RIAA's $1.92 million victory: more about message, less about money
Summary: The Recording Industry Association of America won a big one yesterday - a $1.92 million judgment against a woman charged with copyright infringement.
The Recording Industry Association of America won a big one yesterday - a $1.92 million judgment against a woman charged with copyright infringement. But you won't hear champagne bottles popping open in Hollywood.
Is anyone really a winner here? Does the RIAA expect to see a single nickel of the judgment for copyright infringement? Does anyone think that such a judgment will turn back the hands of time and send music lovers back to CDs from Tower Records?
Also see: Wow! Jury verdict in Capitol v Thomas-Rasset: $2 million
The buzz this morning is that the judgment - which amounted to $80,000 for each of the 24 songs that the woman was accused of sharing over the Internet - is excessive. And, on the surface, it looks like the woman, named Jammie Thomas-Rasset, is nothing more than a victim of an overzealous recording industry looking to make an example of a music downloader.
After all, that's what this is about, right? The recording industry is sending a message about the willful and unlawful sharing of copyrighted music, a message that's likely cost far more than $1.92 million in legal fees over the years.
It may have been a message that was meant to resonate with everyday folks who are using their home computers to share music over the Internet. But Thomas-Rasset isn't your ordinary victim here either. Her case was reportedly full of holes and, in recent days, information surfaced to suggest that she was being less the truthful about her innocence, including revelations that she had her computer hard drive replaced. Some have even suggested that the large judgment was imposed by the jury because they suspected that Thomas-Rasset had lied during the court proceedings.
According to a post on Ars Technica, the woman gasped aloud in court when the judgment was read but later said of the settlement money: "Good luck trying to get it from me... it's like squeezing blood from a turnip."
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RIAA is a dangerous criminal organization
Of course she lied that her kids were the one, that she hadn't known etc. She was trying to get away from initial fine which was also draconian. It's not the point if woman had lied, if she is good or bad person, this punishment is dangerous for all of us.
Copying a CD is NOT the same as stealing CD in a store, or anything material for that matter. They didn't had that money, and I didn't take it from them, stealing is just that, takeing something that someone had. They are assuming that I haven't copied something I would buy it, which is dead wrong. I can make 100000 copies in 10 seconds does artist lose 20$*10000? Of course not only someone extremely stupid like this court can believe that.
For vast majority of artists piracy brings profit. Only very small percentage, the most popular artists which in any case make millions on their albums, are not helped, because you can hear their music on TV and radio.
If it wasn't for mp3 I would never heard 99% of bands that I'm listening now, bands that I bought some CDs (not all ofcourse, CDs are too expensive), I went to their concerts where I also gave them money. I copied the CDs that I bought to my friends, and they also bought some CDs after that, and they also went to their concerts, and gave artists their money for their performance. None of that money would they get if it wasn't for copies. And someone downloaded that same music from us, and then they went to their concerts and gave money to artists directly.
2M dollars, are they out of their minds?! 24 songs? By that token they could convict the whole world except some percentage of US population, because they were brainwashed how moral it is to pay absurd prices for CD/DVDs, and how artists suffer. It makes me puke.
Want another example? Microsoft, the only reason why they are so popular (outside US) is BECAUSE of piracy, that is why they have a monopoly. No one sane here would pay such enormous amounts of money for Win and Office, and no one does except professional firms. I would say that an average computer in the world has more than 10 000$ software "worth" installed on their computers and they want you to think that is's the same as you walked into a bank put a gun at someones face and requested money. US propaganda is really strong, but I can't believe that average citizen is so stupid that he can accept that.
Who pays for Newton law, theory of relativity, or quantum physics that everyone of us uses in everyday life (your computer, cellphone, everything in your life depends on technology made by someones intellectual work, and much more sophisticated intellectual work than some limp bizkit cd or MS windows.)
I have a hard drive of 1TB. I can make 1500 virtual machines just by downloading one copy of windows. I would probably be accused of having offended Microsoft by more than few million dollars + few million on some law bull'hit.
I honestly don't understand how can these lawyers sleep at night. I guess that they convinced their self that moral=law (no matter how you manipulate the law).
It hurts me watching such injustice.
When you unlawfully duplicate music for redistribution
downloaded till her hearts content. The issue
is that her computer was sharing the info right
back out the door.
Fair use says that you can buy a CD, and burn a
copy of it for your personal use. The second
you give it away to someone else, you have
violated the law. And that is why she was found
guilty.
Filesharing is fine as long as you produced the
work yourself. If you record a song, written,
and performed by you, you can distribute that
anyway you choose. But you are not allowed to
redistribute someone elses work.
She had no case to begin with. She should have
settled for a few thousand dollars. But she
chose to become the example.
File Sharers beware.
you must have been in the jury
Of course she didn't wanted to pay few 1000 dollars for sharing 24 songs it's not the real value.
Copyright laws are disruptive for all but very few artists and for humanity in general. Once product is produced the farther production costs nothing and they are selling it for large amounts of money. It's not an accident that the richest companies in the world are copy based.
I and everyone who I know that had read this story will never buy a CD/DVD in our lifes. As for the sharing... lets say that we have much more than 24 songs... and fine could go to.. hmmm, I guess that it would make another financial crises.
It was approimately 1700 songs. They only pursued her for 24. (nt)
Oh, I'm sorry then...
More than 90% of computer users around the world would have their lives destroyed by these kind of laws.
It is funny how some people can't realize that if something is a law it doesn't make it right. There are good laws, and bad ones. Bad ones should be changed, good ones should stay or maybe improved if possible. Why stick to a bad law?
