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.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover those files are of much higher quality.
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?
We already have similar laws punishing both sides (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but if I sell you stolen goods, then that is a crime. Likewise, if you could reasonably be expected to know the goods were stolen, then that is also a crime (theft by receiving, IIRC).
As for your last paragraph, that's a mighty big if. However, if that were true (in general, not specifically for Wal Mart), then one would indeed expect that the fine should be greater than $1M. The idea is to make the expected value of the crime negative. As any good mathematician could tell you expected value is the
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:5, Informative)
Statutory damages apply regardless of the nature of the infringement. Reproduction alone is not treated differently than reproduction and distribution with regards to this. So that's not the rationale.
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).
No, that's incorrect. If you reproduce a copyrighted work, as occurs when you download it without authorization in an infringing manner, then that is one act of infringement by itself. Distributing the work to others, as occurs when you upload it without authorization in an infringing manner, is a seperate act of infringement.
This doesn't matter for statutory damages, since they are computed per work infringed, not per infringement, but they are distinct. For example, you could buy a lawfully made copy of a work, and then distribute the work (e.g. by renting an audio CD) and that would be an infringement without any reproduction.
What then can Bob, Berry, and Bart be charged with?
Criminally, copyright infringement for downloading, if they satisfy the requirements for that. Civilly, I wouldn't say 'charged' but again, downloading copyrighted works without authorization, in an infringing manner, is copyright infringement.
Alice has allready been convicted of the crime of distributing this data. How can they ALSO be guilty?
There is a big distinction between criminal and civil actions (copyright has both civil and criminal penalties, but the civil branch of the law predominates). Anyway, distribution is not the same thing as reproduction -- that's how.
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.
Copyright actually deals with a number of different rights. Reproduction is one; distribution is an entirely seperate one. And there are others. See 17 USC 106.
Why then are file sharers liable for damages other than those representitive of the fair market value of the files on their systems?
Because it is felt that those damages are so low that no one would bother to obey the law.
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 m
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Informative)
With that clarified and out of the way...
I thought the RIAA/MPAA was going after people who distribute materials, not downloaders
Yes, but only for practical reasons. There is no legal difficulty in going after downloaders. They're just not perceived as being as big of a problem, basically.
The DMCA (http:
I don't recall that it says that, but then, that's honestly a nonsensical statement right there.
DMCA is really just a bunch of amendments to copyright law as a whole, virtually all of which is in Title 17 of the US Code. Google for 17 USC and you'll find the entire thing, and can read through it all, with the sections added or changed by the DMCA inserted as appropriate.
But basically, 17 USC 106 sets forth the exclusive rights that compromise copyright, and reproduction is one of them, at 106(1). Distribution is another one, of equal importance, at 106(3).
downloading is really just another form of copying
I would use the term 'reproduction' instead of 'copying' for preference, but yeah, that's basically right. That's why it's typically illegal to reproduce copyrighted works without authorization.
which, since you have the rights to make archival backups, is acceptable!
Sorry, but that's wrong. There is no general purpose exception for backups. But please feel free to find a section of the law that supports your claim. Don't feel bad though -- a lot of people make this mistake. Just be sure to not keep on making it.
This is why there different definitions of the criminal act in file sharing: there's a distinction between someone obtaining the content illegally and someone providing it illegally.
Criminal copyright infringement doesn't make a distinction between reproduction and distribution, actually. You can see the relevant section 17 USC 506.
Plus, we're mostly talking about civil actions, not criminal prosecutions.
Eventually they may go after the downloaders as well, but I would assume that the penalties would be similar to shoplifting.
Nope. Read 17 USC 106(1),(3), then 501, then 504(a),(c). The penalties are exactly the same for uploading and downloading, and are pretty high, really.
Honestly guy -- if you're gonna talk about the law, you'd do better if you actually read it. If there's one thing that bugs the hell out of me, it's people that just make up what they think the law is, or accept that because some guy said the law was such a thing, that it must be so, and who don't check for themselves. I've provided you with citations -- go check up and correct your position accordingly.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, but the basic provisions of the law -- 106, 501, 504, the ever-crucial definitions in 101 -- are not that difficult. I don't think you'd find them difficult, and they are the primary sources here, along with the caselaw, which is also not that difficult.
