October 8, 2007
Music Cos. Celebrate Win in Illegal Download Case
The Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) get-tough policy on illegal sharing of music got its test in court and the result was a judgment of $222,000 for music companies against a 30-year-old mother of two. Questions remain, however, as to whether the industry’s approach and this first judicial victory will do anything to stem illegal distribution of music and if the publicity surrounding the case will further damage the record companies’ reputation with consumers.
In the copyright infringement case, Capitol Records Inc. v. Jammie Thomas, the record companies’ charged Ms. Thomas, an environmental coordinator with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians, with illegally distributing songs through her account on the Kazaa file-sharing site.
Ms. Thomas allowed that she had copied music from CDs she owned onto a computer but did not download the songs
The RIAA said in a statement that it would pursue legal action other cases. “When the evidence is clear, we will continue to bring legal actions against those individuals who have broken the law. This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services.”
Charles Mudd, a lawyer out of Chicago, told Computerworld, “The jury verdict will add credence to and bolster the RIAA campaign of pursuing file-sharers. I believe the monetary award has some significant deficiencies, but nonetheless, the jury verdict will support the RIAA in its continuing effort to pursue those it believes have illegally stolen copyrighted music.”
Ray Beckerman, a lawyer with Vandenberg & Feliu in New York, expects the case to be overturned on appeal. “Obviously, the verdict is disproportionate in amount,” he told Computerworld. “When the damage you have suffered is $23.76 of song files that were infringed and you have a verdict of $222,000, that is about a 10,000-to-1 ratio.”
Separately, Mr. Beckerman told Bloomberg News, “They’ll (RIAA) feel, ‘Oh we got this great thing that we can go around and brag about it and scare people. That’s what they live for, scaring people. It’s all based on extortion.”
Discussion Questions: What will the Capitol Records Inc. v. Jammie Thomas verdict mean for the illegal downloading of copyrighted music? How will consumers react to the music companies strong pursuit of individuals accused of illegally downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I don’t think it’s the price that is so much at issue, I think it’s the control that the industry wants to have over what you do with the music once you “own” it. Even iTunes has hacks out there that remove the DRM, or otherwise trick the software into thinking you’ve burned fewer CD’s than you have…
The industry definitely isn’t doing itself any favors by prolonging the fight against the inevitable. They’re just painting a huge target on their chests and inviting the very creative masses to find ways to stick it to them.
The law may or may not have been served in this case, but the music industry is the big loser.
By letting its intellectual property lawyers dictate customer policy, the record industry has succeeded in alienating more and more music buyers. RIAA has created the worst kind of poster child–a $200,000 victim. I guarantee this verdict will cost the industry a far greater sum, as sympathetic listeners like myself avoid buying recordings in protest.
This case is just another death-rattle for the recorded music industry, which ironically is hastening its own disintermediation with ill-conceived legal tactics. The Radiohead go-to-market experiment proves that half a century of avaricious business practices can be thwarted by artists and fans who care about the music.
The music industry doesn’t seem to have a clue. They are pursuing and attacking their customers. Personally, no one has recorded anything in the past ten years that I would listen to, much less steal. Frightening me with a law suite isn’t going to do much good. Going after a mother of two who apparently actually likes recent recordings is doing nothing but alienating the music industry’s target audience. They’re are trying to apply 19th century law to 21st century conditions.
If these people had any sense they would sell music at reasonable prices via the web. iTunes is getting $1 a song and doing a booming business. Couldn’t the record companies sell the same thing for 25 cents and have their customers on their site looking at other songs, artists and properties they own? At 25 cents a song, stealing isn’t worthwhile and you are building something. Advice to the record industry–the computer can either be your best friend or worse enemy. Suing isn’t make any friends and will eventually turn artist and consumers against you and make you obsolete. Question–have you ever seen YouTube?
This game is over. Radiohead is proving that right now. (see http://www.inrainbows.com)
(In case you missed it, Radiohead is selling (pre-orders) its new album online, just 10 days after they finished recording it, for whatever price you feel like paying. A spokesperson said the average price is close to normal retail.)
So the music business has fundamentally changed, the only question is how does it evolve from here and who ends up at the top of the revenue heap. New bands will still need publicity and funding, so it won’t be some artist’s utopia, but it will be different.
