top | item 3898865

At 92, Movie Bootlegger Is Soldiers’ Hero

243 points| aaronharnly | 14 years ago |nytimes.com | reply

85 comments

order
[+] driverdan|14 years ago|reply
This enrages me. Unequal application of law is an injustice to everyone. How can teenagers be bankrupted and have their future damaged by sharing a few MP3s via P2P yet this guy can bootleg 300,000 current release movies and the industry hardly flinches? This guy gets a free pass because he's old? Because he's supporting US troops? Bullshit.

When kids can have their future ruined because their situation doesn't "warm your heart" and this guy can bootleg for 5 years you know the system is broken.

Note: I'm not defending USA's IP laws. They are very, very broken.

[+] icebraining|14 years ago|reply
It's civil law; they only sue if they want to. Which is good, since a lot of times a lawsuit isn't the best way to solve an issue (for example, in GPL violation cases the FSF often gets the infringer to comply without suing).
[+] timjahn|14 years ago|reply
Hollywood can't even provide a convenient solution for overseas American troops to enjoy a favorite American past time. The same American troops that are helping protect the lives of the Americans that watch all of Hollywood's entertainment offerings.

At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him.

[+] Volscio|14 years ago|reply
Hollywood is not very helpful, but man, AAFES (who provides rec centers home and abroad) plus AFN (Armed Forces Network) do a pretty bang-up job keeping the servicemembers at least somewhat in touch with sporting events, films, things to whittle away the time stuck over in some hellhole. Also noteworthy are the little Korean laundry ladies who take your laundry bag, clean your filthy gear, and then offer you pirated DVDs as well for only $5. :)
[+] jeremyarussell|14 years ago|reply
“We are grateful that the entertainment we produce can bring some enjoyment to them while they are away from home,” Mr. Gantman said.

I really hope the MPAA decides that they can let one slip. The real interesting thing is what the politicians will say. It's a catch 22 if I've ever seen one. (Can't be mad, he's helping the troops, can't be happy, he's doing something "illegal".) The answer is that something like this shouldn't be illegal, but who knows if that'll ever happen.

[+] bluedanieru|14 years ago|reply
>At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him.

I take issue with that. I don't want to see this guy face prosecution by any means, but selective enforcement is a great evil and a tool of virtually every tyranny that ever existed. If what he does is right, then the law is fucking wrong and needs changing yesterday.

[+] jetti|14 years ago|reply
At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him.

This actually presents a really big challenge to the MPAA. By not actively protecting their copyright (which they aren't if they let this guy off the hook or turn a blind eye) they risk losing other cases because of it. At the same time, if they go after this guy they look awful.

[+] oz|14 years ago|reply
Something about this story just warms my heart. Particularly image # 7: A 92 y.o. veteran leaning over his flat-screen monitor, performing a labour of love for his comrades thousands of miles away.

With an old-fashioned alarm clock on his desk.

[+] keithpeter|14 years ago|reply
Actually, the images are really nice. Pity they don't provide hi res (I'd pay). You don't see photo stories like this too often now.

This chap reminds me of the volunteer hospital visitors we have in the UK. People go into their local hospital (known to staff) and just sit with the ones who have no visitors that day and engage them a little.

[+] MichaelGG|14 years ago|reply
"“It’s not the right thing to do, but I did it,” Mr. Strachman said, acknowledging that his actions violated copyright law."

What an odd quote. It seems like he thinks it was the right thing to do (as do some of the recipients), or he wouldn't continue to spend so much time and effort doing so.

[+] timjahn|14 years ago|reply
I think he's more acknowledging it's not the "right" thing to do as in the legal thing to do, but he understands that beyond the law, it's the moral right thing to do.
[+] carbocation|14 years ago|reply
An excellent example of the distinction between malum in se vs malum prohibidum. It seems that he is acknowledging that what he did is prohibited, yet he also feels that the act is not wrong in itself.
[+] Jun8|14 years ago|reply
I think he's alluding to the (in this case, unfortunate) difference between moral and legal rightness. Whenever there's a large difference between actions prescribed by these, there's a problem either with the law, because it has to mirror current communal understanding of morality.
[+] mvanga|14 years ago|reply
I think he was contrasting what he knew was legally wrong with what he felt was personally or morally right.
[+] rexreed|14 years ago|reply
"I don't have the right to do it, but it is the right thing to do"
[+] tomc1985|14 years ago|reply
And since when do people always do the right thing?
[+] PetrolMan|14 years ago|reply
I generally don't have time to read enough of the news to find gems like this so I love the fact that I can come to Hacker News and catch a little bit of everything. I know this has been said before and contributes little to the conversation but it's nice to see stories like this along with everything else.
[+] lusr|14 years ago|reply
Seems like such a simple thing for the movie studios to do - legally - and generate some positive PR for a change... but no.
[+] chris11|14 years ago|reply
The military actually does run it's own movie theater chain. I'm not sure who pays for it, but the showings are free. Although I think the movies are released a month or two after the normal release date. And I doubt that the military actually has a theater somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan

http://www.mwrguam.com/company_detail.php?keyword=movies

[+] option_greek|14 years ago|reply
they did mention that they send reels and projector but I suppose that's a long time after the release.
[+] davidf18|14 years ago|reply
Ironically, this story would itself make a great movie. One can only imagine how much this old man, who our society would write-off as "no longer productive", raised the morale of our troops who were otherwise lonely from their families.

