My surface level understanding from the article is that this was a little bit more for-profit organized-crime kind of thing than your average person ripping movies and making them available to others for free.
Like, it sounds like this guy might actually have all that money from the activity.
Taking the sentence at face value, even the initial 7 year sentence seems really extreme given the actual damages but from the article:
> Over a period of more than 10 years
> Precisely when King began serving his initial prison sentence of seven years and four months is unclear but given the June 2022 instruction that he cannot travel abroad, assuming that he served substantially less than the 88-month sentence imposed in 2019 seems reasonable.
They made £5M over 10 years and the main guy actually spent 3 or fewer years in prison.
Ultimately this seems exceedingly reasonable to me. Granted I’m from the US and I’m not familiar at all with the justice system in the UK.
The thing is 10 years in Jail is not going to teach them anything or protect society. The only victims are the broadcast companies, not like it ruined anyone's life. I think 1 year in Jail would have been more than enough, those people are not going to start again anytime soon anyways.
I completely agree with you and that’s the thing; he was sentenced to 7 years in 2019 but he’s already out of prison and has a passport. He was free in less than 3.
He is presumably out on some kind of supervised release which is probably good. He had the motivation and ability to execute on an admittedly illegal business — he can now put those same skills to work doing something productive and the supervision will presumably make sure he isn’t committing fraud or anything.
It's worth mentioning here in the US this would not be possible. Federal sentencing guidelines require 85% of time served. Someone with a 7 year sentence would have to serve at least 6 years of it under normal circumstances.
If they qualified for a drug rehabilitation program (RDAP) they could get that down to 5 years assuming they documented their addiction and how it influenced their crimes early in their legal case.
With some of the new First Step Act and similar changes it's theoretically possible to reduce the sentence by more if they participated in qualifying rehabilitative programs, but many of the federal prisons don't actually offer the programs yet despite lying and saying they do to meet legislative due dates.
There is (for most crimes) an entitlement to release on licence after 1/2 or 2/3 of the sentence, with the rest being served in the community but subject to recall to prison. So the most important takeaway is that the 'headline' numbers are higher than those actually served. Given the crime and the date of sentence it's very likely that he served three years and eight months inside. Some of that might have happened before his trial if he was remanded in custody: time spent in prison pre-trial is counted towards the sentence.
The 'additional' time for not paying £963k is designed to be coercive. The court has, in theory, decided that not only does he owe the money but he can be expected to find it. And the prison in default is supposed to encourage him to do so. Importantly, it's not an either/or: he still owes the money even if he serves the default sentence.
It's actually quite common in the US to have drug offenders serve significantly longer sentences than many violent crimes and even sexual abuse of children. It also depends heavily on if the state or federal government prosecutes them. As an example a child abuser prosecuted at the state level might receive an 8 year sentence with a larger portion of it suspended or served as parole, whereas a drug case prosecuted by the federal government might get a sentence of 10 years of which they are required by law to serve 8.5 (85%) in addition to their 5 years of supervised release.
Many people have some kind of mistaken belief that all drug offenders are just friendly dopes like their neighborhood pot dealer. However, illegal drugs are not only directly the leading cause of death among Americans age 18-45, the trafficking business also adds considerable marginal violence. Two famous examples are the 90s crack wars and the Miami cocaine wars. While drug related murders today get little press outside of local if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage, a considerable number of persons are still getting murdered every year in drug related violence.
Contrariwise illegal streaming has never directly killed anyone and illegal streamer gangs aren’t doing drivebys or otherwise murdering people.
It seems intuitive that the jail time for rape or murder should always be more than the jail time for crimes that just involve illegally obtaining money or goods, and that within a given type of crime the more severe a particular case is the longer the sentence should be.
The problem with that is (1) human lifespan places an upper limit on jail time, and (2) the possible severity of money crimes has a very very very large range.
Even if we made murder and rape always result in life sentences, and put the most severe money crimes at just under that, because of the range of severity possible with money crimes I think we'd end up with a fairly large value for money crimes required to get enough jail time to actually discourage doing that crime.
Another way to look at it is from the bottom instead of the top. How big should a money crime be to earn you a year in jail? That threshold should be a small enough that people don't find it worthwhile to just alternate doing that crime and then spending a year in jail over and over.
