Prison Time For Downloading Movies

Published on March 24th, 2006

There are murders, rapists, corrupt government officials and other heinous criminals doing less time. How much is it going to cost to build prisons to hold a million downloaders?

How long before the US government becomes the enforcement arm of a group of private companies? (Please ignore the Mid Eastern oil wars, the FCC chairman’s comments, and other obvious examples of protecting ‘American interests’–government code phrase for ‘American business’)

Two years in prison for downloading latest film

Germans risk two years in prison if they illegally download films and music for private use under a new law agreed yesterday. Anybody who downloads films for commercial use could be jailed for up to five years.

The measures, some of the toughest in Europe, were announced after an aggressive campaign by the film industry in Germany, the largest market in the EU and one of the most computer-literate populations.

Günther Krings, the Christian Democrat legal affairs spokesman, said: “There should be no legal distinction between stealing chewing gum from a shop and performing an illegal download.”

36 users responded in " Prison Time For Downloading Movies "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Lou said, on March 24th, 2006 at 5:11 am

Finally… a real punishment for what is really theft.

Dave sez: “There are murders, rapists, corrupt government officials and other heinous criminals doing less time. How much is it going to cost to build prisons to hold a million downloaders?”

These are old arguments. First off, they are maximum punishments, I doubt 1st offenders will do any time. Secondly, the point that there are more heinous crimes is completely irrelevant…. the justice system has to address all crimes, not just big time ones. I don’t think you’d want the police to take 5 days to respond to your call about being pick-pocketed, or someone who stole a blank check from you and cashed it for $100. Remember, this is downloading for COMMERCIAL use, not to just watch the film.

# 2 Gerry said, on March 24th, 2006 at 5:24 am

So is Günther Krings saying that stealing a pack of chewing gum in Germany is also OR should be a crime punishable by UP TO two years in prison?

# 3 SN said, on March 24th, 2006 at 5:37 am

Lou, infringing copyrights is NOT theft. Really. The supreme court held exactly that in DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).

When you steal something, you deprive the victim all rights associated with it. He cannot re-sell it, he cannot use it, he cannot lease it, etc.

When you infringe, all you do is deprive a potential lost sale. Absolutely nothing more. The copyright holder can still watch his movie, sell his movie, lease his movie, etc.

Which leads me to my second point, why is infringing a criminal charge in the first place?! Why should our government be protecting potential lost sales for Disney?!

# 4 Max said, on March 24th, 2006 at 6:00 am

SN -

If your last name was Disney, maybe you’d understand…

# 5 SN said, on March 24th, 2006 at 6:19 am

Max, I hope you’re kidding. Because it is my sincere hope that no one actually believes the purpose of government is to protect lost potential sales of businesses.

I had a friend who had a yard sale. He put up numerous signs from the main road leading into his subdivision. Someone between him and the main road threw up her own yard sale “stealing” all of his potential customers. Do you really think the police should have thrown the woman in jail on the charge of interference with potential lost sales?!

# 6 Dave Drews said, on March 24th, 2006 at 6:38 am

“Remember, this is downloading for COMMERCIAL use, not to just watch the film.”

Reread the first sentence of the article.
“Germans risk two years in prison if they illegally download films and music for private use under a new law agreed yesterday. “

# 7 Mike Voice said, on March 24th, 2006 at 8:24 am

So what are the penalties for uploading the movie?

If downloading gets you 2-years, donloading for commercial purposes gets you 5-years, making the movie available to millions of people would get you… what? Life??

# 8 Lou said, on March 24th, 2006 at 10:12 am

“Lou, infringing copyrights is NOT theft……”.

1. It’s just semantics… There is no common sense point to the fact that if someone goes into my bank account and illegally transfers $25, it is “more” of a crime than taking my intellectual property (I’m a programmer) and putting it on the web for ‘free’. If I can prove actual losses in sales (which is at least theoretically possible), and it is for more than $25.00, than it is more of a loss to me, and should be punished more (call it infringement, call it theft, I don’t care).

2. We are moving to a world where much of the value of everything, including physical objects, will be intellectual property, not the ability to manufacture it. (Think a star trek type replicator). Ok I’m stretching here, but think of China as a kind of replicator for us. Send in the Int. Property / Program (lets say a designer dress) and out it comes from a Chinese factory for $5.00. Can you honestly say that it is not a real theft to the original designer?

It’s a brave new digital world, and the laws will have to change with it.

# 9 SN said, on March 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am

“It’s just semantics… ”

No, it’s the law. I already cited the case law for that as proof.

