What’s a pirated song really worth?
January 28, 2010 by Valerie HelmbreckPosted in: Databases, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, User behavior, cybercrime, e-commerce, file-sharing
When a judge recently reduced the $1.92 million in damages from a jury verdict against a Minnesota woman accused of illegally sharing 24 songs, music pirates everywhere breathed a small sigh of relief.
Boston University grad student Joel Tenenbaum, who’s facing a similar fate in court, hopes that because the judge in the Minnesota case cut the award to $54,000, the fine in Tenenbaum’s case will be reduced as well.
Dream on.
The music industry’s still got deep pockets for the fight. And it’s got a lot more to lose by not battling illegal music sharing than it does rolling over and letting music fans distribute their products for free over file sharing networks.
In the case of the Minnesota woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the judgment was based on her sharing of 24 copyrighted songs. The jury decided that $80,000 per song sounded about right for Thomas-Rasset’s transgressions.
The judge in the case thought that was a bit over the top and cut the cost to $2,250 each — still a lot more than the 99 cents she’d have paid at the iTunes Store for each song, but less astronomical and seemingly more reasonable.
In Tenenbaum’s case, the fine levied per song was 10 times Thomas-Rasset’s eventual penalty. He got hit with a price tag of $22,500 per song for the 30 tunes on which is case was based. (The plaintiffs, the Recording Industry Association of America, claimed he’d downloaded more than 800, but it chose only 30 for the case.)
Now Tenenbaum is hoping the damages reduction in the Minnesota case will help reduce his as well.
That remains to be seen.
In any case, both defendants in these cases expect to be bankrupted by the judgments.
While the RIAA has sued thousands of illegal music downloaders in recent years, only these two cases have made it to trial. Most of those sued have opted to settle out of court, paid a few thousand bucks and promised to behave in the future.
These two instances, however, have kept the spotlight on the issue of sharing copyrighted material. And the fines are prompting debate about whether the law against the practice should and can be applied to individuals who are sharing music among other individuals.
Some legal experts believe that the enormous penalties allowed by existing statutes should apply only when the sharing is a commercial venture — when the person or organization doing the downloading turns around and sells the material for profit.
But when a user shares a pirated song via file sharing networks with thousands, perhaps millions of other users, the damages to the copyright holder are both real and significant.
Until there are clear cut rules and guidelines that recognize both the technological advances involved in file sharing and the rights of artists to be compensated for their work, there’s sure to be uncertainty and mayhem in the courts.
And for both Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum, financial hardship.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: file-sharing, fine, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, Joel Tenenbaum, jury verdict, music
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:52 am
Absolutely ridiculous to think that if the song were not available for download, that someone would have otherwise paid to listen. Songs aren’t worth that much, they come and go. I’ve personally bought many worthy cd’s over the years, maybe close to 1,000, but these were cd’s that I could not hear on the radio, or that were not in “style” anymore but I still enjoyed listening to.
To say these artist “lost” money, is like these big companies saying they lost money when they didn’t sell as much of something as they thought they were going to. To “lose” something, you must have first had it, they didn’t have the money and therefore didn’t “lose” anything. The people deemed it not worthy of paying for. What happened to markets deciding what something is worth.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 am
Why don’t the music companies apply protection to their music so that it can’t be copied / easily shared. I think that this is because they are greedy and also don’t want to apply something that would cost them money and popularity. They would rather force ISP’s to do their bidding in the UK.
I think that those companies that don’t apply adequate protection in the first place, should have cases dismissed immediately when it relates to copyright theft.
Also, why do artists need recording companies anymore. They are a thing of the past…we should all get together to circumvent them. I would love to see Simon Cowell having to do some real work…how much did he earn last year! I feel so sorry for him.
Also, artists only get a small amount of the profit…if they got rid of the record companies, they could cut the price in half and still make double what they normally would.
Down with record companies who blame technology…P2P does not automatically mean illegal file sharing. What they are doing in the UK (filtering packets regardless) is like carpet bombing an entire company because it contains 1 terrorist. Effective but it assumes everyone is guilty and the innocent get affected as well as the criminals.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Food for thought:
If you live in China and pirate music, you’re immune from prosecution because China doesn’t recognize anyone’s intellectual property rights, and if the Chinese government so deems, they can simply nationalize Intellectual Assets.
The recent hack attack by the Chinese government against Google clearly illustrates this.
So maybe the solution is a reverse-hack, compromising a Chinese system to use as an open proxy in order to download music.
Come to think of it…. what exactly are the RIAA / MPAA doing to prevent Chinese hackers from downloading copyrighted content? Shouldn’t someone be sending China a bill for all of this illegal activity?
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
“Shouldn’t someone be sending China a bill for all of this illegal activity?”
As you said, it isn’t illegal. You can’t just send someone a bill for what you think they ought to pay you. Furthermore, the publishers published with full knowledge that they wouldn’t get paid for Chinese copies, so they haven’t been cheated.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
”
As you said, it isn’t illegal. You can’t just send someone a bill for what you think they ought to pay you. Furthermore, the publishers published with full knowledge that they wouldn’t get paid for Chinese copies, so they haven’t been cheated.
”
You have a group of people who recognize and comply with international laws regarding intellectual property, and you have a large, developing country whose residents do not recognize or comply with international laws regarding intellectual property.
My point was: the RIAA / MPAA are predatory organizations because they go after Grandma, yet totally ignore this other situation because they know Grandma is an easy target.
If you took me literally, missing the point entirely, then you’re an idiot
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Well, I was wrong. It _is_ illegal for a Chinese person to copy a US song or movie without permission. There’s just a matter of the Chinese government not doing anything to stop it.
