Thinking about file-sharing? Don't. You'll get fined, and crime doesn't pay (unless you rob banks and/or armored cars, then it pays very well). Take it from Jammie Thomas, who was fined $2 million for downloading 24 songs, or anyone else who tried to fight the RIAA.
Instead, try another crime, because plenty of them draw far lighter penalties than downloading Jason Mraz's latest. Thanks to the Mechanics blog at Gapers Block, here are seven crimes that will get you smaller fines than file-sharing:
1. Child abduction: the fine is only like $25000.
2. Stealing the actual CD: the fine is $2,500
3. Rob your neighbor: the fine is $375,000
4. Burn a house down: The fine is just over $375,000
5. Stalk someone: The fine is $175,000
6. Start a dogfighting ring: the fine is $50,000
7. Murder someone: The maximum penalty is only $25,000 and 15 years in jail, and depending on your yearly salary, would probably be far slighter a penalty that $2 million.
Seriously, murdering someone will result in a lighter overall penalty than downloading a bunch of songs and getting caught. Granted, you don't get shivved in the showers at home, but still. [via Daily Swarm]
excellent illustration of serious distortion of values in our so-called justice system
August 21, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.
soodfjsdilfhdsil
holy ****. it's the greed that the music industry has is just...ridiculous...
August 21, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.
theinternet
Murder is 25 to life (to a death penalty in many states). I know this is a lighthearted comic post, but come on man everyone knows that the maximum penalty for murder is a lot more than $25K and 15 years.
I should have specified--that's for second degree murder, which is what's noted at the link. 2nd degree is 15 years in most states. If you make 40,000 a year, that's only like 600,000 dollars you're missing out on.
August 22, 2009 at 4:08 p.m.
evie
our justice system is completely screwed
August 22, 2009 at 4:08 p.m.
chris
Sounds like Corruption of the justice system to me. Seems like the people in charge can't find fair neutral ground. One extreme or the other.
August 22, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.
Verglo
Perhaps we should cease interest in main stream entertainment. It is all crap anyway.
August 22, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.
schtickle
2 mil was what ONE person paid for their file sharing "crime". most people who get caught have to pay between $500-600 per song, unless they keep recycling through the appeals process, then yes, to make a point they will charge her 2 mil. again, i know this was a just for fun post and yes, i do agree that this situation is ridiculous, but i am a fan getting the facts straight...
August 22, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.
Adriel
I just want to point out that the fines listed are assessed by the government. While the RIAA makes up its own fines and then if you do not pay, they will take you to court in a civil suit.
This is a big difference. Mandatory fines by the government and some made up number that they have to prove to a jury to get awarded are very different.
I would hope that there is not a jury alive that would ever award the RIAA $2M because someone downloaded mp3's
August 22, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
WorkingDog
Let's compare prosecution rates for any of the 'regular' crimes vs. file sharing. You are still far safer to steal something over the web than in real life. Maybe that is what perpetual downloaders need - a real life.
August 22, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
john
Well, the problem is not downloading the music; it is the sharing part that is the problem. If you got caught just down loading the music there is no way for them to charge the max for each song. Because you got caught for having the songs and not gave it (or parts of it) to everyone else. If you have followed all the RIAA cases they are about the user sharing the music, not having the music. For one they can't find a person that just downloads music, unless they were the one sharing it and that would not have been a crime then because they are the one giving it to you. So if you just download music and never share it you are just fine (worst case you have to pay a retail or wholesale pricing for the song(s)) and with all the options that are out there why do you have to re-share the files you downloaded?
August 22, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
Chris
Yeah, you are WAY off on most of those stats...especially the murder one. How about LIFE IN PRISON?
August 22, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
JoJo
This is pretty misleading. For most of the crimes you listed, fines are only a small part of the punishment which include jail time. You make it sound like someone pays a child abduction fine the same way you pay a parking ticket, pay it and your off scott free I guess. Still 2 million is excessive for 24 songs to say the least.
