6/19 | Jammie Thomas-Rasset Loses $1.9 Million Suit by RIAA
That’s 200,000 times what they actually lost!
Intellectual property rights are in concept a reasonable thing. Artists should be compensated for the work they create, regardless of form. Art’s value to society and culture is tremendous, so why is it such a foreign concept to many that artists should be compensated, that art can be a profession? Just because someone writes a song instead of digging a ditch or defending the rights of children in court doesn’t mean that the songwriter’s works are less important. It’s simply different – and simply valuable.
Yet there are many who believe that art should be free, that it should belong to society and be as freely consumed as air. This kind of thinking (at least in part) permeates current arguments surrounding the download of copyrighted music. By law, downloading copyrighted material, whether it is for your own consumption or (even more so) to distribute via P2P file sharing is illegal. At times, musicians make music available for free download. Other times, certain artists have taken the position that the people who download their work are helping to spread the word virally, which makes the action a fruitful marketing channel. Considering that most musicians actually make very little from their recording deals while the record labels profit handsomely, it’s no wonder that they have to tour and depend upon other merchandise year round. I wouldn’t be surprised if musicians were using cash advance in Indiana loans for instant cash often, particularly during these tight financial times.
But since the already filthy rich record labels (represented by the RIAA) are the ones losing a tiny percentage of their income when people download music illegally, the RIAA is the one that’s kicking in doors and hunting for every little infraction. Like what Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s. She has lost a $1.9 million suit to the RIAA for just this scenario, and the greed and ridiculous miscalculation on the part of the RIAA is ridiculous. Jammie Thomas-Rasset was a single mother of four, living on the margins when the court case began. Now the ultra-rich RIAA wants to make an example of her. Since they have the money to hire the best legal representation, they have of course won. At least for now.
The gory details
Elianne Friend reports for CNN that a federal jury found the 32-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset “guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each — a total of $1.9 million — for 24 songs.” Artists No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow were among those she downloaded.
Only 24 tracks. That’s what, two or three albums-worth of music? Quite a steep price to pay, considering that on a track-by-track basis, each song would have otherwise cost about 99 cents each. Since Jammie Thomas-Rasset is being held responsible at $80,000 per song, the question of whether the records companies were actually “damaged” to that extent is important to consider. Clearly that wasn’t the case. This woman is being asked to pay more than 200,000 times what the actual losses of the record companies were. Did you actually suffer that much, RIAA? Or are you making this woman an example because you see your power structure slipping away?
According to Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s lawyer, this is the first copyright infringement case in American history to reach the trial phase. Needless to say, his client plans to appeal. In the meantime, she is encouraging interested parties to support her cause via her Web site.
Insert RIAA’s you-know-what-eating grin here
Spokeswoman Cara Duckworth of the RIAA said that the juggernaut was “pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. We appreciate the jury’s service and that they take this as seriously as we do.”
Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s case actually began back in 2007. At that time, the judge ordered a retrial. It was determined that there was “an error in the wording of jury instructions,” reports CNN. Fines at that time amounted to “only” $220,000 for the recording companies. What the judge found at that time was that a retrial was necessary because he had inadvertently “misdirected the jury” by declaring that making files available for sharing actually constituted distribution. I think the woman dodged a semantics bullet then. Unfortunately, a mortar shell has struck her in the pocketbook.
A change in strategy: throw yourself on the bomb!
Egan Orion writes for The Inquirer that Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s legal team appeared on the surface to be impotent this time around, as they didn’t continue to work with the questions that help them allay disaster before. Here are just a few of what her lawyers could have used in this retrial, but didn’t (as Orion sees it):
- Whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded
- Whether the RIAA’s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators
- What her own technical expert witness found
- Whether the RIAA’s technical expert’s procedures and findings were sound
- What precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual “distribution” of copyrighted music files
- What facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages.
The reality of the situation is completely thrown out the window if the proper legal tools aren’t used. The RIAA is allowed to arbitrarily bomb this woman with a ridiculous bill for pain and suffering, and all that Jammie Thomas-Rasset can do is show how downtrodden she is. Works great in the movies, but not in real court. Orion theorizes that this may have just been a setup for the big game against the recording industries that will come in this case and others, but I have to wonder whether the RIAA’s strategy of going after those who could never pay what they’re asking for is smart (and dumb at the same time). Dumb because they won’t get their money, but smart because it makes it easy to set precedent. See… download music illegally, you lose in court! Ha ha!
What I support
I support giving artists their due. I do not support gross profits beyond all reason and measure on the part of record companies. The artists deserve more, which is why more of them are going independent than ever. Yet much like the automobile industry did to Preston Tucker (colluding with materials manufacturers to effectively block him from mass production), I’m sure the big record labels have deals with music and merchandise production outlets that make mass production prohibitively more expensive for independents.
I also think that Jammie Thomas-Rasset should pay for her music, but at 99 cents per song or a similar, more agreeable price that fairly compensates the artists. If necessary, take out cash advance in Indiana loans for instant cash. But $1.9 million has no bearing in reality.
Related Video:
