February 9, 2011 at 10:58The story of one "violation" of copyright. Part 2
Continuation of the story .
Meanwhile, while the investigator did not succeed in handing over the case to the prosecutor, Department K and the prosecutor's office actively pressed Peter, urging him to a special order. The investigator several times pulled Peter out of work without any summons and drove him to talk to the investigator, then to the head of department K, then to the prosecutor, while talking to Peter himself and sometimes the chief of department’s operatives K. was present. The essence of the conversations was one and the same, Peter was told that if he did not go to a special order, they would achieve a real term, his life would be ruined, etc. Peter was promised assistance in concluding a peace agreement with a representative of the copyright holders.
Peter already acted on the principle of “be what will be” and gave categorical refusals, insisted on his innocence, asked to stop worrying about his life and said that the court would decide everything. After several such visits to Peter’s work, the lawyer threatened the investigator that next time Peter would not go anywhere without a summons and there would be a complaint addressed to the Minister of the Interior, after which the visits ceased.
In the summer of 2008, Peter finished his studies, also changed his job, got a job with a larger local provider, who also became the "daughter" of Transtelecom. In just a couple of months, he rose to the position of lead system administrator and calmly did what he liked.
In November 2008, a preliminary hearing was held at which the judge decided to take the case into proceedings and consider it by a panel of three judges. Then there was essentially an introductory meeting, after which one of the judges was replaced, after which the panel began to consist only of men. In January 2009, the first serious meeting was finally held. Another representative of the victim arose there - ASCON company (the distribution kit COMPAS, the software product of this company, was found on the computer), which filed a civil lawsuit to recover 82,500 rubles. (the paper claim itself was already upon familiarization with the materials of the criminal case). Then he stated on the net that if Peter admitted his guilt, then they would not have demanded money from him.
In general, about the company ASCON it is worth making a small digression. Peter’s mother was a designer and has been actively using KOMPAS for several years, and also taught courses on working in this program. Peter, while studying, worked as a laboratory assistant in the office of engineering graphics, where he also actively used KOMPAS. In the summer of 2008, he also participated in a contest held by ASCON, went to Moscow for this (before leaving, he wrote a petition to the prosecutor, because he was on his own recognizance). At the end of 2007, when Peter’s mother turned to the representative of ASCON, whom she had previously encountered at work (there was another representative in court), regarding the purchase of a license for COMPASS, he only grinned and said that the license would be given her free. Thus, at the time of the trial, Peter ' and there was an agreement with ASCON on the free use of the COMPASS program. This of course caused a lot of uncomfortable questions from the court to the present representative of the victim.
Then Peter wished to exercise his right to testify first and told his opinion on the charges, explained everything about the files on the file hosting, about traffic data, about the information portal, said that he installed some software products on the computer, but only as trial, with purpose of temporary use.
Literally the day after the meeting, the investigator appeared at Peter’s new place of work (apparently the investigation only in court found out that Peter had changed his job). Fortunately, here, too, the leadership sided with Peter. The operative was again aggressive and embittered, demanded the dismissal of Peter, threatened with checks. The lawyer kept his word and a complaint about the visits of the operative addressed to the Minister of the Interior was sent. To deal with the complaint was entrusted to the deputy. the head of department K, who collected written explanations from all the persons mentioned. Following the results of the proceedings, complaints to Peter were informed that no confirmation of the described facts was found. However, the operative called, said that he was no longer an operative, asked him not to be involved anymore. He remained to work as someone in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but was no longer engaged in operational work.
The trial lasted approximately six months. Many spectators, trainees came, because the case was interesting, in addition, the judicial board is a rare case. The defense side never regretted that it had declared the consideration of the case of the collegia. All three judges actively participated in the process, so the case was considered as thoroughly as possible. The investigator could not clearly explain the flaws in the case file, but showed aggression towards the defense, for which he received several warnings from the court. The expert behaved during the interrogations as inadequately as in the examination. They interrogated a bunch of people who were interrogated at the preliminary investigation, they did not say anything new. As a result, they did not interrogate everyone, the court decided that it was pointless, the prosecutor explained such a number of interrogations that Peter refused to testify, it was necessary to collect material. An additional examination was appointed. The second expert turned out to be an adequate, very cautious person. He did not draw any conclusions that he could not 100% substantiate. He found software distributions on the computer, discovered cracks and keygens, which, when investigated, circumvented licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was not possible to determine whether these distributions or license protection bypasses were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensing of installed programs, because does not have original licensed distributions. discovered cracks and keygens, which during the study allowed to bypass licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was not possible to determine whether these distributions or license protection bypasses were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensing of installed programs, because does not have original licensed distributions. discovered cracks and keygens, which during the study allowed to bypass licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was not possible to determine whether these distributions or license protection bypasses were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensing of installed programs, because does not have original licensed distributions.