August 22, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
Darkr0nin
This is what happens when you have special interests in the Justice System. Only a goddamn DRM Lobbyist could give some a fine for file sharing that's heavier than murder.
From now on the first thing I'm going to ask about any media I'm interested in is if it's DRM "protected". I really shouldn't have to, but it's getting that absurd. No wonder people use file sharing so much. The whole corporate anti-piracy movement is a damn joke.
August 22, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
I have a brain
Clearly written by a retard. Half of these are just plain wrong or are for less serious versions of those crimes (as opposed to file sharing which is treated as each song being a separate instance which is why the fines are so ludicrous)
August 22, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
joel
Who has the money, the corporations or your dead, robber nieghbor with a burned down house. Congress knows the answer
August 22, 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
TranceGemini
6. Start a dogfighting ring: the fine is $50,000
And a year later you get signed to the Eagles! >.<
August 22, 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
Nick
None of these fines take into account the additional jail time you'll receive, while the fines instituted by the RIAA are merely fines. I'm sorry but something is telling me you don't walk out of court on a 25K fine after getting caught abducting a child.
August 22, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Lyn
Did you know that the judge of the Pirate Bay trial was supposedly related to the RIAA, and has only his word to tell us he wasn't biased?
I think unlike some companies, it's' very clear that the RIAA is deserving of an anti-trust policy, if not needing to be shut down for the dirty playing they've been doing.
August 22, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
pts69666
Also, its 600,000 a year that you miss out on, and how many expenses that you don't have to pay.
August 22, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
heather
well the average murderer only spends about 9 years in jail and that 25 to life is only for capital murder in the first degree which is hard toget convicted of.
August 22, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
god
very good america, i'm proud
August 22, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.
Tell Me About It
If you look at the total amount of downloaded songs per month, multiply it by the RIAA per song penalty, it comes out to about 34 trillion dollars a month.
Are you implying the RIAA isn't entitled to 34 trillion dollars a month?
August 22, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.
JFrazer1
I'm pretty sure that murder doesn't carry maximum penalty of 15 years in jail ANYWHERE. I believe in many parts of the world the maximum punishment (and sometimes minimum) for murder is life imprisonment or the death penalty. Also in civil court you can be sued for all lost potential wages of the victim which can leave you liable for millions. A little heftier then $25K.
Also Ms. Thomas wasn't fined in a criminal case, she was sued in a civil case. Lawsuits can easily be in the hundreds of millions and the fines go to the plaintiff if successful. Criminal fines such as for theft, robbery, or even murder are fixed amounts set by law and go to the government. Criminal fines are intended to offset the social cost of controlling the crime where as civil suits are actually supposed to be an amount that is considered justly equivalent to the scale crime. Comparing the two amounts is comparing apples and oranges, specially when incorrect values are used as are here.
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
william
Hey theinternet sorry but manslaughter is murder and that is the sentence even lighter in some states.
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
asd
how can i respect and believe an article that says ".... is only like ...."
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
tim
check it out from the library, burn the files, turn it back in. still illegal, but far more difficult to trace.
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
heh
You stop file sharing and you let their little fear campaign win, the only reason they went after this person for such a small amount was to send out the message that they will prosecute even if you don't do it alot its impossible for them to arrest everybody. Bowing to things like this loses us even more freedoms and allows people like the jews who run these industrys to control information and sell it us at a price and an unfair one at that, VIVA LA RESISTANCE !!
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
Ben
Depends on the murder but I would assume this would be premeditated so... yea much more. But accidental manslaughter could very well be something like 25k depending on the situation so the analogy is still there that it costs more to download music than to cause the death of another human being.
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
Rudy
info is wrong, seriously, murder? FAIL
August 22, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.
Furkiee
i agree @ mark
August 22, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.
crazymisssarah
there's an even cheaper alternative:
don't get caught.
