2009 GAPERS BLOCK READER SURVEY! Help us get to know you better & improve the site by filling out our survey — win tickets to Jesus Lizard @ Metro New Years Eve!

TODAY

Friday, November 20

Search


The Mechanics
« Quinn to Sign FOIA reforms Let My People Retire »

Op-Ed Mon Aug 17 2009

Seven Crimes to Consider Before Music Piracy

Hey there Chicagoans. Go ahead and pause all your Kazaa, Limewire, and BitTorrent downloads for a second. I want the page to load quickly as this is something you're going to want to read.

If you haven't heard yet, it's "illegal" to download music online without "paying" for it. It's hard to believe, but being a fan isn't accepted as legal payment anymore. They call it "piracy," and the consequences for it can be very, very dire. Therefore, I've compiled a list of other crimes that I suggest you look into before you decide to download "Sweet Child of Mine" or "Poker Face."

First, let's look at the fines in the only two music piracy trials that have taken place to date. The first is the case of Jammie Thomas, a single mother of four from Minnesota. She downloaded 24 songs off of Kazaa. A jury of her peers decided that she owed the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) almost $2 million for her crimes, a ruling which the Obama Administration recently told a federal judge was constitutionally sound. The second is the case of Joel Tenenbaum, a young grad student at Boston University. He downloaded 30 songs and was slapped with a fine of $675,000. If the verdicts stand both will file for bankruptcy.

I know. Yikes. I was hoping to commit a crime today, but $2 million? Damn. Don't worry, my villainous friends. They may have foiled our evil plans to put Metallica out on the street, but there are plenty of other crimes you can commit here in Illinois that won't get you a punishment even vaguely that severe. Here is a list of 7 ideas to get you started, but first we should make a few rules. Some of these "crimes" have imprisonment as part of their sentence. That being said, I'm going to equate one year of prison with a $50,233 salary which is the median household income as of 2007. I.e. you would have made $50,233 each year you're in prison were you not becoming intimately acquainted with Wade, your cell mate.

That, of course, doesn't factor in the cost of "freedom." I tried to get into contact with Toby Keith to figure out how much freedom is worth in American dollars, but he was busy writing songs about how terrorists can kiss his ass or something.

One final thing to keep in mind here: Obama promised hope and change, and he certainly brought it in the case of piracy and the RIAA. In between stints of walking on water and saving us from ourselves, Barack has appointed five RIAA lawyers to positions in the "justice" department, in addition to upholding the federal limit of $150,000 per instance of piracy.

Here are the sources I'm using for crimes and their penalties:
The Illinois Criminal Code

Charts of Crimes and Penalties:
First one
Second one

Seven Crimes to Consider Before Music Piracy

1. Steal Music? No! Steal a child, preferably from a recording artist.
That's right, the fine for regular old, Class 4 Felony child abduction is $25,000. It can also include one to three years in prison. So, if you get spanked as hard as possible after ganking a silly named celebrity child, you'll be down $175,699.

2. Steal the actual CD.
Damn, that new Black Eyed Peas song is infectious, am I right? That chorus is so genius; "boom boom boom," who thinks of that? I want to steal it. So instead of Kazaa, I'm going to swipe it from Best Buy. Retail theft of less that $150 (which is like, what, 10 CD's?) is a Class A misdemeanor. The penalty? Up to one year in jail and/or a fine of $2,500. At most you'd be down about $52,500. Definitely manageable. If it exceeds $150 though, you're in for a Class 3 felony. That bad boy will result in two to five years in prison and/or a $25,000 fine, so you're risking approximately $275,000. Beats $2 million though, huh?

3. Rob Bryan Adams.
There's Bryan Adams next door, tooling around on his new John Deere riding lawn mower. That would definitely make mowing the lawn easier huh? Fun, even. Can't afford one, can you? No problem! Punch him in the face and take it! That's a Class 2 felony. The penalties come to a meager $376,631, which is a full $298,369 less than even the weakest RIAA judgment.

4. Set Lars Ulrich's house on fire.
Being a pyro sounds fun. You get to see lots of pretty flames, hear fun explosions, and watch things get destroyed. Plus, doesn't Metallica have a song about setting shit on fire? They probably do, it's Metallica. What could go wrong? Not as much as if you decided to pirate music. Arson is another Class 2 felony. ($376,631)

5. Stalk Reba McEntire.
Hang out in her front yard, take pictures of her driving and shopping, send her weirdo letters - you name it, stalking is awesome! And what's the penalty? It's just a Class 4 felony! Phew! Just about $175,000 and you're done.