To me, this states that "copying" isn't a violation of the copyright when the copying of work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances.
Basically. Again, you'd've found this easier with the statutes. The way it works is like this:
Everything is legal
Except what's exclusive to the copyright holder per 106.
Except there are limits to what is exclusive, such as fair use, which is in 107.
So, two examples of this at work:
First, reading. Reading -- provided it's just reading and there's nothing else at all going on -- is legal under our first precept. We then check to see if it is specifically made illegal under 106. Since it's not one of the enumerated exclusive rights of the copyright holder, we know that it is not illegal. Our analysis can end there -- reading is not a copyright infringement.
Second, reproduction. Reproduction, again, is legal under our first precept. But is it specifically made illegal by 106? It is. One of the exclusive rights is the right to reproduce the work in copies. So reproduction is illegal. But is there an exception to that, which removes some or all reproduction back out of 106? There are many exceptions, but they are not always applicable; various conditions have to be met for various exceptions to apply. One exception is fair use, at 107. When it applies, it takes conduct that 106 made illegal, and makes it legal. When it doesn't apply, it has no effect, and 106 continues to control.
A lot of the law is like this. There are broad pronouncements, dotted with exceptions, which themselves may be subject to exceptions at times. I'd expect that the programmers here could probably deal with it as a set of nested if then statements, except for that fact that a lot of the time things can be fuzzy because the world isn't as quantifiable as what goes on inside a computer.
One other thing:
To me, this states that "copying" isn't a violation of the copyright when the copying of work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances.
See, that's why precise terminology is important. When they said 'copying' there, they mean reproduction, the preparation of derivatives, distribution, and certain public performances and displays, since those are the exclusive rights in 106. You basically just mean reproduction, and you're distinguishing it from distribution later on.
Also, any otherwise infringing conduct -- reproduction, distribution, whatever -- can be a fair use. It depends on the specific circumstances involved, but fair use doesn't apply only to one sort of conduct under 106, and it says so explicitly.
Where I'd need your guidance in getting the correct answer is in asking: is making an archival backup of material you've licensed a violation of the copyright?
Depends on the nature of the material. However, do note that licenses with regards to copyrighted works, in the consumer setting, are extremely rare. When you buy a book, or a CD, or a DVD, you are not licensing anything. There is a good argument that even when you buy software, despite the claimed EULA (which some courts may uphold, and others won't) you're not licensing it either.
So I assume you mean, is it infringing to reproduce a work, where you own a lawfully made copy of the work, and the reproduction is intended for backup purposes.
I'd say that it is illegal, except under a few narrow circumstances. It might be a fair use -- but this
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:4, Informative)
I think the issue is whether they can be enforced or not. And it varies, depending on what court you're in. The trend is probably in favor of EULAs, but it's by no means certain, and details as to the specific EULA matter.
Can a EULA give you the right to a backup copy of software?
If the copyright holder says that you can do something that's otherwise infringing, the permission they give you makes it not infringing. Think of the GPL: it says that you can do all sorts of things, making those things noninfringing (at least as to the people giving the permission). There are strings attached, but there always are.
if you, as you state, own your copy of a work, why would it be infringement for you to rent out that CD or DVD or book even? Doesn't right of first sale come in here somewhere?
If you rent it, that is a distribution. Distribution is prohibited by 17 USC 106(3). However, there may be an applicable exception. 109 contains many exceptions to this, and basically is the codified form of the first sale doctrine. However, while 109 carves some holes into 106(3), it has some holes itself. It's not an infringement to rent a DVD of a copyrighted movie, but it is an infringement to rent a CD of copyrighted music, because 109 says it doesn't apply to music (17 USC 109(b)(1)(A)).
So yeah, Congress has said that some copies can't be rented out -- basically musical phonorecords (CDs, tapes, vinyl, etc.) and computer software other than, in effect, console games.
