The Case of Kane Robinson

A few days ago a young British man called Kane Robinson was sentenced to 32 months in prison for hosting file-sharing website Dancing Jesus. It is claimed, rather spuriously, that he cost the music industry £240 million. It seems surreal that a young man living on the council estate where I grew up has received so much international attention. I met Kane once a few years ago, as he is a friend of a friend, and I've come across a lot of people who belong in prison but Kane does not strike me as being one of them.


Kane's point of view on this case is as follows:


Why would a man, who founded a music sharing site with 70 million hits, receive 32 months in prison in the UK whilst Pirate Bay's (the world's biggest file sharing website) founders only received 1 year in Sweden?

Can it be argued that sites like Dancing Jesus acted as promotional tools for the songs they shared? (As it must be noted that legal streaming sites like Spotify were fledgling sites whilst this particular site was active.)

What does scapegoating two men, who were still teenagers when this website was founded, benefit the music industry, the judicial system or the offenders themselves?

Should crimes like this lead to different forms of punishment? Putting a 26 year old computer specialist with no previous criminal history in a prison for 32 months will not help anyone; should these offenders receive different treatment such as community work orders?


My point of view on this case is as follows:


There are dozens of legal websites providing free access to music, yet no-one is suggesting they impact record sales. It is easier than ever to make money from music, given there are no overheads involved in the digital format.

People who download illegally are unlikely to purchase music if the file sharing option is removed. These people are normally too skint, or not sufficiently interested in a particular artist to pay for their product. True fans will always pay if they can.

Successful artists are multi-millionaires working for mega-corporations. These people have more money than could be considered reasonable, when you consider the abject poverty most citizens of the world live in. If Lars Ulrich misses out on a gold-plated shark tank I will shed no tears! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0wX...

Nothing material has been taken, and Kane did not profit from Dancing Jesus. He merely hosted a website where other people can share content. Leaked singles usually result in press attention – free promotion for artists. It is therefore plausible they have benefited.

Other criminals receive lesser punishments for more serious crimes. Take burglary for instance – a real form of theft in which material goods are taken, often from the poor, whose homes are violated and personal safety is threatened. Try reporting a burglary in the UK - the police don't come to investigate. In the unlikely event a burglar is arrested, they are not imprisoned, even after several hundred repeat offences! In short, it is not so bad to hurt an ordinary person, but if you go up against a mega-corporation you are looking at serious time.

We have a legal system which defends a capitalist system which so regularly treads on the little guy - the same little guy who the legal system seemingly has no interest in defending. It is no wonder the British people are disillusioned. The principle of our justice system is the punishment must fit the crime. Can anyone honestly say it does on this occasion?

In a recent newspaper poll, conducted by Metro, 87% of the public stated that we should be more lenient on music piracy.

As a writer, I can honestly say that if someone downloaded my book and read it without paying, I would be happy as long as they enjoyed it! Money isn't everything…


If you wish to support Kane's cause you can like the following Facebook page set up in his name:

https://www.facebook.com/justiceforKaneRobinson