Student fined $675,000 for illegal downloads

[alan1]

A Boston University student who admitted illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs was ordered Friday to pay $675,000 to four record companies.
In awarding the companies $22,500 per track, a federal jury in Boston decided on a far lesser amount than the maximum faced by Joel Tenenbaum of Providence, R.I.. Under federal law, the jury could have ruled that the record studios were entitled to as much as $150,000 per track, or $4.5 million.

...

30 songs, $22,500 per track. See what happens when we have deficits? Run-away inflation. I remember when you could buy a track for less than 25 cents. Of course, you had to walk uphill in the snow to the vinyl record shop, but it was worth every penny.

And it was uphill on the way back to, and the snow was deeper.
I wish people would quite sniveling about global warming, it's much easier to trudge through rain than snow, and now it's downhill both ways.

 

[Paulie]

Let's not forget, artists don't even make the majority of their money off of album sales anyway. These days, you need to market on multiple levels. You need merch, concert ticket sales, ring tones, advertising placement, etc.

Album sales only make up a very small percentage of an artist's profit anymore. If your music is good enough, and marketed well enough, you can become a millionaire with or without strong album sales.

Just take artists like 50 Cent or Eminem. They don't ever have to release another album that does well. They could continue to make millions off of just their names ALONE.

If your music is good enough, you shouldn't CARE how it gets to potential listeners, as long as it gets there.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

He shouldn't have engaged in said activity. He knew what he was doing was wrong. Now he has to pay the price.

 

[KittenKoder]

The copyright laws on this are stupid, for a major reason, bands don't make money off their music anymore these days. They make money off the merchandise and live concerts. The production companies are not hurting for money either, and even then, the internet is the present now and many bands are making more profit by offering their tracks for free online then when they announce a live concert they are wold out almost every time. Gorillaz is a good example of such, Weird Al makes a fortune on the use of his likeness, but you can legally download all his music and videos online. The game has changed, and if the music companies that are putting up a stink about this don't wake up and smell the megabytes they will fail with the rest of the media industry that isn't changing.

 

[jillian]

or.. perhaps he should have obeyed the law and paid for the songs. would have cost him a whole lot less.

why on earth do you think you have an entitlement to anyone else's intellectual property?

 

[jillian]

This guy needs to schedule a beer fest with the man from Kenya ASAP. Maybe he could get a job with the Fed., where private property is relative, or ACORN, they could hide him, they could hide anything.

I believe in private property. I don't believe in intellectual property.

intellectual property IS private property.

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating about laws you don't understand.

 

[KittenKoder]

or.. perhaps he should have obeyed the law and paid for the songs. would have cost him a whole lot less.

why on earth do you think you have an entitlement to anyone else's intellectual property?

How do you propose they pay for policing it on the net? How much of your own privacy are you willing to sacrifice to ensure that these people "obey" a stupid law?

Time for a bit of a history lesson. The copyright laws had to undergo a change recently, the original language made it illegal to let anyone but the person who paid for it view or listen to it, thus playing it on your stereo at a party or watching a movie with the family made you a criminal. Now it only talks about distribution, however, that could be twisted to make it illegal to sell used CDs and DVDs as well now, in the right greedy hands that is. Artists don't get into this for the money, if they do they never get anywhere or we end up with mo N'Sync. They get into it because they want to share their talents and visions with other people. Money is a fortunate side effect, thus why it's rarely the artist who goes after people who break this stupid law, it's the production companies who by your logic have no moral right to do so. If they really want people to stop using MP3s then they should go back to vinyl.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This guy needs to schedule a beer fest with the man from Kenya ASAP. Maybe he could get a job with the Fed., where private property is relative, or ACORN, they could hide him, they could hide anything.

I believe in private property. I don't believe in intellectual property.

intellectual property IS private property.

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating about laws you don't understand.

No, it's not.

 

[KittenKoder]

I believe in private property. I don't believe in intellectual property.

intellectual property IS private property.

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating about laws you don't understand.

No, it's not.

