Several respondents have mentioned that auto-destroying the computers of Internet music thieves even after two warnings denies the perpetrator of due process.

So what should the criminal and civil penalties for music thievery be after a perpetrator is found guilty of stealing music in a due process hearing?

Should their computer be confiscated? What about criminal penalties such as jail time? Should music thievery be established as a felonious action?

Any thoughts?

Why not take away their computer?  Treat them like some hackers have been treated - seems to me it’s no less of a crime and that without their computer, they can’t do it.  It provides an economic incentive - save fifteen bucks on a CD, lose your $2,000 laptop.

As far as whether it should be a felony, IMO it should follow pre-existing hacking-related laws in that regard.  If the dollar amount of music stolen exceeds the prescribed limits, it should be a felony just like any other theft that meets that criteria.  I don’t agree with Hatch’s idea, but I think his passion for a “get tough” approach is the only thing that will work.

[quote author=“MBS”][quote author=“KitsuneStudios”]To the poll: of course not. Due process and all that. Radar detectors and stop-light cameras can give me a ticket, but I can still fight them in court. Yeah but why would you want to do that? If you were speeding just fess up and pay your fine.

Because I dislike paying extortion money to unregulated monopolies. 

{Takes a deep breath}  You don’t want to get me started on the traffic safety Nazis.  Trust me on this.  It’s not because I get a lot of tickets either; the last time I had to pay a fine was 1991 and the last time I even got pulled over was 1999.

I’m OK now.

Back to the thread:  The RIAA, MPAA, and their cronies/partners in crime have no business rooting around my hard drive.  If they think I have “their property” in my possession they can bloody well find it legally.  Letting these people nuke my computer is tantamount to letting a finance company blow up my garage because they thought they saw a car someone owed money on pulling into it.  It’s stupid, unconstitutional, and immoral.

[quote author=“DawnTreader”]Should their computer be confiscated? What about criminal penalties such as jail time? Should music thievery be established as a felonious action?

Any thoughts?

It should be in line with existing puishments for, say, shoplifting. With the Apple Store, the record industry now has a going rate of loss of about a buck per song. The local laws for petty theft seem to apply here. Perhaps make it similar to marijuana. A ticket for “Simple Posession”, heavy fees and jail time for “Posession with intent to sell”.

Honestly, make it a ticketable offence. Speeding kills thousands of people a year, and people get off with warnings and relatively small fines. I don’t know of any music downloads that have killed anyone. Ok, maybe Helter Skelter, but that’s stretching it.

This does still lead to the question of exactly how much the government has a right to see when I’m downloading. Does the government have the right to view everything I download? Especially with the fears of terrorism so high, I’m curious how many students might get locked up as enemy combatants if they’re doing school research on the subjects of terrorism or islamic fundamentalism. Honestly, who here hasn’t at least tried to hunt for those “Evil web publications” that the news media claims are easily accessable by any 4 year old with basic mousing skills?

[quote author=“MBS”]
Yeah but why would you want to do that? If you were speeding just fess up and pay your fine.

You just made my point. Most people do fess up and pay the fine: the hassle to pay is less than the hassle to fight. If people were going to have their computers destroyed/permanently confiscated, nearly everyone would fight it, clogging the court system.

And yes, I _did_ vote “I steal music, and don’t want my computer blown up.” I’ve made my argument plenty of times before, and continue to legitimize as many of the songs I’ve downloaded through iTMS or new CDs as I can.

Of course, if I really want to be evil, I can ask how many people who talk about supporting the artists buy Used CDs. It’s legal, legitimate, and widely supported, but the musicians don’t make a cent from the resale, and there’s vitually no guarantee that the CD you bought wasn’t at some point stolen, counterfeited, a “not for sale” promotional CD, or remains on the hard drive of the buyers computer in MP3 format. And of course if it was stolen or counterfeit, you could be suppoirting organized crime in your area or a drug habit, and both of those lead to terrorism, don’t they.

But hey, at least _that’s_ legal.

I’m confused. How do you consider paying a fine for something you did wrong “extortion money”, and who are these “unregulated monopolies”?

Willy

Exactly.  It’s called “the law.” It is a privilege, not a right, to drive a car.  If you can’t do it properly, you are expected to pay your dues.

Seems perfectly simple enough to me.

I think some people here are missing the point.  For starters with the car issue, you go through due process.  Lets forget about that for now.

