RIAA File Sharing Verdict In: Minnesota Woman Owes $220K for "Making Available" Music Files
As technology has advanced into the 21st century, laws that once governed physical interactions involving civil rights, copyright protection and personal identification are struggling to catch up with the new problems that arise when they are applied to the virtual world of the Internet that seems to take great leaps forward each day.
And in one of the most widely-publicized court cases in recent history, the entire recording industry won a verdict of $220,000 from a single consumer accused of using new Internet technology to violate the copyright protections of its record labels.
Capitol Records vs. Jammie Thomas was the first case of an astonishing number of lawsuits that the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade organization that includes most large corporate record labels and distributors, has filed against consumers who are suspected of copyright infringement.
Since July 2006, when the RIAA began issuing lawsuits to consumers, they have targeted a total of 20,000 music consumers for copyright infringement. Even George Bush's daughters have faced criticism for making their father a "mix cd," which lawyers from the RIAA suggests involves copyright violations.
Capitol Records vs. Jammie Thomas, as do many of the 20,000 lawsuits filed, involved the controversial topic of file-sharing via the Internet and copyright infringement of music albums through this rapidly-developing medium. Specifically, the legitimacy of copyright protection over the Internet is in question with the development of programs that allow users to share files with their peers, called "peer-to-peer" or "P2P" programs.
Issues such as whether or not purchasing a CD or mp3 album entitles the consumer to make copies for themselves or others; if the band or the record label owns the music released on an album and who gets to dictate copyright policy in either case; and whether or not "making files available" to others, regardless of whether or not anyone else downloads from you, is illegal, are all legal issues that have come under scrutiny over the past weeks and months throughout this trial.
Included in the total of $220,000, the jury awarded the RIAA $9,250 in statutory damages per song for the 24 songs that Thomas illegally distributed. Though much more money than a single mp3 file would cost for purchase (averaging around $0.89), the per song amount was much less than a possible amount of $150,000 per song.
In their verdict, the jury found evidence presented by the RIAA attorneys convincing that the KaZaa account found to be sharing the copyrighted music had a username that matched the username that Thomas uses for many other online accounts, including e-mail addresses and other site memberships.
While acknowledging the illegality of file sharing, Thomas and her lawyers adamantly held to the claim that she did not participate in file sharing, and was not responsible for the account under her IP address and username.
Of course, this trial has faced a major amount of attention and scrutiny from both mainstream media outlets and technological websites and Internet forums. Many believe that the RIAA will become even more aggressive in the future with lawsuits, now that they have a template for winning a case.
However, many suggest that Capitol Records vs. Jammie Thomas was not a good start for defendants of file-sharing rights who wish to expose the recording industry's strong arm tactics. Thomas, they argue, was seen as clearly the person behind the file sharing account, and therefore in direct copyright violation. In many other cases, individuals who have not committed infringement are being pushed into settling for low amounts, in a tactic reminiscent of notorious legal strategies by insurance companies.
In a statement that revealed partially the mentality of these bully tactics, a lawyer for the RIAA stated outside the courthouse after the verdict was read, "This is what can happen if you don't settle."
However, the major coup for the RIAA in the case was a crucial change that Judge Michael Davis made to instructions given to the jury. Whereas in the original version of the instructions, the judge instructed the jury that simply "making available" files did not constitute copyright infringement, the jury instructions were changed to state that "making available" files did indeed mean infringement.
This particular point will no doubt be tested by lawyers all across the country as other copyright infringement cases see trial in the upcoming months.
And despite a court victory, the RIAA continues to tarnish its reputation in the eyes of consumers for its inability to adapt to new technology and obvious short-sightedness driven by short-term financial gain.
