[toyg]

I'll bite: do you honestly think people should be sent to prison for copyright offences? Monetary damages, yes; bankruptcy, maybe (if the infringement was on mass-scale and resulted in direct profit for the guilty, say, above 1000$); but prison?

Prison is not about punishment, in a civil society; it's about isolating individuals with the potential to irreparably harm their community. Unless the copyright holders go bankrupt as a direct, proven result of infringers' actions, there is simply no irreparable harm done: the rightsholder still owns the IP and is free to sell it.

[lachyg]

Oh god no, definitely not. Monetary damages, yes. Prison sentences for a non-violent crime, definitely not.

[fourspace]

Just to play devil's advocate here, what you're saying is that folks like Bernie Madoff should not go to prison.

[droithomme]

Lots of old folks lost their pensions because of Madoff. People lost their homes. People lost their health insurance. People have died because of what he, and most everyone else on wall street has been up to. So yes theirs was a violent crime. Not that they will ever be punished. We know now that they own the government, bought with the money the stole.

As far as this woman, she ran a video site that had user uploaded content that was streamed to other users. Same business model as youtube and google videos, and youtube has more unlicensed content than ninja video ever did yet isn't being investigated at all.

[phillmv]

You know what, taking all of that man's money away and putting him on probation for the rest of his life is probably just as effective as a deterrent. Being forced to work at Walmart to make bills pay, that sort of thing.

Probation is actually pretty shitty, and in some cases totally effective at ruining your quality of life.

[Natsu]

And to be fair, it would be better for him to spend his time working off his debt to his victims, rather than being a drain on society in prison. Structured appropriately, it could constitute adequate punishment--for example, being under "house arrest" rather than in prison.

[droithomme]

I agree with you. Situations like this are perfect for indentured servitude (which is specifically permitted under the 14th Amendment as punishment for a crime). Madoff should spend the rest of his life scrubbing the toilets of the people he defrauded, starting at the smallest debt and working his way up, earning minimum wage doing whatever legal tasks they require of him until he has repaid each one in full. All his heirs and relatives need to be carefully audited as well to get back the money he has holed away throughout the globe.

[schiffern]

If the monetary compensation actually proportional (i.e. not just a slap on the wrist), then I would be completely satisfied.

[toyg]

Madoff did irreparably harm the community, and with his connections he could probably do it again. Hence, prison.

[yardie]

There is a big difference between fraud and infringement. I don't see how they are similar at all.

[anamax]

As always, what if I don't pay?

In Madoff's case, at least some of the money is off short and some is hidden.

[learc83]

If you're willfully disobeying a court order the judge can hold you in contempt and you'll serve jail time that way.

[lachyg]

Then you go to jail, simple.

[anamax]

So, you think that folks who commit fraud shouldn't go to jail, presumably because "Oh god no, definitely not. Monetary damages, yes. Prison sentences for a non-violent crime, definitely not." (from the parent), but disobeying a judge deserves jail.

What's violent about disobeying a judge?

[lachyg]

It's not that it's violent, it's that you've been given an option that you've decided not to take, and then it escalates.

[anamax]

Yes, but selling drugs after you've been told not to is also an escalation. Are you willing to jail folks on all escalations, all judges orders, or what?

In any event, we've established that the line isn't (just) violent.

[dangrossman]

@oelewapperke : You are hellbanned so (almost) nobody can see your comments. Copyright infringement is also a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and statutory damages. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

[18pfsmt]

Just to be clear, commercial copyright infringement (i.e. for profit) is criminal, personal copyright infringement (i.e. you download it and watch it) is civil.

[tbrownaw]

Or if you reproduce (does "reproduce" include downloading a copy, or only providing copies to others? Doesn't matter for bittorrent I suppose.) or distribute things worth more than $1000 retail value in 180 days (17.506.a.b) or you share pre-release works (17.506.a.c).

I'm pretty sure most "so-and-so discography" torrents would qualify for the first one.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.pdf