August 22, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.
deb
stats might be wrong but he made a good point. I told an rcmp officer doing a survey this year that we don't give a dam about our women and children in the courts but see what happens when you f--k with our money and he just proved my point. deb from canada
Man, just think of the leverage that gives children of overprotective parents.
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
Major Packetloss
Rabble, rabble, rabble... PeerGuardian. Look it up, give it a shot if you're really concerned.
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
Zork
Wheee! USA is more corrupt then fu.king Italy...
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
Ralph Dratman
The solution to this paradoxical situation is to greatly increase penalties for those other crimes, but give perpetrators the opportunity to plead guilty to file sharing instead of, for instance, murder.
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
Rob
Well how about that chicago mobster that testefied and as a deal he got 14 years for like 14 murders, mobster killings to intimidate that ads up like a year per life. So killing someone is a gamble you never know what you get but its still ridiculous that life is worth less than a stupid love song.
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
irieyes
War Crimes = No Penalty Insurance Co. theft from citizens = No Penalty
Sharing Music = Major Fines!
Yea, the system is fiiiiiiine LOL
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
Peter
"So if you just download music and never share it you are just fine (worst case you have to pay a retail or wholesale pricing for the song(s)) and with all the options that are out there why do you have to re-share the files you downloaded?"
John, you cannot just download the music using standard p2p software. You automatically share it with other downloaders.
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
JEFF
"Perhaps we should cease interest in main stream entertainment. It is all crap anyway."
Verglo, if this was to happen...non-mainstream (underground) entertainment would become the mainstream because there wouldn't be a mainstream. Then it would become just as bad, considering there are how many people in the world. Some of you people should think before you post. Or speak.
August 23, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
itsjustme
Verglo got it right. I stopped buying c.d's a long time ago. I Listen to FM radio, channel surf whenever an idiot song that repeats Poh Poh Poh Poker Face 1000 times comes on. The local college stations are pretty good though. These so-called musicians want to be millionaires but they're selling crap & we're just not buying it The stuff isn't even worth downloading. I wouldn't take it if they gave it to me, so they can shove it up their you know what!
August 23, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.
jgg
#7 is wrong. Perhaps this was intended as a joke?
August 23, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.
longy
Guy punches a bloke watering his garden for flicking water at him, bloke dies as a result. Guy got 12 months jail for manslaughter. You've got a bad lawyer to get 15 years nowadays.
August 23, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
dulong
wtf? people that signed this in to law must be living in a freakin fantasy world and clearly can't be counted on to exercise sound judgment. but the general public does nothing about it. we all post complaints but nothing more, so this example of stupidity within our government will continue to be the standard.
August 23, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
anon
How about stealing a copyrighted image?
August 23, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
Dave
The corporations don't control the government, the corporations are the government, with he RIAA and MPAA being two of them.
August 23, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
Meade
So how much of that two million,goes to the artists that made the music ? The RIAA is ripping off the musicians,and the people that shared the files.They should be the ones going to jail.Tell em' ta say,Hey to "Bubba" :)
August 23, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
Kevin
Someone stole my laptop, which had about 1200 songs on it...the only fine they're paying? $1500 to pay me back for my laptop, and they're on probation. Might have been in jail for one day. Even though I support purchasing music, I agree that the fines for downloading music are ludicrous compared to other crimes.
August 23, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.
christina
Where are your sources?
August 23, 2009 at 2:39 p.m.
matt
wow these stats are not only incorrect, but if you had researched that case you would know that the lady that was in that lawsuit refused to settle and a much smaller amount, so the RIAA gave her the maximum punishment.
August 23, 2009 at 3:19 p.m.
theinterwebz
good bless 128-bit-multi-proxy-encripted vpn's
August 23, 2009 at 3:19 p.m.
dmitri
Remember that all of the plaintiffs could settle with RIAA for FAR less [i.e. the cease-and-desist procedure]. In other words, it's only after you refuse to settle and RIAA decided to sue your ass that the crime becomes equivalent to 80 murders [financially, speaking].
