RSS
Home
How CNN misled you about the $1.9 million RIAA filesharing case
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The big news to come out of the music industry today is that a Federal jury favored the Recording Industry Association of America in a copyright infringement case, and fined a woman $1.9 million dollars for sharing 24 songs. This ruling has led to a big outcry against the already unpopular RIAA, especially after a CNN article covering this got widely distributed on social networking websites. While I definitely have frustrations with the RIAA, CNN wrote a biased and misleading article that unfairly portrays the RIAA in this case.
CNN's article includes only the very basic facts and one citation from Cary Duckworth, a spokesman for the RIAA, stating that the association is "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable" and that "We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do." However, when you read the Associated Press' more objective and detailed article covering this event, Duckworth also said, "Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," which portrays an entirely different message on the RIAA's stance. One wouldn't know this from CNN's article, but the defendant in the case, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was given the opportunity to settle for $3,000 to $5,000, which has been the standard fine that the RIAA has settled for in many of the 30,000 similar lawsuits. CNN makes this sound like a David Vs. Goliath case, with the RIAA forcing Thomas-Rasset to go to court and now pay them nearly $2 million dollars, as a single parent. The truth, however, is that Thomas-Rasset refused to settle, and the RIAA was put into a position where they had to take her to court or drop the case in its entirety, regardless of having very convincing evidence that Thomas-Rasset shared files on a mass scale. This was the first copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, and similar lawsuits would have had the same outcome had the RIAA refused to settle in those cases.
CNN's article also states that Attorney Joe Sibley's client was "shocked at the fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents." They say nothing about the fact that the RIAA accused Thomas-Rasset of making 1,700 songs available on Kazaa. So it's simply not accurate that the RIAA went after her because she illegally downloaded $24 worth of songs, as much as CNN might want you to believe that. What got her into deep water with the RIAA is the fact that they believe she shared a lot of files with a lot of people, which may have led to millions of dollars in damages. The only reason why only 24 out of 1,700 infringements were included in the trial was for "simplicity's sake."
There is no question that Thomas-Rasset was used as an example by the RIAA, but not to the extent that this CNN story makes it out to be. The RIAA would have preferred to settle, like they have in every other similar case, but she gave them little option when she refused to go this route. Now that the RIAA has proven that they can win in a courtroom, their spokesman Cary Duckworth has made it clear that they are only going to request the original amount that they were asking for in settlement (even though they are now entitled to $1.9 million).
After comparing CNN's article with the Associated Press', CNN appears to have propagated this story to receive more pageviews. The RIAA is an easy target, and this sensational article was easy traffic, but I'm much more disgusted by CNN than the RIAA right now. It's sad to see CNN continue to lose its credibility.
Related Articles:
Comments
