Lawsuits Don't Create New Markets
from the kicking-and-screaming dept
The RIAA has apparently been getting a lot of negative publicity for its six-figure judgment against a single mother for file-sharing. RIAA president Cary Sherman has a taken to the Web to defend his organization's actions. Personally, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Jammie Thomas given the strong evidence against her, but I did think Sherman made a couple of misleading arguments. First, Sherman claims that the lawsuits have "created a legal marketplace" for music. But the primary way you create a "legal marketplace" for your products is to offer better products. The market is growing because services like Apple's iTunes make it convenient for consumers to get the music they want in a convenient and flexible format. But the major labels can hardly take credit for that, since they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing on to the iTunes store. Sherman says he'd rather be "helping artists make great music that we can distribute in lots of exciting new ways that music fans want." But for the most part, their approach has been the opposite: doing their best to sue new music technologies out of existence and sharply limiting the ways consumers can listen to the music they want. Secondly, Sherman repeatedly equates copyright infringement with theft, going so far as to say that the jury found Thomas "liable for copyright theft." But of course there's no such thing as "copyright theft." As the Supreme Court and others have pointed out, copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes, and it's misleading to treat them as if they were identical.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, cary sherman, lawsuits, markets, recording industry
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The arrogance
Also he said a jury of her peers, which is always the thing that bugged me about this case. How can people who don't own computers don't have the Internet be qualified to decide a case like this? This whole lawsuit was silly and I seriously hope more competent courtrooms start slapping down the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The arrogance
The whole "copyright theft" is bogus and everybody knows it.
That's the problem, everybody doesn't know that and little (little to the unknowing masses mind you) things like that are exactly how the RIAA tries to snow people over with false data and lies. In that case with the single mother you can bet your last dollar that the plaintiff side tried to stack the jury with people that knew next to nothing about copyrights and computers. That way it was much easier to convience the jury of their viewpoint.
The tactic of choice of the RIAA is to prey on the ignorance of people. They love going to judges and politicians because they can "educate" them on technology issues they don't know about. Look at how quickly they try to drop their case and run whenever they come across a defendant that is knowledgeble and rich enough to fight back.
And this is one reason I have no pity for the RIAA. Copyright infringment is wrong and they could have defended theirs in a perfectly sensible and not legally questionable manner (not to mention they could have taken the lead in digital distribution by embracing it). But no they resorted to lying, false data, outrageous lawsuits, bribing(okay so they call it lobbying but really...), and who knows what else in order protect their copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Murder and Manslaughter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If downloading is theft, then use the same punishm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If downloading is theft, then use the same pun
Which is total bs. They should have to prove, without reason of doubt, that you actually did. They don't have to which is why the laws need to be evaluated and fixed, not more tacked on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If downloading is theft, then use the same
Better example:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then the Supremes go on to say that copyright violation fits with theft, but awkwardly.
Who is kidding who here? Do you deny that the court ruled it fit with theft but awkwardly? Who is being honest here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who has any doubts can ask a competent lawyer, not RandomThoughts, to explain it to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RandomThoughts is a Shill
Justice Blackburn in Dowling v. United States wrote:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
I think most people can see pretty well that he said copyright infringement isn't theft, no matter how you try to spin it. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts.
Everyone, look at RT's first post on this subject above. That's kind of exactly what he was doing. Funny, huh? I gotta tell you RT, your shilling doesn't do much good for the public image of your industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes they do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Congress has the unquestioned authority to penalize directly the distribution of goods that infringe copyright, whether or not those goods affect interstate commerce. Given that power, it is
Page 473 U.S. 207, 221
implausible to suppose that Congress intended to combat the problem of copyright infringement by the circuitous route hypothesized by the Government. See United States v. Smith, 686 F.2d 234, 246 (CA5 1982). Of course, the enactment of criminal penalties for copyright infringement would not prevent Congress from choosing as well to criminalize the interstate shipment of infringing goods. But in dealing with the distribution of such goods, Congress has never thought it necessary to distinguish between intrastate and interstate activity. Nor does any good reason to do so occur to us. In sum, the premise of 2314 - the need to fill with federal action an enforcement chasm created by limited state jurisdiction - simply does not apply to the conduct the Government seeks to reach here"
Hate to tell you this dude, but I am not in the movie, music, software or any other related industry. Do I really care about this topic? Not really, I don't listen to music a whole lot, don't own an iPod or any other MP3 Player. I do find it funny how folks like you like to justify your actions though.
Am I guilt free? Hell no. I have a driver in my bag that a friend made for me. It is a Ping driver, except it doesn't have the Ping name on it. It was made in the same factory that Ping has their clubs made. Do I feel bad about using this driver? Nope. Of course, I don't claim that I only have it because Ping is being bad by charging $500 for their version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just hate liars.
Hate to tell you this dude, but I am not in the movie, music, software or any other related industry.
Should I believe a liar?
I do find it funny how folks like you like to justify your actions though. Which actions would those be? Exposing liars? I don't feel that I need to justify that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What, you trolling for a date now RT? Sorry, I'm a little old for you and not your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]