t-shirt issue 47:
Negotiating a War

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is on a copyright rampage. From fighting for a tax on blank cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s, they are now claiming ridiculous amounts of money from small-scale file-shares.

Jammie Thomas, a single mom, was recently sued for sharing 24 songs. The jury found her guilty and sentenced her to pay $80,000 per song – that is, $1.92 million in total. The punishment, if compared with legal downloading, increased the cost with approximately 7 million percent. From a juridical standpoint, this seems a little steep (if not downright medieval).

But Thomas is not the only one being brutalized by the RIAA. Actually, it’s become a kind of industry in itself: With increasing assistance of governments around the world the recording industry is now making millions from suing small-scale individuals with claims like this.

But being however deplorable, there’s always at least two sides to every story. Like any other business the music business wants to protect their interests, which, in principle, is kind of understandable.

In fact, isn’t it kind of strange that so many have such strongly held convictions about file-sharing – being either passionately for or against it? In line with the vast drop in sales, loads of us haven't bought a record in quite a while now. Obviously many think it's a treat to be able to download music for free. But how many of us can really back it up with a conviction that illegal file-sharing is a 100% great in general?

Moby, who seem to have such a conviction, comments the Jammie Thomas-debacle: “I’m so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music."

Moby’s assertion has an agreeable romantic ring to it.

Share this
Jammie Thomas, a single mom, was recently sued for sharing 24 songs. The jury found her guilty and sentenced her to pay $80,000 per song – that is, $1.92 million in total.

But since file-sharing actually means getting products that aren’t paid for, one might ask if the same should apply to things like food, paintings or cars? Could it be argued that those getting also these things for free (illegally), shouldn’t be made to “feel bad” since they merely enjoy food, art or driving cars? No matter how outrageous their opponents become, defenders of illegal file-sharing could sometimes be more nuanced in their understanding of the issue.

But anyway, new routes have appeared. Compromises like Spotify have opened up a middle ground that potentially fuses the interests of the various parts of the conflict. We should therefore hope that the RIAA drops their preposterous war and joins the bandwagon. And: that we all stop the whining and – like the guys at Spotify – try to do something creative instead.

J.N.

Check out previous issues

designed by:
Siggi Eggertsson

We've been a fan of Siggi’s unique visual identity for years. Now we’ve finally got the chance to work with him on a topic that is just up his alley.

Born on the north coast of Iceland and now located in Berlin, Siggi Eggertsson first showed interested in Graphic Design at the age of 14. He got involved in local design programs, created posters for jazz concerts and art exhibitions.

Over the years Siggi’s work has been part of everything from Dazed and Confused, Wallpaper, Wired Magazine and The New York Times, to numerous international music projects.

For this issue of T-post he made a modern-day piracy scull. As the old scull alludes to dark times and death – although you’re pretty much dead of the RIAA decides to sue you! – Siggi has splashed some color on it to shed a little light and optimism for the future.

For more of Siggis work visit www.vanillusaft.com

J.N.

 

Comment on this issue
Comments (5)Add Comment
...
written by Sam I Am, September 22, 2009
For the record, the RIAA isn't claiming ANY amount of money. They have been awarded statutory damages by a stand-alone jury and had nothing to do with establishing the amount. In fact, they have offered to settle with Jammie countless times, the first for a couple thousand dollars. It was she who refused, despite an avalanche of evidence against her and her own tampering with the hardware and her lying on the stand so repeatedly that the jury simply had no respect for her any longer, and threw the book at her. She even tried to blame her own children.
Read about her two trials (so far) if you want to know the facts. Jammie is no "poor" heroine, and the RIAA didn't set the settlement figure. A jury did. And any individual or industry group would try whatever it may take to stop the theft of their goods and products. Simple human nature. Nothing preposterous about it.
...
written by lwnski, August 31, 2009
A welcome return to form I say. The last few issues weren't so great. I liked the "sexy apocalypse", but why print it on a salmon coloured tee? Who wears salmon anyway?
...
written by Richard, August 20, 2009
Can't say I see a *strong* link b/w article and shirt myself. But I couldn't like the shirt any better -- one of my favorite designs in the 20+ of my membership.
...
written by Kim, August 13, 2009
Siggi's design is only tenuously linked to the article. Didn't really answer brief. Expect better art direction from t-post.
...
written by Joel Cornéer, August 12, 2009
nice ice!

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy