The RIAA: One bully that deserves to suffer

If you're not familiar with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), it's the trade group of the record labels, which really means that it's the bully that's out to beat up everyone who illegally shares or downloads music. That means, by the way, just about everyone under 30. The fine minds of the RIAA seem to have decided that they can stop the flow of music through lawsuits. Shrewd.

Before I go further, let me state my position on this topic: I don't think you should illegally download music. I don't do it. I don't encourage it. I am so committed to paying musicians that I own over 4,000 CDs. If a friend wants to listen to one of my CDs, I loan it to him or her, or I buy him or her a copy. Of course, I'm over 30.

I also want to be clear: musicians, like all artists, deserve to get paid for their work. So do their publishers.

All that said, some people are going to illegally download music. That's an unstoppable truth. They'll do that with books, too--but only some. Most people will not. I live with that risk with my own work, because you can buy my SF novels DRM-free from Baen. In fact, please do so; I trust you.

Well, the RIAA has finally gone what I hope will be too far with this case, in which they sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset, an early thirties single mother of four, and won a settlement of $1.92 million. For sharing 24 songs.

Let me run those numbers by you again:

Share 24 songs.
Get a $1.92 million fine.

That's $80 grand a song.

Now, according to the AP story I linked to earlier, the RIAA had accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa but then "for simplicity's sake" decided to target only 24.

Gee, if they'd bothered to pursue her for that number of songs and gotten the same settlement, the tab would have been only $1,129 a song. What a bargain.

The RIAA is trying to put a nice face on this trial by pointing out that it had offered to settle all along. Here's a quote from that same AP story:

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

Let's do some math on this figure, shall we?

Using the lower settlement figure, and assuming 24 songs, that's $125 a song.

Using the lower settlement figure, and assuming the full 1,700 songs they accused Thomas-Rasset of sharing, that's $1.77 a song--still more than Apple and the labels would have made had Thomas-Rasset bought them all on iTunes.

Lest you think I don't understand the concept of damages, which is key to the RIAA's claims, I do, and I know that's the RIAA's defense for this whole lawsuit. The way that reasoning goes, they were hurt by the alleged online posting and subsequent downloading of the songs potentially many times, as others downloaded and reposted the music.

The RIAA clearly doesn't get two things:

1) They can't stop some people from illegally sharing music.
2) Actions like this one alienate more people, including me, than they help.

I've never had any use for bullies. The RIAA is just being a bully. I hope the EFF is right that this decision may be unconstitutional, and in the interim I hope this foolish settlement does not destroy this woman's financial life.

Most of all, I hope the RIAA wises up. I share their goal of artists getting paid, but employing these bullying tactics is simply not a wise way to pursue that goal.