I think the level of penalty related to torrents and downloading copyrighter material is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough to say jail time is too harsh/not enough.
"Harmless offence"? Really? Maybe harmless in the fact that no one died, but it's not harmless that people's work is being stolen. What if people stole your work? I don't think you can point to the rich people in Hollywood and say "They have enough money already, they can afford to lose some people to torrents" because for every rich actor/screenwriter/producer, there are 100 other entertainment workers that don't make $100,000 per episode.
When I go on Pirate Bay and type "Metallica", I get a bunch of songs and downloading and playing them is illegal (in some countries).
When I go on YouTube and type "Metallica", I get the same thing on completely unofficial channels and it's so legal that I can relink it to you here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqtaKkvCFaQ
The end result is the exact same thing: A non-paying user listened to an unofficial source for a song. Don't even try to argue that it's harmful because it's not. Don't even try to argue that one warrants jail time while the other does not... because you will be wrong, and this is not a subjective issue anymore.
YouTube has allowed for content producers to leverage those eyeballs and get people paid for their work. What actually needs to be talked about is solutions like YouTube and Spotify for content producers.
And all of this is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make... it's still not about the "right to download". It's about the right of the corporations to abuse and corrupt the system the way they do.
> The end result is the exact same thing: A non-paying user listened to an unofficial source for a song.
YouTube has functionality for content owners to identify their content being distributed unofficially on YouTube and either choose to permit and monetize it (via advertising) or choose to forbid it and have the content removed.
I'm well aware and this is what I was talking about... but from a user's point of view, the end result is the same. So let's stop talking about whether or not jail time is right.
So, when a movie has made $100 million and I buy a download for $5, how much of that goes to the ordinary workers (not rights holders, not first rank actors)? I'm going with none. Once the show breaks even the people who worked on it have been paid their wages. There's no argument of loss of income to make. Sure you can argue the rights holders deserve their extra millions (or cents) but your argument on loss of wages is void then.
So I torrent a movie, Avatar say, and now I should go to jail for several years and pay a fine that bankrupts me?
Whilst if I take a packet of cigarettes from a shop - about the same sales value - I get a fine of $20 and maybe if I'm really unlucky a night in a cell.
This is a complete disparity of punishment. The only reason for it to be like this is media interests owning the political process to such an extent that they can buy preferential treatment before the law.
And what's worse, is that the shop owner will get nothing, no police will help with their loss despite it being a physical good. Whilst for the movie rights holder, despite the actual loss being virtually zero (if not actually negative as sales can follow directly from the action) they get massive aid from the legal system and incomprehensibly large punishments on their behalf. Copyright infringement should by rights be a tort too.
Residuals (ongoing income from films/tv) go to much of the crew. Above the line people get residuals in the form of direct payments. Below the line people get them in the form of payments to their unions to sustain benefits, such as insurance and retirement funds.
"Harmless offence"? Really? Maybe harmless in the fact that no one died, but it's not harmless that people's work is being stolen. What if people stole your work? I don't think you can point to the rich people in Hollywood and say "They have enough money already, they can afford to lose some people to torrents" because for every rich actor/screenwriter/producer, there are 100 other entertainment workers that don't make $100,000 per episode.