Copyright Infringement and Shoplifting Contrasted 562
awesomeO4001 wrote in to mention a post to Karl Wagenfuehr's blog where he compares and contrasts the penalties for copyright infringement vs. shoplifting. From the post: "...from what I can tell, the penalties laid out for downloading one season of a TV show with BitTorrent are much harsher than if you actually stole a DVD set of the same show from a government store...For stealing the DVD you could face no more than up to 1 year imprisonment and up to a $100,000 fine; for downloading the same material you could face statutory damages of up to $3,300,000, costs and attorney's fees"
Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously owning a physical DVD also allows you to turn it into P2P-friendly files, but that can't be fined yet since it hasn't happened, while the downloader already possesses the file.
Then Let's Go Shoppin'! (Score:3, Insightful)
And you figure, because the tangible good is pressed, not burned or stored in a HDD, it'll last a lot longer...
All this article does is show how unequal punishments are in the Western judicial system.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:1, Insightful)
one could even draw a parallel to using drugs vs. selling them. maybe the powers that be are considering DLing copyrighted materials as "possession with intent to distribute."
Differences Abound (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily explanable (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a question of risk: if you shoplift, you face a much higher chance of getting caught, thanks to CCTV, security guards at the exit, and the silly square bulge in your pants that doesn't look so natural to the cashier. If you download a movie, there isn't remotely as much risk (remember the last time you had an adrenalin rush when clicking on a
So therefore, the only way to instill fear in the mind of "internet shoplifters" is to up the possible penalty.
So my choice is (Score:4, Insightful)
or no jail time and up to a $3 million fine.
I dunno... I think the latter is still a "lesser" punishment as the judge will probably still put the fine at about $100,000 depending upon the # of downloads.
I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
If you publish a story about a guy who got caught shoplifting, nobody's going to care.
However, make a big splash about a 12 year old girl or a 80+ year old grand-mother and their dog being sued into oblivion, and the story gets everybody going "WTF".
They're obviously going for the shock-therapy/re-education treatment of the masses.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover those files are of much higher quality.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:1, Insightful)
More Mickey Mouse laws (Score:5, Insightful)
More proof that the entertainment industry has Congress in its pocket.
I'd love to see the RIAA and MPAA prosecuted under the RICO statute. (Wishful thininking, I know.)
Re:Differences Abound (Score:5, Insightful)
The additional penalties have NOTHING to do with the sharing. It's simply because the movie industry has more power and influence with Congress than local retailers. (Which is shocking when you consider that Wal-Mart is a local retailer!)
Motiviation (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes a different type of motivation to go into a store and steal a DVD. It's much more offical physically stealing something. We've been taught that this is a crime and there are reprecussions.
Whereas with access to a computer, the only person to guilt you is uh...no one? With no one else in your room, no shop keeper, a vague moral lesson going around, it's a lot easier to justify.
A lawmakers response is the only one they know. To ratchet up the punishment and cross their fingers it'll solve the problem.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I think the people who write these laws should take a long, hard look at the realities of the situation.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Insightful)
I read it like this: a store bought DVD has already paid its royalties to the copyright holder, if not directly produced by the copyright holder. The retailer through several levels, has paid the copyright holder for the material and then is reselling a pre-packaged, fully licensed sealed item. A shoplifter is merely stealing this already licensed and legal copy of an item. The shoplifter is not copying, distributing or performing any other COPYRIGHT infringement by merely walking out the door with it.
A downloader however, by mere virtue of the fact that they have MADE A COPY of the material without paying the copyright holder for that privilege has violated the copyright.
Its a different crime.
Now, if the shoplifter rips it and passes on copies of it, then your back to COPYing the work...
WHat happens if you download a copy of something you already own for purposes of backing up the material?
Re:So my choice is (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shopplifting: not a threat to said corporations.
P2P social revolution: threat.
From that perspective, its quite easy to see WHY the penalties are set up the way they are.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
What part of that don't you understand?
The Irrationality Copyright Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easily explanable (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time quantity of punishment will affect the behavior of somebody breaking the law is when it is accompanied by certainty of punishment.
They can make the punishment for internet copy infringement as large as they like, but they won't reduce the amount of copying that occurs as long as they are only capabale of catching one in a ten million infringers. All raising the penalty in that case does is unfairly punish the few people they do manage to catch.
