Slashdot Mirror
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"
When you download via a torrent, you are distributing the file. The penalties for illegally and possibly widely distributing copyrighted material are rightfully more harsh than just stealing a $20 item.
The jist of this article has been argued to death.
I just thought I'd point out that if you're using a P2P protocol (e.g. BitTorrent) to download then you're also uploading too. And distributing copyrighted information is rightfully a much more serious act.
;-)
(I hope the entitlement kids don't have mod points today.
Compare Shoplifting and making copies for anyone who asks, vs. downloading via torrent. That is what is comprable...
Compare shoplifting with simply downloading and not resharing (IE no torrent...) then it is a lot less for downloading..
It is distribution here that is what generates the fines. Not the downloading...
This means that you're also likely redistributing the material, which you probably aren't doing if your crime is shoplifting
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 don't get or care that much about copyright infringement because they see it as *sharing* and don't consider it to be a crime- they are not trying to profit from the theft like the person breaking into homes, cars or storefronts.
these are two very different issues that really need to be looked at together for anyone to begin making any sense of what the proper punishments should be.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Just to add to what the parent has stated...
//www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf), makes the point that copying isn't necessarily a violation of fair use. This is why the suits have been filed against people providing the content and not the people downloading it... because downloading is really just another form of copying (which, since you have the rights to make archival backups, is acceptable!).
IANAL, either... but, I thought the RIAA/MPAA was going after people who distribute materials, not downloaders. The DMCA (http:
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.
Eventually they may go after the downloaders as well, but I would assume that the penalties would be similar to shoplifting. Of course, if you've shop-lifted thousands of dollars of merchandise (as would be overly easy to do with a computer download), then you'll face stiffer penalties simply because of the general volume of the theft.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.