Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

[Sporkman]

BOSTON – A federal jury on Friday ordered a Boston University graduate student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing music online to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

[YukaToshi]

I'm sure as a student he will have no problem paying that ...

[lisati]

I'm sure as a student he will have no problem paying that ...

Some kind of student loan perhaps.....

[YukaToshi]

Lol maybe when I go to university I should take out a student loan that big! :lolflag:

[Exershio]

I really can't find the words to describe how I feel towards the scum that is the RIAA/MPAA. The songs are worth like a $1 each, and if he shared 30 songs to 10 people each, he should be fined 10 x 30 = $300. THAT would be a realistic amount of damages they suffered. How far up their *** did they pull $675,000 from?

One day they're going to pick on the wrong person who just so happens to have an automatic rifle and charge through their HQ taking them all out. What comes around goes around. When you completely destroy a person's life for your own selfish gain, they might just do the same to you.

[etnlIcarus]

No one in the jury was < 30 and anyone who admitted to file sharing was ineligible to be a juror anyway so I can't say I'm the least bit surprised. Plus Tenenbaum's lawyer, apparently being a fan of Boston Legal-esque courtroom antics, really only served to torpedo this case.


I'm sure as a student he will have no problem paying that ...It's called bankruptcy. Depending on the kind, his paycheck may be trimmed for the next 20 years (assuming he doesn't have applicable assets to discharge his debt). While the record companies will probably never see the total sum of the ruling (and they've probably made a loss on this anyway), Tannenbaum's life will be made more difficult in terms of future employment and independent ventures. Having a bankruptcy on his record pretty much ensures no one is going to lend him any money for at least 5-10 years.

[hanzomon4]

The lawyer was a joke and it became more apparent as the trial date approached. He violated a court order to record a court session(deposition? I don't know what the term is) after the judge specifically forbid it. His conduct during the trial?! Abysmal.. The judge sustained the plaintiff's objections.. Before they objected!!! It was that bad

I'm not surprised Tenenbaum confessed like a child facing a spanking. The jury would have through him under a steaming inferno of poo poo had he not... nah... hell naw!! This case was painful to watch.. err read(ars)

He should have pulled a Galileo and confessed before he caught such an epic beatdown

[infestor]

that is why there should be piratpartiet (the pirate party) in other countries and you should vote for it.

[OrangeCrate]

I am absolutely convinced, that the young lad that got four lashes with a cane in Singapore, for theft and vandalism, will never do those things again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

I'm also convinced, that the kid who is the topic of this thread, will never download songs and distribute them to his friends again either.

Frankly, I think it's O.K. for kids to play at being an "anarchist" (particularly when they're still living at home), but at some point they'll have to grow up, and be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Both of these stories should give serious pause, to all who break the law of the land, whether they think it's O.K. to do so, or not.

[Grishka]

protect yourselves, people! check out http://www.bitblinder.com/, http://www.itshidden.com/, use Tor hidden trackers, and always encrypt your torrent connections. it's necessary to be paranoid in this case, because they ARE out to get you. ;)

[etnlIcarus]

I am absolutely convinced, that the young lad that got four lashes with a cane in Singapore, for theft and vandalism, will never do those things again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

I'm also convinced, that the kid who is the topic of this thread, will never download songs and distribute them to his friends again either.

Frankly, I think it's O.K. for kids to play at being an "anarchist" (particularly when they're still living at home), but at some point they'll have to grow up, and be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Both of these stories should give serious pause, to all who break the law of the land, whether they think it's O.K. to do so, or not.

You equate theft and vandalism with piracy (the less said about, "anarchism", the better). You defend disproportionate punishment and the use of people as tools of social coercion. Implicit in your speech is the assertion that the, "law of the land", represents a defensible moral standard. You're also painting such broad strokes that we could be discussing almost anything. You're not exactly positioning yourself as a respectable authority, here.


but at some point they'll have to grow up, and be responsible for the consequences of their actions.This is just baseless rhetoric. While the courts aren't the best avenue to change the law, the consequence you speak of is simply not the logical conclusion of the action in-question. It's no more valid (albeit not nearly as dramatic) than my blaming someone for being in their living room when an old lady parks her car on their sofa.

