Last week we got a chance to listen to one of these groups outside the usual circumstances. It wasn’t a research project, and it wasn’t by sitting behind a two-way mirror. This group of 12 industry outsiders likely hadn’t engaged in debates about long-tail sales theories, the effectiveness of DRM schemes, or consumption patterns of digital media when marginal costs approach zero. Which isn’t to say they were disengaged – most of them had mp3 players, and at least some knew what peer-to-peer software was. But overall, they were probably a good cross section of ‘real world’ music listeners.
We’re speaking, of course, of the 12-person jury in Minneapolis who rendered a decision in the case involving Ms. Jammie Thomas-Rasset (http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=67AC2E75-E62A-1823-9604-FD0F15EF0F63). This group of 12 Minnesotans showed us that, despite the protestations of some pundits who suggest that the digital world should resemble some kind of new wild west, the majority understands and believes that the same laws and rules we follow every day apply online. Not just in theory, but in practice. Another group of 12 people presented with similar questions said the same thing two years ago (http://news.cnet.com/Rights-and-wrongs-in-the-antipiracy-struggle/2010-1027_3-6213649.html?tag=mncol). That makes a sample size of only 24, but it’s certainly enough to learn from.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
RIAA blog: Thomas-Rasset jury like a focus group of 'real world music listeners'
The RIAA's "Music Notes" blog has weighed in with a bit more reaction to last week's $1.92 million verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, likening the jurors (and those from the 2007 first trial) to a focus group of "'real world music listeners":
5 comments:
Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Except that the sample is tainted by manually excluding those who might have a biased opinion. The jury selection system might result in what could be described as fair, but it's certainly not designed to produce a representative sample.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure they had much choice. They were asked if Ms Thomas had downloaded the songs. She didn't do much to dispute that. This trial represents a fascinating time in the response to IP in a digital world. We're just starting to catch up. I think it's great that 24 people think music is worth something. Perhaps that is what we need to take away from this curious episode.
ReplyDeleteI attended the trial and it seemed like no one really wanted to be there. The labels don't need this kind of PR, the defendant represents a large percentage of our population and everyone in the courtroom has or knows someone who has participated in illegal downloading. A society of criminals indeed.
I'm not sure they had much choice. They were asked if Ms Thomas had downloaded the songs. She didn't do much to dispute that. This trial represents a fascinating time in the response to IP in a digital world. We're just starting to catch up. I think it's great that 24 people think music is worth something. Perhaps that is what we need to take away from this curious episode.
ReplyDeleteI attended the trial and it seemed like no one really wanted to be there. The labels don't need this kind of PR, the defendant represents a large percentage of our population and everyone in the courtroom has or knows someone who has participated in illegal downloading. A society of criminals indeed.
@mhare:
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's quite right to say, "She didn't do much to dispute that," (i.e., download the songs). She stated repeatedly under oath that she did not download or "share" the songs, and that she had never even heard of Kazaa until this lawsuit. And she pointed the finger at her kids and ex-boyfriend as the possible culprits. Her problem was that there was tons of evidence to the contrary.
I love that Jammie tried to rat out her own kids as a last ditch effort. I laughed out loud and clapped in front of my computer. That's a revelation of her character consistent with her illegal behavior, evidence tampering and her perjury if there ever was one.
ReplyDelete