Will I Have to Pay $222,000?
Experts analyze how the first file-sharing court case affects you.
Oct. 5, 2007 — -- A collective shiver went up the spines of a generation of digital music users when a woman was ordered Thursday to pay more than $200,000 for sharing music files on a peer-to-peer network, but legal experts disagree about how the verdict could affect the average consumer.
The lawsuit, filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, the record-label lobbying organization, accused Jammie Thomas of Minnesota, of sharing more than 1,700 songs on the peer-to-peer file-sharing network Kazaa. The suit contended that Thomas had violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by distributing songs for free that belonged to the record labels. In effect, the organization alleged, she had infringed upon the labels' copyright.
The case, the first lawsuit of more than 26,000 the lobbying group has filed against file sharers to make it to trial, was meant to send a message, David Chidekel, a principal at law firm Fish & Richardson, experts in digital copyright law, told ABCNEWS.com. That message to file sharers, he said, is to change your ways.
"If you get a notice from the RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America], the labels, whoever, telling you to cease and desist, you want to settle very quickly for not a lot of money. That was the point of the lawsuit," Chidekel said. "It's a balancing test. The industry doesn't want to punish consumers, but [it] needs to enforce [its] rights. 'If we catch you, stop, say you're sorry, pay us.'"
Most of the group's suits have ended in out-of-court settlements for typically no more than a few thousand dollars. Thomas chose not to settle and the labels came at her with "barrels loaded," Chidekel said.
For those who are already participating in file-sharing networks, Chidekel advised them to stop. Parents should get their kids to stop downloading songs, too. But even then, once files have been shared, even if hard drives are erased or replaced, both of which were alleged to have occurred in the Minnesota case, the sharer could still be found liable for their actions.