RIAA trial verdict: Was the decision fair?

[Nate the great]

There is a lot of debate over whether the decision in the recent copyright infringement was fair.

Yes, the RIAA downloaded only 24 songs. But, she had 1704 available. She had a huge collection available.

The number the jury came up with is well within the statutory amount. They could have awarded up to $30k per infringement, but decided on a number just under $10k.

It is reasonable to assume that she knew that the songs she distributed were under copyright. She didn't own those copyrights. She could have learned what the penalties were with very little effort.

I think it was fair. I want to hear what every one else thinks.

[Steve Jordan]

I think the verdict was fair, but I think the fine was too much. Although you want a fine to be large enough to be a deterrent, I think complete financial ruination is going too far, especially since there's been no physical harm done, and absolutely no evidence of financial harm to the plaintiffs.

Fine her $2,000, or even $20,000, I can see that... it'll suck for her, but she can still have a life, and pay her debt within 5 years. $220,000 is more like a 30-year mortgage of payments! If she'd physically stolen 1,720 records, the jail time she'd get wouldn't equal 30 years... the dollar figure loss wouldn't equal $220,000.

The decision just seems too off-kilter to me. Feels like a witch-hunt trial (something 16th century men would pull on 16th century women who wouldn't have sex with them, or who wouldn't keep secret that they did) (also something jealous 16th century women pulled on other 16th century women who messed with their 16th century men)... the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[JSWolf]

The RIAA are the ones who should be on trial for all the illegalities they've pul in pursuite of finding others who've done wrong.

[CommanderROR]

She was apparently obviously guilty, but I think 24 songs and 220000$ just don't match up...especially since she apparently shared those files on kazaa which is pretty much a as far as I know. I have not used it for quite some years...and even then it was pretty much useless...

[JSWolf]

You go to find the latest stuff and get versions that play all kinds of wierd noises. What the jury awarded the RIAA is way out of line and should be overturned.

[RWood]

They wanted a test case and for that one amount is as good as another.

I feel that the losses that the record industry has suffered in recent years are directly related to the poor quality products that they are producing rather than to piracy. I recently looked at the darknet (after a reference from an MR member in relation to MR book downloads being posted without attribution) and from what I could see most of the music posted was from back catalogs that were out of print and not available on Amazon or other stores but only through record collectors and auctions. This was not scientific or complete so I may have missed a lot.

All the current music being produced that I want I get directly from the artist. I find this a win-win for both sides. (It is a lot like getting the new Steve Jordan book directly from www.SteveJordanBooks.com)

[nekokami]

I think the amount was way out of line, because I don't think the civil court system should be used for punitive purposes. If the corps had been able to show how they were actually hurt by her actions, it would have made sense to force her to pay damages, but they can't actually show that, so they went for "statutory" damages, meaning they can rely on the power of their legal lobby rather than actually having to do research to show that there is any negative impact on them at all. That's just strong-arm bullying, in my opinion.

It might be the case that the recording industry is actually being hurt by actions such as the defendant's, but in that case, they should have to show it through research. If they can't show that these actions cause harm (especially to the artists), there should be no crime attached.

And yes, I'm now a published author (non-fiction), and I'd feel the same way if it was my content being passed around. (Heck, at this point in my career, I'd be delighted if anyone cared enough about my book to pass it around the darknet, though I suppose my publisher wouldn't like to hear me say that.)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by nekokami

And yes, I'm now a published author (non-fiction), and I'd feel the same way if it was my content being passed around. (Heck, at this point in my career, I'd be delighted if anyone cared enough about my book to pass it around the darknet, though I suppose my publisher wouldn't like to hear me say that.)

Congratulations! So what is it that you have written? Is it available in ebook form if anyone here wants to read it?

[ElaHuguet]

I totally agree with Neko (well said!), ruining that woman (single with two kids to maintain!) without actually proving the harm she's done... what would the fine have been if she'd stolen 24 CDs??? 48? 96? How many CDs do you have to steal to get fined that much?

