The retrial of the first (and only) filesharing case to end in a jury verdict (for the record companies, for many thousands of dollars, but under a faulty “making available” theory) started last Monday. By the end of the day Thursday, we had a stunning, $1.92 million verdict against Jamie Thomas-Rasset, for sharing the following songs on Kazaa:
- Aerosmith – Cryin’
- Bryan Adams – Somebody
- Def Leppard – Pour Some Sugar On Me
- Destiny’s Child – Bills Bills Bills
- Gloria Estefan – Coming Out in the Dark
- Gloria Estefan – Here and We Are
- Gloria Estefan – The Rhythm is Gonna Get You
- Goo Goo Dolls – Iris
- Green Day – Basket Case
- Guns ‘n’ Roses – November Rain
- Guns ‘n’ Roses – Welcome to the Jungle
- Journey – Don’t Stop Believin’
- Journey – Faithfully
- Linkin Park – One Step Closer
- No Doubt – Bathwater
- No Doubt – Different People
- No Doubt – Hella Good
- Reba McEntire – One Honest Run
- Richard Marx – No and For Ever
- Sarah McLaughlan – Building A Mystery
- Sarah McLaughlan – Possession
- Sheryl Crow – Run Baby Run
- Vanessa Williams – Save the Best for Last
That’s $80,000 per song downloaded. Her No Doubt adventures alone cost her $240,000: more than the original verdict of the first trial. (Of course, it would be naive to assume that No Doubt will see any of that money. If these companies approach the litigation campaign like they approach releasing albums, they’ll use the high profits from the top 5% to pay for the 95% that lose money, leaving none for the artist at the end of the day.)
There has been all sorts of ink spilled on this issue, from Ars Technica, Ray Beckerman’s RIAA vs. The People, P2Pnet, Ben Sheffner’s Copyrights & Campaigns, Wired, and even the Electronic Fronteir Foundation (raising some intriguing constitutional questions regarding the verdict).
The quote that sticks out for me from all of this comes from Ben Sheffner’s article he wrote for Billboard, where he wrote:
But a question arose after the verdict about whether the sheer size of the damages could lead to a backlash against an industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching.
Why Billiboard – an organization enjoying a place of high regard amongst all industry professionals due to decades of objective analysis of the music industry – would let such a known hard-line copyright figure pen their lead story on this all-important case escapes me, but even more confusing is how they could let such a gross misstatement of the public reaction onto their pages. “[A]n industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching”? Sheffner may be forgetting (and so I’ll remind him) that the RIAA was rated the worst company in the world in 2007 by Consumerist, edging out Halliburton for the dishonor (a website that appeals to a rather wide and large demographic, according to Alexa). Amongst people aged 15-30 in America, the disdain for this lawsuit tactic is near universal. In my Music Industry classes at Northeastern I never once met a person who thought this was a good idea. Even my friends that went on from college to work for the RIAA or its labels agreed that this was a profoundly stupid business decision. This is not just a handful of nerds, angry that Napster shut down and left to spreading hate speech on slashdot; this is an entire generation. Sheffner’s comment makes about as much sense as saying “Coca-cola is considered in some quarters as a satisfying refreshment.”
Sheffner is absolutely right that no one expects the RIAA to get $1.92 million out of this, but what remains to be seen is if that’s because Thomas-Rasset goes bankrupt and liquidates her assets to the RIAA or because her attorneys successfully raise a valid appeal. This case is most certainly not over, and its aftershocks will be felt for some time. At the end of all of this, let’s not forget that a mother of four’s financial life was ruined on Thursday. And what did we, or anyone else, get in exchange?
Update: Meanwhile, Pierce Law students have managed to successfuly settle an RIAA case there (against a woman who had no computer), getting the case dismissed with prejudice.