6. Learn from Michael Vick: Start a Dog Fighting Empire
Dogs are pretty cool, huh? You know what's cooler than a dog? Dogs killing each other! That will get you a paltry $50,000 fine and one to three years in the pen. What does that amount to? A max of about $200,000! Not too big of a deal when viewed against the dire backdrop of music piracy, huh? Suck it PETA!

7. Murder Someone, Second-Degree style.
Basically all "Second Degree" means is that you were provoked in such a way that it would cause you to have an "intense passion," i.e. you downloaded a few songs and then you were fined an amount that has more numbers than most of us will ever see in our bank accounts. When that happens, if you sort of go Incredible Hulk and shiv somebody in the kidney, you may be found guilty of Second Degree murder instead of first. Second Degree murder is only a Class 1 felony, rather than a Class X, which stands for X-treme. Class X is like the Mountain Dew of crimes. Anyway, a Class 1 felony can result in a fine of $25,000 and/or 4-15 years in prison. So, according to our numbers, you could POTENTIALLY only lose roughly $225,932. If you have a real bastard of a jury though - kind of like Jammie Thomas did - then you might get the full 15 years, which would amount to $778,495. So that's worse than Mr. Tenenbaum, but still not even close to Ms. Thomas.

There you have it, my Chicagoan criminal friends. Stick with this list of crimes, and you'll be able to satiate your devilish desires and still come out hurting less than a music pirate.

Conor McCarthy / Comments (44)

Timothy Morin / August 20, 2009 10:22 AM

Awesome post... I'd like to see the makeup of this "jury of peers". Also, I want a Mountain Dew now.

Bradatlarge / August 20, 2009 2:40 PM

Excellent! I'd like to kick Lars in the junk, while I start his house on fire.

These verdicts are ridiculous.

wheatus / August 20, 2009 7:14 PM

This is all so very unsettling....As a former major label artist I am embarrassed and ashamed. The music we have made since getting out of our various "deals" (publishing and recording) is available for free or donation, only at our site...The future of music is middle class. Unfortunately, attempts to fine music fans back into consumer submission will continue for sometime before these baby boomer fiends finally give up the ghost.

I do hate them. They eat their young.

bbb

Adam / August 21, 2009 7:44 AM

Being a fan was NEVER acceptable payment. This assertion is beyond ridiculous.

John / August 21, 2009 9:49 AM

The fines given to these two people were absolutely horrendous. But so is this article. If someone were to just buy the music, they'd end up paying less overall anyway.

Paul / August 21, 2009 3:49 PM

The way to solve this problem is simply to stop listening to major label recording artists. There is PLENTY of material out there on the web that is free and is BETTER than what is being offered by the oligarchs.

Andy Keil / August 22, 2009 1:27 AM

Thanks for a chuckle. Good read.

Scott Shmudson / August 22, 2009 5:34 PM

This article excludes the fact that nobody except those two people (out of how many bajillion?) have been arrested for this "piracy" wives tale. I'd like to keep writing, but my download's almost finished and I want to check out this advance copy of a The Hangover DVDrip that I just downloaded.

Sam / August 22, 2009 10:26 PM

Scott Shmudson - I don't know about arrests per se, but several thousand people have settled out of court with the RIAA, usually at a cost of several thousand dollars per song. What I am pretty sure about, though, is that most of the people were charged not because they downloaded the music but because they continued sharing it with others - most of them college students letting their computers serve as hubs.

Mark / August 22, 2009 11:19 PM

I don't disagree that the awards against the music downloaders were excessive, but you are comparing two different things here: the RIAA won a civil lawsuit, and there were no "fines" but rather damage awards that were awarded by a jury and intended to approximate the damages to the plaintiffs (plus punitive and other damages). Everything else you write about is a fine levied by the government under a criminal statute. If any of these crimes is committed against a person, the victim could sue for civil damages, which could be a lot larger than the awards against the music downloaders.