“If I can prove actual losses in sales”

How can you prove “actual” losses in sales?! That’s impossible. Just because someone downloads a movie does not mean that he or she would have bought the movie. It’s pure conjecture.

“Can you honestly say that it is not a real theft to the original designer?”

Where is the theft?! I’ll repeat myself. When I steal something I deprive the owner of that something. When I infringe, I might deprive a potential lost sale. The copyright owner still has his content. Let me repeat this, THE CONTENT OWNER STILL HAS HIS CONTENT!

“It’s a brave new digital world, and the laws will have to change with it.”

Why take old words and devoid them of meaning (theft where there is no theft?!) when there is already a word that is more than adequate?! It’s called infringement. That’s what it is.

Of course the content industry loves to use the words like “theft” and “piracy” to get sheep interested in its cause. People can relate to theft, but it’s harder to grasp the concept of potential lost sales. Doing this sort of this is call propaganda and you fell for it big time.

# 10 Gregory said, on March 24th, 2006 at 10:59 am

SN – Especially as most studies prove that people who pirate music and films buy MORE than other people.

As for the lost sales – It’s impossible to prove that, because sales are a quantative measurement, but the intent to buy a product is a qualitative measurement. You can’t compare them.

There are many movies and CD’s I have bought because I wasn’t convinced by the marketing (or, conversely, hadn’t actually heard of them so I was trying the product out). If I know I want something I will buy it – if I can afford it. If I can’t, or don’t want it, then I was never going to buy it. So there is no lost sale.

Basically – Lou, your arguments are old, stale, and have been proved wrong, outdated, or both.

# 11 Lou said, on March 24th, 2006 at 11:34 am

Fine, its infringement.

My main point is that the punishments must be appropriate and fair, and not based on the semantic differences between theft vs. infringement.

Judges and juries determine values on concepts like “lost sales” all of the time. Aren’t damages for “pain and suffering” and “lost consort of spouse” even harder to measure? Isn’t every breach of contract case an exercise in proving “lost revenue”? Aren’t some of the concepts related to 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd degree murder/manslaughter ultimately based upon “intent” and what was going on in the mind of the defendant?

If someone has I.P. and an illegal action causes that I.P. to lose value in a juries mind, the action must be punished, and in some appropriate circumstances, this should include prison time.

Contrary to what you think, us sheep have a very good idea of the concept of “lost sales”, “lost reputation”, “lost opportunity” and many other not easily measurable concepts.

Please give me your take on this analogy. I get a copy of the X-Men movie that is to come out in May, and I print up 200 million DVD’s of it and distribute it free throughout the country. The first week the movie comes out in theatres, it tanks at the box office (less than $1 million in sales). Would you say that this infringement resulted in a theoretical loss? Would you say that this deserves a token fine?

Your serve, sir…

ps: as for the extreme amounts in the analogy, I will remind you first of Mr. Shaw’s comment on the woman who says she would sleep with you for a million dollars. When asked if she would for for one dollar, replies “What do you think I am?”, he replies, “we already know what you are, now we are just trying to agree on price.”

# 12 SN said, on March 24th, 2006 at 11:34 am

“Especially as most studies prove that people who pirate music and films buy MORE than other people.”

Well that’s certainly true in my case. I’m old now and I was old in the 90s. The first thing a white man does when he gets old is stops listening to new music. Which is an easy thing to do as radio and MTV stopped playing new music worth listening to about 20 years ago.

From about 92 through the late 90s I bought probably four CDs total, and those were CDs I had previously owned.

Then Napster came out. Suddenly I was buying about three CDs a month. I was exposed to new music for the first time in about a decade and I loved it.

With Napster when you found music you liked, you could look through the person’s entire collection and find other music. You’d think, “Well, since we both like Funkadelic, I’ll try this other stuff. I’ll probably like it too.”

Napster was the greatest thing for being exposed to new music since the radio was developed several decades earlier.

Then Napster went away (well, the REAL Napster went away). Every so often I’ll hear about a new group or singer, etc. I’ll download a few songs and if I like them, I’ll buy the whole CD. But it’s just not as fun as it was with the original Napster. And I buy a lot less because of it.

# 13 SN said, on March 24th, 2006 at 11:41 am

Well, I’ll first add that “pain and suffering,” “lost consort of spouse,” and “breach of contract” are all civil terms. I totally agree that copyright holders should be allowed to sue infringers in civil court.

“and in some appropriate circumstances, this should include prison time.”

