4 ms·

What? Who goes to jail over copyright infringement?

kg 1y ago
> Penalties to be applied in cases of criminal copyright infringement (i.e., violations of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)), are set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Congress has increased these penalties substantially in recent years, and has broadened the scope of behaviors to which they can apply. See this Manual at 1847. > Statutory penalties are found at 18 U.S.C. § 2319. A defendant, convicted for the first time of violating 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) by the unauthorized reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500 can be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to $250,000, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b), 3571(b)(3). If you broaden it to include DMCA violations you could spend a lot of time in jail. It's even worse in some other countries.
- Lerc 1y ago
  Does the $2500 count if it is 25 $100 instances? Similarly does the 10 copies cover 10 items copied once or does it need to be one item copied at least 10 times?
  - lazide 1y ago
    If you piss off someone enough to care, they’ll do the maximum and see if you plea down - or the judge agrees. With a typical torrenter, it would be straightforward to make some truly monumental penalties. The reality is, they rarely care.
- stevage 1y ago
  Are there any examples of small-time infringers actually going to jail?
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    Given the topic at hand, would you consider Anthropic’s actions “small-time infring[ing]”?
hmmokidk 1y ago
…Aaron Swartz?!
- kylecazar 1y ago
  The case against Aaron was more farcical than copyright infringement, which they couldn't/didn't bring against him.
- Lerc 1y ago
  He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. Granted, the motivation was the copyright infringement, but to do what they did they needed to dress it up.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > Granted, the motivation was the copyright infringement And this is why it is correct to say that he was persecuted for copyright infringement. Noting that he wasn't charged with anything related to copyright doesn't change the story, it only makes it less agreeable.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- s3graham 1y ago
  :(
- beadmomsw 1y ago
  Thanks!

kg 1y ago

> Penalties to be applied in cases of criminal copyright infringement (i.e., violations of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)), are set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Congress has increased these penalties substantially in recent years, and has broadened the scope of behaviors to which they can apply. See this Manual at 1847. > Statutory penalties are found at 18 U.S.C. § 2319. A defendant, convicted for the first time of violating 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) by the unauthorized reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500 can be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to $250,000, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2319(b), 3571(b)(3). If you broaden it to include DMCA violations you could spend a lot of time in jail. It's even worse in some other countries.

Lerc 1y ago
Does the $2500 count if it is 25 $100 instances? Similarly does the 10 copies cover 10 items copied once or does it need to be one item copied at least 10 times?
- lazide 1y ago
  If you piss off someone enough to care, they’ll do the maximum and see if you plea down - or the judge agrees. With a typical torrenter, it would be straightforward to make some truly monumental penalties. The reality is, they rarely care.
stevage 1y ago
Are there any examples of small-time infringers actually going to jail?
- sokoloff 1y ago
  Given the topic at hand, would you consider Anthropic’s actions “small-time infring[ing]”?

hmmokidk 1y ago

…Aaron Swartz?!

kylecazar 1y ago
The case against Aaron was more farcical than copyright infringement, which they couldn't/didn't bring against him.
Lerc 1y ago
He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. Granted, the motivation was the copyright infringement, but to do what they did they needed to dress it up.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > Granted, the motivation was the copyright infringement And this is why it is correct to say that he was persecuted for copyright infringement. Noting that he wasn't charged with anything related to copyright doesn't change the story, it only makes it less agreeable.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
s3graham 1y ago
:(
beadmomsw 1y ago
Thanks!