As the amount of money made in the crime goes up, so too does the necessary jail time to make alternating doing the crime and serving your jail time less lucrative than earning an honest living. Because of the large range of possible financial crimes you necessarily end up with it possible to get long sentences.
The whole thing would be more believable if e.g. bankers went to jail. When sentencing repeatedly seems to have no relation to societal harm, it's fine to ask if the judicial system isn't corrupted in some way (talking about the UK specifically here).
IMO sentences should scale with the harm done, not absolute dollar amounts. Violent crime with a real-life victim should always be treated more harshly than crime where the "victim" is a megacorporation's intellectual property.
If white-collar crime is big enough to where thousands of people lose their jobs, that is real societal harm and should be sentenced accordingly. But if someone decreases the profits of a monopoly from $5 billion to $4.999 billion, I'm a little less sympathetic.
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the use of jail time as a deterrence to criminal action. While we like to believe that is the case
"One problem with deterrence theory is that it assumes that human beings are rational actors who consider the consequences of their behavior before deciding to commit a crime; however, this is often not the case."
https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01...
There is a ton of research in this same vein.
That only seems to be considering aspects of deterrence that depend on the person making a choice:
> In broad terms punishment may be expected to affect deterrence in one of two ways. First, by increasing the certainty of punishment, potential offenders may be deterred by the risk of apprehension. For example, if there is an increase in the number of state troopers patrolling highways on a holiday weekend, some drivers may reduce their speed in order to avoid receiving a ticket. Second, the severity of punishment may influence behavior if potential offenders weigh the consequences of their actions and conclude that the risks of punishment are too severe.
Jail time can reduce crime by a third mechanism (I'm not sure if this would be considered "deterrence" or something else but to the people the crimes would be committed against it doesn't really matter) which does not involve any decisions on the part of the person, rational or not.
Namely, during their time in jail their opportunities for committing crimes are greatly reduced. Consider someone who would normally rob one bank every 6 months. If that person spends 10 years in jail every time they are caught, and is caught within a month after each robbery, they are going to commit under 10 bank robberies over their lifetime.
If they only spend 1 year in jail after every robbery they could commit they could do 80 or more robberies over their lifetime.
Whether the cost of keeping them in jail 10 times as long is worth it for a nearly order of magnitude reduction in the number of robberies they commit is worth it is an entirely different question.
> With assistance from anti-piracy company FACT, in 2019 a private prosecution brought by the Premier League resulted in a four-week trial at Warwick Crown Court that would end badly for the men.
I don't know anything about UK law, but what on earth is a "private prosecution"? And it can result in prison time???
In USA you have a criminal prosecution brought by the state. Anything else would be a civil lawsuit and those don't result in jail time.
In England specifically, a private person can bring a criminal case to court, subject to the court's and the crown prosecutor's approval. This mostly shows up in two cases - railway byelaw prosecutions (e.g. ticket-dodging), and TV license fee prosecutions.
Another is animal cruelty, pursued by animal charities. Basically it's when someone's committed a crime but the CPS (equivalent of the DA) is never going to bother to prosecute them so you volunteer to organise the prosecution yourself.
Eh, my US state allows private people to obtain criminal complaints directly from the court clerk magistrate without the support of the police or district attorney.[1]. That said I think the DA would need to try the case....
Many states in the US allow private citizens to start prosecutions that then get passed to a public prosecutor; some also allow private citizens to attempt to convince a magistrate to issue arrest warrants. There are also a few that allow private citizens to try a complete case (ex: Virginia). It’s rare, and not allowed for federal cases, but is a thing in the US.
It's exactly what it sounds like - a criminal prosecution pursued by a private person.
This is possible because otherwise, you are at the whim of the Crown (or in the USA, the District Attorney) as to whether or not a crime gets prosecuted. It doesn't seem equitable for a crime to be committed but never prosecuted because the government doesn't care, or doesn't have the resources to do so. The same standards of evidence apply.
It's rarely invoked (but not unheard of), and given how topical Chesa Boudin is at the moment, you can see the reasoning.
> I don't know anything about UK law, but what on earth is a "private prosecution"?
The same thing it is in the United States. When you're taken to court by something other than the state.
If Kentucky sues you, it's a public prosecution. If I sue you, it's a private prosecution.
Google could have explained this.
.