Josh / August 23, 2009 10:21 PM

You got ripped off. 2300+ Diggs to a cheap spam blog ripoff of this article: http://digg.com/music/7_Crimes_That_Will_Get_You_a_Smaller_Fine_than_File_Sharing

foresmac / August 24, 2009 10:26 AM

FYI, freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

Jeremiah / August 24, 2009 12:28 PM

Like the old crank who keeps telling newbie's "Always backup, and store the copies away from the computer", I know better than to repeat myself to The Wise Wizards of The Interwebs (because nobody's going to listen until after the ashes are at their own feet). But, since it's the same algebra, with different inputs: The article mentions the (old, old, ... old) Truth - the cases, and their results, are constitutionally sound (meaning valid - logical - one follows from another), and constitutions are only remade by fire and blood. Whether you're a Loyal American (and support this perfectly fair, honest, and logical result), or a Terrorist (everybody else), you got what you wanted (and had every reason to expect).

Wheee / August 24, 2009 12:41 PM

Pretty much what Paul said, although that's just one (external) layer of onion.

Reality Check / August 24, 2009 12:53 PM

To the commenters who say this article is ridiculous, consider the author is using entertainment to make a point. The point is the legal system needs to put piracy in perspective relative to the rest of the wrong-doings that go on in the world.

We can debate civil or criminal (it's actually both as there are fines for piracy of several thousands of dollars per copy), we also need to look at actual damages.

First, as one author mentioned, it's 1.05 per song to buy it. So how is it that same song represents over $8,000 in damages?

Also, each song is represented as a lost sale. For a college student who pays for every song, maybe there is a few hundred in his collection? maybe 1,000?

An pirate downloader might have 10,000 or 30,000 in his collection. The RIAA claims all 30,000 songs represent lost revenue; however, It's ridiculous to believe he'd buy all 30,000 songs if we didn't or couldn't pirate them.

I've read studies that suggest piraters also purchase. OK, they are not spending as much, but they are often spending what everyone else is. They are finding ways to get extra for their money (at no additional cost to the record industry), rather than forgo what they can't afford.

I'm not saying that's right, but the RIAA's claim that every one of those songs is lost revenue is simply not reality.

I've also read several studies that found wide-spread pirating of songs, actually helps increase legitimate sales.

Yes, these studies indicate the record industry actually makes more money on songs that go viral via pirating.

So let's keep things in perspective. I don't see record industry officials scrounging for their next meal, or sweating their next car bill, and the legal system has FAR more serious issues to worry about than helping the record industry continue to maintain its monopoly.

Oh, and the actions of the Obama administration relative to these rulings - I only ask how THAT aids in redistribution of wealth?
Don't get me wrong, I'm against government redistributing wealth, and I didn't vote for Obama - but this is another example of contradicting actions on his part, and it smells of pandering to this special interest group. Wasn't he against that?

James / August 24, 2009 3:11 PM

Guess what's even cheaper????
Buying the damn music in the first place...
Or can you not afford the .99c?

Anti-Psychiatry / August 24, 2009 3:22 PM

No,

The cheapest thing to do is to learn the music by heart, to memorize it, then "play" it in your head.

No need to pay anything as they cannot prove you have that music in your head or are illegally "playing" it in your head.

I do that all the time.

When I hear a cool music on the radio, I memorize it and then I "play" it in my head.

anti-psychiatry / August 24, 2009 3:25 PM

3. Rob Bryan Adams.

"Punch him in the face and take it! "

LOL ! I'd punch Bryan Adams in the face just for the fun of it without stealing anything.

I hate his queer music, LOL !

Uriel / August 24, 2009 3:26 PM

Sometimes when I read articles like this, it seems just for a moment that all the crazy conspiracy theorists are right--The corporations control everything! Time to take out the tin-foil hats.

mew / August 24, 2009 7:40 PM

Pssht. Why should we feel sorry for thieves? Jammie didn't swipe bread to feed her starving family. Are we so inclined towards lawlessness that we're renaming criminal convictions as intolerance and victims as criminals? If any of the fines issued in the ten years since Napster debuted had been a sufficient deterrent perhaps we wouldn't have to continue hearing about lawsuits like these every few months. What this article does illustrate is how unjustly small the punishments are for all the other crimes mentioned. I'd like to study the relationship between so-called tolerance, crime rates and economic decline.

Chase / August 24, 2009 7:50 PM

Uriel- It's not that the "corporations control everything." The simple fact is, the RIAA and the major record labels are trying to cling to an outdated and irrelevant business model. No one buys CDs anymore, and selling songs online will only woo a few consumers from the free alternative of downloading the same songs off LimeWire, BitTorrent, etc. Not to mention the artists who give away free downloads.

There are plenty of other ways to get music fans to part with their money. Concerts. Merchandise. Endorsements. The problem is that the record labels don't make money from those sources, the artists do.