[OrangeCrate]

You equate theft and vandalism with piracy (the less said about, "anarchism", the better). You defend disproportionate punishment and the use of people as tools of social coercion. Implicit in your speech is the assertion that the, "law of the land", represents a defensible moral standard. You're also painting such broad strokes that we could be discussing almost anything. You're not exactly positioning yourself as a respectable authority, here.

Both of your comments are correct.


This is just baseless rhetoric. While the courts aren't the best avenue to change the law, the consequence you speak of is simply not the logical conclusion of the action in-question. It's no more valid (albeit not nearly as dramatic) than my blaming someone for being in their living room when an old lady parks her car on their sofa.

Nope, I don't think so. Trust me when I tell you, that if a person thinks that certain laws are wrong, it is better to attempt to change the laws ahead of time, than to suffer the consequences for failing to obey them, if they are currently the "law of the land".

(I believe that the young man who is the subject of this thread, would whole heartedly agree with me on my last statement.)

[starcannon]

I am shocked that a Jury of peers would award such a grievously large settlement; ridiculous. The songs at best are worth their actual commercial value + a fine. These cases should not even be going to jury, a judge should be able to just drop the gavel and assign the reasonable fine. I am also curious, how many on the jury have downloaded, or have kids that have downloaded music without the consent of the respective labels.

[rudihawk]

I am also curious, how many on the jury have downloaded, or have kids that have downloaded music without the consent of the respective labels.

Agreed.

[etnlIcarus]

Both of your comments are correct.Well that's unfortunate for all of us.


Nope, I don't think so. Trust me when I tell you, that if a person thinks that certain laws are wrong, it is better to attempt to change the laws ahead of time, than to suffer the consequences for failing to obey them, if they are currently the "law of the land".Either your phrasing or your focus is off, here. Attempting to change the law and not obeying it are not mutually exclusive.

If what you meant to say was it is better to attempt to change the law and obey it, rather than break it, it's nigh on impossible to square this attitude with a history of civil disobedience and subculture giving rise to much of our social progress - although in this specific case I might be inclined to agree with you (thus the folly of speaking so broadly).

The only other way I can interpret your comment is as a fatalistic surrender, which is yet again difficult to square with history or philosophy, let alone be construed as an admirable quality. Of course, all this is assuming your comment wasn't simply a non-sequitur.

[arcdrag]

I am also curious, how many on the jury have downloaded, or have kids that have downloaded music without the consent of the respective labels.

I'm curious as to how many jurors have recorded a movie that played on TV onto a VHS...or recorded a song that played on the radio onto a cassette tape. Copyright infringement is not restricted to the <30 age bracket.

I know my parents at least never bought a movie from the store...but if its a good movie that played on TV at any point between 1980-2000 they own that movie. My dad has played in a band his whole life playing cover songs...and I can remember him calling into the radio station requesting songs with the specific goal of recording them so he could learn them. I don't think he ever paid for an album.

[kinematic]

First of all, copyright infringement is not theft. The law states it is not theft so it doesn't matter if you personally think it is or isn't theft.

What this is all about is the RIAA desperately holding on to a business model that's slowly dying. They don't know how to adapt to a world full of technology they don't fully understand. For years they have been able to resell the same old stuff. From 8 track to vinyl to tapes to cd's but now with the internet and file sharing people are clearly saying their stuff isn't worth what their asking for it. That's the real reason people download music. If the music industry would sell what they have to offer at a reasonable price without any limitations on it pirating would quickly disappear. The RIAA has simply missed the internet train and is using the courts to coerse and bribe the consumer into paying what they think their stuff is worth wich is the complete opposite of how the market normally works. The RIAA is also increasinly loosing it's relevance because artists can now record, produce, market and sell their music without any middle man (the RIAA) wich scares the RIAA to death. All these lawsuits are nothing more than the dying breath of the RIAA.

[arcdrag]

First of all, copyright infringement is not theft. The law states it is not theft so it doesn't matter if you personally think it is or isn't theft.

