The Big Lead is one of a small number of blogs to earn a place in my RSS reader, but boy, did they ever whiff today with their comments on the Jammie Thomas decision, where the Minnesota woman was found to have illegally shared – not just downloaded – over 1700 songs via file-sharing networks:
this is some bullshit – the woman who downloaded songs lost in court. Isn’t the greed of millionaires astonishing?
Um, no. No, no, and how-did-you-tie-your-own-shoelaces-this-morning-NO. Sorry guys, I love the site, but you’re way off base here.
We’ve seen an appalling decline in the respect that people have for intellectual property. Musicians make money by creating something and selling it, and the fact that it’s no longer sold as a physical good doesn’t make taking it without paying for it legal or ethical. It’s theft, and people who do it should be punished.
But what Jammie Thomas did was worse: She didn’t just download songs – the RIAA hasn’t really gone after those folks – she shared the songs on her hard drive, making them available to anyone else on the same file-sharing network. This really isn’t any different from running a CD piracy operation, except that the number of people who could obtain copies of songs or albums from Thomas was not limited by production or distrubution constraints: Anyone who could find his way on to teh Interwebs could steal music with Thomas’ help.
I had more sympathy for file-sharers seven or eight years ago, when there were no legal digital downloading services, meaning that to purchase a single song you wanted, you had to drop $15 or so on an album that included eleven songs you probably didn’t want. (Why this wasn’t considered an illegal tying arrangement is beyond me, but I’m not an antitrust lawyer, either.) Now, however, if you want to purchase a specific song, it’s probably available on iTunes and it costs a buck. So if you want the song, suck it up and pay the dollar.
So what exactly is “bullshit” about this? She violated federal copyright law, and she stole profits from record companies and royalties from musicians. Given a chance to present her side of the story to a jury – and I can’t see why a jury might be predisposed to favor the record companies – she could not convince them of her innocence. The RIAA pointed out that the file-sharing took place via her IP address, with the MAC address of her cable modem, via a username she’d used before on other services, and from a password-protected computer she owned, and the songs were found on her computer’s hard drive. It is, as the defense argued, possible that someone spoofed her IP address and MAC address, and that same person could have sniffed her username/password for other services and used it on the file-sharing network. But the defense also claimed the songs ended up on her hard drive because she ripped them from CDs, which doesn’t seem to me to tie to the evil-hacker theory. Someone knew the songs were there and set up this elaborate scheme to expose them on Kazaa, framing Thomas in the process? I don’t think so. She’s a thief, and she’s going to have to pay for what she did. At least she can take solace in the fact that she’s not facing criminal charges or jail time, since what the jury found her to have done is a federal crime.
And I really don’t get the “greedy millionaires” bit. If someone produces something of value, and it’s stolen, does he then have less of a complaint? Is it less of a crime? If I pick Mark Cuban’s pocket and walk away with $500, is it okay because he’s a billionaire – and is he “greedy” if he wants it back? I don’t get it. Theft is theft. And as someone who makes his living by producing intellectual property – which, unfortunately, I often find reproduced illegally on various message boards – I find this kind of theft, and any defense of it, particularly appalling.
Keith – I almost entirely agree with you. I, personally, don’t illegally download music, and I don’t approve of the action, and I have little sympathy for friends who have been sent letters from lawyers telling them to delete their files, or show up in court. They knew what they were doing is illegal.
The only time I’ve ever felt like the illicit downloads could be acceptable, were in cases in which people would download a few songs from the album. If they like the music, they buy the album. If they don’t, they delete the songs shortly thereafter, anyway. At this point, with the iTunes library being so large, and smaller artists with their own websites making such frequent use of streaming audio, this particular action holds no purpose.
If someone claims to love music, they should be willing to support it–not just with their enthusiasm, but with their wallets. Most musicians are not “greedy millionaires”, and the people who are hurt most by theft aren’t bands like the Rolling Stone and Metallica, but it’s smaller bands like The Mountain Goats or TV on the Radio.
My friend and I talked about this a few days back, and discussed how quickly it just became acceptable to download it. I think you hit the nail dead on when you said people pirate music because it’s “no longer sold as a physical good” and, when they aren’t touching anything, they assume there’s nothing wrong. Thankfully, iTunes has saved the day; with iTunes present and affordable, I certainly lose my sympathy for plaintiffs like Ms. Thomas.
TC makes my point, then goes back on it:
“and the people who are hurt most by theft aren’t bands like the Rolling Stone and Metallica, but it’s smaller bands like The Mountain Goats or TV on the Radio.”
I think illegal downloading helps the smaller bands, actually. Smaller bands can, in 2007, see a proliferation in their music that they would never be able to obtain in 1977. Good music will spread.
My argument for why illegal downloading shouldn’t be worthy of huge settlements is this: When I was younger, I first heard about new music through my friend ripping mix CDs for me. The songs I liked, I became a fan of and listened to other songs by that artist. I went to their concerts (where artists really make their money) and bought their albums. Before me, my parents did the same with record trading and mix tapes. In a time when we have so much media at our fingertips, we should embrace downloading music as more and more people will get high-speed Internet connections in this country. If record companies want to sue that’s understandable as it’s an illegal act. However, if they think they can slow the trend with some lawsuits they need to think again. Use the money spent on those corporate lawyers to figure out a way to handle the decades of increased technology to come.
Mike:
I can’t say I agree with you. Illegal downloading hurts everyone except the thief who’s getting something of value for nothing.
