Freeloaders Beware - Justice Prevails
(Continued after the Jump)
The maximum award was $150k, so the kid got off scott-free, relatively speaking. Further, if anyone thinks that the kid is going to ever actually make good on his due, keep dreaming. This was a message being sent to all those freeloaders who can't bother to pony up $0.99 a song - don't steal. This suit gives teeth to the letters the RIAA is sending out. (I might add, this was 24, out of over 1,000 that were stolen.)
Despite my criticisms of Getty, Corbis, et al, I will be the first to stand on their side when they sue for infringement of the works in their collection. What's good for them is good for me (and the rest of us). With over 100,000 of my images registered, methodically back to 1989, I intend to fully and completely protect my copyright.
The only thing people think they can steal and get away with more than music, are photographs. Damn the infringers, and full speed ahead!
From the site All Things Digital RIAA Stamping Out Music Piracy One Single-Mother-of-Two at a Time comes a citation of the LA Times, "“In sum, the case will be the first test of the RIAA’s ability to sell a jury on its investigative methods, which have a degree of imprecision because of the anonymous nature of the Internet,” according to the Times' Jon Healey. The blog went on to say "...the RIAA has the Internet protocol address it claims was used to illegally share the songs at issue in the case, it must demonstrate that Thomas was actually using it in order to win the case. And that may well prove difficult."
Guess Not.
The Jury says: Justice 1:Thieves 1.0E+9
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
5 comments:
I think you have some facts wrong about the lawsuit. It was not a matter of the defendant not wanting to pay $0.99 per song; the reality is quite the opposite. She had bought hundreds of music CDs, spending thousands of dollars at Best Buy according to testimony.
What the verdict was for was over making some of that music available online via a file sharing application---supposing that was even her, something else not established in the case. It also should be noted, that no music in that case was proven to be stolen by anyone. The music was simply available in a shared folder through Kazaa. The RIAA's lead witness said herself they have no evidence of anyone downloading any songs.
Ars Technica has a though coverage of this case:
01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08
It's a very debatable matter whether justice was actually served.
Placing music on a P2P network historically used so that artists/copyright owners are deprived of income from their work, is akin to stealing. Absent that service, many more people would have gone out and paid for the song/CD, as they should have.
No arguments on your first point. Violations of intellectual property rights certainly can be harmful to those who depend on it for a living.
However, your second point is very debatable, and from my own experience I can say it's wrong. If it was not for P2P applications years ago, my music collection would have never gone from just a few CDs to hundreds. It irritated me to no end I could not sample music before buying short of traveling across town to a music store (and hoping they had the disc in stock). If I ended up with a dud, I wasn't allowed to return it.
The record labels made it very difficult to know what it was you were buying before buying it. P2P allowed me to actually sample an album before purchasing, which led me to purchase more. Luckily it is much easier to know what it is you buy today than it was then since all albums have 30 second previews of each track.
Now I have 47+GB of music on my computer since P2P came into existence. Without it initially, I would not have spent thousands of my dollars on music.
There have been several studies that lead to evidence that P2P actually helps record sales; even from studies funded by the RIAA ironically. Any implication P2P is actually harmful is mere speculation as there is no evidence to support that.
That being said, music and photos are not the same and so the comparison between stock agencies suing infringers and the RIAA suing supposed infringers does not work. The RIAA has a different agenda than protecting artists (who get screwed hard enough as it is by the RIAA).
The music industry has for several decades turned music into a commodity. Additionally, they have resisted tooth and nail against adapting to new business models to adapt to new technology and customer demands and they have tried to use technology to artificially create new business models (e.g. iPhone ringtones). It's an industry not concerned about the well being of artists but gaining absolute control over how music is used to solely pad their own profit margins.
Photography is not a commodity (though some stock agencies are trying to turn it into that). The consumption of our medium is also considerably different being visual not audible. The market for our product is significantly different as a result and we are certainly more susceptible to the harm caused by infringement.
My big issue with this case is not over whether or not infringement is bad. It's over the fact that such a verdict can be had despite there not being any hard evidence to prove infringement.
In my early years, I was involved in a great doom metal band. Due to all sorts of "drug problems" with one member, a signing to a major label never happened. Even though it was offered. The singer cared more for "Mr. Brownstone" than the music. It was the bootleggers that kept the music alive and in the minds of many. Yeah, they are parasites, but they kept it all rolling. Well, here were are, thirty years on - with two retrospective albums of early seventies material that were best sellers - even though the material was recorded in a mix of studios and engineers.
If it wasn't for the bootleggers and file sharing - the band would have never become as well known as it is today.
As a photographer, I deplore the idea of file sharing. However, as a musician, I've never gone out to find a tune on a site. I've shared songs with friends, as they have with me. I've gone on to purchase some fairly obscure artists who I would never have heard of, if it were not for friends sending me an occasional mp3.
At the moment, I am listening to a Norwegian musician that I would not have heard of, if not for hearing a clip on an internet radio station. The same type of stations that the Royalty Board is trying to close down with increased royalty rates.
I heard the tune, liked it, ordered four discs of this persons work and have played it for others.
I agree with John that putting tunes on a file sharing site is showing intent to distribute.
What a topsy-turvy world we live in.
I don't support infringement (even if the record labels do continually insist on making it extraordinarily difficult and onerous for customers to legally purchase their products), but I still think the low level of investigative rigor that was required to prove the RIAA's case is disturbing, and a dangerous future precedent.
Post a Comment