What this is all about is the RIAA desperately holding on to a business model that's slowly dying. They don't know how to adapt to a world full of technology they don't fully understand. For years they have been able to resell the same old stuff. From 8 track to vinyl to tapes to cd's but now with the internet and file sharing people are clearly saying their stuff isn't worth what their asking for it. That's the real reason people download music. If the music industry would sell what they have to offer at a reasonable price without any limitations on it pirating would quickly disappear. The RIAA has simply missed the internet train and is using the courts to coerse and bribe the consumer into paying what they think their stuff is worth wich is the complete opposite of how the market normally works. The RIAA is also increasinly loosing it's relevance because artists can now record, produce, market and sell their music without any middle man (the RIAA) wich scares the RIAA to death. All these lawsuits are nothing more than the dying breath of the RIAA.

The real reason I buy far less music now than I did 5-10 years ago is simply because I can listen to all the songs on a CD that aren't on the radio before I buy the cd. Since 99% of bands can only put 2-3 good songs per album, I just buy the singles for 99 cents each now instead of the entire cd for $15-$20.

[sydbat]

I think everyone here has missed the point...

This is a good thing!

Why? Because it has started the process to get this "law" challenged in the US Supreme Court, where it WILL be found unconstitutional and thrown out. Someone HAD to take the stand and fight for fair use rights, and HAD to state they really did download and/or share music. Otherwise the music industry and their monkeys would continue to harass people with little or no money, forcing them to settle out of court, and keeping an unconstitutional "law" alive.

I applaud Mr. Tenenbaum for doing this.

[Viva]

Serves him right for stealing and distributing others' work without their permission.

[sydbat]

Serves him right for stealing and distributing others' work without their permission.Then we are all guilty. Listening to the radio is the same thing - hearing shared music. Listening to sounds coming from a loud car stereo is the same thing - hearing shared music.

Wait until the music industry tries to make everyone PAY for their ears as justification for losing money (calling it hearing piracy)...[/hyperbole]

[phrostbyte]

They are going to appeal this, probably all the way to the Supreme Court. Big shot arrogant Harvard lawyers don't go down so easily. :D

I think one of the objectives is to to get the fair use doctrine expanded. This will be difficult and they need some very strong arguments.

[aysiu]

I'm curious as to how many jurors have recorded a movie that played on TV onto a VHS...or recorded a song that played on the radio onto a cassette tape. Copyright infringement is not restricted to the <30 age bracket.

I know my parents at least never bought a movie from the store...but if its a good movie that played on TV at any point between 1980-2000 they own that movie. My dad has played in a band his whole life playing cover songs...and I can remember him calling into the radio station requesting songs with the specific goal of recording them so he could learn them. I don't think he ever paid for an album. The courts ruled back in the 80s that recording TV onto VHS is covered under fair use.

You can read about fair use here:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Sharing MP3s with hundreds or thousands of strangers around the world has not been ruled by any court as covered under fair use, as far as I know.

[kinematic]

The real reason I buy far less music now than I did 5-10 years ago is simply because I can listen to all the songs on a CD that aren't on the radio before I buy the cd. Since 99% of bands can only put 2-3 good songs per album, I just buy the singles for 99 cents each now instead of the entire cd for $15-$20.

You're right. That's also one of the reasons. If record companies set up online shops and offer music for sale in multiple formats (MP3, Ogg and FLAC/WAV) without any limitations such as DRM on it for a reasonable price, piracy would be drastically reduced.

[aysiu]

You're right. That's also one of the reasons. If record companies set up online shops and offer music for sale in multiple formats (MP3, Ogg and FLAC/WAV) without any limitations such as DRM on it for a reasonable price, piracy would be drastically reduced.
I don't know what country you live in, but America, we already have this. Both iTunes and Amazon MP3 store sell songs without DRM now and at reasonable prices.

Most people (except Linux users and audiophiles) do not care about multiple formats, as long as the song plays on their iPods (and, yes, I have a Sansa Clip, but most people who have a portable audio device have some form of iPod).

And still piracy remains rampant because a lot of people prefer free to cheap for the same product. Ubuntu users can debate all day long about the principles of sharing and the wrongs of copyright infringement law interpretation but the truth is that most people who "share" music don't really care about all this intellectual justification for music piracy--they would just rather download their favorite songs for free than pay US$.99 to download the same song through proper channels.