That said, there is still a need for intellectual property protection. Let’s see how “generous” artists are when they make 80% of the money, not 5%. Perhaps not so much. Authors have a right to profit from their works, and it is still the best incentive to the creation of new works. If the business evolves in a way that doesn’t require DRM, but still protects the financial interests of authors in their works, great. If that’s not feasible, DRM will continue to be important. Remember, it doesn’t have to be 100% effective, just effective enough to preserve the financial model.
The RIAA, as much as I despise its methods, is doing what it must; really, what choice does that particular organization have? It is the tail and it is still being wagged by the dogs–the record companies. They have failed to come up with a new model on their own.
I wouldn’t believe that the Recording Industry doesn’t already know results similar to the ones of our survey: people are going to share music anyway! And you can’t hit everyone for $200,000 or put them all in jail. So, why not go with the flow and create something viable? Two examples out there now:
1) Apple has taught the recording industry a lesson that apparently, they’re still not focused on: if there’s easy access and affordable prices, there’s a lot of money to be made, regardless of ‘sharing’.
2) Then there’s Radiohead. Releasing music and telling your customer to “pay what you think it’s worth” is an incredibly creative idea that took a tremendous amount of guts (or, is it just common sense?) to do. Talk about creating customers for life.
So, wake up recording industry, look at the emulators…it’s a new day…and lawsuits are not the answer.
The decision will do nothing to stop downloading. It’s up to the record companies to adapt to this new world.
Remember Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal This Book”? By putting their product out there and at outrageous retail prices, they are issuing the same imperative.
Anyone want to bet on the results of the poll? I bet that “no deterrent” will be the landslide winner. Too bad there wasn’t an option for “the lawsuit will further erode customer interest–and sales–for the industry.”
It is outrageous that the labels would crow about this so-called victory. The negative PR from these kinds of tactics and announcements will likely have as much devastating impact on the industry’s future as the filesharing practices that they are trying to stamp out.
C’mon you old dinosaurs–you need to adapt, migrate, or die. And it looks like the first two options aren’t on the table….
Using the courts to stop illegal music sharing is likely to be just as effective as using the courts to stop marijuana. A few people will be stopped but the majority will get what they want. iTunes has helped the music industry monetize its assets way more than all the lawsuits against individuals combined. If the cost is reasonable and the procedure is convenient, many people will pay for their music. There will always be some who won’t pay, of course, but how much bad pr does the music business want to reap? If the music industry makes themselves look like ogres, they’ll make themselves into the enemy.
I’m with Peter. This is like celebrating stabbing yourself in the heart! The decision won’t change behavior at all and shows the music industry up as the establishment swine its primary market believes it is.
HELLO, Hello, hello, is there anybody OUT there? (That would be Pink Floyd for the herbally challenged.) Is there anyone on the planet who does not know that the sale of songs by-the-each is a dead concept? Why do music publishers cling so steadfastly to this dead-and-gone business model? Did their great-grandfathers own buggywhip factories?
I don’t have the answer to this conundrum, but I’ll bet I and Ben Ball, of Bennie And The Jets, could devise one if paid enough. It’s just ignorant to expect digital files to retain their virginity (virginities?).
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
I don’t think it’s the price that is so much at issue, I think it’s the control that the industry wants to have over what you do with the music once you “own” it. Even iTunes has hacks out there that remove the DRM, or otherwise trick the software into thinking you’ve burned fewer CD’s than you have…
The industry definitely isn’t doing itself any favors by prolonging the fight against the inevitable. They’re just painting a huge target on their chests and inviting the very creative masses to find ways to stick it to them.
The law may or may not have been served in this case, but the music industry is the big loser.
By letting its intellectual property lawyers dictate customer policy, the record industry has succeeded in alienating more and more music buyers. RIAA has created the worst kind of poster child–a $200,000 victim. I guarantee this verdict will cost the industry a far greater sum, as sympathetic listeners like myself avoid buying recordings in protest.
This case is just another death-rattle for the recorded music industry, which ironically is hastening its own disintermediation with ill-conceived legal tactics. The Radiohead go-to-market experiment proves that half a century of avaricious business practices can be thwarted by artists and fans who care about the music.