”
My point was: the RIAA / MPAA are predatory organizations because they go after Grandma, yet totally ignore this other situation because they know Grandma is an easy target.
”
That was a pretty well concealed point. But I wonder what you think predatory means, because it doesn’t mean where a business focuses its collection efforts on people from whom it can collect most easily.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Wow, Bryan, you’re defending predatory organizations!
Stand proud, patriot!
Whatever your definition of ‘predatory’, using massively unbalanced resources to bury Grandma because her grandkid made a mistake is wrong.
YOU are wrong to defend it, or even question the wrongness.
We’re talking about a situation where the penalty is way out of proportion to the crime. Agreed, that it’s illegal. The RIAA, having gotten their point across, should have settled for $2,000-and-don’t-you-ever-do-it-again. Wiping out Grandma over a few MP3 files is unethical.
You need to get your ethics checked.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
I’m not defending anybody. I’m questioning your description of something as “predatory.” I’m getting the idea that your definition of predatory is “evil,” such that if someone suggests something isn’t predatory, he’s defending it.
Your most recent post changes the characterization of these lawsuits to come closer to the usual definition of predatory by referring to wiping out Grandma, assuming you mean the point of the lawsuit is to wipe her out. Before, you were just talking about taking her money, because it’s easier to get hold of than someone else’s.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Bryan,
You’re an idiot
JParr’s point was obvious, taking the context of the original article in to account.
You can play little word games, but at the end of the day, you need an ethics check, as JParr suggests. People knowingly or unknowingly commit evil by playing little word games, just as you’re attempting to do here.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:23 am
You can’t have it both ways. Either I’m an idiot or I have defective ethics. Either I failed to see JParr’s obvious point, or I refuted it because I don’t subscribe to it. A person cannot “unknowingly” commit evil.
I’m sure you can just call this post word play too, because with a suitable definition of “idiot, ” “ethics,” and “evil” you might be saying something that’s right. But I’m pretty sure you’re just wrong.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Congratulations on your prolific work here. I must admit I have popped in a read a good number of your blogs but I have no idea how to post a response over there, so I’ll tell you now how good you are at describing the stuff your at – I must admit I find it insightful to read your blogging. Keep up the good work.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Bryan,
I am inclined to agree with the other posters here regarding your ethics. Although you “may” not be an idiot (vote is still out), you do appear to be leaning toward the defense of those who would take everything someone has just to make a point. RIAA is fully aware that they are very likely ruining someones life (and their families). They don’t give it a second thought. It is thoughtless, robotic and, in my opinion, cruel to attack at the level they do.
I cannot argue that downloading the songs is illegal (hopefully, something will change on that front) but they (RIAA) take it too far.
I’m curious… do you work for RIAA or the MPAA?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
To Kansas City
Who are you talking about having a worthwhile blog? How would someone find it?
Five different names have posted to this discussion.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:39 am
SOOO what happens if I record the song from a syrus radio broadcast and post it? I am technically paying for the service as I am the internet? Is the media part of the paid service??? Copyright aside what if I sing it in my garage some one hears me and records it and puts it on the internet or Utube??? TOO many variables!!!!!
February 10th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
The real issue here is that the schmucks in Washington DC who are supposed to represent the people were so willing to pass the Millennium Digital Copyright Act after the music and movie industry wrote it.
The MDCA gave organizations like RIAA absurd leverage for abusing the public. Your senator and representative probably voted for it.
The RIAA asked (bribed) congress for the tools to bully us all and got them. Why would anybody be surprised when they use them?
February 10th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
T.C.
I completely relate to this. The DMCA was drafted in favor of publishers, legislated by people who were insufficiently educated on the issues, pushed through by lobbyists, and interpreted by liberal judges.
As ridiculous as this sounds, in some of the examples you describe, someone could be arrested and charged with wiretapping or unauthorized use of a computer, due to broad-stroke laws that don’t address the root issues, and liberal interpretation of those laws.
Statistics are like a-holes: everyone has one. That said, there have been studies that show that a relaxed approach to Intellectual Property (IP) management leads to increased revenues, because people are somewhat encouraged to share, which boosts awareness in a shorter period of time.
In the meanwhile….. DON’T YOU DARE whistle any Metallica songs….. because….. Metallica is out there listening.
(or, move to China)
February 10th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
JParr says:
“the publishers published with full knowledge that they wouldn’t get paid for Chinese copies, so they haven’t been cheated.”
Truly weak thinking Mr Parr. Every merchant know that there will be shoplifters but opens the store each morning anyway. I guess the shoplifter is not stealing because the merchant knew it would happen.
Also – got any evidence that it is “liberal judges” who keep the MDCA abusive? I thought not.
It is much more likely (in my opinion) to be the conservative who considers the “rights” of a corporation more important than the rights of a person.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Oops – Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA (I had the first two words reversed)
I also looked again and saw that it was not JParr who first said “the publishers published with full knowledge that they wouldn’t get paid for Chinese copies, so they haven’t been cheated.”
One more clarification – The DMCA actually had strong support on both sides of the aisle. When it is money that knows exactly what it wants vs. citizens who will never read the DMCA anyway, both conservatives and liberals were ready to vote with the RIAA and MPAA.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Richard: I blame the judges for being liberal. I blame the politicians for being politicians.
Re: DMCA, yep
Re: “the publishers published with full knowledge that they wouldn’t get paid for Chinese copies, so they haven’t been cheated.” the moron that wrote that was that Bryan Henderson guy.