ipsos-reid.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:The RIAA sucks by Quothz · 2003-09-09 18:08 · Score: 2, Funny · on RIAA Settles With 12-Year-Old Downloader

...the RIAA is indiscriminately cutting people down for a crime most sane people would put on par with jay walking.

I s'pose that makes me slightly insane, since I'd put it about on par with shoplifting. Extrapolating from a lot of vague data from the Web, I'd say about a third of us have snagged something off a shelf at some point, and it's when we were a teen or young adult.

One estimate has about 30 million active shoplifters at a time in the U.S.. Since half of 'lifters are between 18 and 30, and a third are from 13-18, I'll pretend that 24 million shoplifters are between these ages, which according to U.S. Census is around a third of folks in this age group.

So, we can unsafely assume about a third of us have shoplifted. Market researchers say about a fourth of us have participated in music filesharing. We'll pretend for a moment that all of these files were copyrighted. So, assuming (yes, another assumption - I like making assumptions, because it saves research) that the financial loss of a CD is about equal to 12 downloaded songs, we're looking at an equivalent of shoplifting a dollar or so worth of merchandise per song.

We'll ignore the fact that shoplifting has greater physical costs, such as the overhead for the merchandise space, shipping, and manufacturing, while copyright-infringing-filesharing only has production costs. We'll also ignore the fact that the author of this post has had a few beers.

For shoplifting a buck's worth of product, I'd expect to see restitution in the form of cost plus a fine, maybe a couple hundred bucks, and a criminal sentence appropriate to the offender's record. For most folks, that'd be a first offense, and prolly a lil' community service. Maybe unsupervised probation. For repeats, probably longer, supervised probation. Time served, if any, either way.

Since the demographics are not highly dissimilar (compared to violent crime, grand theft, and the like), the penalty ought'a be similar. Cost (about a buck per song), a couple-few hundred dollars on top as a slap on the wrist, and some community service or probation. Repeaters (I emphasize that "repeat" means "doing it after being convicted", not "doing it more than once before getting caught".) should probably be hit about as hard as repeat shoplifters, with, like, actual jail time.

It should be clear at this point that I support U.S. copyright law more-or-less in its current form. The musicians had rights, they signed a contract giving them away, they didn't get lobotomized first, so the RIAA owns those rights. I don't much like the RIAA, but I didn't like Sam Walton, either - and I don't think that gives me the right to take his stuff. I disagree with copyright torts of this nature, though - I think it ought'a be criminal, not civil. For one thing, criminal law gives protections to alleged offenders that civil law doesn't, thanks to that Constitution thingee.

I suggest that civil law shouldn't (in a perfect world) apply to corporate actions against private citizens acting privately. They should, in my mind, have to convince law enforcement-types that said citizens did something bad.

This is prolly obvious at this point, but I'm not, like, a lawyer or anything.

It's not exactly relevant, but here's a guy who's written a lot about shoplifting, but doesn't appear to have gotten laid since Jimmy Carter was in office.