The music industry doesn’t seem to have a clue. They are pursuing and attacking their customers. Personally, no one has recorded anything in the past ten years that I would listen to, much less steal. Frightening me with a law suite isn’t going to do much good. Going after a mother of two who apparently actually likes recent recordings is doing nothing but alienating the music industry’s target audience. They’re are trying to apply 19th century law to 21st century conditions.
If these people had any sense they would sell music at reasonable prices via the web. iTunes is getting $1 a song and doing a booming business. Couldn’t the record companies sell the same thing for 25 cents and have their customers on their site looking at other songs, artists and properties they own? At 25 cents a song, stealing isn’t worthwhile and you are building something. Advice to the record industry–the computer can either be your best friend or worse enemy. Suing isn’t make any friends and will eventually turn artist and consumers against you and make you obsolete. Question–have you ever seen YouTube?
This game is over. Radiohead is proving that right now. (see http://www.inrainbows.com)
(In case you missed it, Radiohead is selling (pre-orders) its new album online, just 10 days after they finished recording it, for whatever price you feel like paying. A spokesperson said the average price is close to normal retail.)
So the music business has fundamentally changed, the only question is how does it evolve from here and who ends up at the top of the revenue heap. New bands will still need publicity and funding, so it won’t be some artist’s utopia, but it will be different.
That said, there is still a need for intellectual property protection. Let’s see how “generous” artists are when they make 80% of the money, not 5%. Perhaps not so much. Authors have a right to profit from their works, and it is still the best incentive to the creation of new works. If the business evolves in a way that doesn’t require DRM, but still protects the financial interests of authors in their works, great. If that’s not feasible, DRM will continue to be important. Remember, it doesn’t have to be 100% effective, just effective enough to preserve the financial model.
The RIAA, as much as I despise its methods, is doing what it must; really, what choice does that particular organization have? It is the tail and it is still being wagged by the dogs–the record companies. They have failed to come up with a new model on their own.
I wouldn’t believe that the Recording Industry doesn’t already know results similar to the ones of our survey: people are going to share music anyway! And you can’t hit everyone for $200,000 or put them all in jail. So, why not go with the flow and create something viable? Two examples out there now:
1) Apple has taught the recording industry a lesson that apparently, they’re still not focused on: if there’s easy access and affordable prices, there’s a lot of money to be made, regardless of ‘sharing’.
2) Then there’s Radiohead. Releasing music and telling your customer to “pay what you think it’s worth” is an incredibly creative idea that took a tremendous amount of guts (or, is it just common sense?) to do. Talk about creating customers for life.
So, wake up recording industry, look at the emulators…it’s a new day…and lawsuits are not the answer.
The decision will do nothing to stop downloading. It’s up to the record companies to adapt to this new world.
Remember Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal This Book”? By putting their product out there and at outrageous retail prices, they are issuing the same imperative.
Anyone want to bet on the results of the poll? I bet that “no deterrent” will be the landslide winner. Too bad there wasn’t an option for “the lawsuit will further erode customer interest–and sales–for the industry.”
It is outrageous that the labels would crow about this so-called victory. The negative PR from these kinds of tactics and announcements will likely have as much devastating impact on the industry’s future as the filesharing practices that they are trying to stamp out.
C’mon you old dinosaurs–you need to adapt, migrate, or die. And it looks like the first two options aren’t on the table….
Using the courts to stop illegal music sharing is likely to be just as effective as using the courts to stop marijuana. A few people will be stopped but the majority will get what they want. iTunes has helped the music industry monetize its assets way more than all the lawsuits against individuals combined. If the cost is reasonable and the procedure is convenient, many people will pay for their music. There will always be some who won’t pay, of course, but how much bad pr does the music business want to reap? If the music industry makes themselves look like ogres, they’ll make themselves into the enemy.
I’m with Peter. This is like celebrating stabbing yourself in the heart! The decision won’t change behavior at all and shows the music industry up as the establishment swine its primary market believes it is.
HELLO, Hello, hello, is there anybody OUT there? (That would be Pink Floyd for the herbally challenged.) Is there anyone on the planet who does not know that the sale of songs by-the-each is a dead concept? Why do music publishers cling so steadfastly to this dead-and-gone business model? Did their great-grandfathers own buggywhip factories?
I don’t have the answer to this conundrum, but I’ll bet I and Ben Ball, of Bennie And The Jets, could devise one if paid enough. It’s just ignorant to expect digital files to retain their virginity (virginities?).