| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSA federal jury in Duluth, Minn. yesterday afternoon ordered 30-year-old single mother Jammie Thomas to pay $222,000 to the Recording Industry Association of America, $9,250 for each of 24 tracks the jury found she uploaded to peer-to-peer service Kazaa.
The case was the first of its kind to go to a jury trial, but probably won't be the last. If anything, file-sharing is even more common now, as broadband penetration has grown and some people have come to expect free music online.
The record industry has so far brought cases against around 30,000 people, though it has settled or else withdrawn the case against the vast majority of them. But some lawyers say the recent victory could encourage more aggressive enforcement actions.
At the same time, there are significant legal issues yet to be determined, including whether uploading a track constitutes sharing it, or whether the record labels must additionally show that someone subsequently downloaded that same track. The judge in this case, Michael J. Davis, decided that uploading alone sufficed, but that holding doesn't set a precedent because it wasn't made by an appellate court.
And it looks like even the judge wasn't entirely convinced on that point. Before settling on a final jury instruction stating that uploading files alone could constitute a copyright infringement, he proposed telling the jurors that an actual transfer to a third person must take place before they could find infringement had occurred.
RSS FEEDS
The all-powerful Recording Industry, having obtained essentially-eternal control of EVERY sound recording ever made...including Thomas Alva Edison's impromptu recitatation of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in November of 1876...wants to sue a poverty-stricken single mother, does so successfully, and wins a six-figure sum (which the defendant is unlikely EVER to posess...but is "chump change" relative to the sums tossed about to sign artists...?!?!)...One's mind boggles!
Folkses, there are REAL criminals out there in the US of A...people who are KILLING, WOUNDING, RAPING and WOTHAVEYA their hapless victims...!
Does not Compute...?!
FEH?!
...stevenc
Jim - What is wrong isn't the size of the fine. In fact, she was looking at a minimum of $1.2 million if she had been fined for each of the files she was accused of sharing. She was only fined for 24 of the 1,700 songs. The travesty is that she found a lawyer looking to make headlines rather than give the best advice to his client. Settling for a few thousand dollars when you are caught red handed doesn't seem so bad, regardless of what you think of the RIAA's tactics. Hypotheticals and legal loopholes aside, she got caught doing what thousands (or millions) of people are doing illegally every day. Her lawyer wanted to position her as someone who stood up for her rights against "The Man." Instead, she's a shining example of what you shouldn't do when you are busted.
Adam - While I respect your point of view, it simply misses the point. Whether or not you like the music that the labels churn out , or think their business model is outdated, doesn't make it ok to steal their product. The RIAA isn't suing their customers. Their "customers" still pay for their music, be it in a store or on the web.
Innovation on the DRM front is certainly an issue, but their lack of progress isn't an excuse for blanket theft, and doesn't mean they aren't making any effort. Additionally, the current DRM systems in the market hardly prevent people from enjoying their music in nearly any situation that qualifies as "fair use." From the RIAA website:
"Record companies have licensed hundreds of digital partners that offer a range of legal models to fans: download and subscription services, cable and satellite radio services, Internet radio webcasting, legitimate peer-to-peer services, video-on-demand, podcasts, CD kiosks and digital jukeboxes, mobile products such as ringbacks, ringtunes, wallpapers, audio and video downloads and more.
Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and, in the digital space, to give legal online services a chance to flourish."
The RIAA must continue to pursue people who illegally download music. To not would be to sanction it through a lack of action. Moreover, they are setting the precedent for the TV and movie industries who are beginning to suffer the same fate. Does high bandwidth digital file transfers make going to a movie theater an outdated business model?
If people don't feel like the music is worth owning, why are they still going online to download it? If you don't want the whole album, you can easily buy a single track.
Lastly, these people who are getting caught deserve to for being stupid. They are openly sharing files in P2P systems that make it easy to identify users. There are dozens of programs available (some are even free) that protect your identity online and hundreds of sources for downloading content that don't identify a user. If you are sharing files on Kazaa or Limewire, using your email and IP addresses, you deserve to get caught.
It is not unfortunate that their business model is dying due to the web. For years, the recording industry has been pushing bland, uninteresting, tired music on a population that has had enough. As Time Magazine pointed out a few months ago - hip hop sales are on the decline (see here: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1653639,00.html)
And it's no surprise. The recording industry simply churns out more of the same lackluster music, and wonder why people aren't purchasing it. They do not credit society with any sort of taste in music and are simply in the model of playing it safe.
All of this aside, the RIAA clearly isn't looking to innovate and are trying to simply prolong their outdated business model of CD sales, and everyone will suffer in the end. As a musician, I have put out my own music without any label assistance - and it was pretty easy actually. In the future record labels will become obsolete anyway.
The RIAA is against free culture and a creative commons. If you want to get involved on saving the future of music, start here: http://www.free-culture.cc/
This is an excellent example of your work at its best. In just a few paragraphs, you brought me up to speed on the RIAAs fight to protect their interests without picking sides, and it has me thinking.
This is a tough issue, where it would be really easy to take a swipe. As much as I support copyright laws, it just somehow seems wrong for a single mom to have to pay $220,000 to a bunch of millionaires. I agree with the jury that her acts were criminal, but the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.
Thanks for providing the information that provoked me to think about the issue in this manner. And I can tell ya', I ain't done thinkin'.
Nice work!