To the "civil disobedience" folks, let me tell you--continuing to pirate music only serves the RIAA's agenda. It's like pirating Windows to try to spite Microsoft. Microsoft loves people pirating Windows. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-truth-about-open-source-and-piracy/) As long as people pirate Windows, they won't be using Linux instead. Of course Microsoft would love it more if people paid for Windows, but they ultimately want you to be dependent on Microsoft products. Likewise, if you really care about freedom and artists' rights, you would either pay for legitimate downloads of commercial songs or support independent labels and artists who decide to share their music under a Creative Commons license.

It isn't up to you to decide what license an artistic work is released under. It's up to the creator to decide. Don't like the license? Don't use it. Listen to something else, then. I don't like Windows' EULA. So instead of using Windows, I use Linux. I don't pirate Windows.

[Dimitriid]

All that for 30 songs? If I was in the US and they would catch me I'd be ordered to pay the US national debt.

[OrangeCrate]

<deleted>

[MikeTheC]

I dunno... if it were me, I could guarantee you I'd never take another job again in my life. I'd screw up and get terminated from my present job and then I would blow every job interview that I ever had. What are they going to do, find me in contempt and lock me up, thereby insuring I cannot work? I mean, I suppose they probably would, but then the court system would just be playing into my hand.

[MikeTheC]

There are great consequences indeed, for being convicted of a felony.
Yes, but you're also talking about the state which defines conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor as a felony, so...

Yes, kids, that's right. In theory, if you and a group of people conspired to go jay-walking, you could be found guilty of a felony and then become convicted felons. Forget about the likelihood of this actually happening, the point is that the capability is there.

[JillSwift]

Nope, I don't think my phrasing or focus is off at all.

The amount he was fined in this matter is trivial to the fact that he'll be a convicted felon for the rest of his life. And, that is truly sad.

I don't think he thought the whole thing through very well. Even if he were able to talk someone into giving him a pardon sometime in the future (which personally, I would doubt very much, considering his guilty plea), he'll always carry the brand.

There are great consequences indeed, for being convicted of a felony. Feel free to Google for more information...

(Not much more I can add to this thread, so I'm done here.)
Um... What?

He's not a convicted felon. This was a civil suit that he lost, not a criminal trial. I don't think you have a very good grasp of the situation.

[OrangeCrate]

Um... What?

He's not a convicted felon. This was a civil suit that he lost, not a criminal trial. I don't think you have a very good grasp of the situation.

You're right, and I stand corrected.

Thanks.

[ktrnka]

Trust me when I tell you, that if a person thinks that certain laws are wrong, it is better to attempt to change the laws ahead of time, than to suffer the consequences for failing to obey them, if they are currently the "law of the land".

(I believe that the young man who is the subject of this thread, would whole heartedly agree with me on my last statement.)

Not sure where you live OrangeCrate but here in the U.S. money is the bottom line. Tenenbaum would have needed @ least the 675K to pay for lobbying congress to change the law. It's not that simple. Everything needs financial backing to get a bill/law passed! There are many arguments dealing with these types of cases such as what every "rational" human being is outraged about is how to equate financial loss when the object isn't a physical object (imaginary). What the RIAA is demanding in fees is irrational. (Yes I am using mathematical puns).

There are so many things wrong with their old business model! At least the MPAA has been conducting bittorrent stream experiments to a group of test theaters, to see how they could benefit!(and it worked quite well for them I might add)

Like JillSwift said: It is was a civil suit.

[zekopeko]

Yes, but you're also talking about the state which defines conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor as a felony, so...

Yes, kids, that's right. In theory, if you and a group of people conspired to go jay-walking, you could be found guilty of a felony and then become convicted felons. Forget about the likelihood of this actually happening, the point is that the capability is there.

Well thats what you get when you have a country thats "tough on crime". Sad really.

[littlemog]

Another good reason to shift to indie labels and the likes. (sigh)

By the way, I think the Michael kid more likely learnt that he's not to do it again IN SINGAPORE (me being from there) than the fact that he's not going to do it again... (my conjecture)

[shadylookin]

I think everyone here has missed the point...

