October 9, 2007 4:00 AM PDT
For RIAA, a black eye comes with the job
- Related Stories
-
RIAA verdict playback
October 8, 2007 -
TorrentSpy lawyer battling 'copyright extremism'
July 31, 2007 -
RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl
September 9, 2003
The single mother of two who makes $36,000 a year was ordered by a jury last week to pay the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) $220,000. She was not accused of stealing music, but the jury found that she made 24 songs available online--allegedly for others to download. On Monday, Thomas announced that she has decided to file an appeal.
The image of a rich and gargantuan corporate entity steamrolling a woman with limited resources is etched into the minds of many onlookers, say public relations experts. So why, then, if the RIAA is taking a PR beating, is the group continuing to pursue Thomas? Why not target people who tug a little less on the public's heartstrings?
"It's usually inadvisable to turn someone into a martyr," said Jonathan Bernstein, president of Bernstein Crisis Management, a Los Angeles-based public relations firm. "I would think they could have pursued someone that drew a little less empathy. What they risk is creating a long-lasting image. On the Internet, it's simple to create martyrdom (all over the world) and this is particularly damaging thing to do. It can be very harmful to a company's reputation."
Jammie Thomas
But according to industry insiders and the RIAA itself, the group has little choice but to continue to file civil complaints against file sharers--bad PR or not.
"Yes, this is a form of tough love but it is a necessary one to protect the rights of artists," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "Look at the extensiveness of the coverage on Friday. Every single newspaper and TV station carried the story that a jury of Thomas' peers found her guilty of copyright violations. This sends a very clear message that if you steal music online there can be real consequences. There is a lot of deterrent value to that message becoming public."
Thomas, 30, denies file sharing. She said that she doesn't use Kazaa, the peer-to-peer service she is accused of using to make more than 1,700 songs available. In a phone interview on Monday, she said that her IP address could have been hijacked by a music pirate.
The case is quickly becoming a rallying point for the file-sharing community. Already, a site has cropped up called Freejammie.com, started by a supporter who has never met Thomas. More than $2,500 has been raised by the site. Others have sent donations to Thomas' lawyer.
'No longer my fight'
In a phone interview with CNET News.com, Thomas said that she never meant to become a standard bearer for the file-sharing community.
"But at this point, I really don't think I have much of a choice," Thomas said. "As soon as this case went public, it was no longer my fight. It became everyone's fight. Just because it's my name on the case, doesn't mean I'm alone. There are so many other people who have taken up the case with me."
It's hard not to be struck by just how ham-handed the RIAA's legal maneuverings have been. While old RIAA foes such as file-sharing companies Napster and Grokster may not have gained a lot of sympathy in the heartland, people like Thomas do. Even college kids running file-sharing networks on the sly in dorm rooms can look sympathetic compared with giant corporations with a reputation for overcharging customers and not sharing profits with the artists.
The RIAA's antipiracy efforts have sometimes been vilified and other times ridiculed. Even members of Congress poked fun at the RIAA's attempts to take legal action in 2003 against Brianna LaHara, a then 12-year-old honors student from New York.
"Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?" Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked an RIAA executive during a senate hearing.
The image of a sweet-faced LaHara appeared in scores of media outlets with many publications asking how the RIAA, with its seemingly bottomless war chest and army of attorneys, could really be threatened by the likes of LaHara. The RIAA moved fast to settle the case with LaHara's mother agreeing to pay the RIAA $2,000.
See more CNET content tagged:
RIAA,
public relations,
file-sharing,
jury,
fight
The industry association is not charged with protecting artists. It's goal is to protect the industry and it's members.
For decades the industry has run roughshod over the artists and now it wants to play the "we're protecting" card?
No...no...no.
Folks what we have here is a denial of sorts. Bands like RadioHead and Nine Inch Nails have dumped labels and are going on their own. Many other artists have made inroads into popularity without using labels.
Acts here in Texas have been raking in cash by going it on their own and using only distributors for their wares.
