You're right that I should have specified the US, and will edit my original comment.
It's not a crime in the US that has state-served sentences like fines or imprisonment, rather is a civil infraction. Granted, the media trade organizations like the MPAA and RIAA would very much like to make copyright infringement felonious, but that could easily lead to overenforcement and filling our already impacted prisons even more.
I've heard the European watchdogs are more severe and will go after grandmothers who play radios too loudly regarding public performance regulations.
But we're in an era in which states are passing laws to make persons illegal or strip them of their rights, so we can't rely on the state (any state) to fairly assert how their populations should behave, and Disney has been an IP-maximalist shit since the mid 20th century.
So our respect of legality should only extend to what can and will be enforced. The Sheriff of Nottingham does not deserve our obedience. (Prince John neither)
This raises one of the problems with company-sponsored media that has been a problem since Pulitzer and Hearst. Your bosses and sponsors will always have opinions about what news is fit to print.
So during the cold war never a bad thing was said about GE (we bring good things to life!) despite how they were pushing our elected officials to buy more nuclear warheads, even when we had plenty. GE bought a lot of commercial time from all three networks and no one wanted to disrupt that cash flow.
This might be a benefit from federated social media, that burying a story becomes impossible requiring only a bit of vigilance from its end users.