The Case for Copyright Reform Read Online Free PDF Page B

risk at the same level as the
risk of getting struck by lightning will not make anybody stop sharing files.
     
    To put the number of convictions in perspective, Swedish news
agency TT reported that about 20% of the Swedish population, or 1.4
million people, are file sharing according to national statistics. About one
third of them, or about half a million Swedes, are estimated to do it at a
level that would render them prison sentences if they were found out. But of
course, the vast majority of them never will be.
     
    “We would need thousands of prosecutors” one of the three special file sharing prosecutors
told the news agency, in full knowledge that this will never happen.
     
    From the big film and record companies’ perspective, using the courts to
provide deterrence simply doesn’t work. Deterrence has no effect unless the
risk of getting caught is larger than microscopic. It isn’t today. The judicial
system does not have the capacity to bring entire generations to court at the
same time. Cases going through the system are burdened with way too much debris
like “evidence”, “due process”, and other red tape to create the volumes that
the film and record companies need to ascertain effective deterrence.
Unfortunately, they have realized this.
     
    Therefore, they wish to make this whole process more efficient. In the
US, their wishes have largely come true. The reason that the Jammie Thomas case
got media attention wasn’t that it was the first, or that the claims made by
the record company were unusually outrageous. Those were exactly the same
claims that the record companies had already made in thousands of similar
cases. The Jammie Thomas case got attention because she was the first defendant
that pleaded not guilty, and stood up to the music and film industry
associations. Instead of folding and paying the offered settlement, she took
this case to court.
     
    Let’s recap the numbers: The record company sued Thomas for $3.6
million, but offered a settlement out of court for $2,000. It is not difficult
to understand why most people simply pay up, even if they are innocent. The
mere threat of a costly court case and the risk of losing millions outweigh the
relatively minor cost of a settlement. It’s often smarter to just pay the
blackmailer and move on.
     
    Yes, blackmail. Organized blackmail. That is what this is all about. US
record companies has sued 80-year old grandmothers, people with no computers
and, in a few cases, long-dead people. By forcing ISPs to giving up customer
records, these mass-mailed threats have evolved to a large industry in itself.
There’s no reason to be particular about who receives the threats, just send
them out and wait for the protection money to roll in. There is no incentive to
make sure that the defendants are actually guilty of anything, since the record
companies never stand to lose anything.
     
    The key to this strategy for the rights holders is that they can force
the Internet service providers to disclose the name of the customer behind a
certain IP number that is used on the Internet. If they have this, they can turn
copyright enforcement from a cost to a profit center in its own right. Since
only a small fraction of citizens who get a threatening legal letter are
prepared to take the risk, and have the resources, to oppose it in court, the
limited number of cases that the court system can process per year is not a
problem for the scheme to work. To the rights holders, it’s free money in
exchange for a postage stamp.
     
    The extent of this practice in Europe varies between the member states.
In 2010, Danish film
maker Lars von Trier made more money from threatening to sue people for allegedly downloading his film “Antichrist” illegally, than he got from box
office returns and video and DVD sales combined. The business idea was
completely straight-forward. All he had to do was to send out letters saying
“pay us 1,200 euro immediately, or we’ll sue