92 year old WWII vet bootlegs 300,000 DVDs and sends them to American soldiers in Afghanastan

[Goofguy]

Wow, hats off to this guy. In my opinion, it's not about copyright laws and that what he is doing is illegal.

I've been on a deployment in Afghanistan. If I had received DVDs from a proud veteran, I probably would have shed a tear or two of appreciation. Being out there, any type of correspondence from back home is always welcome. To know that a brother in arms is looking out for your morale by sending you the means to relax when you have down time, it means everything.

 

[Geliraden]

This is just so wrong and people really have narrow views on such things... the problem isn't that the guy sent all those DVDs to soldiers, the problem isn't that the soldiers didn't deserve all those DVDs, or that the soldiers should be considered heroes or not. The problem is that the guy spent all that money to PIRATE DVDs instead of actually BUYING legal copies and sending them over. How the hell is spending money to send pirated DVDs in any way respectable or admirable? He spent anything from 30k US dollars (as stated in the article) to 100k dollars (as calculated by a couple posters here) to pirate some movies and ship them somewhere. Why couldn't he have just bought the movies directly with that money? Or even better, why couldn't he just have donated that money? It's in no way excusable, not for any reason. He could have chosen to spend money and actually BUY the movies, but he chose to spend money to PIRATE them.

 

[Edible Avatar]

I don't see why people think soldiers deserve such special treatment. They get paid over there, they aren't saints or something. And being a WWII veteran doesn't really give him leave to break the law.

Because they have one of the worse jobs in the world and are horribly underpaid for it? Sure it doesn't give him a legal excuse to break the law, but he's 92 years old and has brought a lot of joy to a lot of people far away from their homes and family.

They chose to do that job and I doubt it was mostly for saintly reasons. It certainly isn't the kind of job that I think does the most benefit in the world anyway.

And I don't think his age excuses it, unless he isn't mentally fit.

Perhaps....perhaps he just does'nt give a fuck? He's 90-something years old, his wife is dead, he's retired, and he has some spare time before he kicks the bucket. So why not?

 

[revjor]

How does joining the military help anyone? You go to other countries and bomb the shit out of them.

Beyond what was said about search and rescue(because if the military didn't have funding SOMEONE would be doing it.)

The Military is the dirty grease that keeps the machine going. All of the oil in the plastics to aid our modern medical system, the pesticides and fuel that power the tractors, combines and delivery trucks of our food network, The tires on all the cities buses, firetrucks, ambulances etc., countless components of your various entertainment consoles and computers. Really... all of the shit that makes America, England... hell many parts of the western "developed" world what they are. They're facilitated by the might of the U.S. military forcing the trade lanes open that they do. Blood for oil is blood for everything you are gonna do today whether you like it or not. You can hate it as much as I do. But life has always fed on life.

You think France and England went all out to take down Gaddafi because they give a shit about Libyans? Or do you think his announcement that he was going to start selling more Libyan oil to Africa made tons of French and U.K. politicians go " Ooooooh shiiiiit. Our countries have fully funded healthcare systems... we really REALLY have to have that oil at the same price is was before in the same quantities as before."

life's a ***** ya know?


It all pretty much sucks.

 

[NiPah]

And right now I don't think those hardships are necessary. Sure we need a military, at least as some kind of deterrent, but in these times that would not be such a risky job. Right now joining is just perpetuating a useless conflict we shouldn't have started.

That would be the job of our elected officials to deal with, not something to bring to the individual soldiers. For what ever reason our officials believe we need to be in this war, enough to send out our military, if we did not have enough volunteer forces we would start drafting in civilians to fight.

Yes it's a risky job, but as the tired old saying goes someone has to do it, but I can assure you few people would find you at fault for attacking a 92yo sending bootlegged DVDs to the politicians responsible for this war.

Considering that there was no particularly valid reason to pirate it in this case I don't see why.

Are you defining your validity from lawfulness or morality? The reason for his actions are clear, human compassion and the belief that his actions will give some peace and enjoyment to the soldiers he's sending the DVDs to.
Do you invalidate this reason because he is breaking the law? What punishment do you feel is necessary in this situation to fulfill the accountability of the 92yo? I'm sure per the law he faces several hundreds of years in jail and millions of dollars owed to the copyright holders, how much of this should be upheld in the courts and why?

 

[Geliraden]

And right now I don't think those hardships are necessary. Sure we need a military, at least as some kind of deterrent, but in these times that would not be such a risky job. Right now joining is just perpetuating a useless conflict we shouldn't have started.

That would be the job of our elected officials to deal with, not something to bring to the individual soldiers. For what ever reason our officials believe we need to be in this war, enough to send out our military, if we did not have enough volunteer forces we would start drafting in civilians to fight.

Yes it's a risky job, but as the tired old saying goes someone has to do it, but I can assure you few people would find you at fault for attacking a 92yo sending bootlegged DVDs to the politicians responsible for this war.

Considering that there was no particularly valid reason to pirate it in this case I don't see why.

