NEW YORK/LONDON (Reuters) - The recording industry has won a major fight in its effort to stop illegal music downloading with a U.S. jury decision to impose $222,000 damages against a Minnesota woman who used a Web service to share music.
ADVERTISEMENT
Although industry commentators are divided over what impact the case will have on stemming illegal downloads globally, the size of the damages is significant -- nearly 80 times higher than the average European settlement figure in such a case.
The jury in the civil case in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota on Thursday found Jammie Thomas infringed copyrighted song recordings, and awarded damages of $9,250 for each of the 24 recordings cited.
The verdict marked the first jury trial in the U.S. industry's drive to combat piracy with lawsuits against an individual.
According to court documents, the record companies sued Thomas in April 2006 after 1,702 music files involving artists such as Green Day, Aerosmith and Guns 'N' Roses were traced to a computer tied to her. A year earlier, investigators had located an individual with the screen name "tereastarr@KaZaA" using the Kazaa file-sharing software program.
"This individual was downloading copyrighted sound recordings from other users of the Kazaa network, and was distributing copyrighted sound recordings stored on her computer to other Kazaa users," the plaintiffs said.
Thomas, in documents, denied the allegations of the complaint "that relate to any allegations that she ever used any (peer-to-peer) network, including Kazaa."
The record companies involved included EMI Group's Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records and UMG Recordings.
PIRACY BATTLE
According to data from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which represents the recording industry, there have been 50,000 cases in 18 countries against illegal filesharers with settlements averaging just over 2,000 euros ($2,822).
The biggest settlement in Europe was 13,000 euros for a case in Denmark. The vast majority of cases never get to court because they are settled before then.
The Thomas case underscores the battle record groups face amid falling CD sales and surging online music growth to stem the level of global piracy via filesharing networks.
Peer-to-peer file sharing is estimated to cost the industry billions of dollars each year in revenues it could have made from CD sales or paid-for downloads.
Figures from ScreenDigest show that physical music revenues in the United States have fallen from around 15.3 billion euros in 2001 to 4.1 billion euros last year. This covers music DVDs, vinyl and minidiscs, but the majority comes from CDs.
Anti-piracy groups have managed to cut the level of illegal downloads in Germany following a particularly concentrated campaign of enforcement. They also applauded a Belgian court's decision earlier this year that Internet service providers did have a legal responsibility to tackle piracy.
However, analysts say the fight is not helped by the surge in illegal filesharing and downloads occurring away from networks by the use of direct emails, instant messaging, Web forums and networks that can hide activity via encrypted data.
"Legal action against an individual is all about setting examples and that is why there is such a ridiculously high rate (of damages) set in this case," said Mark Mulligan, a research director at Jupiter Research.
He added: "Enforcement is very difficult and going to get more difficult."
"We have always made it clear we are reluctant litigators," said IFPI Chairman and Chief Executive John Kennedy.
"We do everything possible to persuade people not to leave themselves exposed to litigation. We educate, we warn, we even try and settle before a case gets to court. We derive no great satisfaction from this but hope it will prove a deterrent to others."
Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the British Phonographic Industry said: "This important court ruling serves as a strong reminder to illegal firesharers that digital shoplifting is against the law, is not anonymous and can lead to serious legal consequences."
Lars Ulrich was happy with the decision, stating that he could now make a down payment on the Shroud of Turin, which he plans to use as a beach towel.
I wonder if the music industry realizes that if they did four simple things, it would increase their bottom line exponentially:
1) Make CDs cost a reasonable price, maybe $1-2 more than a legal download. And cut out the multiple exclusive versions.
2) Fully embrace legal downloads. Don't bitch about the price. You don't have to worry about production, so it's almost pure profit.
3) Make catalog stuff easier to find. They've lately taken on a strategy of taking lots of stuff out of print, and not offering it online. Just because a song is from 1994 doesn't mean no one wants it. This means shipping stuff other than the latest Fall Out Boy CD to major retailers.
4) Stop harassing your customers! $222,000 for 24 fucking songs is ridiculous. It just creates bad publicity and ill will. Keep in mind that she paid for the discs, and every single one of those people who downloaded them would be willing to buy them for a reasonable price, and meet that demand.
I have this crazy feeling the entire music industry is going to collapse under its archaic, nazi tactics before things get any better.
*--For behavior unbecoming anyone, perpetrated in real time over an extended--AH, FUCK IT! MORE MALIBU, BITCHES!!
anarky wrote:I have this crazy feeling the entire music industry is going to collapse under its archaic, nazi tactics before things get any better.
Rock 'n Roll will never die!
Looking at the cost of DVDs, CDs shouldn't cost more than $10. Back in my younger days, I was buying a new CD every week or so. I've probably only bought 2 or 3 CDs in the past couple years. They seem expensive and I just don't listen to them much anymore.
Don't care how many extras they put on them. Although, Alice in Chains just rereleased their Unplugged CD that comes with a DVD of the performance and 3 extra songs that wern't released before.
I still buy CDs, but normally get them the first week, when they're on sale for less than it costs to download them. There's less good stuff coming out as the megacorporations cut back on the product.
They're totally insane. Like there's this dude named Pete Yorn (just one example among many). Frigging awesome songwriter, does rock in the vein of Springsteen or Mellencamp. He even actually covered a Bruce song and fucking topped the Boss! But he gets little real exposure. Sure, I hear his songs in shitty teenybopper shows, but never on the radio. The megacorporations would rather hype some shit with a short shelf life and higher short-term profits. They don't know that no one cares about Britney anymore! Yeah, I can read articles that she's tearing up the radio play charts. But that doesn't count, since the same corporations own the fucking radio stations!
They're being very, very short-sighted, both in terms of the music they release and promote, and in dealing with the internet. MP3's aren't going anywhere, unless they're replaced by a better format.
Music won't die, but I think the corporate structure will because they're not bright enough to think ahead a decade or so. Sad thing is, it's so massive, it could take years to do it.
*--For behavior unbecoming anyone, perpetrated in real time over an extended--AH, FUCK IT! MORE MALIBU, BITCHES!!
I've hear of Peter Yorn, but don't know his music.
I bought Robert Plant's last solo album, Weird Al's newest album, and that's it. I was thinking about picking up David Gilmore's solo album and maybe that new greatest hits of Bob Dylan cd. The only other music I've considered buying lately have been some old Rush or Floyd albums and maybe some Blues (like Ledbelly or someone like that).
David Gilmour's 2006 album is the best of the three he's put out. If you like Pink Floyd (or at least the softer, more mellow stuff), you will like it.
He has:
1978 - David Gilmour
1984 - About Face
2006 - On An Island (the best of the bunch - the other two are alright but you're not missing much without them)
I'm confused. Did the woman who earned the $222,222 rap on the knuckle make a profit from uploading the music? What if she lent a CD to a friend? Or played it really loud in a park where others would hear it without "paying" for it? Do the same rules apply?
NO HANDLEBARS HAN SHOT. FIRST! PERIOD. NO HANDLEBARS MORE COWBELL! NO HANDLEBARS GO FUCK YOURSELF™
Diabolical wrote:If the music industry would stop putting out shitty cds then people wouldn't download the one or two decent-good songs.
That's the thing of it. With the exception of the Disturbed CD's I can't stomach listening to entire CD's because most of the songs lick more ass than Sniggers.
Exactly. There have been a small handful of cds in the past few years that I'll listen to start to finish.
Even bands that I love have released really shitty albums.
And fucking amazing albums *cough*VelvetRevolver'sLibertad*cough* have gone practically ignored.
"As they say in China, 'Arrivederci'!"
*For the creation of the Golden Deuce Award.
