Student fined $675,000 for illegal downloads

[manifold]

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.

The case is only the second time an individual has gone to trial for illegally downloading music. In June, a federal jury ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay record companies $1.92 million for illegally downloading 24 songs. The Minnesota mother of four is seeking a new trial.
Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, told the Associated Press that he would appeal the jury's decision. Tenenbaum said he would file for bankruptcy if the verdict is not overturned.

While accused of downloading 30 songs, Tenenbaum, 25, admitted in his courtroom testimony to downloading hundreds of tunes over Kazaa's file-sharing software. His attorney argued that he was just a kid doing what kids do on the Internet.

The recording companies that leveled charges against Tenenbaum were Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and subsidiaries of Sony (NYSE: SNE).

In the Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset cases, the recording industry argued that "real people" have been damaged by the illegal downloading of copyrighted music. The Recording Industry Association of America initially brought legal action against thousands of individuals it claimed were guilty of music piracy. Tenenbaum was connected to that sweep.

Piracy Verdict Gets Student Fined $675,000 -- File-Sharing -- InformationWeek

 

[Said1]

That's harsh. 24 songs? Wow, that's what.......a couple of bucks? I guess it adds up.

 

[Navy1960]

good luck collecting it is all I have to say, these companies know damn well they cannot collect those kinds of damages from the average people they seek to recoup their so called loses from. This is all about sending a message to any would-be downloader in the future that they tend to crackdown on this issue. If thats the case then why not go after the sites that permit such downloading in the first place. While the artist deserve money for their craft, the companies that represent them need to focus their efforts on the sites that allow for these sorts of downloads rather than going after the fans, because soon these same artist may find a severe lack of fans as well.

 

[Soaring]

That's harsh. 24 songs? Wow, that's what.......a couple of bucks? I guess it adds up.

It's too bad this kid gets slammed so hard, but with all the new technology being produced to do this stuff, the companies who offer this equipment need to share in the suit. Secondly, the producers of this music need to get slammed for making this illegal action available to the kids in the first place. With new innovations, these companies can easily block this illegal downloading. If they choose not to, they are just opening themselves up to illegal downloading. So, who do I blame? The music industry.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

 

[alan1]

Not a single one of the 50,000+ songs were illegally downloaded off the internet.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

 

[Soaring]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

Your signature website doesn't work.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

It's very different. If you go into a store and steal a cd you've physically stolen the property of the store. Not so if you download a song.

Yes, songs are intellectual property, and I don't believe in intellectual property.

 

[alan1]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

OK, that's interesting.
I wonder how many people have been fined $675,000 for shoplifting $30 worth of CD's from a music store.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

It's very different. If you go into a store and steal a cd you've physically stolen the property of the store. Not so if you download a song.

Yes, songs are intellectual property, and I don't believe in intellectual property.

No, if you download a song illegally it's stealing. Just because it's digital vs. on a cd doesn't make it not stealing.

If songs are intellectual property and you don't believe in intellectual property . . . you don't believe in songs or music?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

OK, that's interesting.
I wonder how many people have been fined $675,000 for shoplifting $30 worth of CD's from a music store.

I think they set the fine so high to hold him up as an example that if you get caught, they'll slam you. Maybe because it's so much harder to catch illegal downloaders? I don't know. That was my impression when I read the article.

 

[BrianH]

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.

The case is only the second time an individual has gone to trial for illegally downloading music. In June, a federal jury ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay record companies $1.92 million for illegally downloading 24 songs. The Minnesota mother of four is seeking a new trial.
Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, told the Associated Press that he would appeal the jury's decision. Tenenbaum said he would file for bankruptcy if the verdict is not overturned.

While accused of downloading 30 songs, Tenenbaum, 25, admitted in his courtroom testimony to downloading hundreds of tunes over Kazaa's file-sharing software. His attorney argued that he was just a kid doing what kids do on the Internet.

The recording companies that leveled charges against Tenenbaum were Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and subsidiaries of Sony (NYSE: SNE).

In the Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset cases, the recording industry argued that "real people" have been damaged by the illegal downloading of copyrighted music. The Recording Industry Association of America initially brought legal action against thousands of individuals it claimed were guilty of music piracy. Tenenbaum was connected to that sweep.

Piracy Verdict Gets Student Fined $675,000 -- File-Sharing -- InformationWeek

This is frickin ridiculous. 24 songs on a CD will run you about $19.99.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't understand how they could possibly charge $150,000 per downloaded song when you can legally obtain a song for $.99. If anything they should only have to pay the retail price per song and perhaps a small fine. However, I don't believe in intellectual property in the first place so I don't believe there should be any fine at all.

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

Your signature website doesn't work.

Thanks. I fixed it, it works now.

 

[alan1]

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

OK, that's interesting.
I wonder how many people have been fined $675,000 for shoplifting $30 worth of CD's from a music store.

I think they set the fine so high to hold him up as an example that if you get caught, they'll slam you. Maybe because it's so much harder to catch illegal downloaders? I don't know. That was my impression when I read the article.

If they actually fined him a legitimate amount (not some ridiculously high amount that will just result in him declaring bankruptcy), they might actually put some fear into people. Sue/fine him $100 per song plus court costs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They slapped him with this amount because he stole the songs. No different than if he had gone into a store and stolen the cds.

There shouldn't be any fine for stealing songs because songs are intellectual property?

It's very different. If you go into a store and steal a cd you've physically stolen the property of the store. Not so if you download a song.

Yes, songs are intellectual property, and I don't believe in intellectual property.

No, if you download a song illegally it's stealing. Just because it's digital vs. on a cd doesn't make it not stealing.

If songs are intellectual property and you don't believe in intellectual property . . . you don't believe in songs or music?

I can go onto YouTube right now and listen to pretty much any song I want to. Am I stealing that song?

I meant that songs would be classified under intellectual property and that I don't believe in intellectual property.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's very different. If you go into a store and steal a cd you've physically stolen the property of the store. Not so if you download a song.

Yes, songs are intellectual property, and I don't believe in intellectual property.

No, if you download a song illegally it's stealing. Just because it's digital vs. on a cd doesn't make it not stealing.

If songs are intellectual property and you don't believe in intellectual property . . . you don't believe in songs or music?

I can go onto YouTube right now and listen to pretty much any song I want to. Am I stealing that song?

I meant that songs would be classified under intellectual property and that I don't believe in intellectual property.

Listening to it? No. Downloading it without paying for it? Yes.

Listening to it in the store? No. Taking the cd without paying for it? Yes.

 

[xotoxi]

Not a single one of the 50,000+ songs were illegally downloaded off the internet.

Imagine if you HAD illegally downloaded them!

At the maximum fine of $150,000 per track, you'd owe $7,724,850,000.

 

[Zoom-boing]

OK, that's interesting.
I wonder how many people have been fined $675,000 for shoplifting $30 worth of CD's from a music store.

I think they set the fine so high to hold him up as an example that if you get caught, they'll slam you. Maybe because it's so much harder to catch illegal downloaders? I don't know. That was my impression when I read the article.

If they actually fined him a legitimate amount (not some ridiculously high amount that will just result in him declaring bankruptcy), they might actually put some fear into people. Sue/fine him $100 per song plus court costs.

Maybe. Guess they didn't see it that way. I did read that if they stick to the $675,000 he will declare bankruptcy.

Cripes, isn't easier to just pay for what you buy?

 

[Xenophon]

This will do wonders in PR for those companies.