Since the dawn of the Internet and peer-to-peer file sharing, there have been endless arguments regarding the way to resolve illegal music sharing. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the pioneer of the fight against music sharing. They have taken it upon themselves to deliver justice and return the music industry to its glory days of album purchases and profits. However, their tactics have come under much scrutiny, as there have been two cases of outrageous judgments, and thousands of cases pulling in a few grand each. Is it okay for the RIAA to ask for so much from the average Joe? Many people disagree because the justice is only being served to a very small percentage of the illegal music sharing community. Ahead are summaries regarding those two outrageous and thousands of small cases so you can make your own opinion.
In July of 2009, an individual named Joel Tenenbaum reached the end of his trial, which was a result of the college student illegally sharing music online. While he admittedly downloaded and shared up to 800 songs, the RIAA sued Tenenbaum for only 30 songs. An individual who is unaware of the illegal use could be charged up to $30,000 per track, while a willful individual could pay up to $150,000 per track. Tenenbaum was ordered to pay a judgment of $675,000, which translates to $22,500 per track. I understand that illegally acquiring and sharing music takes money away from the artists, but this was clearly a case of the RIAA making an example out of a single infringer. I believe the judgment was ridiculous and should be decreased.
Before Tenenbaum, a woman named Jammie Thomas-Rasset was sued by the RIAA, for illegally sharing music online. The reason I decided to share this case second was because of its severity. In 2007, Jammie was being accused of illegally sharing 1,700 songs. Her initial trial resulted in a $222,000 judgment. Due to misinformation provided by the judge, a retrial ensued in 2009, which resulted in a judgment of $1.92 million. The judge found the amount to be too high and ordered a judgment of $54,000. Still not satisfied, Jammie asked for another trial in 2010, which resulted in a judgment of $1.5 million. I believe that justice was partially served. An individual that downloads and shares 1,700 songs is obviously not paying for ANY music. Jammie got what she deserved for not contributing anything to the music industry. I believe the judgment is still too large, but she does deserve to pay more than Tenenbaum due to the amount of songs she illegally shared.
These two cases were the only cases that reached such astronomical numbers. The RIAA sued more than 30,000 individuals, with the typical judgment being between $3,000 and $5,000. Nobody knows how many of the 30,000 lawsuits have resulted in settlements, but there is more attention on how much money the RIAA is losing from its battle. Without solid numerical evidence, the estimate of court costs and fees for the RIAA has been pegged around $60 million, while the return has been estimated around $2 million. Why is the RIAA suing all of these individuals if it is making no return? I speculate this is due to the RIAA believing their lawsuits will result in the lowering of illegal downloading. I cannot say for certain if the RIAA is pursing the correct solution, but it sure looks like a lost cause to me.
To get more details on the cases, check out these resources:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/tenenbaum-appeal/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html
