File-sharing has long been in the crosshairs of the RIAA, known for slapping lawsuits against individuals who download dozens or hundreds of movies or songs. A recent ruling, though, is angering the RIAA even as the group admits to DigitalJournal.com it plans to scale back its litigation efforts against file-sharers.
“We’re phasing out the lawsuit program,” says Jennifer Pariser, senior vice-president of legal affairs and litigation at the RIAA. “We think it’s run its course. We’ve sent the message we’ve wanted to send.” (Note that the RIAA also stated they would stop its litigation schedule in 2008, but continued to send cease-and-desist letter to Americans).
Pariser makes this statement mere days after a recent court decision that rankled the RIAA. U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled last week a fine levied by the RIAA against Boston University student Joey Tenenbaum be scaled back by a tenth. The original fine was levied at $675,000 for copyright infringement of 30 works, but now Tenenbaum must pay $67,500 because the original amount was “”unconstitutionally excessive.”
The RIAA is fuming. “Peer-to-peer file-sharing has ruined jobs, hurt careers, haven’t compensated artists,” Pariser says. She notes that although RIAA sued Tenenabum for 30 works, their lawyers proved at trial the student had more than 1,000 works in a shared folder intended for distribution. The 30 works in question were shared via LimeWire.
The RIAA admits it plans to appeal the ruling, but no word yet on when that announcement will formally be made, Pariser says. The RIAA is hoping for a “favourable decision” in around nine months from when the appeal is filed (the usual time it takes for a court to decide on an appeal in this type of legal matter).
How does the RIAA find file-sharers such as Tenenbaum? Pariser offered a glimpse into their litigation process: First, the RIAA finds the IP addresses of the more egregious file-sharers, and then get their full names and addresses. Letter are sent to the individual’s home to try to settle the matter and they are then formally sued. Most settle at this point, Pariser says, but a handful “draw out the litigation further” and refuse to cooperate with the RIAA, like Tenenbaum.
But those days of litigation might be a thing of the past, Pariser says, referring to the RIAA’s intention to phase out the lawsuit motions and instead attempt to pressure ISPs to take a more proactive role in piracy prevention. “We want ISPs to send notices to its users who download works, in great volume,” she says. The program has to be fleshed out, and the ISPs and the RIAA continue to work out the details.
DigitalJournal.com also asked Pariser about recent news regarding RIAA’s legal bills. It was recently reported the RIAA spent $17 million in legal costs in 2008, according to an IRS report, and recouped $391,348 in what is called “anti-piracy restitution.” Some reporters are critical of RIAA’s methods, as a result: “It goes along very nicely with what a lot of people have figured all along, the only winners in the anti-piracy campaign are lawyers. Even the labels lose out – as it turns out, by quite a lot.”
But too many view this statistic with a narrow lens, Pariser replies. “It’s comparing apples to oranges, because those litigation expenses aren’t just relating to piracy offenders, but all our legal costs…And the money on that [IRS] line is purely showing money recouped from individual downloaders.”
She also has some harsh words for Canada, often known as a hotbed for rampant file-sharing. “Canada is not strict about these matters,” Pariser says, “but we’re working with organizations there to change the law.”
