Thomas-Rasset Versus RIAA

Why should I be allowed to break the law? Why is the law the law? In what circumstances do we have the right to challenge the law by breaking it rather than setting about getting the law changed by using legal channels?

Creative Commons is great, sharing all information is great AND it is great to be able to get paid for your work. Many "students" in school and life are strong proponents of free and easy access to everything until, one day, they are the owners of "everything."

Jammie Thomas-Rasset is obviously getting used by lawyers and the recording industry for media attention. She seems to be a normal "getting on with life" woman. (A single mother of 4, as iterated by many media outlets which, I say, has absolutely no relevance to the story but gets pointed out over and over again). The issue is "breaking the law."

She took something which did not belong to her and posted it on Kazaa, a file sharing site.

This activity of sharing files without the permission of the owner or without paying for the file is not uncommon in the era of computer technology and new media. The relative newness of the technology seems to instill in "savvy" (usually youthful) users the desire to explore, challenge, test and create ways of using the technology.

This is clearly a case of a lawyer taking advantage of a situation. Yes, the decision asks Rasset to pay almost 2,000,000 dollars but she doesn't have that kind of money. The recording industry have proven their point twice, in this case, and now should give it up and stop the spectacle.

K.A.D. Camara, lawyer for Thomas-Rasset (it is worth reading a little about Camara), has said that he wants to turn this into a trial against the RIAA (Karnowski). Of course he does. Much media attention and therefore status and business for him is what is at stake here. For Thomas-Rasset, loss of privacy and years of nuisance, not to mention having Camara in her life!

Why doesn't she just admit wrong-doing, ask the recording industry to lay off her, and get back to her normal life? They are not going to get 2 million, she is not going to pay what she has not, she was wrong to take music and share it.

Her lawyer added that the decision was wrong saying that the original cost of the itunes which she did not pay was approximately $1.99 per file. What a pathetic argument. So, if the judge ordered her to pay $1.99 per song that she tried to not pay in the first place, this lawyer would be happy? And every other case against illegal file sharers could be satisfied by paying the $1.99 per file after trying to avoid it?

The fact is that if you break the law you must pay. And to be penalized the exact amount you tried to avoid is not fitting. Rasset has gone through enough and the case is public enough to warrant a slap on the wrist. The public have been made aware that there are consequences to sharing creative property that is not yours to share. Mission accomplished.

Sources:
Karnowski, S. (June 14th, 2009). Legal showdown set in music-share case. Associated Press