This copyright law is bad, inhuman, insane, amoral, brutal. Sharing knowledge, art etc. is not a bad thing, no matter what some stupid cooperation law states. And this is a perfect example why is it wrong.
she did it to herself...
software, and then distribute and illegally
download the files.
By your logic we should stop prosecuting
murders, rapists, burglars, and all sorts of
nasties, because jail time will destroy their
life.
We are a nation of laws. Don't want to destroy
your
life, then follow the law.
"We are a nation of laws. Don't want to destroy
your life, then follow the law. "
Hey St. xXSpeedzXx,
"Laws were made to be broken.
And there can be no justice when laws are absolute."
John Wilson (Christopher North 1785 -1854 )
Now what do you think Mr. Wilson was trying to tell us in this quotation?
So what?
I also get a lot of music from legit sites which offer teaser music--you know, one cut from a new album to get attention. I've discovered a lot of good stuff that way.
Like some other posters, I probably have all my music ripped to multiple locations because the originals are irreplaceable. Would YOU play your original Beatles butcher block LP constantly? Not bloody likely! So you rip it from another source to protect it.
Sorry, but the RIAA has indeed outlived its usefulness and has become a parody of its original purpose.
BTW, there is a new book out that says even Dick Clark took payola to promote only certain artists. He's a member of the RIAA. Says something, doesn't it?
= $136,000,000
Perhaps they were feeling generous towards a single mother and realised that she wouldn't be able to pay that amount.
Crime shouldn't pay the criminal should!
If someone breaks the law, should we let them get away with it if nobody got hurt?
Drunk drivers pay thousands in fines and lawyers fees - even if they didn't hit anyone or such... why? Because they broke the law!
Speeders get tickets in the hundreds, should we say "hey, it was their first time speeding, lets ignore it"?
By folks like YOU who do NOT purchase the music or movies, you hurt the rest of us because WE have to pay MORE! It's just like stealing from a store, they pass the costs on to the HONEST people.
By NOT paying, you are also hurting the ARTIST who performed, the people who manufacture the CDs/DVDs, the delivery people, the writers, the producers, the stage workers, even the equipment vendors who sell things like microphones, recorders and the like! You also hurt the store's sales which means less pay for the workers and so on and so on...
Less taxes collected by ALL those people also means a worse economy!! See, this bad economy is all YOUR fault!! :) Well, okay, I won't go that far... But it's the greedy people like you (yes, you are greedy because you won't let go of a few dollars to pay for music like the rest of us) that are making this country worse each year.
Those that steal SHOULD have to pay!!
The gov't will pay ultimately.
Seriously?
99% of those people are paid a [b]flat fee[/b] for their work. They do not collect anything from the alleged royalties. Most artists do [b]not[/b] collect from them either, because the record companies claim they haven't made more than their advances yet.
Artists make their money from live performances and merchandising. They make very little from their music. Just ask David Bowie, Prince and a few other big names out there what they had to go through to own their own names (let alone their original material).
Not going to have a meaningful
plum full of justification for out right theft,
and then true to form they bash it over the heads
of anyone that agrees that the judgement it
consistent with the law.
And it isn't as if this woman was denied due
process, hell it went to trial twice, and the Jury
found in favor of the RIAA both times.
"Not going to have a meaningful"
conversation with these knuckle draggers. They a plum full of justification for out right theft"
Knuckle Draggers?
I bow and scrape to your obvious superior intellect. I aspire to emulate you when I grow up. I'll bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh as well.
If it was a jury of her peers...
No one in the industry would have been allowed on the jury, that's for sure. Not a single artist, technician or even album cover artist would have made it past the first [i]voir dire[/i]. They'd be eliminated for knowing that the RIAA really is full of bovine excrement the first time someone said the artists and techs were being robbed.
No, you hurt the rest of us
So, America can't modernise, we can all see that, so why not just turn on yourselves rather than join in with the modern world?
Way to go!!!!
She got what she deserved, did she?
To me this whole business is really about organizations such as RIAA, MPAA, and similar bodies around the world, such as ARIA (affiliated with RIAA), here in Australia, trying to cling to an outdated and doomed to die distribution method, instead of taking advantage of what is now the new way of distributing, that of using the Internet. They want to enforce their idea that if a user wants to play a track on their computer, iPhone, Mp3 player, and maybe a couple of other devices, the user should have to pay a licence fee for each track on each device that they want to play on, by using DRM. The only tracks that I download from the net are fully paid for, and DRM free. If a song that I would like to have is NOT DRM free, I don't purchase it, or download it. These bodies are losing a fortune, simply because they are not recognizing that people do not want to pay for multiple copies of the same song, just to listen to it on more than one device. The other thing is that DRM is broken. No sooner than a new version is created and released, someone will find a way to break it, and so it becomes useless. After CSS (Content Scrambling System) was released, it was broken withing hours, and any other DRM system will suffer the same fate.
$1000 Per Song
Let's assume 20,000 people took advantage of her crime. If you take a realistic point of view, and say she should have to pay back the damage done in full, then clearly a mere 5 cents per track, was generous beyond compare.
This whole thread amazes me; how can so many people with the skills to type on a computer, be so determined not to understand basic economics?
She got off light, we all know it.
Are you insane?
Wrong and Wrong
A portion of the money you pay for recordable media goes to the RIAA to offset this.
If I made a 'mix tape', I am free to share it with my friends. I can pull a track from an album here and there and make a new 'collection' and its all perfectly legal under the fair use doctrine.
Since the Internet, I just have have more friends. AND - I don't really need to put the songs on media, as I can 'share' them through other means.
I don't know about you, but this seems like they are prosecuting through a loop-hole.