/download/5694/file/24%20...

renewiltord 6y ago

Fans of government enforcement always find this surprising. "We should pass this law so the government can stop child abusers! If we restrict it to child abuse it can't be used. We will trust the enforcers.". Some time passes and then the surprise "Wait, but all that guy did was smoke weed / share a movie / connect to a WiFi access point. Why is he being prosecuted under this law?". Typical, repeatable, thoroughly enjoyable to watch in its predictability. If only there was a way to profit off it. Another example for funsies: https://rsf.org/en/news/romania-tries-use-gdpr-force-journalists-reveal-sources https://rsf.org/en/news/romania-tries-use-gdpr-force-journal...