August 23, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.
Steve
@schtickle True, only one person has been fined 2 million, but that mean is is fair to fine any person that same amount for the same crime. That the parties could have settled for less does not matter, the law now holds that 2 million is a just penalty.
August 23, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.
mnf
I'd like to see some SOURCES for these stats. Most of the offenses you listed carry a much heftier prison sentence, since the fine itself isn't the main objective for punishing the criminal. Not to say that $2 million isn't ridiculous and should be changed.
August 23, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
Joe
Dude, you stole this article you jerk.
Here's the original which is much better written: http://gapersblock.com/mechanics/2009/08/17/seven-crimes-to-consider-befor/
August 23, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
Jake
not everybody gets caught, in fact, hardly ANYBODY ever gets caught. Douche.
August 23, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
Ben
Lol download tv shows @ http://www.oliv3r.net and don't get fined
August 23, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
Dan
Well, if you live where i live you get around 10 years for murder. 6 if your lucky to get out due to good behavior.. So yeah.. gg @ corruption.
August 23, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.
Gaute
To quote my good friend Gordon from Wall Street: "Greed is Good!"
August 23, 2009 at 6:40 p.m.
Linnea
Great, so animals are more worth than children? (child abduction, dog fighting.) Nice hierarchy; RIAA, your neighbour, your ex, your dog, your kid, your local music store.
August 23, 2009 at 6:47 p.m.
Findthefail
He wasn't 'fined' 2 million dollars. He was sued for damages by the RIAA to the tune (no pun intended) of 2 million dollars. It's not like there is a law where you download x number of songs and you get fined x number of dollars. So you're comparing apples to oranges.
August 23, 2009 at 7:58 p.m.
Dan Grossman
Nobody has ever been sued for downloading music. The crime would be possession of stolen goods I suppose, and the damages are nowhere near copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement requires making of copies without authorization. When you download music without paying for it, it's the person sending you the file that's making the illegal copy you receive, not you. That's why it's the *sharers* that get sued, not the downloaders.
Every single RIAA case was about sharing. These were people that had music sitting in Kazaa shared folders, or were seeding on BitTorrent.
August 23, 2009 at 8:18 p.m.
David
What you fail to take into account is that none of these file sharing cases have been criminal cases. They are all civil cases. Comparing criminal fines and civil damages is like comparing apples to oranges. The burden of proof in a civil trial is lower than in a criminal trial as well. What that means is that it is easier to prove your case in a civil trial. Finally, the damages were not decided by the judges but by the juries in these cases. In both cases, the damages could have been as low as $750 per song or as high as $150,000 per song. It was regular people like you and I that decided the RIAA was due such large damages awards.
August 23, 2009 at 8:38 p.m.
dd
well, she downloaded 24 songs, so you'd have to compare the fines if you committed each crime 24 times. But even when multiplying the fines by 24, most are still cheaper than downloading them from the internet.
August 23, 2009 at 9:12 p.m.
sdgsgdsg
"come on man everyone knows that the maximum penalty for murder is a lot more than $25K and 15 years."
depends on the severity i guess. dude over here shot a girl in the face, she died. he got 8 years. "it was just a warning shot" and "did not intend to kill" was the defense. its dumb.
pointing a gun at someone and firing, is intent to kill in my books.
August 23, 2009 at 9:12 p.m.
billy
how would any one get it if you do not share? to all of you ust wondering why people just don't download. there wont be anything to download if no one shares so its kinda necessary. and for all who don't share you suck
August 23, 2009 at 11:34 p.m.
archieboy
Comparing only the possible fines of the crimes is inadequate. You should also consider the probability of being caught. In other words, while the possible fine for downloading copyrighted content is sooo big, the probability of being caught is slim (1 out of 1 billion downloaders?).