This is a good thing!

Why? Because it has started the process to get this "law" challenged in the US Supreme Court, where it WILL be found unconstitutional and thrown out. Someone HAD to take the stand and fight for fair use rights, and HAD to state they really did download and/or share music. Otherwise the music industry and their monkeys would continue to harass people with little or no money, forcing them to settle out of court, and keeping an unconstitutional "law" alive.

I applaud Mr. Tenenbaum for doing this.

copyright is one of the few things actually enshrined in the constitution. It won't be ruled unconstitutional.


I am shocked that a Jury of peers would award such a grievously large settlement; ridiculous. The songs at best are worth their actual commercial value + a fine. These cases should not even be going to jury, a judge should be able to just drop the gavel and assign the reasonable fine. I am also curious, how many on the jury have downloaded, or have kids that have downloaded music without the consent of the respective labels.

Jurors aren't on trial and they don't make the laws. There job is to decide if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the law(not the way they wish the law was written) or not guilty.

Even if everyone on the jury is guilty of the same crime it doesn't really let the guy on trial off the hook.

I think 675k is a pretty ludicrous award for such small actual damages, but my understanding is that the person admitted to breaking the law and never really had a leg to stand on.

People might as well face it distributing things online without the copyright owners permission has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being legal. Plus it shouldn't be. Someone worked hard coming up with something so you should respect their copyrights if you want to use it.

[eragon100]

People might as well face it distributing things online without the copyright owners permission has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being legal.

1: In some countries, such as the Netherlands where I live, downloading a copy for personal use is actually allowed by the law. Not with software,
but you can legally download music/movies here as long as you don't upload (i.e. not use torrent or disable uploading)

2: More than half of the people in the world use P2P. These are mostly the younger people. In a couple of years,
they are going to be the politicians who make the law. Since they fileshare themselves, they are going to make it legal,
whether you're happy with it or not. It's that simple (luckily) :popcorn:

[phrostbyte]

I dunno... if it were me, I could guarantee you I'd never take another job again in my life. I'd screw up and get terminated from my present job and then I would blow every job interview that I ever had. What are they going to do, find me in contempt and lock me up, thereby insuring I cannot work? I mean, I suppose they probably would, but then the court system would just be playing into my hand.

In the USA the maximum amount of time a debtor has to collect debt is 7 years. After that the debt is no longer legal, even if it was ordered by a court. This is called "statue of limitations", there is some exceptions (if you owe money to the government :o), but the RIAA isn't the government.

You can make it happen even faster you simply declare bankruptcy.

On top of this there is limits to what a debtor can do to collect the debt. It varies by State. But they typically can not impoverish you, or take your house.

Since this guy is a student, it's unlikely the RIAA is going to see a dime. If they are lucky they might get a couple thousand, but only after being like 90% of that to a collection agency. :)

Oh and it's likely that this will be appealed anyway. So it's not over yet.

[phrostbyte]

copyright is one of the few things actually enshrined in the constitution. It won't be ruled unconstitutional.



Jurors aren't on trial and they don't make the laws. There job is to decide if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the law(not the way they wish the law was written) or not guilty.

Even if everyone on the jury is guilty of the same crime it doesn't really let the guy on trial off the hook.

I think 675k is a pretty ludicrous award for such small actual damages, but my understanding is that the person admitted to breaking the law and never really had a leg to stand on.

People might as well face it distributing things online without the copyright owners permission has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being legal. Plus it shouldn't be. Someone worked hard coming up with something so you should respect their copyrights if you want to use it.

Jury can judge if the law itself is just. You can be declared innocent even if are 100% guilty, simply because the jury thinks the law itself is not just. This is called jury nullification. It's very rare in modern times though. But it's possible and legal.

[Dark Aspect]

I can understand its illegal, but since when does 4 albums cost $675,000?

If he admitted to downloading 30 songs illegally, than logic would dictate that he pay for 30 songs. There are no more cost of damages for the record labels, so awarding half million dollars is stupid. If thats the way the world works I should release something and wait for someone to steal it. That way I'll be completely rich, regardless of if the actual media sold.