When is it ever the government’s job to protect potential lost sales?! Even the most extreme breach of contract cases are handled in civil court without any criminal punishment.

“Would you say that this infringement resulted in a theoretical loss? Would you say that this deserves a token fine?”

Yeah, and both of those could be decided in a civil lawsuit.

“as for the extreme amounts in the analogy…”

Great joke!

# 14 Mike Voice said, on March 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm

I get a copy of the X-Men movie that is to come out in May, and I print up 200 million DVD’s of it and distribute it free throughout the country.

Since that is a textbook example of Usenet in action, who in your example is the thief?

You for distributing 200-million free copies, or the 200-million people who accepted free copies?

Of course, I expect your answer to be: “both”

I would prefer that the media ower’s put their time, energy, and money into identifiying the up-loaders – that is the group they want to deter and intimidate, not their “potential” customers.

# 15 Lou said, on March 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

SN: I agree with you, it needs to be handled in Civil Court. I only meant in the most egregious of cases should criminal punishment happen. The uploading of 200M DVD’s was my example. Or to put in another way, I don’t think the inability to pay damages should allow you to continuously flout civil law.

As to “mild” infringement actually benefitting the IP holder, it is true in some cases (especially in the computer software industry). That being said, the new ability to stream (but not save) music, and the ability (in some cases) to download low-res versions of things, lessens the need for true Napster like sharing.

# 16 SN said, on March 24th, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Lou, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don’t think it is ever the job of government to lock people up for interfering with potential lost sales. No matter how egregious the interfering was.

The main purpose of jail/prison is to keep dangerous people away from the general population. If you continue to drink and drive, the state will lock you up. If you murder. The state will lock you up. If you steal money. The state will lock you up. That’s exactly why violent crimes generally have the most punishment. The more of the danger you are, the longer you’ll get locked up.

But where is the danger to society when someone interferes with a potential lost sale? Heck let’s imagine that Disney goes completely out of business because of movie downloading on the net? Where’s the danger to society?! Sure, some people would get laid off. But people get laid off all the time. We don’t put people in jail for laying people off.

And countless businesses have went out of business due to breach of contract issues. Those businesses were completed wronged by the breaching party. People lost their money and their jobs. But it was still completely a civil matter.

# 17 rus62 said, on March 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

The uploaders are the thieves. The downloaders are the ones who buy 32″ LCD tv for $100 or jewelry for a fraction of the cost. So the uploaders are stealing and selling stolen property and the downloaders are knowingly (on the most part) buying and possessing stolen property. C’mon they both know it’s hot.

When you setup your newgroups with your ISP. They download the available newgroups to you. Mine is in the 13,000 approximately by last count. I can honestly look through there and see software, mp3s, movies, etc. uploaded on to these news servers located who knows where. Yet the ISP allows me to go there. Isn’t that like someone giving me the keys to a stolen car?
…Accessory before the crime.

# 18 Mike Voice said, on March 24th, 2006 at 4:47 pm

I don’t think the inability to pay damages should allow you to continuously flout civil law.

But does that happen?

There is an earlier post on this site about a guy being jailed for years because of failure to cooperate with a civil proceeding.

Bernie Goetz, O.J. Simpson, and Robert Blake were all aquitted in criminal trials, but driven into backruptcy by civil judgements…

Civil law should have more than enough “teeth” to disuade people from infringing, whether egregious or not.

It seems only the “little people” would be able to “flout” civil law, if they could only be sued for “potential” lost sales of… $3000.00 [$25 per movie times 120 movies downloaded]

Rhetorical question:
Why does the German government want to send the “little people” to prison?

# 19 Martin said, on March 25th, 2006 at 12:44 am

This is big in Germany at the moment. Well big on the German internet sites but not big in the media. The first version of this new law had an additional paragraph that stated that people who did not download / shared a lot were not to be punished at all.

This has been removed I suppose due to extensive lobbying efforts of the major companies.

# 20 Jake said, on March 25th, 2006 at 12:53 am

So what some of you are saying is that the gouverment has to do the film/music industry’s job at protecting their IP.
Suddenly it’s a crime! But if you think at the reason for their “potential losses in sales” you will see that it’s actualy because thei can’t make things good and cheap enough to actually sell it! So here come the gov’s to make sure only he can sell it , at whatever price!
Laws are made to protect the people , they now serve the comercial purpouses of some corporations!