Just a thought. :D
August 24, 2009 at 12:43 a.m.
rollingstones490
two words: private tracker.
August 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
ThatGuyFromNewgrounds
Well I can see the government has a lot of free time. Instead of wasting time on over-fining people why don't they catch the people who make viruses and steal peoples credit card information. Or people who hack into people's personal computers to find out private information about the person and then release it to the internet.
August 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
Robert
2 million isnt bad. You gotta figure all of potential revenue lost by sharing these files: you share with (lets say a very small number) 100 people. They share with 100 people. THEY share with 100 people, etc. Once you hit 1 million, which is very simple, thats 2 million, or 2 dollars per song.
August 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
lol
yup, stolen article
August 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
marsintransit
In the uk you will get life which is only 15yrs, no fine, out of that if you behave you can still get a 3rd knocked off so you only do 10 yrs and come out on a license. It would depend how the person was killed and wether it was child, old or young ect, if ran over with a car you are most likely to get 3yrs only. America's laws are too harsh and ours are too soft. where america can lock up a 14yr old kid for the rest of his life is completely wrong in my eyes, everyone is entited to a secound chance providing they are sane.
August 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
Alpesh Khunt
Yes, we're living in a funny little world!
August 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m.
jake barnes
they figure they can make a ton of money off the pirates. so why wouldn't they. that's all anyone cares about is money. it's time to get rid of such a primitive school of thought. watch: "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (google video)
August 24, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
mark
Google illegally scanned thousands of copyrighted books, and nothing happens aside publishers are angry! Good to know that everybody is treated equaly.
August 24, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
Tanner
where the hell did you guys get these stats? 15 yr max for murder? you a insane. I guess you've never heard of a life sentence? On what planet is there a max on the $ penalty for robbery. You've obviously spent 0 time in an actual criminal courtroom.
August 24, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
lyblcx
I know one film named seven crimes
August 24, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
Reward Locker
Yes, $2 million is out of control and represents a sad effort to try and regain power on behalf of the record companies. The sooner they realize the old business model is dead, the better off they will be.
RL http://rewardlocker.com/1/download-wii-games
August 24, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
Jared Levy
I know this is supposed to be for humor, but with the internet's ability to share information, if the wrong people get a hold of this information, they may interpret it incorrectly.
Also, the purpose of the gigantic fine in the BitTorrent case was, as it's called in the legal community, a utilitarian punishment, meaning it's idea is to deter the rest of the population to do something by making an example of one particular case.
August 25, 2009 at 10:27 a.m.
Seamus
To all those banging on about Life in Prison, Life doesn't actually mean your entire existance, in the UK and Australia it's 38 Years or something, not sure about the US, but there is a reason why people receive 300 year sentances...
August 25, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.
Golden Shower
Whoever says I don't get shivved in the showers at home obviously has not been in the showers with me at my house.
August 25, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.
Kurt
I'd be one broke mofo if they ever caught me... I've got about 1200 illegal songs on my iPod which would be equal to $100,000,000 according to this person's fine for only 24 songs.
August 25, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.
Lizzy
I feel a little worried now.
August 25, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.
Sean
You also get a far reduced income for the rest of your life upon exiting jail for murder. Most respectable companies won't hire a person with a criminal record for murder.
August 25, 2009 at 10:35 a.m.
Someone
Reason why filesharing is such a high-fine crime, is because they cant catch -everyfriggingone- thus they go with the "scare" deal. get someone to blame, put a huge crime-bill on their hands, and you scare away some people. sure some people get away with other crimes, but proportionally, less
August 26, 2009 at 2:27 a.m.
Steve
Goes to show you how screwed up our society is. Our priorities are all mixed up!