For the amount of money spent on the war, the DOD could have purchased the rights to the films and made their own copies to distribute to the troops.

[+] kijin|14 years ago|reply
If the DoD had tried to purchase DVD distributions rights, Hollywood would have insisted on some sort of DRM so the DVDs could only be played on military-owned computers located outside of the United States. That would have been, er, doubleplusunconvenient.
[+] spinchange|14 years ago|reply
I wasn't alive then, so this probably me romanticizing, but the Hollywood of the WWII era I grew up learning about would have been sending these films over to the troops on their own.
[+] pdw|14 years ago|reply
There were the WWII Armed Service Editions: "Over the life of the program, over 123 million copies of 1,322 titles were printed. This makes the ASE program one of the largest wide-scale distributions of free books in history."
[+] w1ntermute|14 years ago|reply
Even if they were doing so, the situation was very different. You couldn't easily copy movies, and either way, people in general weren't as dependent on Hollywood entertainment as they are now.
[+] timurlenk|14 years ago|reply
I'm surprised that after 75 comments nobody remarked this quote:

"You’re shocked because your initial image is of some back-alley Eastern European bootlegger — not an old Jewish guy on Long Island,” Captain Curran said.

I may not be so familiar with the north american culture, can anybody clarify this for me: Is it a generally accepted fact that bootleggers are east europeans and old jews would never do such a thing?

[+] lotharbot|14 years ago|reply
Big-time organized bootlegging/piracy is often associated with communist and former communist areas (Russia, China, the Ukraine, etc.) in popular consciousness. Not just in terms of movies, but in terms of knockoff Rolex watches, Coach bags, and so on. It's some combination of low respect for capitalism, high corruption, pockets of general lawlessness, cheap labor, and powerful criminal organizations.

I certainly have a hard time picturing my 90 year old, very religious, WWII American Veteran grandpa being interested in piracy.

[+] K2h|14 years ago|reply
The best part.. he sends to the _chaplain_ to then distribute to the troops! He starts with purchasing boot leg from vendors on the street. That made me say "NO!...". Is it wrong of me to want to step in and show him how to do it right?

This was great story.

[+] tomc1985|14 years ago|reply
I'm curious as to what's going to happen now, being that he's admitting to copyright infringement on page A1 of the New York Times....
[+] hcurtiss|14 years ago|reply
The editors at the Times know what they're doing. This pretty much makes him untouchable.
[+] excuse-me|14 years ago|reply
Ironically this would be perfectly legal if the army was doing it.

Recently a musician attempted to sue the Army for its use of his music played at very high volumes to 'interrogate' prisoners at Guantanamo. The case was rejected because the US government has a blanket right to use any US copyright material for national security.

So the Army is presumably free to pirate all the copies of 'Two and a Half Men' it needs to keep it's troops in a fighting mood.

[+] keithwinstein|14 years ago|reply
I searched Lexis and think you're probably mistaken. There's no such law but also no such case.
[+] tjr|14 years ago|reply
Even if it weren't the military doing it, how would playing a recording at high volumes in this manner be copyright infringement?
[+] akc|14 years ago|reply
was this musician John Tesh, by any chance.
[+] J3L2404|14 years ago|reply
Well this guy makes a much better hero than the fucking ridiculous Kim Dotcom.
[+] gee_totes|14 years ago|reply
You don't think that soldiers watched MegaVideo too?

Or downloaded new music from MegaUpload?

Just because the New York Times didn't write a story about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[+] ck2|14 years ago|reply
I'm sorry but war should never be comfortable or have entertainment.

Don't feel good for him doing this while we can shop at the mall.

The solution is those people should be watching it at home in the comfort of their own homes.

When we have a draft for every military action declared by a single person in charge, then I'll change my mind.

[+] rexreed|14 years ago|reply
In a volunteer army, these people serve by choice (albeit perhaps not always for altruistic reasons). It is also the choice of this fellow to make their horrible experiences less so. While certainly I don't support endless war, I think this story is an uplifting one - a singular act of selfless kindness to add humanity to what is otherwise an inhumane situation. Certainly no one is coercing or paying him to do that. In fact, quite the opposite.