In July 2009, a judicial debate took place. The prosecutor suddenly refused charges on two episodes: under Art. 146, paragraph 3c and Art. 273, p. 1, because the expert could not establish that the specified software was used by Peter, and also concluded that the cracks and keygens presented were not malware. The reference to the distribution, i.e. only use was left, and the list of software was reduced to 3 programs (apparently, only the amount of damage of 50 thousand rubles would be accumulated, necessary for criminal prosecution). Peter only explained that of the three programs, he did not have one at all, and the other two were not installed, only distributions were found, according to the examination. The lawyer asked to justify Peter. The court retired to make a decision.
The verdict was postponed several times, and, as a result, took place in September 2009. At one of the planned announcements, department head K and the prosecutor told Peter that the Adobe victim representative himself wanted to make peace with Peter without asking for any money. Peter continued to stand his ground and replied: “You can only put up with the one with whom you quarreled. I did not quarrel with anyone. Absolutely not, let the court make a decision. ”
Finally, the verdict was announced. Justified. According to article 24, paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (absence of a crime event). With the right to rehabilitate and return seized material evidence. In December, the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office to the Supreme Court was examined, the court’s decision was upheld.
During 2010, Peter received compensation for property damage, i.e. money given for the provision of legal assistance in the amount of 200 thousand rubles, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 100 thousand rubles. of the declared 1.2 million rubles. The Ministry of Finance appealed the court decision on compensation for material damage immediately to the supervisory authority, the complaint was considered by a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court headed by the President of the Supreme Court, the court decision was upheld, the complaint was dismissed. During the proceedings with moral damages, an operative was questioned, who eventually said that the visits to Peter were carried out on the oral instructions of the head of department K and the prosecutor.
Peter never received a written apology from the prosecutor's office. Probably have to go to court again. Now Peter is ready to file a lawsuit and support him in court ...
Meanwhile, while the investigator did not succeed in handing over the case to the prosecutor, Department K and the prosecutor's office actively pressed Peter, urging him to a special order. The investigator several times pulled Peter out of work without any summons and drove him to talk to the investigator, then to the head of department K, then to the prosecutor, while talking to Peter himself and sometimes the chief of department’s operatives K. was present. The essence of the conversations was one and the same, Peter was told that if he did not go to a special order, they would achieve a real term, his life would be ruined, etc. Peter was promised assistance in concluding a peace agreement with a representative of the copyright holders.
The representative of the copyright holders is a well-established person :) For a certain fee, he signed a reconciliation with the accused and the punishment was sharply reduced. He sat in another city for 200 km and represented the interests of several copyright holders at once: Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk. By the way, he never appeared at the hearing.
Peter already acted on the principle of “be what will be” and gave categorical refusals, insisted on his innocence, asked to stop worrying about his life and said that the court would decide everything. After several such visits to Peter’s work, the lawyer threatened the investigator that next time Peter would not go anywhere without a summons and there would be a complaint addressed to the Minister of the Interior, after which the visits ceased.
In the summer of 2008, Peter finished his studies, also changed his job, got a job with a larger local provider, who also became the "daughter" of Transtelecom. In just a couple of months, he rose to the position of lead system administrator and calmly did what he liked.
In November 2008, a preliminary hearing was held at which the judge decided to take the case into proceedings and consider it by a panel of three judges. Then there was essentially an introductory meeting, after which one of the judges was replaced, after which the panel began to consist only of men. In January 2009, the first serious meeting was finally held. Another representative of the victim arose there - ASCON company (the distribution kit COMPAS, the software product of this company, was found on the computer), which filed a civil lawsuit to recover 82,500 rubles. (the paper claim itself was already upon familiarization with the materials of the criminal case). Then he stated on the net that if Peter admitted his guilt, then they would not have demanded money from him.
In general, about the company ASCON it is worth making a small digression. Peter’s mother was a designer and has been actively using KOMPAS for several years, and also taught courses on working in this program. Peter, while studying, worked as a laboratory assistant in the office of engineering graphics, where he also actively used KOMPAS. In the summer of 2008, he also participated in a contest held by ASCON, went to Moscow for this (before leaving, he wrote a petition to the prosecutor, because he was on his own recognizance). At the end of 2007, when Peter’s mother turned to the representative of ASCON, whom she had previously encountered at work (there was another representative in court), regarding the purchase of a license for COMPASS, he only grinned and said that the license would be given her free. Thus, at the time of the trial, Peter ' and there was an agreement with ASCON on the free use of the COMPASS program. This of course caused a lot of uncomfortable questions from the court to the present representative of the victim.