[koshatnik]

I bet the jurors, hell, even the judge, have, at some point in their lives, recorded an LP onto a tape and given it to a friend. That's piracy too. In that case, three quarters of the planet are guilty of theft.

Whatever your morals or views on this, skinning a kid for £600k for filesharing is pathetic. The music industry were too stupid and lazy to deal with the massive changes brought about by digital distribution and computer networking and are still 15 years behind in terms of distribution models. Optical recording media is dead as a means of distribution. CD's became irrelevant 5 years ago, DVD's 3 years ago, Blu Ray is already pointless. How long is the music/film industry going to cling to the ridiculous idea that they can sell physical media in a digital age? People can pass data as easily as blinking an eye. How do you deal with that?

Well, tightening laws and taking punitive action won't solve it, that's for sure. Its time to get smart and work with consumers to construct a model that is equitable and fair to all. Draconian laws wont change a thing.

I'm still staggard at the monumental stupidity of this case.

[shadylookin]

1: In some countries, such as the Netherlands where I live, downloading a copy for personal use is actually allowed by the law. Not with software,
but you can legally download music/movies here as long as you don't upload (i.e. not use torrent or disable uploading)

but the person doing the uploading is breaking the law. However I was talking about US law anyway



2: More than half of the people in the world use P2P. These are mostly the younger people. In a couple of years,
they are going to be the politicians who make the law. Since they fileshare themselves, they are going to make it legal,
whether you're happy with it or not. It's that simple (luckily) :popcorn:

Not likely the last gajillion presidents have admitted to drug use and drugs are still illegal. Nothing is going to change while all the lobbyist money is in the hands of the RIAA/MPAA.

I don't really care about music or movie copyrights being violated, but I do care about software copyright. If music and movie copyrights get eroded then software is next in line which means all our opensource licensees will be for naught.

[Dark Aspect]

I don't really care about music or movie copyrights being violated, but I do care about software copyright. If music and movie copyrights get eroded then software is next in line which means all our opensource licensees will be for naught.

Your morals\ethics are completely messed up. Thats about like saying that stealing stuff from wal-mart is ok but nobody better steal a car. The copyright between movies\music and software is the same, both are illegal.

BTW - I am not being self righteous since I actually don't care about movies, music OR software.

[Sutekh849]

Not likely the last gajillion presidents have admitted to drug use and drugs are still illegal. Nothing is going to change while all the lobbyist money is in the hands of the RIAA/MPAA. [bill clinton impression] why yes, i downloaded pirate music in my youth but i didnt listen to it and never tried it again [/bill clinton impression]

[0per4t0r]

$675,000 for 30 songs?! WTF! Can't you just pay the 40 bucks it would've cost on iTunes!!

[Grant A.]

I am shocked that a Jury of peers would award such a grievously large settlement; ridiculous. The songs at best are worth their actual commercial value + a fine. These cases should not even be going to jury, a judge should be able to just drop the gavel and assign the reasonable fine. I am also curious, how many on the jury have downloaded, or have kids that have downloaded music without the consent of the respective labels.

The jury probably did this for a reason. Think about it, if more and more ridiculous fines keep getting added, then the RIAA's idea of "payback" will eventually get flagged as unconstitutional.



Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Hopefully they will appeal this and point out that one charged with petty theft of two music CDs (approximately 30 songs total) would be fined far, far less. I'm sure there is a prior case of precisely that somewhere in the US justice system.
Although there is no formula that I can find, such issues generally stick to small claims court (they would be laughed out of any court worthy of media attention!) and no judge in his or her right mind would inflict such a fine at that level. After all, a judge's job is ultimately to fix things; if someone is stealing, maybe that person shouldn't be pushed into a more desperate situation.

In addition, while it is a possibility, I have not heard of any proof that the guy uploaded the music he had earlier downloaded. That is pure speculation and should not hold up in a court of law. With that in mind, what this guy did was something pettier than petty theft.

[shadylookin]

Your morals\ethics are completely messed up. Thats about like saying that stealing stuff from wal-mart is ok but nobody better steal a car. The copyright between movies\music and software is the same, both are illegal.

