Jammie Thomas and the RIAA
About two weeks ago, Jammie Thomas was found guilty of copyright infringement for making 24 songs available on a peer-to-peer “file-sharing” network. The RIAA has been going after people who distribute music online for a couple years ago, but everybody before Thomas decided to settle the case for about $3,000. Thomas rejected the offer and took it to court, and for her trouble she was found guilty and hit with a judgement of $222,000. I bet she wishes she had just taken the first offer! Now Thomas is appealing that ruling on the grounds that the $222,000 constitutes an excessive and unconstitutional penalty. Since the 24 songs she was found guilty for distributing could have been purchased for $24, the actual damages to the property owners for her actions is a drop in the bucket compared to the money she’ll have to pay to satisfy the judgment leveled against her.
I disagree, and I think the logic she’s using in her appeal is a good example of the type of rationalization music pirates use when they choose to steal someone’s music. These people only consider a loss to be a sale that didn’t happen because an individual chose to download the music instead. Like in Thomas’ case, the 24 songs in the case can be purchased for $24, so the damages were $24. But in most cases of music piracy, the individual who steals the music has no intention of ever purchasing the music. Therefore, since the artist did not lose out on a sale, then piracy is ok and does not damage the artist. In fact, it’s good for the artist because it could lead to increased exposure to the artist!
What this argument ignores is the artist’s right to own and control his own creations. The real damage music piracy inflicts is the loss of the artist’s ability to set the conditions by which his property is traded. It’s that control that allows the selling of music at all. How can an artist sell his music when everybody can just take it? He can’t. He just has to accept whatever terms the music pirate dictates and live with it. This, in effect, makes the music worthless.
If you think that $222,000 is a lot of money compared to the crime, look at some of the artists whose music was included in the 24 songs brought up in trial. Now compare the $222,000 to the amount of revenue the 24 songs have brought in to the music industry. Does the court’s ruling seem excessive now?
All this being said, I don’t like the fact that Thomas (a single mother of 2) has to bear such a huge financial hardship. But I also don’t like lots of cases I see of people making mistakes that are easily avoidable. Life has so much to offer, so why give that up for to be a martyr for a cause like fighting the RIAA in a file-sharing case? Even if you don’t agree with copyright, the law is clear and the penalties are harsh. We’ve all seen the FBI warning that pops up before movies. If you don’t want to be the target of a RIAA court case, all you have to do is not steal music. That’s not very hard.
Tags: [intellectual property, jammie thomas, riaa]