It's the kind of law that we can attribute directly to the efforts of the record and software industries, with some counter pressure by the video rental industry and the console sector of the software industry.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Informative)
No, not really. Art. 9 of the Berne Convention states that copyright holders have the exclusive rights to reproduce. It allows for countries to -- if they see fit -- allow for reproduction of works in certain special cases if it doesn't conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
At any rate, it doesn't matter. The US never should've joined the Berne Convention to begin with,
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: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:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Informative)
The real answer is the downloader is punished more harshly than the theif because the downloader enables and encorages more damage than the theif.
You walking into a store and filching a dvd doesn't enable the next guy to do it. And the only loss involved is the dvd. In order to do more damage, you would have to commit another crime.
You downloading on a P2P not
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 arg
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:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Informative)
See 17 USC 106 et seq. There is no general rule in copyright law that allows you to "do what you please" for "your own private use." You may think there is, you may want there to be, you may feel like there should be, but there isn't. There are a few exceptions, like fair use (section 107), making backup copies for software (section 117), and so on, but no law that says
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2)
Unfortunately, because P2P has gotten such a harsh rap, it's easy for a prosecutor to link digital "theft" with the "intent to distribute".
AFAIK, there's no distinction between theft and intent in any existing copyright laws. But I could be wrong. And if it doesn't exist yet, it will soon.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2)
Your interpretation is inconsistent. Either you penalize people for the potential to commit the crime or you don't. It's not illegal to own copyrighted material in a P2P friendly format. It's illegal to distribute them.
You're making the arguement that, in the shoplifter's case, he COULD redistribute the movie he st
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2)
Or you could steal it just to sell it to someone else cheaper than what they buy it for.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the problem is, if I steal a car from GM's factory, how much have I stolen, the retail or wholesale value of the vehicle?
How about intellectual property, have I stolen the costs that it took to make the CD, or the suggested MSRP? Why does the RIAA assume that the MSRP is what is stolen?
With the GM vehicle, we have a greater chance of market competition causing the price to drop down to the cost of the materials + cost of labor. It's not perfect by any
Backups (Score:2)
No the author glosses over it. in the piece (Score:3)
The fact is, the current wave of P2P apps share as soon as downloading has begun- he assumes too much -in that it therefore always equates downloading with uploading
from the article "Now, while you were downloading, you were simultaneously making available for upload what you already had; this is how BitTorrent works, "
not a wholly accurate statement-
it's the uploading.. if I want to set emule to ZERO upload, I'll download at a rate of .000
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:5, Informative)
The important thing is that it derive from the copyrightable work. If "Paul Clifford" were copyrighted, and you copied "It was a dark and stormy night" from it, then that's going to be infringing. OTOH, if you independently came up with that line (which, as the works are more and more similar, is harder to be convincing of, where you had access to the plaintiff's work), then there is no infringement.
I would suggest reading the very good essay What Colour Are Your Bits? [sooke.bc.ca] for more on this.
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, so size really doesn't matter?
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 copy
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:2)
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Potential Redistributable Files (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, go after the big fish, and more big fish will appear to replace them. If there's a demand, someone will find a way to supply it. Period.
In Why Our Drug Laws have Failed and What We Can Do About It [amazon.com], Superior Court Judge James P. Gray quotes a letter from a fellow judge about arresting every drug dealer they could find in one city (Phoenix), to see how quickly the market filled the gap. They bought drugs from every single
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:Then Let's Go Shoppin'! (Score:3, Insightful)
Differences Abound (Score:4, Insightful)
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!)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Differences Abound (Score:5, Informative)
Downloading a copy of a song you have no right to have IS infringing a copyright. Whether you keep it or not.
Re:Differences Abound (Score:3, Interesting)
The **AA certainly could do this! In civil court, there is no law against entrapment. The **AA could put their stuff up for download, log the people downloading it, then sue them. And it would be totally legal. And the **AA would win. Ask any lawyer.
Re:Differences Abound (Score:2)
Re:Differences Abound (Score:3, Funny)
Would I get both punishments, then?
Re:Differences Abound (Score:2)
It's very hard to prove you are really holding a giant mpeg on your filesystem.