BTW - I am not being self righteous since I actually don't care about movies, music OR software.

More like I don't care about stuff that doesn't really interest me, but I'm standing up for it because if I don't then somewhere down the line they'll come for me.

For instance I don't really care about flag burning I've never burned one nor do I want to, but if I don't stand up for their rights then they'll eventually make it against the law to say bad things about the government.

So if I don't stand up for copyrights on music or movies no one will be left to stand up for our copyrights on software. Without it a lot of opensource software could be destroyed.

I think making them pay 675k is beyond excessive and pointless(just going to declare bankruptcy). However the general ruling that distributing copyrighted material is illegal without consent is the correct one.

[phrostbyte]

Hopefully they will appeal this and point out that one charged with petty theft of two music CDs (approximately 30 songs total) would be fined far, far less. I'm sure there is a prior case of precisely that somewhere in the US justice system.
Although there is no formula that I can find, such issues generally stick to small claims court (they would be laughed out of any court worthy of media attention!) and no judge in his or her right mind would inflict such a fine at that level. After all, a judge's job is ultimately to fix things; if someone is stealing, maybe that person shouldn't be pushed into a more desperate situation.

In addition, while it is a possibility, I have not heard of any proof that the guy uploaded the music he had earlier downloaded. That is pure speculation and should not hold up in a court of law. With that in mind, what this guy did was something pettier than petty theft.

It's different though. Copyright is civil law. Theft is criminal law. Theft is typically state law. Copyright is federal law.

That's why I don't like when people say copyright violation = theft. They aren't even in the same frecken government justice code.

You steal 2 CDs you can go to jail, though. In many (most?) states, petty theft / shoplifting has a maximum punishment of 3-6 months in jail. Repeat offenses can and will often result in actual jail time, depends on the state.

[RiceMonster]

Why are they going after someone who has shared 30 songs when there are people who have shared thousands of songs? This is so stupid.

Edit: Oh, I see it said hundreds but they were focusing on 30. Still, this case is ridiculous.

[mynameinc]

Why are they going after someone who has shared 30 songs when there are people who have shared thousands of songs? This is so stupid.

Edit: Oh, I see it said hundreds but they were focusing on 30. Still, this case is ridiculous.

Completely. I can't '^' that enough.

A) If you want stuff that is copyrighted to not be 'stolen', DON'T PUT IT IN DIGITAL FORM! It is far too easy to un-DRM material.
B) This is very excessive; any Judge in His Honor's right mind will overturn the verdict anyway. Did he honestly cause the illegal distribution of this song to 22,726 people/song (a song is $0.99 on iTunes)? If yes, he probably deserves the fine. But we all know he didn't.
C) I can fathom making examples out of people in violent crime, or grand theft auto, or burglary; a crime where there is a seriously damaged victim. But 'song theft'? This has ultimately stopped very few people from illegally sharing songs.
D) Can they expect a student to pay this money? He'll either (A) declare bankruptcy, destroying his credit ergo his life (and probably won't pay it) (B) try to pay it back, destroying this life (and probably won't).
E) If this is theft, and theft of a CD earns one 3-6 mo.s in jail or $25000 fine (at max), why is he paying $675000?

I have a lot of questions for (A) the plaintiff, (B) the Judge, (C) the jury, and (D) the defendant's legal representatives.

I'm drawing the conclusion this is completely ridiculous for many reasons. Et vous?

[Viva]

Serves him right for stealing and distributing others' work without their permission.

Just noticed that it is actually 675k and not $675. Very very harsh punishment if true.

[kinematic]

I don't know what country you live in, but America, we already have this. Both iTunes and Amazon MP3 store sell songs without DRM now and at reasonable prices.

I heard something about that but it sounded like a fairy tale to me. Is this part of this new internet thing I keep hearing about? It's supposed to be the hottest new thing :)

[MasterNetra]

protect yourselves, people! check out http://www.bitblinder.com/, http://www.itshidden.com/, use Tor hidden trackers, and always encrypt your torrent connections. it's necessary to be paranoid in this case, because they ARE out to get you. ;)

Thanks! itshidden is something I've been looking for a while!