I think you fail to see the danger potiential here.  If a tool of such were fashioned, I’d hate to see it get into the wrong hands.  Watch script kiddies go hog wild.

That won’t happen right?  After all, hackers are law abiding citizen right?

-iswitcher-

Oh No! Senator Hatch was using UNLICENSED SOFTWARE!
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305,00.html

Strike one, kiddo.  You got one more, then we come blow up your website.

Also, his site linked to porn as of a while ago.  I think it’s gone now.
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04864.html

The computer would be destroyed on the third incidence of stealing music over the Internet. Two warnings will be issued. If you think you are being charged with a crime unfairly there’s an opportunity to set the record straight.

I believe in some jurisdictions, if not at the federal level, laws have been passed to outlaw the use of computers to commit a crime. Stealing music is a crime.

If I deal in drugs I’m apt to have all of my property seized upon arrest. Sure my property is returned if I prove myself not guilty. But the property is seized first. In the even someone can prove that they were not stealing music though two warnings were already issued, there would be a mean to replace the broken parts.

There are now several means by which a computer user can download music inexpensively. There’s no reason to illegally download music so no reason to commit a crime other than a desire to ignore the law and steal something that doesn’t belong to them.

Why do people steal music in the first place?

[quote author=“DawnTreader”]The computer would be destroyed on the third incidence of stealing music over the Internet. Two warnings will be issued. If you think you are being charged with a crime unfairly there’s an opportunity to set the record straight.

There you go DT.

[quote author=“DawnTreader”]Why do people steal music in the first place?

That’s the question, isn’t it? I’ll never figure it out.

Willy

Last semester I helped someone edit a movie w/iMovie.  It was done as a parody of silent melodrama, and as such we needed a good old-fashioned sounding soundtrack.  We also needed it ASAP.  We searched through all our CDs, looking for something good, and we couldn’t get what we wanted.  Eventually, we (shock and horror) downloaded “The Maple Leaf Rag” from a filesharing app.  The movie was shown once, to an audience of about ten people in a class.  The sound file was subsequently deleted.

I needed that song right away.  There was no iTMS at the time.  It was simply more convenient to go download it then to go through a local record store hunt and finally have to buy an entire CD for a song we would use once.

There are also rare and out-of-print songs not offered by the legally sanctioned music choices, and public domain songs that may be desired.  My point is: sometimes there are grey areas, and sometimes people can download things that aren’t illegal at all.

Also, I’m stunned that the very principle of the government monitoring how you use your computer isn’t a little bit unsettling to some people.  The government may take posession of drug pushers’ proprety, but even then they don’t blow it up!  We also certainly don’t incinerate cars that shoplifters use.  The idea that in the future, all computers would require a monitoring device that could instantly incapacitate a computer is also dangerous, as iSwitcher pointed out.  Computer security is a very tricky thing, and I can imagine a hacker gleefully figuring out the backdoor to somebody he doesn’t like, and *poof*, there goes the computer.

In short, this is a ridiculous idea.  It is dangerous, intrudes on the privacy of everyone (including those who don’t steal), and it would waste valuable computing equipment all over the country.  Wouldn’t it be wiser to force offender’s computers to be used for a distributed computing project, or something?  Sort of like community service.

Phew….rant over.  BTW, shouldn’t this be in the politics forum?

If the download of music was limited to special situations that involved music that can not be found easily at any source, was not available inexpensively from any of the legal download services or music that is in the public domain, this would not be an issue.

The fact remains that 99% plus of music downloads are being done by people who know what they are doing is against the law, would prefer not to pay the owners of the music for the use of their property and thus use their computer knowingly and willingness to commit a crime.

DT, you make a very good point.  I was just trying to say (being defensive, mayhaps?) that I rarely download stuff and do not consider myself a thief.  So, I’m not saying that there should be no punishment at all - just that Mr. Hatch’s idea seems dangerously wanky and disturbing to me.

I personally think a fine would be uhhh just fine. hehehe.  Now seriously,  the state doesn’t take your car away because you speed.  Although improper use is cause for a fine.  Why not apply that to this case.  Give the person in question a fine or a fine and a tax.

Any thoughts?

-iswitcher-

This may seem like outta left field but the questions sounds awfully like: should we sterilise the intellectually disabled?

Not intended as a joke.