Sometimes I get asked why copyright is such a big deal. This past week, a court case was won by the RIAA and the defendant in the case had only downloaded 24 songs.
The fine? 1.92 million dollars.
She hasn’t got it, but I can’t be so sure they won’t go after colleges and universities, not to mention private or public K-12 schools. The amount awarded seems nearly insane, but it’s within the letter of the law and if it doesn’t scare you, well, think of the reasons to acquire your media legally.
The quantity of what we can obtain today online is staggering. Between blogs, wikis, and sites like YouTube, just about anything goes. Funny nonsense, short talks by talented smart people (TED Talks), and breaking, fresh news.
It would be interesting for us to rate what we actually use or value based on the item’s quality.
Finding an abundance of quality content online is in jeopardy with pirating. But I think it needs to be done fairly. A standard business model, this isn’t.
Take for instance the idea that I could sell 500,000 CD recordings. “Put your stuff online, and you could sell maybe 2 million.” So can I expect to sell 4 times the content online and consequently make 4 times the money? I’m saying you shouldn’t be thinking like that.
I’ve been buying a lot of online music. I wish it was better quality (in a lossless format). But the price difference for me is in a sweet spot. It’s still fair to the musicians (let’s say at $10 an album) but it’s cheaper for me. Distribution costs still exist, but they’ve got to be cheaper.
The article I cited says she may just end up paying a settlement in a few thousand dollars instead of over $1 million. I only wonder if she got to keep those 24 tracks?