-Is it really on a filesystem?
-What if it's a shared filesystem on someone else's network?
-What if it's a split in parts. With other files on other networks.
-Wouldn't you also have to break the law and break into someone's PC to see the filesystem too. It's tricky.
What's a "government store"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's a "government store"? (Score:3, Funny)
what would be the charge (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what would be the charge (Score:2)
File sharing is not like stealing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:File sharing is not like stealing (Score:2)
Re:File sharing is not like stealing (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually copyright holders don't care if you steal their stuff from stores because they still end up getting paid. The store loses, but not the copyright holder.
Well... (Score:2)
Oh wait....
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.
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.
Re:Easily explanable (Score:4, Interesting)
Not at all: that's the very reason people play the lottery: their chances of winning are nearly naught, but millions play everyday because they reckon the enormous bounty is worth the ridicule odds.
Likewise, that's the reason a big drop was observed [wired.com] at the height of **AA-instigated lawsuits last year: chances of losing at the P2P game (not winning this time
Bulge? (Score:3, Funny)
Its a medical condition, you insensitive clod, and I'll thank you not to stare. This is why I have to spend so much time on the internet downloading...tv shows.
Re:Easily explanable (Score:2)
Re:Easily explanable (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's so much to do with risk, although that might be what lawmakers tell themselves so they can sleep at night.
The thing is, if you steal a DVD, you steal it from WalMart or Best Buy, not from ABC or Warner Brothers, because the retailer has already purchased it from their supplier, etc.... If you download it, you are stealing it 'directly' from ABC or WB, at least in their eyes. And it's the studios
Re:Easily explanable (Score:3, Interesting)
>the mind of "internet shoplifters" is to up the
>possible penalty.
This doesn't bode well. Me, using a pencil and paper copying a poem from a book I have is next to impossible to find out. The chance of getting cought approchaes zero. So the penalty would approach infinity. At the very least the panlty should start in the billions of dollar.
On the other hand it bodes well for my planned bank robbery. I intend to call the police before hand, not use mas
Statutory damages.... (Score:4, Informative)
They're not just damages for a single instance of copying, but also for the contribution you made to those other people downloading from you.
Re:Statutory damages.... (Score:3, Informative)
The only obstacles to an imposition of statutory damages are at 17 USC 412 and extremely rare cases (they won't apply to anyone here) under 504(c)(2).
Even one single instance of infringement, such as by reproduction, will permit a claim of statutory damages that can be as low as $200 per work, or as high as $150,000 per work. It's fairly simple: just read 17 USC 106(1), 501, and 504(a),(c).
The other people who downloaded from you have also infringed, and if the plaintiff wants damages f
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.
Re:So my choice is (Score:3, Insightful)
but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:but (Score:2)
Re:but (Score:2)
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.
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.)
Come and get me, copper! (Score:2)
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.
Is it now automatically illegal ... (Score:2)
AFAIK in the USA, downloading a season of a TV show is OK if it was recorded from an over the airwaves broadcast. I feel that over the air broadcast is covered under fair use and timeshifting. Now if I downloaded a season of a TV show that was ripped from DVD or VHS then it is illegal.
Is it now automatically illegal to download a TV show?
Re:Is it now automatically illegal ... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, always has been. (Score:2)
Yes, but only for your own personal use. The minute you "share" it with potentially millions of other users, you've thrown your fair use out the window.
Re:Is it now automatically illegal ... (Score:2)
Re:Is it now automatically illegal ... (Score:5, Informative)
Soon they'll be able to with the broadcast flag. Sad, but true.
I see nothing wrong with this.. (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the solution? DON'T STEAL/PIRATE MOVIES/BOOKS/SOFTWARE/MUSIC/etc.! It's VERY simple to avoid being c
Re:I see nothing wrong with this.. (Score:2)
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
The problem with the example as it stands... (Score:2)
You haven't committed copyright infringement. In the P2P case, you have. As the law sees it, even though in reality you only shared a few bytes of each episode's MPEG.
