Given the clear copyright statement,

> Copyright (C) 2020-2021 Terence Kelly. All rights reserved.

did you happen to get the author's permission to put that up? I don't even like IP law that much, but its funny to me how much no one gives a shit. This was a crime, albeit a silly and small one.

Copyright infringement is not a crime in and of itself. It's only criminal when it's done for commercial purpose with financial gain which is clearly not the case here.

> Copyright infringement is not a crime in and of itself. It's only criminal when it's done for commercial purpose with financial gain which is clearly not the case here.

US Copyright laws, sure, this statement is correct. In some countries (especially in Europe and Asia) however, this is pretty much the opposite.

(Point noted however that Mr. Kelly is probably American, which assuming you're American will be subjected to U.S. IP laws, especially DMCA provisions. Since that this is unprotected, DMCA circumvention is out and this infringement would be only a crime if this was specifically filed in court, and even them it might be argued that this is more of a civil lawsuit than a criminal lawsuit.)

That's incorrect. Otherwise people would be able to freely share music and movies.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's a crime.

It is a shame that people rarely question or complain about unfair laws to the point of restoring justice and decency.

That's literally the definition of a crime. I think you mean to say it's not immoral.

You're ignorant pertaining to what you are talking about. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crime a crime is supposed to be offensive. The only thing this law being broken is offensive to is copyright holders who are one, punishing people for promoting their content, and two, the media is protected for an obscene amount of time to where usually eventually the ip is purchased from someone who put no effort into the art and is only interested in making money. To me, THAT is a crime.