II. Background cont'd
Among the justifications is the "Everybody's doing it" attitude. Parents of teenagers or anyone who has ever been a teenager should recognize the weaknesses of this argument and the obvious responses: "So what?" Or the more sarcastic "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it?" No matter how many people commit a crime, it is still a crime. The only thing the large number of individual violators does with respect to legality and liability is to greatly decrease the chances that any particular individual will be prosecuted or sued.
Users also argue that music, movie, and software producers are multibillion dollar corporations who charge outrageous prices for their products and make obscene profits. While this argument has a certain Robin Hood type appeal, it ignores the fact that stealing from the rich and powerful is no less a crime than stealing from the poor and weak, particularly when Robin Hood robs from the rich and keeps it for himself. Under the theory behind this argument, one would be justified in shoplifting from WalMart, ripping off insurance companies, burglarizing Bill Gates' home, or committing any number of other crimes against big businesses or rich individuals.
One of the more intriguing arguments advanced by supporters of P2P is that the RIAA and MPAA are wrong in the reasons for the drop-off in revenues. According to this theory, the losses suffered are not the result of pirating copyrighted material, but rather a result of the fact that producers of music and movies are turning out such low quality products that no one wants to buy them. Even if true, stealing garbage is still a crime. The argument also invites several related questions. If everything produced is garbage, why is it downloaded at such staggering rates? And if everything produced is garbage, why would anyone care if it is no longer available, whether for an exorbitant price or for free?
The bottom line is that regardless of the sincerity of anyone's argument supporting sharing of copyrighted material, the unauthorized possession, use, or transfer of such material is a crime-much the same as theft, burglary, and armed robbery are crimes. Despite any rationalization, it remains a crime and one can go to jail for it. One can also be sued and damages far in excess of the cost of a CD or DVD can be awarded.
An example completely outside the realms of downloading and copyright serves to make the point. I consider speed limits to be suggestions and often, like many other people, exceed them by a relatively small margin. My observations and opinions that most other people do the same thing, that speed limits are often really only speed traps, that with road and traffic conditions my speed is safe, or any other justification I might come up with for driving the way I do does not make my activity legal. Nor will it carry any weight with the friendly trooper with a radar gun who catches me or my insurance company who may raise my rates if I get a speeding ticket. Although I generally limit my scofflaw activity to 5-10 mph above the limit, even one mph above the limit is a violation. The only difference is in the consequences: a ticket for exceeding the limit by 25 mph is considerably more costly than one for 7 mph above the limit.
It is probably true that producers are exaggerating both the estimate of infringement and the loss attributable to it. Again, the amount of loss does not reduce the criminality of the conduct. The only difference between downloading a single song and downloading thousands of CDs and movies is the magnitude of the crime.
Copyright law is a necessary protection for those who create and produce music, movies, books, software, and other material protected under the law. Without the protection, there would be little incentive to produce such works, because it would be impossible to support oneself doing so. While the concept of the starving artist has a certain romantic appeal, most creative people are also interested in food on the table. Excessive greed may truly be an unfortunate and damaging byproduct of a capitalistic system, but unless we are willing to change that system in its entirety, there is no way to curb such greed.
In the simpler world of the past, copyright infringement was neither as rampant nor as costly as it is today. Computers and the internet have made infringement remarkably easy and monumentally difficult to resist.