[Chilli Bob]

I fully support the prosecution, and a fine, but $675,000 compensation payout on one poor ******* being used as an example is wrong, sure fine him, but don't destroy his life.
Yes, we all have copied a few of our friends CDs from time to time, but P2P sharing with millions of others cannot be defended, though I've heard all the arguments to that effect.

Pirates put up the price of CDs and DVDs for those of us who do the right thing, so I have no sympathy at all.

Copyright law rocks!

[SamJosRob]

I fully support the prosecution, and a fine, but $675,000 compensation payout on one poor ******* being used as an example is wrong, sure fine him, but don't destroy his life.
Yes, we all have copied a few of our friends CDs from time to time, but P2P sharing with millions of others cannot be defended, though I've heard all the arguments to that effect.

Pirates put up the price of CDs and DVDs for those of us who do the right thing, so I have no sympathy at all.

Copyright law rocks!

Doesn't this seem like a perpetuating situation then? When music becomes costlier this becomes more incentive for pirates to keep on pirating. Fining someone such a large amount won't stop piracy.

[mamamia88]

that is too big of a fine take the dollar value of the music he stole and double it too teach him a lesson buy 675k is rediculus

[init1]

Just noticed that it is actually 675k and not $675. Very very harsh punishment if true.
Same here. Even $675 seems a bit much for me. But $675,000? Ridiculous.

[arcdrag]

That much for 30 songs?! I can't even imagine what I'd have to pay if they saw the contents of my mp3 folder...

They were suing for the 30 songs that they managed to download that Tenenbaum was seeding. He actually had thousands from the articles I've read. Not that this makes the whole verdict a ton better.

[init1]

They were suing for the 30 songs that they managed to download that Tenenbaum was seeding. He actually had thousands from the articles I've read. Not that this makes the whole verdict a ton better.
Yeah I realize that now. Wasn't just about downloading, but distribution as well.

[arcdrag]

Yeah I realize that now. Wasn't just about downloading, but distribution as well.

Yeah...from everything I've gathered, they've never went after someone for downloading files, only uploaders. This makes sense, since if everyone downloaded and no one seeded, then file sharing would have died a long time ago.

[magmon]

Yeah...from everything I've gathered, they've never went after someone for downloading files, only uploaders. This makes sense, since if everyone downloaded and no one seeded, then file sharing would have died a long time ago.

Good. Im what's classified as a leach, I don't ever seed xD.

[arcdrag]

Good. Im what's classified as a leach, I don't ever seed xD.

You are the reason my openSuse torrent download is taking so long:(

[starcannon]

copyright is one of the few things actually enshrined in the constitution. It won't be ruled unconstitutional.



Jurors aren't on trial and they don't make the laws. There job is to decide if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the law(not the way they wish the law was written) or not guilty.

Even if everyone on the jury is guilty of the same crime it doesn't really let the guy on trial off the hook.

I think 675k is a pretty ludicrous award for such small actual damages, but my understanding is that the person admitted to breaking the law and never really had a leg to stand on.

People might as well face it distributing things online without the copyright owners permission has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being legal. Plus it shouldn't be. Someone worked hard coming up with something so you should respect their copyrights if you want to use it.

I actually agree with you, but jurors, imo, have a responsibility to vote their conscience; I believe in spirit of the law, not letter of the law. My own creed is, if its not mine, its not mine.

[shadylookin]

I actually agree with you, but jurors, imo, have a responsibility to vote their conscience; I believe in spirit of the law, not letter of the law. My own creed is, if its not mine, its not mine.

I disagree, it's their job to determine if someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the law(the letter of it). It's the legislatures job to make sure that the written law encompasses the spirit of what they are writing the law for. It's the judge and prosecuting attorney's job to determine if the case has any merits to begin with.

Not that it's relevant in this case. The spirit of copyright law is that you can't distribute copyrighted material without the creators permission. The defendant clearly violated the spirit of the law. You could disagree with the spirit of the law, but never-the-less this person clearly violated both the spirit and the letter of the law.

[ericmc783]

only one word can describe this case: Asinine.