The United States government proposed the Copyright Act of 1976 to protect the artwork of different artists . The law describes punishable offenses regarding authenticity; for example, illegal downloading of music from the Internet is a punishable offense. Furthermore, it sets specific fines for the commission of such crimes; for example, it is stated that a person can pay a fine of up to $30,000 per job (Burrell & Coleman, n.d.). Therefore, although downloading songs for free from the Internet may seem normal, it is a crime. However, questions remain about whether or not this act deserves sanctions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay For this reason, a critical analysis of the transgression will determine whether or not it merits charges. The law that downloading music from the Internet is false, however, a thorough analysis deviates from the people who download the content and instead points to the various websites that provide permission. For example, YouTube allows people to watch videos freely, and for some it allows downloading, while for others it does not. When you download such a work, you are not wrong since you have obtained permission from the source (Zhang et al., 2014). Moreover, listening to a song on the Internet is like listening to a radio station, and therefore downloading such an item is rather like recording a radio broadcast for later use, which is by no means a crime. Of course, the birthplace of the error lies in the specific website and therefore the individual does not deserve any accusation. Downloading music from the Internet is already etched in the mind of every member of the society. Consequently, according to behavioral theory, the individual is susceptible to the influence of his environment; subsequently, downloading materials from the Internet without any suspicion because the individual believes that this is the norm of society (Farrell, 2015). In such a case, one could assume that the offender does not know the law, because what the law prescribes is the complete opposite of what they see in practice (Farrell, 2015). Therefore, the criminal does not deserve punishment, because he is committing a crime of which he is not aware. Likewise, one could look at the aspect of income disparity, as it is a standard that not everyone can have the same income. amount of income. Keeping this in mind, not everyone can afford to go to the theater or buy an iPod; However, everyone has equal rights to access the songs. Additionally, most of the songs carry a big message, which could transform the audience; for example, most hip-hop songs emphasize the essence of justice in the community. Similarly, one of the considerations before passing sentence is the motive for the crime (Mpofu, 2015); and in this case it is for both entertainment and educational value, which is of great importance to the individual. In summary, the law prohibits piracy; However, a person who downloads a song from the Internet does not deserve any punishment. An examination of the considerations a judge must take into account before passing sentence makes downloading songs without paying plausible. In particular, it is important to always consider the positive side of these actions, for example the effects on the morals of society. Furthermore, the extent to which the individual is aware of the crime should be checked before punishing him. Furthermore, we could largely 1976,:10.1007/978-3-319-11167-4_29