Since 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America has been filing lawsuits against individuals who use P2P programs to share copyrighted material over the Internet. These individuals are being sued for copyright infringement, because the RIAA believes they are stealing and distributing material for which they do not own a copyright. Most of these lawsuits are settled for a few thousand dollars, and they are seldom taken to court. Today, an abundance of media is available for free on the internet, and copyright owners are losing the ability to control the flow of their work. A distinction between sharing and theft must be made in order to shape the future of the digital world. By filing these exorbitantly expensive lawsuits, however, the RIAA is using the court's power to intimidate and exploit its potential customers. In addition, the lawsuits have not achieved the goal of reducing the use of P2P programs. The RIAA's file sharing lawsuits are unfair and ineffective, and there are much better solutions to the illegal file sharing problem. (New Paragraph). The RIAA is abusing the legal system with these unfair lawsuits. Because of a clause in copyright law, the RIAA can claim statutory damages from $750-$30,000 for each copyrighted song file an individual has in his or her "shared music" folder. The value of a single song on iTunes is only 99 cents. Because the financial risk is so high, almost no one is able to challenge the RIAA's infringement accusations, and make them prove their cases to the court. People should have the right to due process of law and a trial by jury, so it can be determined whether or not the courts believe making copyrighted files available online is actually infringement. (New Paragraph). Since these lawsuits have started in 2003, the number of people using file sharing networks has more than doubled. The RIAA is not achieving its goal of stopping the use of P2P programs with these lawsuits against random people, and the lawsuits should cease. It is time the RIAA began to move in a different direction. (New Paragraph). There are other ways the RIAA could reduce the incentive to share files online, especially among college students. If the recording companies joined together and licensed their music on a large scale to certain programs, and universities provided these programs for students, the need to download files illegally would be reduced. Some universities are trying to implement this strategy, but in order for it to be successful, the music programs must run on a mac as well as a PC, and the licensed songs must be downloadable to an iPod. Also, programs like iTunes could lower song prices incrementally as a user purchases more and more songs. (New Paragraph). The RIAA's side of the argument must be considered and respected, because many people are choosing to download songs illegally instead of paying for the material. Hard-working artists are being denied fair compensation, and their rights should not be neglected. Action must be taken to solve this problem, but it must be fair and it must have the potential to be successful. The RIAA's lawsuits will not fix anything. People must stand up to these powerful record companies, and work together to pave the way for a digital future composed of both freedom and fair compensation.

This is the Copyright Law of the United States of America. I am referring to sections 501-504. In these sections of the law, copyright infringement is defined. The parts of the definition that are applicable to file sharing are that only the owner of the copyright can “reproduce the copyrighted work in copies,” and that only the owner of the copyright can distribute copies.
The interpretation of this law depends on whether or not file sharing should be viewed as legal or illegal. If the definition of a copy includes an mp3 file, then file sharers are most likely guilty of copyright infringement. However, the user of the P2P program isn’t actually distributing any copies. The program allows other users to access someone’s files, and download copies of them. Isn’t the downloader the one making the illegal copy? If I left a cassette tape in a room, and someone else came in, made a copy of it and ran away, would I be breaking the law?
Section 504 outlines the amounts of money that infringers should be sued for. It says the infringer should have to pay for “the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer.” In this case, the infringer makes no profit, and the actual damages are difficult to determine. The court would need to know how many people downloaded copies of one person’s copyrighted file. It is very possible that this number could be very low. Based on this logic, the lawsuits wouldn’t be very expensive. However, there is a statutory damages clause in the law that allows copyright owners to recover between $750 and $30,000 from the infringer per song, no matter the circumstances. And if the infringement is committed willfully, the maximum amount goes up to $150,000. (These high dollar amounts are a result of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999. Previously, the range was $500 - $20,000.)
The statutory damages part of the law is one of the main reasons I believe the RIAA lawsuits are unfair. The court should have to determine the actual damages of the infringement, and no arbitrary dollar amount should exist. This part of the law makes it easier for the RIAA to exploit individuals without proof of damages. If a song costs about 99 cents, it is unlikely that one person’s sharing of the file would cause $750 in damages. The government needs to get rid of these statutory damages, or drastically lower the dollar amounts. I find it hard to believe that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement was passed in 1999, given how arbitrary and high the values are. It must have been pushed for by lobbyists.

This is the defendant’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims in the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Joel Tenenbaum.  Joel Tenenbaum was sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement, and Charles Nesson, his attorney, filed a countersuit against the RIAA for abusing the court system.  The RIAA wanted to dismiss the counterclaims, and this is Nesson’s defense. 
    Nesson believes that the RIAA is trying to “…punish him (Tenenbaum) beyond any rational measure of the damage he allegedly caused.”  He believes that the RIAA is trying to FRIGHTEN the public, and its not actually seeking legitimate damages.  This intimidation is an abuse of the law.  Tenenbaum only shared 7 copyrighted songs illegally.  Nesson is challenging the constitutionality of the process, saying that due process of law is being neglected because of the “grossly excessive” statutory damages (a minimum of $750 per song with a potential maximum of $150,000).  He believes that Joel’s case should be tried in a criminal court, giving him a trial by jury.  He worries that the courts are giving “excessive prosecutorial power to private hands,” and compares the situation to hundred thousand dollar speeding tickets being given by self -interested police officers.  He reminds the court that Joel acted with no malice and made no profit, and wonders, “Is the law just the grind of a statutory machine to be carried out by judge and jury as cogs in the machine, or do judge and jury claim the right and duty and power of constitution and conscience to do justice?” 
    Basically, the RIAA is just trying to scare people away from file sharing networks, and their lawsuits are unfair because no one can challenge them without facing extremely high costs.  The RIAA and the courts are exploiting the public, and they must be challenged.  Laws made by lobbyist influence are allowing the RIAA to act as a bully, and all of these defendants deserve due process of law (a constitutional right by the 14th amendment).  These are criminal matters, and they should not be tried in civil courts.  I believe that the court needs to sit back and examine the whole situation, and hopefully realize that an abuse of power is taking place.  My paper will use these points to define the RIAA lawsuits as completely unfair.  Hopefully someday the courts will prevent the RIAA from filing blatantly unfair lawsuits that are extremely difficult to fight, and with Nesson at the forefront of the battle, that day could come soon.