I was just watching an older movie on Amazon Prime and they start with that FBI splash screen that tells you that
The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI…
Bolding mine. Random comma theirs.
I always thought copyright was civil law. What defines the boundary that causes a violation to cross over into a criminal offense?
There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. Attempts to infringe are prohibited to the same extent as the completed act. Conspiracies to violate the Act can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 371. A minority of courts also require that the government prove the absence of a first sale, and refer to this as a fifth element of a section 506(a) offense. However, the majority position is that the absence of a first sale is an affirmative defense. Thus, the government does not need to allege it in the indictment or to present initially evidence to negate the defense. See this Manual at 1854.
[I know it says that the information may be outdated but the law is still in effect. See the full language [here](17 U.S. Code § 506 - Criminal offenses | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute).]
I vaguely recall some cases where sharing online for no profit was still ruled to be criminal if the scope of the sharing was large enough.
This invites the question: When can an infringement fall under civil law without being a criminal offense? Suppose I buy the Stones’ latest album and post it to my web site for free download. That does not meet #4. So I am not criminally liable, but can Mick sue me since I deprived them of revenue, even though I didn’t make any money?
IANAL but… you sue for damages. If they can argue that you cost them sales, then you are on the hook for lost sales. Many of these court cases use “Holly wood Accounting” so that a single person posting a song or movie is - according to the copyright owner - liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The RIAA on behalf of most recording artists had a racket going where they demanded thousands of dollars from someone posting a song for public download, or else they’d drag you into court where a lawyer would cost you substantially more - with guarantee you wouldn’t still be on the hook for even more damages.
They were notorious for suing grannies for downloading rap music, and even suing a dead person.
there’s this:
Penalties for copyright infringement include civil and criminal penalties. In general, anyone found liable for civil copyright infringement may be ordered to pay either actual damages or “statutory” damages affixed at not less than $750 and not more than $30,000 per work infringed. For “willful” infringement, a court may award up to $150,000 per work infringed. A court can, in its discretion, also assess costs and attorneys’ fees. For details, see Title 17, United States Code, Sections 504, 505.
it’s difficult to find details; searching seems to bring up the website of evry post-secondary institution repeating the RIAA guidelines about both criminal and civil penalties.
I also find this:
The United States applies a three-strike rule to anyone caught torrenting copyrighted content. After three strikes, content owners can begin criminal proceedings. After this, anyone found guilty can risk up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $250,000 .
If I can make a guess given the difference between civil and criminal penalties in tax law, civil ones are mostly unrelated to what you were intending to do and whether you knew it was something you shouldn’t have done. People regularly get penalized for not having paid in enough in taxes via withholding, and it’s completely automatic and not debatable at all. The law says you have to pay in so much, if you don’t, you get penalized. Criminal sanctions in tax law are about willful and continuous ignoring of the requirements to pay the tax you owe, or to continually make specious arguments on your tax returns claiming you owe less. In general in tax law you have to know what you’re doing isn’t right and are doing it anyway, and the government can prove that, in order to get a conviction.
Additionally, when considering copyright, you have someone other than the government that is having their rights diminished compared to it just being the state involved with taxes. That means that a criminal case is developed by the state and results in punishments from the state that have less to do with making the copyright holder whole than with punishing the offenders/deterring possible future offenders/whatever other reason you like for there being criminal law in the first place instead of having everything just settled in civil court.
So in general copyright protection is mostly civil law. There are protections that are granted to the copyright holder that allows them to collect damages in civil law from those that ignore the copyright. Criminal copyright infringement is a crime against the state for continually and maliciously avoiding copyright laws and attempt to get away with unauthorized copying despite knowing that you shouldn’t be doing it. It’s not something you get hit with just for casually copying one movie, despite the FBI warning.
There is some particular exception to copyright laws concerning how many generations of children you have mothered and particular genres of music which they should have applied?
Yes, it’s called common sense.
They were suing an old lady. Logic should dictate that someone else in the household was doing the downloads, or someone was hijacking her internet. (Yes, it’s possible grannie was hip-hoppin’ to the beat. Odds are… not) Rather than try to figure that out, they simply sued the owner of the internet connection. However, the law does not say that person is liable for what others do on their service. It does not even require them to finger someone else to escape being sued. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove the other party - person - actually did the download which violated copyright. (technically, it was making available for others to download) However, intimidation and the threat of legal bills was an easier path.
(My understanding is that in Canada, typically the losing party pays the other’s legal bills, so there’s a lot fewer frivolous or mercenary lawsuits.)