Did she benefit from what she did? No, there where no $$ involved. It's like it being illegal to show a film/football game in your bar without a license, because you earn money from that (more clients come in), or inviting your neighbours to watch it in your house (no earnings involved).

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by RWood

They wanted a test case and for that one amount is as good as another.

I don't know... if someone accused you of "probably costing someone else some unknown amount of money," convicted you, and took your house away, would that seem "as good as" any other punishment to you? I maintain that the punishment does not fit the crime, not even slightly.

Originally Posted by RWood

All the current music being produced that I want I get directly from the artist. I find this a win-win for both sides.

One of the greatest strengths of the web is that it makes that possible. I expect more and more artists to become their own enterpreneurs this way, and more and more people going directly to the source for music and books.

I can't see this decision as being anything but overkill... like executing an embezzler with a howitzer. Can it result in anything but an outcry of support for Thomas, and a backlash against the music industry?

[JSWolf]

This poor woman is most likely going to become a burden to society thanks to the RIAA assholes who feel that even one song sent via the net is enough to destroy your life.

The RIAA does illegal things in the name of copyright and gets away with it. Let's ruin their lives first and see how they like it in the name of all the illegal activity they've done.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I can't see this decision as being anything but overkill... like executing an embezzler with a howitzer. Can it result in anything but an outcry of support for Thomas, and a backlash against the music industry?

As many people on this board will be aware, I regard people who engage in so-called "piracy" as the scum of the Earth. However, I share your view that the fine in this case is excessive. A $20,000 fine I would have welcomed. 10x that is ridiculous; it's definitely not a case of the "punishment fitting the crime".

HOWEVER, let's not forget that this criminal was given the opportunity to settle for a few thousand $. She declined to do so, and so in a sense brought this punishment down on her own head. Nobody here is going to claim that she wasn't guilty of the crime she was charged with, I take it?

[Azayzel]

While the fine was quite hefty, I think the woman will recover in the long run. They'll probably make a Lifetime movie out of the whole ordeal and she'll end up on the topside of things. If they took her house (did they, or is this speculation?) regarding this, I wonder if she can't just file Chapt 7 bankruptcy and be done with the matter? While it might sound harsh, if it's the only way she can get out from under the ordeal, what else can she do? What would you do if you were in her situation? Don't avoid the question by simply stating that you'd never do what she did, put yourself in her situation as it stands now. I'm curious.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

HOWEVER, let's not forget that this criminal was given the opportunity to settle for a few thousand $. She declined to do so, and so in a sense brought this punishment down on her own head. Nobody here is going to claim that she wasn't guilty of the crime she was charged with, I take it?

Fair point. And yes, she was guilty, no question.

Originally Posted by Azayzel

While the fine was quite hefty, I think the woman will recover in the long run. They'll probably make a Lifetime movie out of the whole ordeal and she'll end up on the topside of things.

If they did do such a thing, the profits would be applied to her brand new debt.

Originally Posted by Azayzel

What would you do if you were in her situation? Don't avoid the question by simply stating that you'd never do what she did, put yourself in her situation as it stands now. I'm curious.

Okay, fine, since I can't just say "I'd never do such a stupid thing": I'd appeal for a smaller amount, see what kind of feasible payments I can make on the debt, take a vacation to Canada, and never come back. Happy?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Congratulations! So what is it that you have written? Is it available in ebook form if anyone here wants to read it?

Thanks! Few people here are likely to be all that interested, as it's a book about using language learning games for teachers in Chinese language classrooms, but here's a link, on the off chance someone is looking for such a thing: http://chinasprout.com/shop/BLE035 (and there goes my anonymity, not that I really care.)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince my publisher to make it available as an ebook. She cited the usual concerns about piracy (which, to be fair, are even more rife than average in the audience this is intended for.) If anyone wants a short sample, I can send one, though.