> In USA you have a criminal prosecution brought by the state.
Not usually, no.
.
> Anything else would be a civil lawsuit
A private prosecution is a civil lawsuit if it's a lawsuit.
Not all prosecutions are lawsuits. If I take you to court for breaking a contract, your private prosecution will be a lawsuit. If I take you to court for shooting me, it will be different.
But that would be a civil suit right? There's no private prosecution that can ask for a prison sentence and no way for you to pursue criminal charges against me directly. Which is what's happening here.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but it doesn't really address any part of the question. You're talking about civil lawsuits vs criminal prosecutions?
> > In USA you have a criminal prosecution brought by the state.
For those that "read" via HN comments, it's worth emphasizing that this particular group of (3) pirates operated for over a decade and made >$5M selling pirated football rights for profit. I don't think prosecution is uncalled for here, regardless of how the sentence compares to that of more socially damaging crimes.
So 166k per annum per person. As for the retailation, a simple question: did they ruin anyone's life? If no, the system shouldn't ruin their lives either.
Well, depends on how much tax was dodged. But yeah? Having to pay back the tax plus a steep fine seems like a good solution for that one for less than some amount. Probably cheaper than sticking someone in prison, too.
(Keeping in mind for the rich, a lot of tax dodging is legal, like non-dom status, so...)
But, if you never really go to prison for not paying taxes because there isn't really a direct victim, why would you bother paying the back taxes or the fines levied? Like, if all that'll happen is they'll assess more fines, and the penalty for not paying the fines is they'll assess more fines, why bother paying any at all?
How clever. If we're being maximally pedantic, not paying the fine could be a different crime, and the fine could be structured such that it is impossible to pay off before the taxes. Or it's just all part of the fine. Whatever.
> a simple question: did they ruin anyone's life? If no, the system shouldn't ruin their lives either.
So not paying the fine being a separate crime doesn't really matter. The rubrik proposed is "is it ruining someone's life" which you'd have a hard time pointing to any particular individual directly harmed by someone not paying a fine. So then why would it be OK to jail someone for not paying the fine levied on not paying their taxes, but its not OK to jail someone for deliberately not paying their taxes? Both instances have the same theoretical victim of all people who receive benefit from the government. It seems to me if you're willing to jail someone for not paying fines you should really be fine with jailing someone for willfully not paying their taxes. Its ultimately the same theoretical victim having the same theoretical harm done to them, less potential revenue for the state to do its thing.
> So then why would it be OK to jail someone for not paying the fine levied on not paying their taxes, but its not OK to jail someone for deliberately not paying their taxes?
Putting people in prison when other remedies exist is not cost-effective. Unless you run inhumane, hell-hole prisons (not saying the UK ones are great, but there's worse). Eventually, yes, prison is the last option (again, in the UK).
So is putting an IPTV pirate in prison for 14 years a good solution? Just from a tax-payer perspective, that seems dumb to me. Similarly, is putting a tax evader in prison a good solution? Not initially, no.
Separately, we can also ask whether it's just for an IPTV pirate to get a higher prison sentence than e.g. most of the perpetrators in the Rochdale child sex abuse ring. For one of these crimes, the wronged party can be made "whole" with money. For the other, not so much. I believe this is what OP is driving at.
Why is it that when a company breaks copyright laws, the owner gets a severe sentence, but break environment laws or privacy laws and you usually only get a rap on the wrist?
The following is based on US law. Criminal law in a large fraction of other jurisdictions is broadly similar in this regard.
When it is Apple v Microsoft or similar it is generally not willful infringement. Whichever side is being accused of infringement generally believes that either they did not copy from the other company, or that what they copied from the other company was not covered by copyright, or that their copying was covered by fair use, or their copying was covered by a license agreement they have with the copyright holder.
Willfulness is an element of criminal copyright infringement.
> Because no powerful lobby financed by media conglomerates exists to defend the environment
This is false. The climate 'change' movement is 100% financed by these sort of entities -- to what end is an open question but it's not to save the planet and definitely not to save you or me.
> privacy
You are correct in that nobody fights for YOUR privacy but you will find all sorts of companies and governments protecting THEIR privacy with your money.
Privacy is essential for sanity like the saying goes but the current plan seems to be to deny people privacy and make them crazy, meaning led around by their emotions, and consequently more easily controllable.