August 26, 2009 at 2:28 a.m.
jesus
he only downloaded the songs, he didn't put them up in a link on his facebook and hyperlink it to everyone he has ever met. if stealing is $2500 max, then he should have only been fined $600,000 tops. if you're going to make the full distinction, then he would have to steal 800 CDs from the store in order to get the same fine as downloading 24 mp3s
August 26, 2009 at 2:28 a.m.
jesus
Second degree murder is not premeditated murder; that would be called first degree murder. Second degree murder mandatory sentencing: Federal - imprisonment for life or any term california- 15 years to life texas - murder w/ and w/o extenuating circumstances 2-20 years and 5-life respectively New York - 15-25 years to life
numbers taken from wikipedia (don't go and be an idiot and say it's inaccurate because of that though.) but some states like indiana merely list it as "murder" and the penalty is 45–65 years so you can say it varies wildly between states. the 3 i put up there are just to illustrate east coast, central, and west coast. Federal is always just federal.
August 26, 2009 at 2:28 a.m.
Pokota
Please be aware that the $2M fine was for violation of copyright. As long as you don't violate copyright, you're good to go.
Now, where did I put that RIAA Radar?
August 28, 2009 at 1:11 p.m.
Chronoo
Granted, you don't get shivved in the showers at home, but still.
^ You won't have a home if you are caught downloading since they will take all your money...
August 28, 2009 at 10:40 p.m.
Me
....Good way to make yourself a RIAA target..... "Kurt I'd be one broke mofo if they ever caught me... I've got about 1200 illegal songs on my iPod which would be equal to $100,000,000 according to this person's fine for only 24 songs." Posting a confession on a PUBLICLY SHARED BLOG!!!!! ...Fail...
August 29, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.
Daniel Kauwe
So the moral of the story is, if you want to file share, go abduct and kidnap the kids of the industry execs, burn their homes down, and murder a couple of people along the way.
That way, when they take you down for "stealing" some songs, you made a worthwhile effort!
Got to love that American way of life!
August 30, 2009 at 11:57 a.m.
BarackObamaaaaa
Come on now. Its who you know. If you are friends with a president and happen to be a terrorist or tax cheat....its all good. Download music and are only buds with a bunch of losers, well you know.
August 31, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.
VenFrancis
nice info...i think they'll re-evaluate the justice system or the internet itself...
http://ideasandtechs.blogspot.com
September 13, 2009 at 8:35 p.m.
tyler
where did you get these fine amounts. you think the fine is $1,200 for stealing a cd?? not even clsoe. petty theft is a $50 fine. $375,000 for robbery? maybe if a guy had a bag full of precious gems and a briefcase that contained $200,000. even then it wouldn't be considered a fine, it would be restitution.
September 13, 2009 at 8:39 p.m.
DNA
Does this make anyone else want to kill some record company executives?
September 13, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.
unshavenunicorn
i am pretty sure you'll get life in prison for murder
September 23, 2009 at 1:40 p.m.
Mason
Maybe you could just stop stealing and then you don't have to worry about it. Don't get me wrong, I've pirated more music and movies then most. But I know it's wrong, I don't delude myself into thinking it's not stealing. It is, you all know it. Just don't be a dumb ass and get caught. I also find it odd all the people bitching about recording industry, yet we find our selves censored on this site. Fight the true evil!! Free speech on the internet now!!!
September 23, 2009 at 10:30 p.m.
peter
Yes!!! I can abduct 80 children for the same amount!!
What a freaking bargain!
September 26, 2009 at 5:25 p.m.
Robert
dude, 15 years is not the maximum sentence for murder
September 27, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.
Lucas
screw your nay Sayers they are correct bout murder but the point is still very valid the music industry is not governed by anyone because they have too much power and money.
September 27, 2009 at 11:34 p.m.
b4k4
This list causes me to be angry at the legal system more than pirates.
September 29, 2009 at 1:49 a.m.
Zach Van Draden
How much is the fine if caught file sharing music in the UK?
September 29, 2009 at 1:49 a.m.
Hey! Read THIS.
These stats are just a hint. Don't take them too seriously. The fact at hand is that DRM and the like are being abusive in their powers.
