Obama administration says songs worth $80,000 each

August 18, 2009 by Valerie Helmbreck

Posted in: Communication, cybercrime, e-commerce, file-sharing, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Web 2.0, Web sites

How much would you say an MP3 is worth? If you asked the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, they’d tell you $80,000 sounds about right.

Yes, $80,000 per song. That’s what a Minnesota woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was ordered in June to pay for sharing 24 music tracks on the P2P music sharing site, Kazaa. Total tab for swapping MP3′s online: $1.92 million.

Thomas-Rasset’s lawyers had argued to have the payment reduced, saying it was “excessive, shocking and monstrous.” But they’ll get no help from the president’s top lawyers, who told a federal judge Friday last week that the jury verdict to award the sum was “constitutionally sound.”

Thomas-Rasset, 32, was the nation’s only file-sharing defendant to go before a jury out of the 30,000-plus cases brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in the past five years. Most defendants settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.

But not Thomas-Rasset, who told ARS Technica that the recording industry would never collect the money. “Good luck trying to get it from me … it’s like squeezing blood from a turnip.”

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: Department of Justice, file-sharing, fine, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, mp3, obama, P2P

George

The headline and first papragraph are quit a bit misleading. Obama’s adminstration did not say that the songs are worth $80,000 each, the jury did. The administration only said that the verdict was made properly.
Angie Ybarra

$1.92 million is obsured! Artist already make millions of dollars with concert ticket sales and other promotions. We don’t need to start getting petty about music sharing.
http://financetechnews.com Dale

It’s true that the top recording artists make big dollars from concerts. However, keep in mind that the authors/composers of the material, which often is not the performer, gets paid royalties on how many times the song is purchased or played on radio or TV. These royalties don’t even amount to a single cent per play. A song that’s “gone gold” earns the author composer maybe $50,000 for a year. As someone who has written songs I can honestly say I’ve never given up my day job! I agree that the million dollar award is absurd, especially since many others opted to not go to court and paid a couple of thousand. But consider yourself a song writer for a minute. How would you feel if everyone downloaded your hit effort depriving you of the royalties you thought you’d get when you gave the artist permission to record it?
http://optonline.net Patty

Angie, I am going to steal a few cents a day from you. But, you know, you earn a really good salary, so it won’t really matter, right? What are you thinking?
Angie Ybarra

Give me a break…then why don’t we pay for downloading pictures or screensavers. We should pay for EVERYTHING we download then. Should we start paying to send emails? Dale did give some great points; however, it just goes to show as technology is growing, songwriters are going to be obsolete. Performers are going to have to start writing their own songs or songwriters are going to have to learn how to sing. When selling a song, songwriters should take music sharing into considering when negotiating the cost. Songwriters, take a word of advice…don’t quit your day job. Sorry, I’m still not convinced.
Greg

I have to agree with Angie. Times are changing. It my be in the best interest of writers and producers to be paid a flat fee for their songs instead of the royalties. You might give up a big pay day with a few great hits, but you also have the security. No reason you couldn’t stipulate that if the song goes top 100 or top 40 you get another lump sum fee.
Richard

I am strongly opposed to the RIAA tactics and I think our senators and representatives forgot who they work for when they passed the Millennium Digital Copyright Act (MDCA) almost exactly as the RIAA wanted it. The RIAA should need to prove “actual damages” rather that go around scaring people.

With that said – I am not impressed with the ethics behind an argument that stealing somebody’s copyrighted material is OK because the technology make it possible. Would you folks say that it is OK for me to hack your bank account because the technology makes it possible?

Angie – many people make pictures and screen savers available for reasons other than direct payment. If that was their intent you are welcome to download free. On the other hand, if they did not intent to give it away, you are stealing it. Your argument is like saying TV shows are free so movies should be too.

Greg – I do not know where you think the money to pay a writer a flat fee would come from or what a top 40 would mean if everybody is welcome to take the end product free and make copies for others.
http://financetechnews.com Dale

Sometimes mathematics makes some sense. I just got a royalty check for a piece of work I did. On the remit stub were comments that 9,877 CD’s were purchased that had my song on it. The check was for $66.66. To those of you who bought a CD with my work on it, Thanks and Thumbs Up. You’re 4 Stars to me!

For those who downloaded it for free, sorry, no stars thumbs down. Nearly 10,000 people listed to my song, I got $66.00. See what I mean. By the way, Angie, I do also sing, just didn’t sing this one.

Below are a few free resources you may find useful.