Big companies should definitely face bigger legal trouble for their crimes. But what they were doing wasn't a business that they messed up. They ran a scam that provided a pirate stream and charged money for it. Good riddance.
When a strong lobby is pulling the strings of judicial decisions like in this case, there is no limit other than the fact that UK doesn't have the death penalty.
We didn't get as much money as we estimated to have. We blame that one person on losing £963k that we never had, but we imaged being entitled to having it and it felt nice to our shareholders.
It's crazy that gang members who stab people by tesco for £20 will get less than 1 year in prison.
168 months is 14 years. 14 years for pirating a stream?
I get putting away those guilty of violent crime, but for what amounts to a crime with no real victims (yes there are technically victims, but not victims like there are in a rape/murder case). I wonder if he will have the case heard by a higher court and have the sentence reduced, because 7-14 years is bananas.
I think the sentence is way too extreme, but we're talking about a bit more than "pirating a stream". They ran a for-profit piracy operation for over 10 years, selling subscriptions to "more than 1,000 pubs, clubs and homes throughout England and Wales".
It's not 14 years for pirating a stream is it though. It's for pirating a stream, replicating it, selling access to it as a business for 10 years and making millions in the process.
It's the difference between someone copying some photo you took and posting it on twitter as 'theirs' vs setting up a business selling t-shirts, notebooks and iPhone cases with your picture on.
14 years might still be bananas, but let's not imply he just pirated some steam for a little illegal personal watching.
I’m wrong. Debtor’s prisons were abolished in 1833. This way. The ACLU is worried about the effective debtor prison of arresting people for failure to show up at hearings about their debt is what the ACLU is worried about here.
I love how this is someone spending almost two decades selling $800 a month subscriptions that he doesn't own, money that should have gone to a private individual, to 1400 pubs for 17 years - assuming a triangle distribution, a $19 million fraud
And when told to pay 5% of it back, HN erupts into "the warezer told me this is the little guy being punished, let's try to whatabout this into other crimes, capitalism is evil"
I can't believe HN is so blindly anti-capitalist these days. Really wish I could use some laughing emoji
There is a rule in piracy that you shouldn’t sell access to pirated content. It should be free as in freedom. Selling content is more damaging to the rights holders than mere torrents IMHO. I mean offering it for free is still damaging, but profiteering rackets are usually frowned upon in the piracy community
Many cyberlockers/filehosts exist specifically to profit from copyrighted content too. Making their download speed/limits extremely low, pushing a premium subscription, paying uploaders affiliate fees and/or adding content themselves + running a download links site on another domain.
Yeah but it’s not as bad as saying ‘watch this match for $5.00’. In order for cyberlockers to make a profit they have to have a massive catalog of content and done at huge scale. Lockers are more ethical IMHO. (Still damaging to rights holders though)
73 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadLike, it sounds like this guy might actually have all that money from the activity.
> Over a period of more than 10 years
> Precisely when King began serving his initial prison sentence of seven years and four months is unclear but given the June 2022 instruction that he cannot travel abroad, assuming that he served substantially less than the 88-month sentence imposed in 2019 seems reasonable.
They made £5M over 10 years and the main guy actually spent 3 or fewer years in prison.
Ultimately this seems exceedingly reasonable to me. Granted I’m from the US and I’m not familiar at all with the justice system in the UK.
He is presumably out on some kind of supervised release which is probably good. He had the motivation and ability to execute on an admittedly illegal business — he can now put those same skills to work doing something productive and the supervision will presumably make sure he isn’t committing fraud or anything.
If they qualified for a drug rehabilitation program (RDAP) they could get that down to 5 years assuming they documented their addiction and how it influenced their crimes early in their legal case.
With some of the new First Step Act and similar changes it's theoretically possible to reduce the sentence by more if they participated in qualifying rehabilitative programs, but many of the federal prisons don't actually offer the programs yet despite lying and saying they do to meet legislative due dates.
The 'additional' time for not paying £963k is designed to be coercive. The court has, in theory, decided that not only does he owe the money but he can be expected to find it. And the prison in default is supposed to encourage him to do so. Importantly, it's not an either/or: he still owes the money even if he serves the default sentence.
Contrariwise illegal streaming has never directly killed anyone and illegal streamer gangs aren’t doing drivebys or otherwise murdering people.
