While Ask Elizabeth will return  next week, in the meantime let’s turn again to the case of the RIAA against, well, the rest of us.

If you check out Ed Bott’s post over at ZDNet this wee  and you’ll end up asking yourself…what exactly is the RIAA fighting for?

This generation, that has grown up with ‘Mixed Tapes’ and  changing media seems to have a much better grasp on what is reasonable and right in licensing laws that the RIAA.

While the recording companies would like to control every instance of the music they publish, customers seem to know better that this isn’t the best way to promote music; nor is it feasible in an era where a song can be shared across an algebra classroom while the teacher’s back is turned.

A quote from Ed’s post;

“Personally I feel it’s fine to share media among friends and family because it’s a form of discovery and promotion. I’ve had quite a few mix CDs made for me which is obviously “illegal” yet I’ve discovered some great bands that way, bands that I’ve in turn bought their next albums, gone to their concerts or in turn promoted them to other friends. I’ve also discovered that some much hyped bands were horrible and I would have wasted $10 on a CD I’d never listen to, which is what I’m sure the RIAA is counting on as well. “

If you’re like me, you have a music directory on your computer  made of songs from mixed provenance.

This music directory has grown since I first began digitizing my music collection in 1997 onto a laptop I used for work. I traveled weekly back then, and a headset plugged into my laptop with my tunes playing was more streamlined than also carrying both a portable CD player around. And that music was the only way I stayed sane during those long spreadsheet and document rewrites, usually made while stranded at some airport.

Many from CD’s I’ve bought and uploaded to my computer. Some from mixed CD’s given to me by friends trying to ‘turn me on’ to a new artist or album. Some, I’m sure, were downloaded  in that twinkle time in the late 90’s when peer sharing was considered legal by those of us doing it.  Some I’m pretty sure just popped in from an alternate universe.

The truth is that I have 20 gig of music files, which have been scrubbed at least a dozen times.

Do I file share them? No. Do I buy every song I own these days? Absolutely. I’m an ethical person.

But that said, I also make mixed CD’s for my husband and friends, add favorites to homemade DVD’s of my son’s karate meets, and even enjoy other songs on  YouTube vids.

Should the law of reasonableness prevail at some point here?

The harder RIAA pushes to make me seem like a thief, the more angry I become. And the less I want to put mroe money in their pocket. I know this is punishing the artists, too, but I am not sure what else can be done.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Share This

Although the laws did not address the concept of file sharing when it became technologically possible, record companies quickly took note of the millions of song files that began to be digitally shared.

The (Recording Industry Association of America) RIAA , a group that represents record companies (not the artists) was made their voice in the fight to control the tsunami. And US Courtrooms became the battleground.

It was a war to be fought with deep pockets and a single vision - to aggressively attack downloaders until the world was scared away from the practice.

It was only a matter of time until the fight created martyrs. And it appears that it has happened with the very first of these cases to go to trial.

Jammie Thomas, a Minnesotan and single mother, was found guilty of making music available to download on the peer-sharing site KaZaA. The RIAA lawyers made the case that it doesn’t matter if anyone actually downloaded the music - she violated their exclusive right by offering it for downloading on her computer.

This argument won the day with a jury. They found Ms. Thomas liable for 24 songs and ordered her be fined $220,000.

The legal grounds of this case set a precedent that has many infuriated and willing to join the fight.

The civil concept of ‘intent’ is a legal gray area that rings a lot of civil liberties bells. When the jury found that the RIAA did NOT have to prove any actual theft, just that Ms. Thomas, by sharing songs, had intent to do so, it became the verdict hear ’round the world.

However, even more have rallied simply because of who the defendant is.

Ms. Thomas is a young, rural mom making about $36,000 a year and trying to get by. Just hiring lawyers to fight the RIAA would have bankrupted her, much less the $220,000 judgement. (A website, Free Jammie, has been set up to assist her with legal costs and fines.)

This has continued the tren RIAA seems to have of picking targets that outrage and further their image as corporate Darth Vaders.

In 2003, they filed suit against a 12 year-old girl for sharing music.

“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 afterwards.

Share This