October 5, 2007
RIAA Wins Suit Against a Woman Accused of Sharing Music
The Recording Industry Association of America has scored a big win in its first ever civil trial against a peer-to-peer piracy suspect.
A Minnesota jury ruled yesterday that Jammie Thomas, from Brainerd, Minn., owes Capitol Records $220,000 for sharing 24 songs on KaZaA, the once-popular file-swapping network. Ms. Thomas has denied the piracy charges, but the jury rejected her argument that someone else could have posted the files using her own KaZaA screen name and Internet-protocol number.
At CNET News, Declan McCullagh points out that Ms. Thomas may have been stung by a few facts specific to her case. For one thing, her KaZaA screen name — “tereastarr” — happened to be a name she used elsewhere online, so jurors may have had no doubt that the RIAA had found the right person.
Even if the verdict against Ms. Thomas doesn’t have much value in predicting future trial results, it has plenty of symbolic meaning, as Ars Technica points out. The recording industry is now trying to convince college students to settle piracy claims out-of-court for about $4,000 a pop. Compared to the $222,000 that Ms. Thomas has been told to pay, that may seem like a bargain. —Brock Read
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Educause Joins a Call to Fight for Free Speech Online
Next: Educators Are Split About the Viability of Second Life
For perspective, I should state that I’m a songwriter disturbed that others might want to deprive me of the right to decide for myself whether to charge for my work or give it away. My own view of the latest court judgment is that the fine, if anything, may be too low (but with a qualification I’ll mention later). These fines are intended for (1) restitution; (2) punishment; and (3) deterrence of others. Deterrence requires that the “cost” of stealing (my word for it) should exceed the cost of paying for the music. However, the cost of stealing is calculated by multiplying the size of the fine by the probability of being caught. Realistically, that probability is less than one in ten thousand, and with this in mind, a fine of even half a million might be reasonable. Even so, my guess is that once the RIAA gets as much mileage as it can from the deterrence value of the news story, it will privately arrange with Jammie Thomas to mitigate her penalty to levels she can live with. Finally, my views on this don’t contradict those of others who believe that the music business needs a new business model to adapt to changing times.
Fred Moolten
— Fred Moolten Oct 6, 03:37 PM #
fred moolten, no offense, but chances are you are a no name songwriter, who wonderfully talented as you may be, would benefit from some random people hearing you for free. also, how is half a million a reasonable fine? your math is missing a key factor: people who are sued must lose all of the music they downloaded. moreover, in a very recent case, the young woman erased all of the music BEFORE they pursued her in court (they sent her a cease and desist letter), apologized to the RIAA, and discontinued further downloading for about a month before finding out she was still going to be sued. thieves who get caught stealing more get slaps on the wrists comparatively. are you seriously entertaining the idea that pirating music is even remotely close to physical robbery? a man could rob you and be in a much better position than Ms. Thomas is today. and the probability of people getting caught is actually much higher than what you claim seeing as how they can invade someone’s computer on mere suspicion since they’re not law enforcement and are not bound by search and seizure laws that the authorities are. your guess about how the RIAA will handle the matter is completely irrelevant as well, since it is just a guess by a SONGWRITER and not a LAWYER. With your model, i would be better off committing armed robbery at sam goody than clicking and searching to get the music! also, the RIAA is technically not ‘fining’ anyone, as they are not a legal authority capable of imposing a fine. they are taking students to civil court and SUING them… that is not imposing a fine by any means since only a LAW can impose a fine, unless you think the RIAA can write our laws of course. thusly, the “fines” (aka amount sued for) is only to meet your first and third requirements: restitution (which oddly enough never reaches the artists) and deterrence. deterrence is the only noble cause, but if thats what they want, why not attack file sharing companies? kazaa, limewire, ares, etc. are making this so readily available that anyone not hip to the details of copyright infringement would think it was legal since all those programs are legal and directly support the illegal activity… they are literally the only arena to do something like that and the arena can only be USED for that, so its ludicrous to attack average people who more than likely dont know that much better as opposed to programs that create the setting for these things to happen. you wanna be mad at someone fred? be mad at kazaa, even if they’re the only way you’ll ever get heard anyway.
— Angel Oct 7, 12:45 AM #
Angel, no offense, but it’s Fred’s call, not yours, whether he wants his intellectual property given away without his knowledge and permission. I don’t have any more use for RIAA’s actions than anyone, but it’s still the case that when RIAA does not give the artists money from their suits and threatened suits, that does not justify others also not giving artists money for their work. The argument that nothing physical has really been stolen when music is illegally downloaded has been around a long time: It’s the same argument people use when they get caught sneaking into theaters, and it’s no more valid. With all the publicity given this, people really do know better.
— Bob M. Oct 8, 06:48 AM #
Trying to leach perpetual profits from music being played on public space is a lawyer’s delight andout of touch with reality.
— Etta B Oct 8, 10:08 AM #
What an interesting point of view! “Leach perpetual profits. . .” So your idea is that an author or a playwrite or a songwriter should get one flat payment (from the government perhaps) of some pittance and then everyone should be able to enjoy it “for free?” I’m shocked – really shocked – at how many people in higher education think only of themselves and care not at all about others. You should be able to “leach perpetual enjoyment” from music, but the person who worked to create that which you enjoy shouldn’t benefit. . . Unbelievable. . .
Hopefully this penalty will start waking people up. Stealing is a crime. Taking away people’s livlihood is immoral. If you do it, you will get caught an pay a meaningful price.
— Bill Oct 9, 07:04 AM #