September 30, 2009 at 1:23 a.m.
AnarchoRationalist
Well, what is important to remember is that just because people identified as politicians follow a process, and put some words down on paper, it does not generate a law. What makes the states "laws" relevant is the enforcement, the guns and prison systems that cause enough of a threat (coercion) to alter peoples behavior.
Real laws are generated on an individual level, by individual people. Every one of us is equipped with an evolutionary toolset that allows us to make value judgments. Our value judgments are not inviolable or universal they are subjective, relative to the individual and their own choices of behavior.
So what we really have here is a conflict between different value judgments, between the end users of media content, and the creators of media content. Considering that it is not been shown to be practical to stop piracy, it looks like the pirates values are the more realistic ones.
However, we have a state system which, in general, will offer protection to established businesses (corporations) and enforce "laws" which are actually detrimental to society.
The solution is to adjust our perception of what the state is, away from the popular perception of the state as a projection of parental authority onto those we disagree with, and rather see states as services providers.
In this light we see that, either the state is an unnecessary institution, or one which must be of a voluntary nature, and subject to competition.
October 3, 2009 at 5:13 p.m.
Yeti
This has probably been said, but you get a lower OVERALL penelty if you go into a CD store, shoot the clerk in the LEG 2 times, and walkout with as many CD's as you want.
Without the intent to kill, they'll loose the ability to walk, but atleast you didn't DOWNLOAD those albums!
October 4, 2009 at 12:49 a.m.
Daniel Kauwe
The state is largely an unnecessary institution if we move to a true free market economy - however- that's a little problematic because how do we get people to "pay" for infrastructure necessities like roads or mass transit, sanitation and recycling, emergency services, etc etc.
theoretically we could privatize all of these things - but that would require a complete reconstruction of the entire socio-economic system - which is theoretically possible.
the other option is competition.
however this where the "tax" issue arises because if the state is failing to compete effectively they do have a certain innate leverage that can be brought to bear disproportionate to private industry in the form of taxation.
ultimately, like always, we'll only really solve this through education. which takes time and other resources that few wish to spare.
October 4, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.
vesey
it's amazing that you can't share a file over the internet but can legally kill a baby in the womb.
this definitely is'nt Kansas Toto !!!
October 16, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.
Publius
So, by the way, the actual fines for file sharing are... MINIMAL! The issue isn't the criminal prosecution it's the damages, which are scaled not to the moral severity of the act but it's economic effect of the action on the victim.
Civil/Criminal law distinction FAIL!
October 26, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.
mb
Anyone who says "...only 15 years in prison" has never been to jail, more importantly though is yes, this is quite a disgusting standard.
November 25, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.
Reggie
yeah too bad it's impossible to get caught file sharing...unless your using torrents then you deserve it.
November 29, 2009 at 12:34 a.m.
hermy the worm
i agree with the internet overall pretty funny but murder is a way bigger penalty but 2 mil for a few songs is ridiculous personally i think its fake to scare people into not downloading songs.
December 22, 2009 at 1:43 p.m.
Bryan
Since when does murder carry a maximum of 15 years in prison? Murder is a class Y felony and in many states (USA) gets you life in prison, often without parole.
Copyright infringement carries fines of up to $250,000 and 5 years in jail per work. So if you were to be convicted of 8 counts of copyright infringement and got the maximum fine, then you would be looking at $2 million. The odds a person getting 40 years in prison for copyright infringement is slim to none. No court would want to appear that cruel.
Get your facts straight and stop exaggerating.
December 22, 2009 at 1:44 p.m.
Bryan
Also what Publius said is pretty true. The criminal fines are one thing. They are limited. Civil fines on the other hand are where the real money comes in. The admin of a spanish site that hosted links to filesharing was charged with copyright infringement and took a 6 month jail sentence because the company promised not to pursue civil damages if he plead guilty to the criminal charges. So while he didn't actually break the law, he most likely would have lost a civil case and been fined obscene amounts of money.