There are two things to consider here
1) The Internet has been very good about removing middlemen and that is just what the RIAA's members are, middlemen. They do not create a product; they create an image of a product which they then try to sell to the market. It's up to the public whether or not to buy into that manufactured reality. Take poor ol' Britney as an example. She doesn't have talent but she has looks and the studios have computers that can enhance her voice. So voila...some palatable tunes were produced but not due to artist talent.
2) The other thing to consider is that the RIAA's members are dinasaurs. The RIAA and MPAA are trying to save mastadons from extinction. In the 1970's and early 80's these organizations' members had party-like atmosphere's. If you had an in, you could get a cushy job there doing little. But that began to change in the mid-80's and as home-recording grew, the industry was stuck with an archaic methodology of bringing artists/pushing artists onto their pedestals.
Twenty years ago, if you had a cd, tape, or vinyl album, you were often encouraged to make copies of these. There supposedly was some fee added to the cost of every cassette which covered the consumer. We made mixtapes and shared with our friends. Many times, the original tapes wore out, got stolen, misplaced, or tossed out a car's window.
The consumer would then dutifully march to the store to buy a second copy. Me, I have paid for four copies of Styx's "The Grand Illusion" and three copies of Rush, "2112."
This was additional revenue tacked to sales of new music products. The industry came to expect it. But fast forward 20 years years and now individuals are smarter than that. We now make cd-quality copies of our media and keep the copy in the car, a digital (mp3/mp4) copy in our media player, and keep the original nestled with its brothers in the cd rack at home. It's safe there and if the copy gets damaged, I can always burn another.
This is where fair-use comes into play. This is what we need lawmakers to address. This is the crux of the consumer's position and it drives the industry crazy because every time I burn a copy of a piece of media for my own use, I am depriving the industry of another sale that it used to count on.
This is where the industry has lost money. They should stop counting the cd sales lost because of alleged acts of piracy. I would venture that 95% of those downloading those songs by those artists, would never, in fact, open their wallets to pay for those songs. They were available, so the downloader took them and they would not be willing to pony up 15.99 to 16.99 to pay for the cd, especially ones with built in copy protection/drm.
And that opens another can of worms and I'm out of time to write about it.
"We know someone was using a computer and IP address to distribute songs. We know information like the time they used it but we don't know anything about that person." I realize the burden of proof is much lower in civil court but doesn't the above statements pretty much prove there was never a case against this woman? I wonder what was said in court.
1.) Jinx.com sells Anti RIAA T-Shirts. Everyone who owns an iPod
should also wear Anti RIAA clothing. Wouldn't it be great to see
kids on MTV sporting this swag? Post if you know of other
companies that sell Anti RIAA merchandise.
2.) If you code, participate in a DRM-cracking community.
3.) If you don't code, contact your local newspaper and write an
editorial.
4.) Everyone, tell your local music store managers that you are
not buying RIAA Member music and why.
IS THERE GOING TO BE A PROTEST RALLY DURING THE APPEAL
PROCESS?
IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL IDEAS PLEASE POST!
So I can sue anyone for anything and get away with it with no proof of wrong doing?
In cases before this it was proving that RIAA has paid people to hack into people computer. It is so easy to fake an IP address who to say the hire hackers didn't do it?
I think the dude in the article hit the nail on the head...this will end when an artist has the balls to sue RIAA for not protecting their rights.
Right now, the RIAA is in a crumbling building. Record executive themselves are saying that the old model is outmoded, that it is time to embrace the digital age. One estimate is that 95 percent of music downloaded is illegal. Well, that would mean that the RIAA would have to sue 95 percent of the people who listen to digital music then. Good luck. NOT.
Yet you can go down to the average "Buy More" and get a stack of 100 DVD-R's or CD-R's and burn til your hearts content at home. Not to mention the device used to do the copying/burning is usually designed and manufactured by the same company.
What else are these blank DVD/C-R's supposed to be used for if not to burn tracks and movies that people have copied???
It is like these big corporations are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are saying "Don't do this... but here, have all the technology and devices at your disposal that are only used for that specific purpose."
Like saying, "don't smoke marijuana" while handing you a joint.