> the trafficking business also adds considerable marginal violence
Because of it's black market situation and the war that the DEA wages. Other countries have shown pathways to regulation where the dust settles.
The problem with that is (1) human lifespan places an upper limit on jail time, and (2) the possible severity of money crimes has a very very very large range.
Even if we made murder and rape always result in life sentences, and put the most severe money crimes at just under that, because of the range of severity possible with money crimes I think we'd end up with a fairly large value for money crimes required to get enough jail time to actually discourage doing that crime.
Another way to look at it is from the bottom instead of the top. How big should a money crime be to earn you a year in jail? That threshold should be a small enough that people don't find it worthwhile to just alternate doing that crime and then spending a year in jail over and over.
As the amount of money made in the crime goes up, so too does the necessary jail time to make alternating doing the crime and serving your jail time less lucrative than earning an honest living. Because of the large range of possible financial crimes you necessarily end up with it possible to get long sentences.
If white-collar crime is big enough to where thousands of people lose their jobs, that is real societal harm and should be sentenced accordingly. But if someone decreases the profits of a monopoly from $5 billion to $4.999 billion, I'm a little less sympathetic.
> In broad terms punishment may be expected to affect deterrence in one of two ways. First, by increasing the certainty of punishment, potential offenders may be deterred by the risk of apprehension. For example, if there is an increase in the number of state troopers patrolling highways on a holiday weekend, some drivers may reduce their speed in order to avoid receiving a ticket. Second, the severity of punishment may influence behavior if potential offenders weigh the consequences of their actions and conclude that the risks of punishment are too severe.
Jail time can reduce crime by a third mechanism (I'm not sure if this would be considered "deterrence" or something else but to the people the crimes would be committed against it doesn't really matter) which does not involve any decisions on the part of the person, rational or not.
Namely, during their time in jail their opportunities for committing crimes are greatly reduced. Consider someone who would normally rob one bank every 6 months. If that person spends 10 years in jail every time they are caught, and is caught within a month after each robbery, they are going to commit under 10 bank robberies over their lifetime.
If they only spend 1 year in jail after every robbery they could commit they could do 80 or more robberies over their lifetime.
Whether the cost of keeping them in jail 10 times as long is worth it for a nearly order of magnitude reduction in the number of robberies they commit is worth it is an entirely different question.
I don't know anything about UK law, but what on earth is a "private prosecution"? And it can result in prison time???
In USA you have a criminal prosecution brought by the state. Anything else would be a civil lawsuit and those don't result in jail time.
[1] https://www.mass.gov/how-to/file-a-criminal-complaint
This is possible because otherwise, you are at the whim of the Crown (or in the USA, the District Attorney) as to whether or not a crime gets prosecuted. It doesn't seem equitable for a crime to be committed but never prosecuted because the government doesn't care, or doesn't have the resources to do so. The same standards of evidence apply.
It's rarely invoked (but not unheard of), and given how topical Chesa Boudin is at the moment, you can see the reasoning.
The same thing it is in the United States. When you're taken to court by something other than the state.
If Kentucky sues you, it's a public prosecution. If I sue you, it's a private prosecution.
Google could have explained this.
.
> In USA you have a criminal prosecution brought by the state.
Not usually, no.
.
> Anything else would be a civil lawsuit
A private prosecution is a civil lawsuit if it's a lawsuit.
Not all prosecutions are lawsuits. If I take you to court for breaking a contract, your private prosecution will be a lawsuit. If I take you to court for shooting me, it will be different.
> > In USA you have a criminal prosecution brought by the state.
> Not usually, no.
Yes always, yes.
Following that logic, you shouldn't go to prison for tax dodging, it's not like one person not paying taxes is going to change anyone's life.
(Keeping in mind for the rich, a lot of tax dodging is legal, like non-dom status, so...)
But, if you never really go to prison for not paying taxes because there isn't really a direct victim, why would you bother paying the back taxes or the fines levied? Like, if all that'll happen is they'll assess more fines, and the penalty for not paying the fines is they'll assess more fines, why bother paying any at all?
> if you never really go to prison
Yeah, I didn't say "never".
> a simple question: did they ruin anyone's life? If no, the system shouldn't ruin their lives either.
