Copyright Infringement and Shoplifting Contrasted

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"

Comments

Potential Redistributable Files

[fembots]

Maybe downloading a movie means you own a P2P-friendly file to redistribute it in the future, while stealing a DVD means you're only going to watch it at home.

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

[Ziviyr]

Your realize that it is verging on trivial to pull playable files from a DVD?

Moreover those files are of much higher quality.

Re:Potential Redistributable Files

[pintpusher]

This implies that you can be fined more for the POTENTIAL of committing further acts of copyright infringement. I don't think that holds up. That's like punishing a murderer for future murders they were thinking about committing.
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?

Easily explanable

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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

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 .torrent link?).

So therefore, the only way to instill fear in the mind of "internet shoplifters" is to up the possible penalty.

Re:Easily explanable

[ivan256]

So therefore, the only way to instill fear in the mind of "internet shoplifters"...

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.

More Mickey Mouse laws

[QuantGuy]

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.)

Something to keep in mind

[mcc]

Nobody has intellectual property "rights". They have intellectual property privileges.

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.