Digital Home Thoughts - News & Reviews for the Digital Home

"American Internet users, get ready for three strikes "six strikes." Major US Internet providers—including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable—have just signed on to a voluntary agreement with the movie and music businesses to crack down on online copyright infringers. But they will protect subscriber privacy and they won't filter or monitor their own networks for infringement. And after the sixth "strike," you won't necessarily be "out.""

The music and movie industry have had a love/hate relationship with the Internet. Well, maybe mostly hate. Since the Internets have come along, you would think that piracy is rampant and that the entertainment industry is in dire straits. In response, there have been lots of attempts to protect their revenue stream, from Digital Rights Management, to lawsuits, to online services. The latest effort to stem the tide sees a new partner, the ISP, act as a middleman. ISPs have acted as a relay before, but not in this great capacity. The measures seem much more reasonable than other attempts, like France's ill-fated "three-strikes" law, but I have worries that there is can be abuse and too open a system for mistakes. That the alerts and violations can be audited by an independant reviewer goes a long way to mitigate that concern, that there is a filing fee seems unfair. At least unless, if the reviewer finds the complaint issuer at fault, they are the ones to pay the fee.

"Last June, a federal jury in Minnesota found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable for willful copyright infringement and ordered her to pay nearly $2 million. Michael Davis, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, chopped the amount to $54,000, or $2,250 per song.

"The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music," wrote Davis."

Two million for sharing a couple dozen songs, without any intent to make any money does seem a bit harsh. I think everyone agrees that artists deserve to be able to profit from their work, but it seems we have reached a point where people can be financially ruined by doing something that is quite common. Especially since just the cost of a trial could be ruinous for most people. With the RIAA suing deceased grandmothers, people without computers, and 12 year olds, maybe it is time to revisit copyright law in the US.

"In one of the most ridiculous verdicts I've seen, the jury decided that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first woman who was charged with copyright infringement and offered to settle but decided to fight the RIAA, is guilty and owes the recording industry 1.92 million dollars, or $80,000 per song."

You all know how I feel about music piracy, but there's something completely ludicrous about the ruling here where the woman now owes 1.92 million dollars to the recording industry. She's not going to pay that amount - the article says the RIAA will settle out of court for much less - but I have to wonder if the numbers had been more reasonable in ther first place, the RIAA would have made their point better. This is essentially about grand-standing, hoping to scare people into not pirating music any longer. Did it work? I don't think so - I haven't seen any information about music piracy rates dropping.