The United States government passed the Copyright Act of 1976 to protect the artwork of several artists. The law outlines the punishable crimes relating to authenticity; for example, it is a punishable offense to illegally download music from the Internet. Furthermore, it establishes specific pecuniary sanctions for the commission of such crimes; for example it is said that you could pay a fine of up to $30,000, per work (Burrell & Coleman, n.d.). Therefore, although downloading songs freely from the Internet may seem normal, it is a crime. However, some questions exist as to whether or not this act is worth the sanctions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For this reason, a critical analysis of the transgression will determine whether or not it is justified by the charges. The law stipulates downloading music from the Internet as wrong, however, a thorough analysis deviates from the people downloading the content and instead points to the various websites providing permission. For example, YouTube allows people to watch videos freely, and for some it allows downloading, while for others it does not. When one downloads such a work, he is not at fault, as he has obtained permission from the source (Zhang et al., 2014). Furthermore, listening to a song from the Internet is like listening to a radio station, and therefore downloading such an article is more like recording a radio presentation for future use, which is in no way a crime. For sure, the cradle of the error is in the specific website, and therefore the individual does not deserve any accusation. Downloading music from the Internet is already imprinted in the mind of every member of the society. Therefore, according to behavioral theory, one is likely to receive influence from one's environment; subsequently, download materials from the Internet without any aspect of suspicion, as the individual believes it is the norm of society (Farrell, 2015). In such a case, one might assume that the offender is unaware of the law, since what the law prescribes is the exact opposite of what he sees in practice (Farrell, 2015). Therefore, the criminal does not deserve punishment, since he commits a crime of which he is unaware. Likewise, one could look at the aspect of income inequality, since it is a norm that not everyone can have the same amount of income. With this in mind, not everyone can afford to go to the theater or buy an iPod; however, everyone has the same access rights to the songs. Furthermore, most of the songs carry with them a great message, which could transform the audience; for example, most hip-hop songs highlight the essence of justice in the community. Similarly, one of the considerations before passing a sentence is the motive for the crime (Mpofu, 2015); and in this case, both for entertainment and educational value, which is of great importance to the individual. In summary, the law prohibits piracy; However, an individual who downloads a song from the Internet does not deserve any kind of punishment. A look at the considerations a judge should make before issuing a sentence makes downloading songs without paying plausible. In particular, one should always consider the positive side of these acts, for example the effects on the morals of society. Furthermore, one should check how aware the individual is of the crime before punishing him. Furthermore, a lot of blame could be placed on individuals, but the fault is not theirs, but the Internet's. Of course, there is no reason to punish those who download songs from the Internet without paying for them. Please note: this is just an example. Get a personalized document from us now 1976,:10.1007/978-3-319-11167-4_29