# 21 Bubba said, on March 25th, 2006 at 12:54 am

I’m not downloading movies for free. I’m paying my ISP about $50 a month to download material, same as I pay my cable provider $40 a month so I can watch movies on HBO.

# 22 truth machine said, on March 25th, 2006 at 2:40 am

“My main point is that the punishments must be appropriate and fair”

Your main point is that the government should force people to give you money that they would not give you in a free market.

No matter how badly you want them to be, abstractions are not property, and electron flows are not theft.

# 23 truth machine said, on March 25th, 2006 at 2:52 am

” Isn’t that like someone giving me the keys to a stolen car?”

No, because the “stolen” “car” is still sitting in the owner’s garage. As has been pointed out numerous times. There’s a term for ignoring critical points like that — intellectual dishonesty.

If someone removes a book from the library without checking it out, that’s theft from the library. If they check a book out, copy it, and return it, that’s a violation of the author’s copyright. They are radically different infringements, against different parties. They have very little in common.

# 24 truth machine said, on March 25th, 2006 at 3:15 am

I get a copy of the X-Men movie that is to come out in May, and I print up 200 million DVD’s of it and distribute it free throughout the country. The first week the movie comes out in theatres, it tanks at the box office (less than $1 million in sales). Would you say that this infringement resulted in a theoretical loss? Would you say that this deserves a token fine?

Suppose that, instead of distributing the movie, you wrote a scathing review that was picked up all over the internet, and other movie reviewers echoed it in their columns, and as a result the film tanked. Should you be thrown in jail for two years?

The government does not exist to guarantee the movie companies a profit. In the U.S., there is a specific body of law that applies — copyright law — and it’s motivation is not to make coke snorting studio execs rich. The motivation is spelled out in the Constitution:

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

Legislatures would do well to keep in mind that it’s the interests of society, and not those of megamedia corporations, that they are supposed to protect.

# 25 C.Raab said, on March 25th, 2006 at 3:46 am

Horrible. This is not the Germany I was born into anymore, and that did occur just 14 years ago. Maybe I’m moving France.
I wonder what the comment from this CSU-politician really means; maybe he wanted to express that he thinks that illegal downloading is a theft, and should be punished as such? That would clearly not result in 2 – 5 years of prison, with my definition of an object of theft. Well, the prisons in Germany are not that hard and depriving of rights as they are in the US, but this is stil, as could be translated from German, tough tobacco. I am not that well wandered in law, but I feel that this is a very sudden change in the copyright-laws with fatal consequences. O tempora, o mores…..

# 26 seadog said, on March 25th, 2006 at 3:49 am

god, some people are so bloody annoying, Lou youre a fuckin tosser, get off your high horse and fuck it, you righteous fuck! Long live piracy…fuck these multinational corporations, since when do they give about ethics etc…so why should i?

# 27 pez said, on March 25th, 2006 at 5:18 am

how about jail times for

- manipulating the development and release of new technologies in order
to maintain a stranglehold on the market and using to engage in ant-competitive practices.

- continuous and pre-meditated exploitation of consumers and artists

- destroying the global culture by promoting high profit trash at the expense of independant artists and distributors

- using the courts and legal system to prop up a out-moded business model.

The music and movie industries have been ripping people off for so long, its their own fault that they are getting themselves in trouble now. Anytime you artificially inflate prices to a higher level than the market will bear, a black market springs up.

price your product reasonably, make it available conveniently. see what happens.

# 28 John Johnson said, on March 25th, 2006 at 5:50 am

Lou says ” the point that there are more heinous crimes is completely irrelevant…. ”

Well Lou, I hope you get raped and see how you like it

# 29 Jason said, on March 25th, 2006 at 8:46 am

If anything, I believe that downloading promotes sales more than anything. More than often, I watch a downloaded movie only to buy it on DVD a short time later. I have a vast collection of bought movies. All were a result of making a informed decision on how to spend my hard earned money.

# 30 axe said, on March 25th, 2006 at 12:42 pm

#23 – How do you know the stolen car is in the owner’s garage? Many people leave their keys in the ignition going to a convenience store or somewhere else, sometimes with the engine running. That’s a common place where cars are stolen, just ask the police.

I do agree with your library book analogy.

# 31 truth hurts said, on March 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pm

#30 – the car was never stolen. Giving away keys to a stolen car is not the same as downloading files. Infringement should not be illegal, criminally OR civilly. It’s not the state’s business to protect Mickey Mouse for eternity. It should be in the public domain now. Copyright is intended to “promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited times…” Corporations want to extend IP rights forever, based on their financial interests. But copyright was not intended to protect some company’s right to make money for all time. In a TRULY free market, there would be no IP. Either Innovate or Die.

