Illegal Music Downloads

I read the story on Yahoo where a 32 year old divorced mother of 4 from Minnesota lost her case in federal court where she was accused of illegally downloading music. The verdict against her was $80,000 per song; she is alleged to have downloaded 24 songs, for a total verdict of $1.9 million.
This is simply ludicrous.
Notwithstanding the facts of the case, allegations, defenses, etc., a jury or her peers ruled for the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) While I can understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit against her, I can’t understand the theory of it all. If I purchase a music CD and want to share it, it’s mine. It belongs to me. I paid for it. And if I want to share it, no force on earth should prevent it. It shouldn’t be considered copyright infringement.
This is nothing new. Before CD’s, there were vinyl records, and anyone with a cassette recorder could record it. VHS was the same story. There was never the publicity, the lawsuits, nor the hype as there is today. Technology created this issue and as technology expands, it will create more and similar issues as this.
All it means is there will be more lawsuits in an already overly-litigious society.
The RIAA likes to blame loss in revenue on piracy and illegal downloads and companies like iTunes where one can purchase one song at a time without purchasing the entire CD. Firstly, if the music industry didn’t saturate the market with the amount of crap and one-hit wonders, kid stars who have virtually no talent and went back to producing music as was produced in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and part of the 90’s, they wouldn’t be dealing with an issue like this on the level it’s risen to.
People need to want to buy a CD because there are more than 1 or 2 decent songs. Nobody wants to spend $12 to $15 and more on a CD with only one decent song, they’ll buy the one or two songs at other venues and spend only 2 dollars, or go to Starbucks and buy a drink and get a card for a free download. They saved $10 or $12 and enjoyed a drink instead of spending more for something with which they would not be completely satisfied. It certainly makes sense to me.
There is also the issue of the severity of the verdict. The verdict certainly does not fit the crime, if it is a crime at all. It’s an unjust and ridiculous amount of damages. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically spells-out criteria for excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. To impose a verdict of this magnitude on a working, divorced woman with 4 children, in a working-class American town is without question cruel and unusual.
While theft is a crime, she didn’t break-in to someone’s home and steal them. If someone else shares their music, it’s their decision to do so, it’s not stolen but given, they way one person shares one song, another person shares another, and so on, and so on. Nobody is stealing anything from anyone. It had to be purchased before it can be shared.
If I share a recipe from a cookbook with someone, is that theft also? You gotta buy the book to get the recipe? They should be proud their recipe is that good to want to share, as artists and composers should also be proud their music is also good enough to share. If one person shares something another person hasn’t heard, and that other person likes it, isn’t there a probability they just might go out and buy the entire CD? Something they would not have done had it not been shared in the first place.
Let’s also not forget the fact that the artists whose songs she allegedly stole won’t see a penny of any of that money. Most of it will go straight to the lawyers. It’s a complete travesty.
Instead of embracing the advances in technology and digital music, the RIAA wants to flex their muscle, since most of corporate America has to blame somebody for their own failings and mishandling of businesses. Instead of litigating, the RIAA needs to look for ways to make downloads profitable. If they can’t find a way, then leave it alone and be happy with the fact people are still listening to the horrendous stuff they produce. It’s a matter of evolving with the times.
While there are a handful of real musicians out there who do put-out excellent music, and are prolific to actually write something original, the majority of today’s music is not worth listening to. The RIAA endorses, in many of their productions, sex, violence, crime and complete disrespect towards women. More than ever, CD’s come with parental warnings. And all this is legal? Yes. It’s freedom of speech.
Isn’t sharing a song also a form of freedom of speech in the respect that it reflects a person’s position on the message of the song? How can a position on something be stated when nobody knows what the issue or question is? If I don’t share my religion and explain the message of my religion, nobody will know what it’s about. It’s my expression of my belief.
If I explain my belief of the message of a song and nobody has heard it, how can they know what the message is and take a position on it?
While freedom of religion is not related to downloading of music, the basic premise of freedom of speech is. Maybe it’s a stretch, but all open to interpretation.
There’s also the issue of damages the artists, or the RIAA had to incur because of her downloading. What damages are there? Can they actually prove damages? And how could one possibly think the jurors, or one of their kids never downloaded music? It’s all injustice and not worthy of litigating. Leave it alone and change with the times and leave her alone.