Uhhh, no kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost of duplication of copyrighted goods, particularly in digital form, is trivial. Accordingly, it's a much bigger threat to the legitimate owners than is theft of physical objects, and is punished accordingly.
Compare this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then don't give me a license. And tell me that I'm SOL when my phone dies.
Then explain to me why i should give a crap about copyrights and theivery?
and one time, at band camp... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's put the question another way. If 1,000 terrorists each transport a tiny fragment of a nuclear bomb into a city and blows it up, which of them is guilty of mass murder?
All of them are, even if one of them just bought a screwdriver from Home Depot. Similarly, because of the ability and intent of reassembling that bit back into a copyrighted work without authorization, you've violated copyright. This doesn't mean that anybody who sends out a 1 bit infringes on every copyrighted work containing a 1 bit. There has to be a clear way of using that bit to infringe copyright, such as a formula or data format to re-generate copyrighted material with it as an input.
(By the way, this is just an intellectual exercise, putting aside my personal feelings about copyright law. I am also not a lawyer, so guilt and innocence here refer to what I think the world should be, not what it is.)
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Insightful)
If Alice downloads a file illegaly and then shares it with Bob, Berry, and Bart, she can be punished with the downloader penalties, which include punishment for the illegal distribution of the work (i.e. representing the copying she did as well as the copying she allowed others to do).
What then can Bob, Berry, and Bart be charged with? What if they download directly from Alice without sharing themselves? Alice has allready been convicted of the crime of distributing this data. How can they ALSO be guilty?
Perhaps a paralell is in order. Lets take the case of the shoplifter. If he takes a copy of a DVD from Wal Mart he is punished for it if caught. Should Wal Mart ALSO be punished for failing to secure and protect copywritten materials?
My point is this. If the purpose of copyright is to control the copying and we are to presume that any individual downloading is the one doing the actual copying, then it is clear that the person hosting the file is not at fault. If the person hosting the file is the one doing the copying then the person receiving the file is not at fault. If this were a criminal trial it would be one thing, but as a civil trial the plaintiff has rights only the damage done. The damge in this case works out to the value of the merchendise * the copies made.
If $5,000,000 in stuff is ripped off from Wal Mart every year but they only catch 5 shoplifters are those five liable for $1,000,000 each? Why then are file sharers liable for damages other than those representitive of the fair market value of the files on their systems?
Something to keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
In the U.S. at least personal property rights-- you know, for "real" property-- are assumed to be a simple basic intrinsic right that exists outside of and regardless of the government, as codified by the fifth amendment's explicit observation that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The execution and distribution rights to the non-property that go by the misnomer "intellectual property rights" are not intrinsic and in fact are granted by the government. This is a big deal. Unlike the intrinsic rights spoken of in the bill of rights-- which are not granted by the government and therefore cannot be limited or taken away by the government-- "IP" ownership is a privilege the government entrusts to certain people with the goal of benefiting the public, as part of Congress's empowerment "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Just something to think about.
Re:I see nothing wrong with this.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that P2P isn't a real problem just one made up by the RIAA, MPAA to account for theoretical sales that in all likelyhood WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY.
For the most part people who steal music would have just went without, P2P has not changed the buying habits for the worse, on the contrary studies show P2P has even elevated sales in some cases.
You should probably take into account that the current MPAA, RIAA situation is bad for consumers(and artists alike) and that this should be considered a valid way for forcing change. The musicians/filmmakers are hurt more by the RIAA/MPAA than P2P users could ever dream of impacting them. My advice, "steal" as much as you want they deserve it.
Just Do The Right Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're an honest person and you don't do the crime, then whatever penalties are irrelevant. I think the real problem is that people are being tried, convicted and punished without due process. The RIAA is wielding power like the IRS, but they are NOT a judicial body or a government agency. As us chessplayers like to say," the threat can be more effective than the execution..." Many people are forced to settle out of court, and more than a few innocent people have been harrassed. In a democracy this shouldn't happen. So the real problem with the overblown penalties is that the threat of such draconian penalties leads to extortion by the RIAA. The penalties don't work that well as a deterrent, millions are still downloading copyrighted material, but they do give the RIAA leverage to pressure money out of people without having to actually prove their case in a court of law.
this is nothing new, punishments don't fit crimes. (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea behind this is that while punishments are low for shoplifting, the chance of getting caught is high. In the filesharing situation, the chance of getting caught is low, so they try and jack up the punishment to make it that more serious if you do get caught.