# 32 Mr. Fusion said, on March 25th, 2006 at 9:08 pm

Well, sometimes the Government and courts do believe it is theft. A few months ago there was a topic discussed here about someone using a neighbor’s WI-FIs feed. The court found him guilty of theft.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060325/tc_cmp/183702832

It didn’t help that the guy pleaded guilty.

# 33 Timothy said, on March 25th, 2006 at 9:51 pm

I’m quickly learning just how much the ones in power understand about technology and the people and listen to the ones that give them money. downloading music is closer to figuring out what is in a product at a restaurant and then making it at home. One you didn’t take a real product like gum. you merely figured out what the contents where and then made it yourself. No real stealing went on. You aren’t stealing a dvd or the music cd merely your computer is figuring out what is in that song and then lets you listen to it. Thats it. so the ones that compare downloading a song clearly have no idea how to set laws and policy for this day and age and should go get a degree in computer science instead of listening to the ones that give them money.

# 34 Lensman2501 said, on March 26th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

I have been reading A LOT about the supposed economical problems the music and movie industry is having since people started d/l their IP from the internet. But what about some info I read a couple of years ago that these industries were fixing the price of the cd and movies so the customer was paying more. If I am not mistaken, they (the music and movie industries) had to give this money back to customers, but the catch was that the customer had to show a proof of the price paid (sales ticket, bill etc). If I bought a cd/movie 5 years ago, how the hell am I supposed to keep those bills around? It was ridiculous. Why not lower the price of cd’s/movies for a period of time or permanently to make sales more attractive and keep people from d/l stuff? LIKE THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN!! There are reasons people are going less to movies, buying less movies, buying less cd’s… Most of the movies, and music cd’s coming out are crap, pure and simple. When a movie or cd is good, it sells, when its crap, well, lets just say I don’t know anyone that owns a copy of Catwoman. Another big reason is all this nonsense DRM technology included with the music cd’s. I will not play in my computer another cd for risk of unknown software being installed doing only god knows what. For example, I know of people that buy a cd, play it on regular cd players and d/l the actual songs from the internet or file sharing programs to avoid getting nasty software in their computers. These companies have been milking customers for a LONG time and making lots and lots of money, if they want to make people stop d/l stuff they should start by changing the way they treat their customers, charging less to promote sales and stop bullying everybody. And can someone clarify the rights of a user of IP, for example i was under the impression that you could d/l IP (a song or movie) and delete it in less than 24 hrs and this is not considered a infringement; also making a copy of your cd’s and movies for personal use/safeguard is legal.

# 35 Travan said, on April 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pm

Everyone of you have no clue!! The Federal Government can do what ever they want when ever they want to who ever they want and it doesn’t make a difference what you or I say about it.

I know this for a fact!! I just recieved 12 months and 1 day sentence along with $39,000 and change restitution for nothing more then programing 1 Satelight TV card for a kid that was wearing a wire. 1 charge!!!! A civil case that was blown up into a Federal prosicution simply because I pissed the wrong Small Town USA truck drive turned Deputy officer off for an unrelated incidend.

There are thousands of Civil cases where the defendent has done far more infrigments and recieved Far less and even no penalties at all then what I recieved. Do a google search for your self if you don’t believe me.

The Legal System in this country is so screwed up that unless you know how the system works or have the money to hire a GOOD lawyer you are going to Prison for a very long time for nothing more then a petty crime or even worse no crime at all. A Court appointed Lawyer is nothing more then a paper filer of the courts. A Federal Defender does not have your interest or defence in mind but instead does what is necessary to be sure the paperwork for your case is filed in a timely manner.

Your given NO legal advice and If you decide to plead guilty thinking its better to work with the prosicution and possably recieve a lighter sentince then to fight and lose and then recieve the maximum sentince to a petty crime such as the one I committed the court can and will use fabricted evidence against you in determaning what your sentince and or monitary losses will be. Evidence which is clearly and obviusly flawed and would never be allowed in a trial now becomes “Factual evidence and no longer needs a factual bases to be proven”

What a legal injustice this form of practice now allows the legal system to do. So before you start expressing the rights or wrongs of downloading movies, software, or Satelight TV you need to find out the truth.

travan@yahoo.com

# 36 emoboy said, on October 24th, 2008 at 8:43 am

Hi, My pics of my new emo hairstyle
at http://xrl.us/ouog6

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!