For years, content owners and users have been arguing about whether using intellectual property without permission was the same as using real property without permission. If I take your watch, is it the same as "taking" your song? And what does it mean to "take" a song to begin with?
A watch has intrinsic (or "real") value based on the parts and labor that went into making it; a song's value is much more subjective: it probably means more to you than it does to me. Plus, if I take your watch, you don't have that watch anymore. But if I take your song, by uploading a recording of it, photocopying the sheet music, or performing it myself, you still have something, even if it's now suddenly reduced in value.
Since I can't "take" your song, what I'm doing is taking your rights to the song. Copyright gives the creator the exclusive right to copy, alter, distribute, or perform/display the work or authorize others to do so. Even if I do "take" your song (say, by stealing a CD of it), those rights are still yours.
Ultimately, this is why copyright infringement is called infringement instead of stealing, theft, etc.: it's infringing or violating rights given to the creator under the law. Think about other ways you hear "infringement" used: infringing on privacy, infringing on right to free speech, etc. There's nothing being "stolen" in these examples. In fact the word "infringe" comes from the Latin for "break," or "weaken."
Copying, altering, distributing, or performing/displaying works that are not your own is copyright infringement.
No, because there's nothing to steal. Using an image without permission or an exemption in the law is copyright infringement.
No, It is illegal. It is a Copyright Infringement and is very serious. It's the same as stealing.
Not all file sharing is copyright infringement, but if it is, then is is already punished like any other copyright infringement.
Nothing about it is "legal." Copyright infringement is illegal.
If someone is no stranger to allegations of copyright infringement, it means he gets accused of copyright infringement a lot.
No, because nothing is being stolen. Rightsholders typically feel it is a form of copyright infringement, though, which is still illegal.
Copyright infringement is primarily a civil offense however there are options to prosecute criminally in the case of "willful and deliberate" acts of infringement. Ignorance of the existence of copyright is not a viable defense to infringement. If an author is convicted of copyright infringement the publisher can be held liable for contributory infringement if it can be shown that they had knowledge of the infringement prior to publication. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, infringement can be shown then yes a damages award to the copyright holder can be granted.
no
"Copyright in fragment" is a common misspelling of "copyright infringement," which is the violation of copyright.
Yes. Copyright infringement of any form is a violation of federal law.
In the United States, most punishment for copyright infringement is in the form of fees. Statutory damages can range from $750 to $30,000 per infringement.