Indeed, what else can you do but assume the worst of your customers, treating them like pirates before they've even shown themselves as such, and then proceed to sue them for more money than they ever would have individually given or taken from you, combined.
Want to prevent the artists from tanning your hides? How about taking action to update your business models so that customers who are willing to engage in a legitimate, good-faith exchange of goods aren't increasingly put off by the shackles you attempt to put on fair use.
The best way to protect copyright is to ensure that the **products** you produce from it are attractive to a wide range of customers. Copyright doesn't entitle you to anything if you aren't making it into a product that people would actually buy.
They way they make their money is by selling seats to their shows. Anything that can be done to sell those tickets is worth it to them, record sales is small in comparison. Record sales is simply a way to advertise for concerts.
In the say of file sharing, one of the best things that can be done is to let people sample their music for free. This lets people be introduced to their product with much easier than if they are required to spend $15-18 to purchase it.
Besides, didn't CNet report on a study done a couple years back that found that people who fileshare spend more money on average to purchase music than those that don't?
I want the RIAA to win though. Why? Not because I'm against file-sharing. Not because I think the RIAA is "right" to pummel a single mom with legal fees she can't pay, but because: I'm sick of everyone on the Internet looking to a sob-story and taking the side of the "little guy" for the sole reason that they happen to be on the low-income side of society.
If it was a rich guy would could afford these fees, would anyone have cared *just as much* about who will win this case? Because it's a single mom on low-income, everyone jumps to her side, which I guess is expected, but nonetheless, it clouds the view of the overall case. It becomes about the "bad guys" (the RIAA) picking on the little guy, but it's really about the RIAA getting after *just another P2P user*. But people can't see it that way for some reason. Sympathy always comes first.
I'm against the RIAA just as much as the next guy, but focus on the facts people, don't just support her because she has two kids and makes less than $40,000 a year. Support her for the right reasons, if you can find any.
As for the site that was set up for donations, I'm not donating because I have my own bills to pay. She got into this mess one way or another, so she can get herself out. The world doesn't owe her anything, and her *cutesy little speech* about how "this isn't about me anymore, I'm not alone" has worked wonders on all of you people and brought you about to donate to her.
Can someone donate some money to me? I don't happen to have enough at the moment because I spent it all, but I really want a new cellphone. Don't you feel bad for me? Please donate to me.
strong arming the public.
Sharing of cassettes has been going on for years and so have CD's
too! And now iPods are another way for folks to enjoy music.
The RIAA is just a bunch of sour grape types, who want to rake in
as much profit as possible for themselves and not necessarily for
the creators of the music.
This strategy also has a history...it is unequivocably proven to not work at all.
It just somehow feels good to certain people...to attack and harm, it gives them a good feeling.
But its so ridiculous. Suing a group of people to 'send a message'...hasn't worked much in the history of time, not when the people you are sending a message to, truly aren't avid court watchers. That generally only works with certain legal sensitive audiences.
No, what does work is seeding so many bad songs, that paying 99 cents to go to a store to get the song seems quite appealing. What works is putting responsibility on ISPs to curb downloading...i.e. don't let these people do it in the first place.
Making it so appealing to kids, and then tryign to punish their parents after the fact, is the most assinine idea ever, and saying they have no choice, is beyond absurd.
They have many choices.
If the ISP can report who did the crime, the ISP could have just blocked the crime in the first place.
If you can report on it, you can block it.
They won't admit that, they don't believe it, they don't want it to be true. Becauase part of their value proposition is for your low monthly bill, you get the world of the internet, for free.
But this is exactly what computers do best...if you can report on it, you can stop it.
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD
That's how computers work. Any download that you can discover via ISP records, could have just been blocked at the ISP level. If they can record the action...they can stop the download from taking place.
Why should an ISP be the police force? BECAUSE PEOPLE RUN SOCIETY. We don't want the 'tempt and punish' game, to be run any longer.
Just stop making the downloads easy.
- SAVE Jammie Thomas
-
by dannie francis
October 9, 2007 8:05 AM PDT
- We're ALL sick of the BS. SAVE Jammie Thomas
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 181 Comments >>