Because no matter how you get it, ‘legally’ or not, the RIAA will get you.
The jury in the Jammie Thomas trial found her guilty and rendered a humongous $222,000 judgment against her. This after the ridiculous statements made for the plaintiffs by Sony’s Legal Attack Dog yesterday. And despite the fact that, as Ars Technica points out, the defendant ”spent thousands of dollars on their product.” Meaning that she legally purchased hundreds of CD’s from RIAA artists; so many that they narrowed the songs at issue in the case down to 24. Twenty-four! The award comes to over $9,000 per song. The RIAA was seeking $150,000 per song.
What does this mean? Well, for one thing it means that you don’t own the music you buy. You think I’m reaching? Not so. I’m simply rephrasing one of the many preposterous statements Sony Legal Hack Jennifer Pariser made during the trial:
“When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Making ‘a copy’ of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy’,”
And now there’s legal precedent for it.
If you ever wondered whether our legal system works, here’s your sign.
I’ve had enough bad news, I’m going to bed.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 4, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Julie
Buy/don’t buy Radiohead.
Make their latest effort of distribution the norm.
October 5, 2007 at 5:39 am
jvjannotti
You’re right Julie. That’s kind of the model that makes more sense. It reminds me of Keith Green who did the exact same thing with at least one of his records in the seventies. To the great consternation of his Christian label.
October 5, 2007 at 5:51 am
Jim
I just saw news yesterday that says the RIAA is actually losing money on these suits because the vast majority of their settlements come out to much less than what they spend on them. Personally, I don’t know how long they can continue this course of action before it bankrupts them.
Weird thing is, I thought there was a law that says you’re allowed to make one copy of your music for yourself – as a backup in case the original gets damaged. Guess the RIAA threw that law away…
October 5, 2007 at 7:26 am
beth
Jim, I think originally a single copy for backup purposes was considered “fair use”, so it was covered under that (though not explicitly defined). I’m so tired of RIAA. It’s almost to the point that I’m ready to just stop buying music period. I’ll listen to the radio only. Or cough up a subscription to satellite radio and be done. They’ll still get their pittance royalties from broadcasts but they won’t get the insane prices they charge for me to buy a CD that now they’re saying I can’t rip to my iPod – even though the CD and ripped version on my iPod will never actually be played at the same time, so I don’t see a need to have paid for it twice. (I can almost see the argument that if they were both going to be played at the same time in different locations then they should be purchased twice…Almost.)
I’m with Julie though. Go support Radiohead. (Plus their music is cool.)
October 5, 2007 at 9:02 am
Jeff
Jim,
Spookyrach at Skewed View tagged me with a “Four Things Meme” ….. now I’m tagging-off to you.
Jeff
Four Jobs I’ve Held
Four Films I Could Watch Over and Over
Four TV Shows I Watch
Four Places I’ve Lived
Four Favorite Foods
Four Websites I Visit Daily
Four Favorite Colors
Four Places I Would Love to be Right Now
Four Names You Love, But Could/Would Not Use for Your Children:
October 5, 2007 at 5:55 pm
jvjannotti
Jeff,
Whew.
I thought you were going to ask for four things I love about the RIAA.