So not paying the fine being a separate crime doesn't really matter. The rubrik proposed is "is it ruining someone's life" which you'd have a hard time pointing to any particular individual directly harmed by someone not paying a fine. So then why would it be OK to jail someone for not paying the fine levied on not paying their taxes, but its not OK to jail someone for deliberately not paying their taxes? Both instances have the same theoretical victim of all people who receive benefit from the government. It seems to me if you're willing to jail someone for not paying fines you should really be fine with jailing someone for willfully not paying their taxes. Its ultimately the same theoretical victim having the same theoretical harm done to them, less potential revenue for the state to do its thing.
Putting people in prison when other remedies exist is not cost-effective. Unless you run inhumane, hell-hole prisons (not saying the UK ones are great, but there's worse). Eventually, yes, prison is the last option (again, in the UK).
So is putting an IPTV pirate in prison for 14 years a good solution? Just from a tax-payer perspective, that seems dumb to me. Similarly, is putting a tax evader in prison a good solution? Not initially, no.
Separately, we can also ask whether it's just for an IPTV pirate to get a higher prison sentence than e.g. most of the perpetrators in the Rochdale child sex abuse ring. For one of these crimes, the wronged party can be made "whole" with money. For the other, not so much. I believe this is what OP is driving at.
I don't think prosecution of capitalism is uncalled for here.
Punishing people? That's literally unscientific and automatically socially damaging.
I'd do the time and keep the cash.
Plus you get released around half way through (or less) so that like ends up being almost £300k a year. Seems like an easy choice.
You've been for an extended period in the UK prison system before?
If not, I don't think your comment carries much value.
Nobody goes to jail when it's Apple v Microsoft.
When it is Apple v Microsoft or similar it is generally not willful infringement. Whichever side is being accused of infringement generally believes that either they did not copy from the other company, or that what they copied from the other company was not covered by copyright, or that their copying was covered by fair use, or their copying was covered by a license agreement they have with the copyright holder.
Willfulness is an element of criminal copyright infringement.
This is false. The climate 'change' movement is 100% financed by these sort of entities -- to what end is an open question but it's not to save the planet and definitely not to save you or me.
> privacy
You are correct in that nobody fights for YOUR privacy but you will find all sorts of companies and governments protecting THEIR privacy with your money.
Privacy is essential for sanity like the saying goes but the current plan seems to be to deny people privacy and make them crazy, meaning led around by their emotions, and consequently more easily controllable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harding_(forger)
Hanged in 1805 for forging the tax stamp on the decks of cards he sold.
I'm not condoning piracy, but does that seem a bit farcical?
I tend to read that as: we won't get as much money and will cry into armani suits as we drive our lamborghinis into the sunset.
We didn't get as much money as we estimated to have. We blame that one person on losing £963k that we never had, but we imaged being entitled to having it and it felt nice to our shareholders.
It's crazy that gang members who stab people by tesco for £20 will get less than 1 year in prison.
I get putting away those guilty of violent crime, but for what amounts to a crime with no real victims (yes there are technically victims, but not victims like there are in a rape/murder case). I wonder if he will have the case heard by a higher court and have the sentence reduced, because 7-14 years is bananas.
Nope. But that is what you might believe if you try to turn to Kim Dot Com of a warezing empire to understand this.
As if the thieves make reliable news, y'know?
Cry me a river, Sky Sports, but the harm caused by these men is barely a blip on your bottom line.
I think the sentence is way too extreme, but we're talking about a bit more than "pirating a stream". They ran a for-profit piracy operation for over 10 years, selling subscriptions to "more than 1,000 pubs, clubs and homes throughout England and Wales".
It's the difference between someone copying some photo you took and posting it on twitter as 'theirs' vs setting up a business selling t-shirts, notebooks and iPhone cases with your picture on.
14 years might still be bananas, but let's not imply he just pirated some steam for a little illegal personal watching.
I’m wrong. Debtor’s prisons were abolished in 1833. This way. The ACLU is worried about the effective debtor prison of arresting people for failure to show up at hearings about their debt is what the ACLU is worried about here.
And when told to pay 5% of it back, HN erupts into "the warezer told me this is the little guy being punished, let's try to whatabout this into other crimes, capitalism is evil"
I can't believe HN is so blindly anti-capitalist these days. Really wish I could use some laughing emoji