The men made millions of dollars streaming stolen copyrighted content to tens of thousands of paid subscribers, the Justice Department said.

Five men were convicted by a federal jury in Las Vegas this week for running a large illegal streaming service called Jetflicks, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Kristopher Dallmann, Douglas Courson, Felipe Garcia, Jared Jaurequi, and Peter Huber began operating the subscription service as early as 2007, the Justice Department said in a release Thursday. They would find illegal copies of content online that they then downloaded to Jetflicks servers, the release said.

The men made millions of dollars streaming this content to tens of thousands of paid subscribers, according to the Justice Department.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    If you recreate something that’s patented and selling it you can in fact get sued and yes the same logic applies, it’s profit the patent holder didn’t make for something the person you sold to should have bought from them.

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Hence why I said it is not stealing

      Edit just for clarity. I said stealing potential profit explicitly. So you cannot sue for that, but rather sue for patent infringement.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Just because it’s called patent infringement it doesn’t mean it’s not technically the same logic as theft that justifies it…

        I’m using the word “technically” for a reason :p

        • guacupado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          People use “technically” when they know they’re not explaining themselves correctly but don’t want to go into further detail and may be completely wrong.

        • bitfucker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, and that word also carries the heavy burden of that statement. I don’t want to be pedantic but the US law states theft is the taking of another person’s personal property with the intent of depriving that person the use of their property. And for patent infringement it is defined as the unlawful use, selling, or copying of a patented invention.

          The laws for infringement and theft are different precisely because they come from different reasons. For theft to occur, someone must be deprived of something that they already have.

          Infringement on the other hand, can be done without needing to take anything at all from the owner.