Yes and no, unaltered it is, but altered, even a little, makes it new, and for the tech impaired on here, converting from CD track to MP3 alters it, a lot. But that's only part of it. The issue is far more complex than that really, the laws they have cannot account for everything but they are abused to make fans the criminals. Many new artists are starting to offer their own websites now, where they can control what is downloaded or not, cutting out the major recording companies, this is a good sign and move on their part and I hope they all follow this plan now.

 

[pete]

This reminds me of the war on drugs. Its right in your face and you make stupid little arrest instead of hitting the source.

 

[jillian]

How do you propose they pay for policing it on the net? How much of your own privacy are you willing to sacrifice to ensure that these people "obey" a stupid law?

1. Who cares if you think it's "stupid"? I find it bizarre that anyone would think that someone's intellectual property -- which forms the source of their livelihood, should be available to anyone who feels like stealing it.

2. What on earth are you TALKING about? who pays for policing it? The answer is... it depends. If someone is pirating designer bags, it's probably the police... SAME AS IF SOMEONE STOLE YOUR PROPERTY. In terms of music, it's generally music companies and the RIAA.

Time for a bit of a history lesson. The copyright laws had to undergo a change recently, the original language made it illegal to let anyone but the person who paid for it view or listen to it, thus playing it on your stereo at a party or watching a movie with the family made you a criminal. Now it only talks about distribution, however, that could be twisted to make it illegal to sell used CDs and DVDs as well now, in the right greedy hands that is. Artists don't get into this for the money, if they do they never get anywhere or we end up with mo N'Sync. They get into it because they want to share their talents and visions with other people. Money is a fortunate side effect, thus why it's rarely the artist who goes after people who break this stupid law, it's the production companies who by your logic have no moral right to do so. If they really want people to stop using MP3s then they should go back to vinyl.

As to your "history lesson", once again, you're wrong. There was always a doctrine of fair use. Any changes would have been for clarification purposes only. Which "changes" are you talking about? What year?

And if you think artists don't want the money they are entitled to for the only thing they produce .... you're retarded.

 

[jillian]

And just so you understand what they were dealing with:

But Tim Reynolds, a lawyer for the recording labels, recounted Tenenbaum's history of file-sharing from 1999 to 2007, describing him as "a hardcore, habitual, long-term infringer who knew what he was doing was wrong." Tenenbaum admitted on the witness stand that he had downloaded and shared more than 800 songs.

Tenenbaum said he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Nirvana, Green Day, The Smashing Pumpkins and other artists. The recording industry focused on only 30 songs in the case.

The music industry has typically offered to settle such cases for about $5,000, though it has said that it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders. Cases already filed, however, are proceeding to trial.

Tenenbaum testified that he had lied in pretrial depositions when he said his two sisters, friends and others may have been responsible for downloading the songs to his computer.

Under questioning from his own lawyer, Tenenbaum said he now takes responsibility for the illegal swapping.

The Associated Press: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

BTW, in EVERY other case of this nature, they generally settled for about $5,000. They didn't settle here, because the "kid" lied.... even at his deposition....

They also don't really go after individuals anymore... this is probably one of the last cases of this kind.

He should have paid the $5,000.... not that it matters cause he's going to file bankruptcy if he doesn't win on appeal anyway.

 

[editec]

I believe in private property. I don't believe in intellectual property.

intellectual property IS private property.

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating about laws you don't understand.

No, it's not.

YOU claim to be a lawyer and you tell us that intllectual property isn't private property?!

Where do you practice the law, KK?

Mars?

 

[Zoom-boing]

intellectual property IS private property.

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating about laws you don't understand.

No, it's not.

YOU claim to be a lawyer and you tell us that intllectual property isn't private property?!

Where do you practice the law, KK?

Mars?

Kevin Kennedy is a lawyer? I thought he was a college student.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

intellectual property IS private property.

I really do wish you'd stop pontificating about laws you don't understand.

No, it's not.

YOU claim to be a lawyer and you tell us that intllectual property isn't private property?!

Where do you practice the law, KK?

Mars?

I've never claimed anything of the sort.

 

[jillian]

YOU claim to be a lawyer and you tell us that intllectual property isn't private property?!

Where do you practice the law, KK?

Mars?

nah, ed... i'm da lawyer... he just likes to think he knows more about constitutional law than lawyers, but i've never seen him claim to be one.