Also, it is interesting to note ownership of property at time of theft for these crimes, as a comparison. In shoplifting, the retail chain has paid a distributor, record label, or movie production firm for the merchandise. The theft of a product still benefits those distributors. However the theft of a movie before a retail establishment purchases it means it hits the bottom line of the distributor directly. Personally, I bet the distributors couldn't give a rat's ass whether you shoplifted, since that copy was already paid for, and now the retail store has to buy another copy to replace the one you stole.
But copyright-infringement means that demand for the items on the shelf don't change. IE the retailer doesn't need to reorder another copy to fill the empty shelf.
PS don't take my observation as a support for copyright-infringement. I don't believe it to be right.
Re:And this is surprising? (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, no. It serves the interest of EVERYONE, including people who own stock in corporations. Do you really think the government should only represent people who don't own any stock?
One of the government's functions is to enforce laws. It is illegal to steal copyrighted material, therefore, they are doing exactly what they should be doing. Your childish "right to steal" that you think you have doesn't exist.
Compare to other crimes (Score:2, Insightful)
Fair? Maybe, but that not the point.
Committing the crime is one thing. Helping others to do it is considerably more outrageous to the law.
So in the mean time I'm going to amsterdam, who's with?
Also compare P2P etc. to commercial infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, demanding entirely overblown surveillance, censorship, damages and punishment, just for going after alleged one-time infringers sometimes not far from the borderline of fair use (excerpts on fan pages being taken down "at lawyerpoint" etc.), and even if the "suspects" happen to be minors, or 83 years old (let alone...deceased!), seems to appear perfectly adequate to many people if one sticks a label like "pirates" on such "bad" guys to mislead observers into believing someone else had actually been disposessed of an irreplacable piece of physical property merely by copying (part of) it.
IIRC there used to be something they called the First Amendment... [chillingeffects.org]
The real difference is in who gets hurt. (Score:4, Insightful)
While the net cost to society is probably about the same either way, people get punished more if they steal from organizations with large legal budgets.
Re:and one time, at band camp... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Then Let's Go Shoppin'! (Score:3, Insightful)
**AAs want you to pay EVERY TIME you watch (Score:4, Insightful)
As it is, its hard enough to get away from the ads, promos and all the other schlock.
I'd rather think than be considered as a money pump. Hence, I don't listen, I don't watch... At least not what they'd want me to. I'm ann unplugged-in subversive.
Re:Compare this... (Score:1, Insightful)
you accepted the terms of the contract
you're legally bound to abide by those terms
Diff industries, Diff attitudes toward theft (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of intellectual property violation, you're dealing with a very powerful industry that has not been subject to largescale "theft" of their product before a few years ago. They suddenly see their profits dropping and believe it to be the result of "theft" through filesharing. Their lobbyists go to work, and we get regressive penalties for filesharing.
In the case of theft of the physical DVD, the retailer has already bought the DVD, so the financial burden falls Not on the production house, but on the retailer... and here's the key... WHO DEALS WITH THEFT ALREADY AND HAS DEALT WITH IT FOREVER, AND WILL DEAL WITH IT INTO THE FUTURE. Shoplifting is a part of the overhead, particularly for large retailers, and while they act to decrease it (cameras, security tags, etc) they know that real steps to ERADICATE it would be silly and drive away patrons. (I'm imagining a wal-mart associate following each and every customer around to make sure that they dont steal... or locking ALL wares behind cases.... attack ferrets to chase and ravage children toying with the locks... etc)
Sorry, that was an extended parenthetical, but i think my point is clear. If store were as fanatical in preventing the shoplifting of CD's and DVD's as the RIAA and MPAA are trying to be regarding their intellectual property rights, nobody would shop there, cause nobody likes being treated like a criminal from the off.
Re:Differences Abound (Score:1, Insightful)
That is, when you steal a DVD from walmart, you are punished for stealing the DVD... when you download something on Kazaa and offer it up to others, you are not only downloading, but also providing - making it analogous to stealing DVDs from walmart, and then going outside to the street to re-sell them. (Well, more acurately giving away, but then you similarly have the crime of trafficing in stolen property, and they can make an argument that a movie available on Bt is fairly obviously not there legally).
