Jail Time for Movie Swappers

ArmenTanzarian writes "The MPAA is at it again, reports CNET in a story from yesterday. Apparently, suing the pants off of teenagers RIAA-style isn't good enough, they want to go ahead and throw you in jail. To that end, their senators will introduce the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act today; which carries with it a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!"

Comments

They won't throw most teenagers in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be a juvenile detention center for those under 18.

Only for Unreleased Movies

[athakur999]

Before anyone gets too worked up, read the article.

The threat of a three-year prison term kicks in when anyone makes an illicit copy of a movie "available on a computer network accessible to members of the public," when the film "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time." Once the film is commercially distributed, the felony penalties appear to no longer apply.

This is only for movies that haven't yet been released. Your copy of Matrix won't land in the slammer, but your prerelease screener for RotK will.

Re:Copyright law

[stubear]

Actually it's both. There are limits that must be met before criminal prosecution can set in but you can be fined and/or imprisoned for infringing copyrights, typically through distribution for financial gain.

How about this then:

[phlapjack77]

copyright infringement isn't theft, because the U.S. Supreme Court says so.

how's that for legal?

Supreme Court decision

Re:ha ha! (edumacate yourself)

[gosand]

It's intellectual theft.

Holy crap, another completely useless term created for no good reason.

You deprive someone of something without paying for it. You're stealing the money you owe them.

No. You have deprived them of nothing, they still have it. You have infringed copyright, and it is arguable that you owe them money, but you certainly did not steal money from them. The law is very clear, why can't YOU understand it? If copyright infringement was the same as stealing, there would be no reason to have the term "copyright infringement" and an entire section of laws pertaining to it.

This is so insanely simple. Not that it matters. I don't know why Slashbots feel the need to point out that it's not "theft" constantly. It doesn't make it any less illegal or immoral.

You are right, it is simple, but you don't get it. You are also right that it doesn't make it less illegal. (no reason to talk about morals here, they are subjective) It makes it a different *KIND* of illegal. That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?