It is not uncommon for some people to resort to crime in order to support their needs. However, it seems unlikely that nearly thirty-five million people have been labeled as criminals due to a single crime’s increasing popularity over the past decade. This doesn’t mean that there has been a rampant outbreak of robbery or murder. In fact, this particular crime doesn’t even require the criminal to leave their own home. It’s no homicide, yet it is considered a federal crime and can result in jail time and penalties of over a million dollars.  The issue is that of copyright infringement, more commonly known as piracy.

It’s easy to refer to piracy as a “common” term because, quite simply, an astonishing amount of people participate in the illegal act. In order to counter the sharp incline of illegal downloads over the years, a number of efforts have taken place to discourage its use. These attempts have resulted in large publicized trials and ridiculous fines placed on those convicted of piracy. With these dangers, why would so many people participate in the activity? More importantly, do the penalties justify the crime?

According to local research, the most popular motivation for piracy is due to the cost of media. One individual reported that he does not want to pay because he does not want to “give money to a big corporation.” There seems to be an idea that the money paid for media is simply absorbed by big business. The corporations involved are unknown to the consumer. They are perceived as faceless monsters, seemingly taking away money from the artists and spewing lawsuits on its customers. This is not necessarily the case, but is unfortunately a popular perception.

One of the most famous cases of copyright infringement is that of Capitol v. Thomas. While most accused music pirates choose to settle for fines around three thousand dollars, Jammie Thomas chose to fight the RIAA’s accusations of copyright infringement. In 2005, she was accused of downloading and distributing twenty-four songs illegally, valued at less than thirty dollars if purchased legitimately. She was eventually found guilty and charged $1.92 million in statutory damages for the twenty-four songs, equivalent to eighty thousand dollars per song. Although this is not an ordinary situation, it exposes an issue with the way these cases are dealt with.

It is very hard to fathom that twenty-four songs could be worth almost two million dollars when downloaded by an individual. The court realized that the individual downloads were not what caused damage—it argues that the distribution of the songs caused a loss of potential sales which justifies nearly two million dollars. The interesting fact is, “The defense did not provide any evidence that [Jammie Thomas] had shared the files.”

Imagine if someone were to legitimately purchase the same fictional CD, containing all twenty-four of Jammie’s songs. That person could have copied the CD to their computer, given the CD to a friend who later copied the CD, and so on. That person therefore would have committed a crime far worse than Jammie’s, because they distributed the CD. Record companies could argue that that person was responsible for huge losses in sales per song. Jammie was not proven to have distributed the songs, yet she was punished as if she had. This brings up the concept that copyright infringement cases are not meant to recover lost income from the “stolen” material. Rather, they are irrational and overly publicized purely for sake of causing fear in order to reduce occurrences of piracy in the future.

If one person was charged $1.92 million due to piracy of a few songs, imagine if the most popular song in the English language had a copyright on it: how many people would be found guilty of infringing it? This is a true situation, and many people don’t even realize it. Technically, every time you mutter the song “Happy Birthday” in a public place, you are legally bound to pay reparation to the song’s current owner, Time Warner company. The song brings in over two million dollars per year in royalties.

So if “Happy Birthday” is a copyrighted song just as the songs Jammie Thomas downloaded, why aren’t people being wildly sued for its unauthorized use? Technically, Time Warner has just as much right to demand reparation as the RIAA did in Jammie’s case. Tens of thousands of people have been sued for downloading other copyrighted music illegally. Yet, millions of people are not being sued for the unauthorized use of Time Warner’s most popular song. What makes these people different? Legally, their situations are virtually identical.

This is a flaw with today’s judicial system: a crime committed in two identical situations does not necessarily constitute identical punishments. This inconsistency in law must be updated to allow for realistic enforcement. Suing individuals for millions of dollars is not justifiable to the crime, nor does it effectively communicate the intentions of copyright laws. Copyright owners are abusing these laws in order to gouge citizens and create fear.

Clearly, anti-piracy efforts are not concerned with punishing individuals. People are unreasonably sued solely for the purpose of creating an example to be showcased to the public. Fear is the greatest weapon used to stop piracy, which is being spread by means of outrageous lawsuits. Although this method has caused some people to think twice about piracy, it alone will not solve the issue entirely. For many, it’s still too easy to ignore the legal dangers of piracy due to the false sense of anonymity through the internet.

So, who is right in all of this? Should people be allowed to freely download as they please, or should corporations such as the RIAA be allowed to continue suing their own customers? The answer is simple: Neither is right. For obvious reasons, piracy always was and always will be a crime. On the other hand, the outrageous lawsuits against individuals resulting in excessive fines are unconstitutional. Such ridiculous punishments go beyond what was originally intended for copyright laws. Industry is exploiting the laws and draining the life from a number of unfortunate individuals. One of the world’s best examples of twisted law once stated, “an eye for an eye”. Eighty thousand dollars for a song? You’ve got to be kidding me.

University of Cincinnati

Winter 2010