Copyright control gone awry

In October 2007, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis in Duluth, Minn. passed on a $222,000 fine to Jammie Thomas for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa. Last month, however, the judgment was overturned and a call for appeal was initiated. Why did it take the judge an entire year to decide that the judgment was out of hand? Because copyright control, especially when it comes to music, has gone totally out of control.

According to Billboard, Jammie Thomas had made 1,702 songs available for free download, but the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) pursued only 24 of those songs. It’s no secret that file sharing without permission is illegal and punishable. Most of us saw Napster go down in its blaze of glory.

Thomas was completely wrong to have made those songs available to download, but it’s not like she was selling them or making a monetary profit off of them. In that case, how can we say that she needs to fork over a steep $222,000 to an industry that makes billions of dollars a year?

Copyright in the United States was never intended for monetary gain. According to the Constitutional Provision Respecting Copyright, copyright is used to “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8).

Copyright is meant to promote new discoveries and fresh ideas to help the United States progress in the world of arts and science, by disallowing people to freely copy any type of protected work. The concept does not mention the protection of monetary gain.

In the tabloids, we often see our rock stars arrested for drunken recklessness, drug possession and who knows what else. But these same people are the ones complaining that their songs are being freely downloaded off of the Internet. Axl Rose was arrested in Stockholm in 2006 for drunken recklessness, and, interestingly enough, Guns ‘N’ Roses was one of the groups that Thomas had uploaded onto Kazaa.

So in protection of their product, they file suit with the people who did nothing more than make music accessible to the masses, in order for said rock star to have even more money to waste on drugs and alcohol. It is their right to drink away their money, but how dare they bring up a moral question, when they are the ones setting the poor example to the masses.

I know that the RIAA is trying to protect the musicians from having their music pirated all over the Internet, but doesn’t a $222,000 punishment seem a little excessive?

It’s true that Thomas had the opportunity to make a deal and get a lesser fine, but she denied she had done anything wrong and wound up with a bigger slap across the face. Despite her poor decisions, Thomas did not deserve such a severe punishment. In making the songs available for download, she did not force people to download them.

So what happened to the people who downloaded the songs? I believe they didn’t get such a hefty fine.

As students, music has become increasingly expensive. Fortunately for us, the introduction of iTunes has made finding exactly what song we want without purchasing an entire CD much easier, even though it’s still not free. Music is most certainly what helps me get through the day, makes it easier to work out and helps me study.

Yet, I know how expensive it can be to purchase a CD if I wanted one. New albums are usually around $18. Imagine if we had to pay sales tax. With the industry making such a high profit off of their CDs that took a few cents to create, it’s no wonder we turn to a free downloads to get the very same music. If these bands that fuss over their copyrighted music are calling claim with the Copyright Act, shouldn’t they be claiming that it’s infringing on their art and not on their money?

Despite her series of bad decisions, I’m glad that Thomas was granted a new trial. The jury had intended to make her an example of the potential punishment for piracy, but they instead looked like villains, bent on ruining a young woman’s life. The punishment did not fit the apparent crime.

The question still on everyone’s mind, however, is how will the RIAA strike at people next? With the way they’re going, copyright may manipulate music to the point where only wealthy musicians can afford to buy music. Let’s hope not.