The RIAA and the record labels are concerned because in many ways they are now unnecessary middlemen between the musician and the consumer. Their industry will someday soon all but cease to exist and we'll all be better off.

Sha / August 24, 2009 9:23 PM

Mew wrote, "Pssht. Why should we feel sorry for thieves? Jammie didn't swipe bread to feed her starving family. Are we so inclined towards lawlessness that we're renaming criminal convictions as intolerance and victims as criminals?"

She didn't swipe anything; she copied something. Copyright infringement isn't criminal either; it's civil. Look, I just copied part of your post, but your original post is still there, so I didn't deprive it of anything either.

Vernon Walter / August 24, 2009 9:35 PM

Not a bad twist on the humor in this, though yeah, missed the civil versus criminal angle pretty much altogether. Doesn't change the notion of the intent vs. crime vs. punishment (excessive?)...

As for the mention by Reality Check that "...but the RIAA's claim that every one of those songs is lost revenue is simply not reality" is something I've contemplated as well. This as a frequent customer of used CD shops and Half Priced Books (love the $1.98 - $3.98 racks - lots of surprises). For about 2 months, I went on a buying binge every Saturday, usually about 10 discs for what, about $30?

I'm not even sure some of the stuff is on iTunes. It sure isn't in the quality that I'd get from a real CD. But I would never, ever, ever buy these new. At $10+ a pop, I could do with out. If I was the type who wanted to take a stand, would I become a hub for people to grab and go too? I think we know the answer to that.

Also, props to Wheatus for the "The future of music is middle class" comment - I believe this 100%. On a small budget, it's now possible to make passable recordings...especially with what iTunes has done to standardize mediocre 128kbs quality. It still takes good fortune and hard work to be a self-funded recording artist, but at least it's more workable than ever. I'd venture to say that there's a decent amount of "I used to be in your shoes and copy tapes from friends and share mp3s" sympathy from new / modern thinking artists, and they're helping change the model. Slowly, but hey, gotta start somewhere.

Jackson Peebles / August 24, 2009 11:58 PM

I might be incorrect, but all of the alternatives you named were criminal penalties. The RIAA lawsuits are all civil to the best of my knowledge.

cinderkeys / August 25, 2009 3:22 AM

Thanks for injecting a little perspective into this debate. I've linked to this post on my site.

It's not that you can't make a decent argument against music piracy. As somebody said, it's not like Jammie Thomas needed those songs to feed her family. But when you can slap people with a $2 million fine for illegal downloading, that's no longer in the realm of punitive damages. That's a business model.

ThE_ED / August 25, 2009 3:54 AM

A jury of peers in a peer 2 peer filesharing case... Is that ever truly objective?

Nick Thomas / August 25, 2009 8:59 AM

You're a funny guy! Keep up the good work.

Psychiatry Is A Crime Against Humanity / August 25, 2009 10:29 AM

What if I memorize a song and then "play" it in my head ?

Do I need to pay duties to the RIAA ?

Lizard Wizard / August 28, 2009 11:39 AM

The point isn't to paint music piracy as an innocent act, the point is to put the punishment in perspective with crimes I would consider inarguably more heinous.

1776jedi / August 29, 2009 12:17 AM

Hundreds of thousands of dollars, awarded for stealling like two CD's? that's outrageous. What the RIAA is doing is trying to scare everyone away from down loading. Why don't they just burn people at the stake or crucify them. Or better yet the RIAA can hire ten thousand goons and dress them in black suits to go knock on doors. "I hear Metallica, ve haven't been downloading music have ve? Show me your computer! Macht snell!"

Websnacker / August 31, 2009 5:19 AM

Great Post. Proves that the Law is truly an Ass.

SolitaryOne / August 31, 2009 10:37 PM

first off, the copyright laws in general are out of date, they were not designed for the digital age that we are in.

second of all, the RIAA saying that every song downloaded constitutes a loss of business is complete bull anyways.

if this where true, then please explain how a artist like Trent Reznor (front man for nine inch nails) and anti-RIAA advocate can release albums for FREE on his website for download, and release the album a few weeks later to stores and still turn a profit? ill tell you why. he has somthing called talent, and his fan base wants to support him.

if someone downloads a album from a artist they like, and it turns out to be a good album, 9 times out of 10, they will buy it. its that simple.