Are you defining your validity from lawfulness or morality? The reason for his actions are clear, human compassion and the belief that his actions will give some peace and enjoyment to the soldiers he's sending the DVDs to.
Do you invalidate this reason because he is breaking the law? What punishment do you feel is necessary in this situation to fulfill the accountability of the 92yo? I'm sure per the law he faces several hundreds of years in jail and millions of dollars owed to the copyright holders, how much of this should be upheld in the courts and why?

He payed money for the DVDs and the shipping, money he could have payed for actual LEGAL copies of those movies. So no, he had absolutely no reason to pirate the movies.

 

[revjor]

So no, he had absolutely no reason to pirate the movies.

Quantity?

 

[Geliraden]

So no, he had absolutely no reason to pirate the movies.

Quantity?

Yes, being able to send more movies is a perfectly justifiable reason to commit a crime.

 

[revjor]

So no, he had absolutely no reason to pirate the movies.

Quantity?

Yes, being able to send more movies is a perfectly justifiable reason to commit a crime.

I misread your context. I was thinking reason why he would do it. Not reason why he could be forgiven.

 

[Awexsome]

A 92 year old WW2 vet? I bet he had only good intentions but you go about this by running a campaign to gather and send the soldiers the DVDs, players, and TVs if need be in a legitimate manner. Not by ignoring and screwing over the also hard working people (think the ones who do the grunt work during a movie if you actively want to screw the actors and big studio executives) who made the DVDs in the first place to support themselves like the soldiers support themselves and others.

 

[NiPah]

He payed money for the DVDs and the shipping, money he could have payed for actual LEGAL copies of those movies. So no, he had absolutely no reason to pirate the movies.

As was stated earlier the reason is clear, quantity, his reason for breaking the law was to give more soldiers the pleasure of watching a movie, instead of limiting it due to available income.
Or maybe he just hates Hollywood...
Whatever his reasons are, you cannot invalidate his reason, thats like saying there is no car there when clearly there would have to be a car.
You can, and are, judging his actions to be illegal and morally wrong. This is of course illegal, however to what level it is immoral we are conflicted on, does upholding the law and paying fees to the copyright holders of the movie warrant not sending movies to tens of thousands of soldiers? I say it does not, the limited loss of income the copyright holders will incur does not seem morally wrong when faced with the prospect of giving a solder a way to relieve some stress and get some enjoyment on the battle field.
And I will ask you as well, to what extent does this man deserve to be punished for his crime? to the full extent of the law? Or will you base punishment on something other then what is stated clearly in the law books?

 

[nasteypenguin]

A 92 year old WW2 vet? I bet he had only good intentions but you go about this by running a campaign to gather and send the soldiers the DVDs, players, and TVs if need be in a legitimate manner. Not by ignoring and screwing over the also hard working people (think the ones who do the grunt work during a movie if you actively want to screw the actors and big studio executives) who made the DVDs in the first place to support themselves like the soldiers support themselves and others.

If I was his age and had his experience I probably wouldn't have thought about it that way either. I would think his thought process was along the line of "I do not have much time left, I want to give something to help people who are going through something I have been through, what is the easiest and quickest way to do that" and there was likely some sort of selfish desire for attention and wanting to be seen as a good person in there somewhere, but that goes with everything people do.
When doing this sort of thing though, I doubt you would consider any such action as punishing the little guy, seeing as how most dvds and such are synonymous more with faceless business's than hard workin' folk anyway. I'm just saying that I think I can see his reasoning, and I don't begrudge his choice whichever way you look at it.

As far as him breaking the law goes; I would request leniency due to his intentions, but you have to enforce the rules you make otherwise they become meaningless. He's a hero in my eyes, but that's only because he should be punished for his actions.

 

[JWAN]

I am against piracy, scratch that, I am virtually opposed to piracy in every way shape and form, so much so I actually volunteered for pirate hunting duty (bah, the Navy gets that job now) but this is different. I don't understand why movie companies don't make more of an effort to get movies overseas to help the guys in the big sandbox burn off some steam.

You would be amazed how much of an edge a movie can take off.

 

[NiPah]

No, it's quite relevant to the people who choose to sign up knowing that they're perpetuating. And if they're doing something unnecessary then it's silly to talk about it being necessary. If they go through hardships that aren't necessary and don't help me, why should I care?

You're the one funding the war through your taxes, and voting in the people who choose to go to war. You may not believe war is necessary, but thats pretty hollow if you're taking advantage of the perks of living in America and paying your taxes.

There is also the fact that even though they choose to be in the military it doesn't change that the experiences they go through result in many hardships and psychological impacts. Sure they signed up knowing the risks, but it would be inhuman not to help them in a time of need.

Morality there. Human compassion is not much of a reason to take things that others created and sell for free. It's not as if they deserve free junk like that out of compassion.

Interesting choice of words, you use the term "sell" instead of "give", and why do you believe they do not deserve the DVDs (the way you put it it seems like some may deserve it).