Re:We already have similar laws punishing both sid (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an interesting idea. Making the value of a crime negative, or "not worth-it" is something that I support. But what about the difference between criminal and civil? The copyright laws make it criminial to do certain things. But how negative should the penalty of a crime be so to stop the crime?
In the United States we generally agree that cutting the hand off of a theif is too negative. But fining someone into the ground is not. Fining a $1M is a nice idea in theory, but what good would it accomplish? The person that steals from Wal-mart, generally speaking, is not wealthy enough to buy the items in the first place, and therefore wouldn't have the means to pay in the first place. Placing a regressive fine on those who don't have the money to begin with would benefit society little (if the shoplifter only makes $25K a year, it would take 40 years for the shoplifter to pay the fine; meanwhile the shoplifter has to declare bankrupticy to get out of the judgment, thereby eliminating and circumventing the judgement and the debts of the offendar). $1M is too regressive, as it would ruin the offendar and the fine would never be paid. Rather, fining the offendar on a scale that would allow the offendar to pay, yet make it sufficent to hurt would be better. So in this example our $25K/year shoplifter pays $2,500. Enough to hurt, but not enough to ruin the guy.
But the huge problem that I see with the whole copyright situation is that the punishment is extreme and serves very little purpouse. Why would $3,300,000 be a just punishment? Is the value of the product worth that much? TV shows, movies and music are not valued at insane amounts. Stealing a TV set won't land you a $3M fine. What benefit does fining people into the ground serve the public?
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying I can purchase a DVD, then put it online to have the content stolen, and that's fine?
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with this in principal, but in reality it is very easy to see the difference between someone who has a couple of ounces of as opposed to the guy who has a whole truckload of the stuff.
Distributing something like heroin is hardly a "victimless crime", and I'd rather they go after those selling the drug than rounding up each and every addict and filling up the prisons with them. Go after the big fish, and it will cut off the supply to the little fish.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:1, Insightful)
Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. Personally I think copyright infringement (when done for personal use only) should carry a lesser penalty than stealing a copy, because no one has lost any money. If you download a song illegaly, all you have done is possibly eliminate a potential sale. If you steal a physical copy, there is a real cost in production and distribution of that particular copy that has been lost.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Insightful)
What matters is that you stole it.
Once you've taken the leap from choosing not to have a copy in your possession to having a copy you've left the area where you can complain about the price.
If you were to attempt to argue that you shouldn't be held accountable simply because you wouldn't have 'normally' purchased a copy anyway, then the logical conclusion is that no one would need to pay for anything. After all, why would I pay for something if I could get it for free? And why would anyone pay me for anything if THEY could get it for free?
There are models of government that have and still are attempting that sort of life. It's called Communisim. I'm not part of the generation which beleives that particular word is an evil one, but I do have a healthy suspision when someone raised in a capitalist society starts espousing it's philosophies. That usually doesn't mean that they actually beleive in it, but that they think they should reap all the benefits to such a society while still avoiding any of the negatives of it. Like the ability to own their own things.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Insightful)
In the -worst case- scenario, the risks of filesharing are economic, and in fact there's not even proof that it does economic damage. In essense, copyright laws create an artificial construct (intellectual property), an artificial problem (copyright infringement), and then uses real enforcement (massive monetary damages). Is it any surprise that people are angered when real lives are being destroyed to protect imaginary property?
Contrast that with speeding. It has real risks (a driver at higher speed is more likely to cause a wreck and will cause a worse one if he or she does), to real people (injury or death, in addition to a potential sharp blow to the checkbook.)
And yet, the penalties for that are so low no one follows the law, and enforcement is so spotty that no one figures it'll happen to them anyway. "Deterrent" penalties don't work. (If this is false, please explain to me how murders continue to occur despite the existence of the death penalty.) The punishment should fit the seriousness of the crime, not how seriously pissed off a CEO somewhere is. Copyright infringement is a nonviolent crime which deprives no one of anything other than an imaginary, artificial "right" of control over every copy of a single thought.
Let's not overdramatize here. If you steal my DVD, I don't have it anymore. If you copy it, I still do. Please don't keep trying to twist words and logic to say that the second is worse then the first.