So, the analogy breaks down. It would
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:And this is surprising? (Score:3, Informative)
Punishment that is disproportionate to the crime committed NEVER serves the interest of everyone in the long run. It can only serve the interest of a select few.
The differential is even greater (Score:5, Informative)
The Irrationality Copyright Law (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Fair use and shoplifting. (Score:2)
Person walks into Best Buy, opens a DVD, copies it to their laptop hard drive, leaves Best Buy. Copyright infringement. Sentenced to a Federal Pound Me in the Ass Prison for years.
Person walks into Best Buy with laptop. Shoplifts DVD. Gets caught. Misdemeanor - usually a $500 max fine, 90 days in jail, depending on jurisdiction.
Person walks into Best Buy with laptop. Shoplifts DVD. Doesn't get caught. Gets home and copies DVD to Laptop Hard Drive. Fair use. No penalty. Whe
Re:Fair use and shoplifting. (Score:2)
Defeating legal notices from *AA (Score:2)
Would it not be cheaper just to run over to the local Walmart and purchase all the stuff that was downloaded? Buying real copies from Walmart to prove prior ownership has got to be way cheaper than paying the fine/legal charges/etc.
This way, you can say that you actually have the copies and you were downloading mp3s, dvds to have backups and different formats.
Re:Defeating legal notices from *AA (Score:3)
Six words: I don't have my receipt, jackass.
How dumb do you have to be to keep the receipt and show it to them rather than claim you bought it years ago?
Deep Pockets (Score:2)
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)
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.
Mathematically impossible to do the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're an honest person and you don't do the crime, then whatever penalties are irrelevant.
Is it possible to avoid doing the crime? There exists combinatoric evidence that it's next to impossible to create an original melody [slashdot.org].
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.
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]
This Article Isn't Presenting the Facts Accurately (Score:5, Informative)
Which government stoare have you been to that sells DVD's?
Also, very importantly, the intent of the law is to help differntiate between different crimes.
If I were to shoplift a fur coat or nice cell phone no copyrigh law could obviously apply in this case. But on the other hand I could shoplift a DVD or computer software and then go further and help pirate it: now I've broken more than one law, obviously. First, I have stolen from the merchant and his or her harm is limited to the $20 in retail sales lost. But my piracy activity takes on another crime in another form: criminal copyright activity.
I think the difference isn't neccesarily the same. If I were an author, publish, programmer I would want me original creative work to be more protected than just one copy that got the "five finger discount." I would see the greater danger to my business, my property, and livelihood in the rampant privacy not in the occassional theft. That's why the crimes are differentiated. Also, the harm to society is worse if on a grand scale my copyright is abused and damanged then if one merchants single copy is lifted.
Shoplifting isn't a violation of Federal law in any case.
Virginia
18.2-96. Petit larceny defined; how punished.
Any person who:
1. Commits larceny from the person of another of money or other thing of value of less than $5, or
2. Commits simple larceny not from the person of another of goods and chattels of the value of less than $200, except as provided in subdivision (iii) of 18.2-95, shall be deemed guilty of petit larceny, which shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, 18.1-101; 1960, c. 358; 1966, c. 247; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1980, c. 175; 1992, c. 822.)
And in Virginia:
(a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
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.
**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:First Post! (Score:3, Informative)
i may just be picking at semantics, but this is slashdot...
but where can I find the list of approved words?
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2, Redundant)
what are you talking about? people have been stealing things for years for the sole purpose of redistributing (pawning) them to make money from it, or just feeding themselves.
a big difference is that the **AA has already been paid for stolen dvd's because the store bought them before they were ripped off- so they could care less about shoplifting.
on the other hand, p2p users really
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:Deterrence factor (Score:4, Funny)
Littering = Very easy to avoid being found out. It's not like people really notice someone drop something on the ground.
Bank robbery = Security cameras, guards, silent alarms, FBI involvement.
So, by your logic, since it's much, much easier to get caught robbing a bank than littering, you should get a much much stiffer penalty when caught throwing a gum wrapper on the ground.
Shall we say a $500 billion fine, and 4000 years in jail? That should keep your d = pc formula balanced...