January 3, 2010 at 7:30 a.m.
Katie
I think the guy who wrote this should have a disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for my thoughts. Give him a break, it's just a joke. Of course, you can't really tell when a written piece has sarcasm, but LET IT GO ALREADY.
January 20, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.
drew
Wow these states are so far off it's insane! This article is garbage.
January 20, 2010 at 10:25 p.m.
Nexus
Yeah did any of you happen to read the article this was taken from, in it (the original) it states 2nd Degree Murder, it also lists several other crimes not posted here.
Even with that I think we should be looking at the point of the article not the accuracy of all it's content. While the RIAA is focusing on Digital media and downloads they are already claiming the ripping CD's you own to transfer music to your iPod is piracy. I mean what happened, 20 years ago everyone was going around making mix tapes or recording directly off radio broadcasts, now a days that's a crime? When do the people stand up and say Enough is Enough, STFU and Sit Down.
January 20, 2010 at 11:46 p.m.
man
F*** music then. Im gonna take up arson as a hobby instead. Or rob a dying record store if I can find one. Then burn it to the ground.
January 20, 2010 at 11:49 p.m.
David
In Canada they can still legally share music as long as they dont copy the music and try to sell it. Whats wrong with that?
January 21, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.
Stupid Comments = Stupid People
95% of every stat on this page is wrong. First of all, the RIAA is suing people for Copyright Infringement, and not necessarily downloading illegal MP3 Per Se. How are they able to do this? It's because of the file-sharing services they are using. From Napster to Kazaa to BitTorrents, all of these programs have the dreaded -- and very expensive --- legal hook that hangs their users financially for Copyright Infringement. They not only allow people to download COPYRIGHTED music for free, but these services enable other members to download files from each other. To violate Copyright law, there is a three pong test that must be met. The big one is producing/duplicating illegally obtained files to others. Check it out: Copyright Act 17 USC § 504(c)(2).
Napster, Kazaa, and BitTorrents have each member's username online. The RIAA has hired "cyberspies" to track the IP addresses of the users which in turn, allows them to eventually find out who is downloading these files illegally. That's how people are getting sued. And that's why you see these ridiculous fines for violating the Copyright Statute. They range from $200 to $150,000 for EACH song. That's why someone got nailed for $2,000,000 for only 24 songs.
If you don't want to get nailed for Copyright Infringement, DONT ENABLE THE SHARE FOLDER!
Secondly, the RIAA needs to realize that free file sharing can turn unbelievable profits for them -- if they think outside of their outdated business model. Just think about how many bands that are out there and undiscovered can use this technology to get their name out there.
Trust me, there's a dollar to be made here even though people are getting music for free. There are plenty of advertising firms and other bells and whistles that can turn a dime or two. MP3s that are downloaded off of these file-sharing services suck -- they are no where near the final mastered recording. But the RIAA has chosen a path that could very well bring their downfall. How the F*CK do you expect to make money off of the very same people you are suing?!!!!! As far as YOU are concerned, if you are downloading music for free, make sure these artists are compensated in some way, shape or form. Buy a t-shirt, go to a live show, support the talent that's out there. The technology and information that comes in this digital age is powerful, but compensate the artists.....We All Need Them!
January 23, 2010 at 9:48 p.m.
Jetstream
Most of those are State defined crimes, Hoss. Music piracy would be handled on the Federal level because of the inherent "inter-state" nature of the Internet.
YMMV :)
January 30, 2010 at 1:37 p.m.
Joe
my favourite is the stealing a CD one. :P it's the exact same thing.
February 8, 2010 at 8:48 p.m.
ur mom
BULL honestly ur telling us that downloading a few songs is worse than murder, not believing it. And you either know how much the fine is or you dont. you cant say the fine is only like... you say the fine IS... or you dont know it
how appropriate for waffles freeleech