as for the prices of CD's they are rediculous, people say "the prices of cd's are so high because of music piracy" thats total bullshit, the prices are so high because alot of these bands, and especally the record lables want to gouge the pockets of consumers at every turn. CD's are NOT the only source of revenue that bands have, nor should it be considered their soul source of income. they still have apparel (which sells alot) and live concerts, which brings them a HUGE amount of money.

the RIAA is nothing but a bunch of corperate big wigs looking to fatten their pocket books. fuck them, and all these "artists" who have no talent at all, so they blame piracy for their lack of income.

adong / September 1, 2009 3:26 PM

What i'd like to know is this: If the RIAA sues somebody for loss of profits because of illegal downloading, does the RIAA then have to fork over money to the recording artist? Or do they keep it all for themselves?

It seems to me that the RIAA wants people to illegally download music. For example, there exists on CDs a thing called 'index points'. Utilizing Index Points, you could make it very difficult for people to rip music onto their computer; Index points exists between tracks on the CD.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't really see record companies doing anything to actually prevent illegal downloading .. you know, besides suing people.

orzy / September 1, 2009 3:55 PM

what if i learn to sing and play someone else's song on guitar, and perform it for my friend. Should that only be a fine of $5,000?

Thrash / September 3, 2009 11:37 AM

Based on the cost, I'd owe about $789M..

Savage / September 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Think its a funny article even if its an "incorrect" comparison (dont live in the states so dont have any insight to your laws ;)) anyways, i cant stop thinking.
How much did the record companies actually profit from that 2 million dollar fine? i mean they cant really have lost 2 million dollars because some random mom downloaded 24 songs? as someone mentioned, this isnt crime and punishment, this is a business model.

Anonymous / September 3, 2009 8:09 PM

Oh, you poor poor Americans. Us Canadians don't have to worry about "piracy", because under Canadian law we cannot be convicted for downloading files off of P2P networks. Its good to live in a free country, where the Government doesn't try to crush freedom of the Internet+Media age. This article is crap, and you need to get off your high horse Mr.McCarthy. Maybe if the recording industry didn't put out nothing but utter, recycled garbage beats, shallow lyrics and selfish, ignorant music artists, then there may be less piracy. But the RIAA has its head shoved so far up its ass, it can't smell anything other then shit anymore.

But to you Americans, try reading up on proxies. Save's you any potential trouble, cause the Recording Industry Nazi's can't track you (Well, as easily. They could track you, but it would cost them enough time and money that they wouldn't bother)

Keep on rocking, my fellow pirates!

Meade / September 5, 2009 10:19 PM

Do bands doing cover songs,have to pay to play those songs now?Do copyrights expire?I mean if I downloaded a song from say,the 70's.is it the same as downloading Poker Face today?

Gogudumitru / September 8, 2009 3:38 PM

just a bunch of bullshit, go to hell!!!

rolf lundgren / September 12, 2009 2:35 PM

this is retarded

Jerry McBride / September 19, 2009 3:09 PM

Illegal to download? You sure of that. The only people getting in trouble, are those that share(upload) copyrighted tunes... There's a BIG diffrence.

Mike / September 30, 2009 10:54 PM

fredom costs a buck o five

ROB / October 1, 2009 1:00 AM

Blah blah blah,oops i'm off to watch Star Trek and when i finish that i think i might watch "Pandorum" first then by tonight i will also have "never get busted again downloaded to!.FUCK THE maffia!

Lyn / October 22, 2009 10:22 PM

Well... A the Graverobber said in the movie "Repo, The Genetic Opera."
'For Every Market, A submarket grows'

Add a Comment




Please enter the letter c in the field below:



Live Comment Preview


Notes & Tags

Items marked with a * are required fields. Please respect each other. We reserve the right to delete any comments borne out of douchebaggery or that deal in asshattery.

Permitted tags and how to use them:

To link: <a href="http://blahblahblah.com">Link text</a>
To italicize: <em>Your text</em>
To bold: <strong>Your text</strong>

ADVERTISEMENT

Revenge of the Second City

Are Illinois Inmates Receiving Proper Health Care?

By Sheila Burt / 0 Comments

 

Look up your elected representatives in Chicago.

Powered by


About Mechanics

Mechanics is the politics section of Gapers Block, reflecting the diversity of viewpoints and beliefs of Chicagoans and Illinoisans.

Editor: Ramsin Canon, rc@gapersblock.com
Mechanics staff inbox: mechanics@gapersblock.com

Archives

 

 Subscribe in a reader.