Then Peter wished to exercise his right to testify first and told his opinion on the charges, explained everything about the files on the file hosting, about traffic data, about the information portal, said that he installed some software products on the computer, but only as trial, with purpose of temporary use.
Literally the day after the meeting, the investigator appeared at Peter’s new place of work (apparently the investigation only in court found out that Peter had changed his job). Fortunately, here, too, the leadership sided with Peter. The operative was again aggressive and embittered, demanded the dismissal of Peter, threatened with checks. The lawyer kept his word and a complaint about the visits of the operative addressed to the Minister of the Interior was sent. To deal with the complaint was entrusted to the deputy. the head of department K, who collected written explanations from all the persons mentioned. Following the results of the proceedings, complaints to Peter were informed that no confirmation of the described facts was found. However, the operative called, said that he was no longer an operative, asked him not to be involved anymore. He remained to work as someone in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but was no longer engaged in operational work.
The trial lasted approximately six months. Many spectators, trainees came, because the case was interesting, in addition, the judicial board is a rare case. The defense side never regretted that it had declared the consideration of the case of the collegia. All three judges actively participated in the process, so the case was considered as thoroughly as possible. The investigator could not clearly explain the flaws in the case file, but showed aggression towards the defense, for which he received several warnings from the court. The expert behaved during the interrogations as inadequately as in the examination. They interrogated a bunch of people who were interrogated at the preliminary investigation, they did not say anything new. As a result, they did not interrogate everyone, the court decided that it was pointless, the prosecutor explained such a number of interrogations that Peter refused to testify, it was necessary to collect material. An additional examination was appointed. The second expert turned out to be an adequate, very cautious person. He did not draw any conclusions that he could not 100% substantiate. He found software distributions on the computer, discovered cracks and keygens, which, when investigated, circumvented licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was not possible to determine whether these distributions or license protection bypasses were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensing of installed programs, because does not have original licensed distributions. discovered cracks and keygens, which during the study allowed to bypass licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was not possible to determine whether these distributions or license protection bypasses were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensing of installed programs, because does not have original licensed distributions. discovered cracks and keygens, which during the study allowed to bypass licensed protection, but did not classify them as malicious. He said that it was not possible to determine whether these distributions or license protection bypasses were used. He also said that he could not determine the licensing of installed programs, because does not have original licensed distributions.
In July 2009, a judicial debate took place. The prosecutor suddenly refused charges on two episodes: under Art. 146, paragraph 3c and Art. 273, p. 1, because the expert could not establish that the specified software was used by Peter, and also concluded that the cracks and keygens presented were not malware. The reference to the distribution, i.e. only use was left, and the list of software was reduced to 3 programs (apparently, only the amount of damage of 50 thousand rubles would be accumulated, necessary for criminal prosecution). Peter only explained that of the three programs, he did not have one at all, and the other two were not installed, only distributions were found, according to the examination. The lawyer asked to justify Peter. The court retired to make a decision.
The verdict was postponed several times, and, as a result, took place in September 2009. At one of the planned announcements, department head K and the prosecutor told Peter that the Adobe victim representative himself wanted to make peace with Peter without asking for any money. Peter continued to stand his ground and replied: “You can only put up with the one with whom you quarreled. I did not quarrel with anyone. Absolutely not, let the court make a decision. ”
Finally, the verdict was announced. Justified. According to article 24, paragraph 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (absence of a crime event). With the right to rehabilitate and return seized material evidence. In December, the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office to the Supreme Court was examined, the court’s decision was upheld.
During 2010, Peter received compensation for property damage, i.e. money given for the provision of legal assistance in the amount of 200 thousand rubles, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 100 thousand rubles. of the declared 1.2 million rubles. The Ministry of Finance appealed the court decision on compensation for material damage immediately to the supervisory authority, the complaint was considered by a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court headed by the President of the Supreme Court, the court decision was upheld, the complaint was dismissed. During the proceedings with moral damages, an operative was questioned, who eventually said that the visits to Peter were carried out on the oral instructions of the head of department K and the prosecutor.
Peter never received a written apology from the prosecutor's office. Probably have to go to court again. Now Peter is ready to file a lawsuit and support him in court ...