With the advent of myspace, to pick just one example, smaller bands – even unsigned bands – can make their music available to a wider audience for little upfront cost to the musicians and zero cost to the consumer, who gets to hear entire songs but doesn’t actually own copies of them. Consumers can also easily hear samples of songs on iTunes or amazon.com (now offering 256 bit-rate mp3 tracks for 89-99 cents) and purchase them with a click. And nothing at all stops unsigned bands or record labels from offering the occasional track as a free download – something you don’t see that often, of course, which would seem to undermine the argument that it helps smaller bands.
I don’t think the record labels expect to end illegal file-sharing, but they want to drive it underground to deter the casual fan/listener from doing it. They’re not going to worry too much about people trading files on IRC networks, but they don’t want simple, user-friendly tools out there to help the less technically savvy to download music files.
I don’t think the record labels expect to end illegal file-sharing, but they want to drive it underground to deter the casual fan/listener from doing it. They’re not going to worry too much about people trading files on IRC networks, but they don’t want simple, user-friendly tools out there to help the less technically savvy to download music files.
I don’t disagree with anything in there; Labels will continue with high-profile lawsuits and a few lawsuits at universities to scare people.
However, I just think that, as radical as it seems, there will come a time when record companies aren’t needed to disseminate music. I’m not a Top 40 kind of guy, so I might be a bad example, but a good portion of my rotation is made up of artists I first heard from myspace, purevolume, or a traded file. Subsequently, I’ve purchased shirts, CDs, and bought concert tickets to their shows.
I cede to you on this issue: Isn’t this just an example of creative destruction?
Full disclosure of my music catalog: 50% shared on my college’s Intranet, 20% downloaded (mostly music recommended to me that I didn’t want to buy a full album of; some gets deleted, some stays), 20% purchased through pay sites (I don’t have an iPod, though the Touch is intriguing), 10% ripped from CDs
Record companies aren’t needed to disseminate music now – but they’re needed to fund recording and to promote the music. You may see a change in the model, but the intermediaries who provide the financing aren’t going away, because bootstrapping won’t work. Recording music at an acceptable level of production is expensive.
I’ve found that i’ve just completely avoided album purchases entirely. i preveiw a few songs and download individual tracks that I like through Itunes. I’m certainly not going to pay 15 bucks for the 2 singles plus 50 minutes of filler that bands put out these days. That said, of course this woman was wrong. I kind of hope the CD medium goes away completely.
I would agree with Keith Law here.
Side note… kind of sad that bands no longer put out full albums of quality music anymore.
Keith – I think you’re spot on in the argument, but miss the point on why this decision rubs people the wrong way. It’s not so much that TBL et. al. disagree with the decision, IMO, but that it seems unfair to be singling out individuals in cases such as this. And as ‘the little guy’ that has been picked on by the ‘big guy,’ of course TBL is going to have a natural choking reaction to decisions such as this. I don’t disagree with these decisions, but do wonder why only a few out of the many thousands that still ‘share’ digital files get singled out and pay the price for everyone.
Keith, great piece. I agree with you entirely. I teach at the University level, and have noticed a general increased lack of respect of copyright laws. Many of my students have a very relaxed attitude towards issues of intellectual property. This carries over into print material as well, as you note, and I suspect there’s a direct correlation between the increase in the number of plagiarized papers and number of students who pirate movies or steal songs. This is perhaps because so few students have created anything unique of their own.
Greg – the RIAA has gone after hundreds of the heaviest file-sharers. Thomas happened to be the first one to fight them and have her day in court; all of the others have settled or the suits are pending.
“And as someone who makes his living by producing intellectual property – which, unfortunately, I often find reproduced illegally on various message boards – I find this kind of theft, and any defense of it, particularly appalling.”
Keith, I’m curious if it upsets you when portions of your chats or blogs are reposted on message boards. I know that I routinely quote you when discussing certain topics, though I do give you credit and typically hyperlink back to the original article. Is any quote online stealing?
Steve – Quoting portions is perfectly legal and doesn’t bother me. Copying and pasting an entire article or chat, or the majority of one, is copyright infringement. What I often find is “hey, can someone who has Insider post this article?” and then someone with Insider copies and pastes the whole thing. That’s illegal, and of course it hurts me as well by reducing the number of hits/visits to my articles.
@Steve:
I believe that quoting four lines is considered “fair use”. Maybe I’m mixing up my Communications Law facts, though. Ironically, professors probably violate copyright law the most when they photocopy huge articles without permission.
@Keith:
Record companies are killing musicians with their upfront money. They get talented artists in virtual debt, and it forces them to sell records and influences their style, sometimes for the better but probably for the worse. I’m not some huge anti-corporation guy, Keith, but I have come to believe that these lawsuits and record companies undermine good music and are a hindrance to the future of music. I believe in copyright law, and have taken courses throughout my undergrad years, but I wonder about its future outlook as information will be shared faster and more widely than ever with each passing year.
Actually the RIAA did go after people who were primarily downloaders. The only reason they have stopped pursuing those cases as aggressively, is that that courts have continually smacked them down.
Rob: I’ve done some limited research on the subject, and it appears that all of the suits were after people who used p2p programs that made the contents of their hard drives accessible to other users. If you’ve got a cite for a case where they sued someone who only downloaded files and lost on the merits of the case, please send it along – I’d really like to see it. Thanks.