Log in

View Full Version : Has to pay 625 thousands of dollar for 30 songs



Caius
08-01-2009, 21:36
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090731/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_music_downloading


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.
Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful. The maximum jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million.
Jurors ordered Tenenbaum to pay $22,500 for each incident of copyright infringement, effectively finding that his actions were willful. The attorney for the 25-year-old student had asked the jury earlier Friday to "send a message" to the music industry by awarding only minimal damages.
Tenenbaum said he was thankful that the case wasn't in the millions and contrasted the significance of his fine with the maximum.
"That to me sends a message of 'We considered your side with some legitimacy,'" he said. "$4.5 million would have been, 'We don't buy it at all.'"
He added he will file for bankruptcy if the verdict stands.
Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, said the jury's verdict was not fair. He said he plans to appeal the decision because he was not allowed to argue a case based on fair use.
The Recording Industry Association of America issued a statement thanking the jury for recognizing the impact illegal downloading has on the music community.
"We appreciate that Mr. Tenenbaum finally acknowledged that artists and music companies deserve to be paid for their work," the statement said. "From the beginning, that's what this case has been all about. We only wish he had done so sooner rather than lie about his illegal behavior."
Tenenbaum would not say if he regretted downloading music, saying it was a loaded question.
"I don't regret drinking underage in college, even though I got busted a few times," he said.
The case is only the nation's second music downloading case against an individual to go to trial.
Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, must pay $1.92 million, or $80,000 on each of 24 songs, after concluding she willfully violated the copyrights on those tunes.
The jury began deliberating the case Friday afternoon.
After Tenenbaum admitted Thursday he is liable for damages for 30 songs at issue in the case, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the jury must consider only whether his copyright infringement was willful and how much in damages to award four recording labels that sued him over the illegal file-sharing.
In his closing statement Friday, Nesson repeatedly referred to Tenenbaum as a "kid" and asked the jury to award only a small amount to the recording companies. At one point, Nesson suggested the damages should be as little as 99 cents per song, roughly the same amount Tenenbaum would have to pay if he legally purchased the music online.

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.
"I used the computer. I uploaded, I downloaded music ... I did it," Tenenbaum said.
__ Associated Press writer Jeannie Nuss contributed reporting from Boston.


Ok. This is the real business of music record houses. We pay the artists a cent for every CD you release, we sell it at 45 dollars, and we sue all those who pirate us. Its a good move from those evil people.

Yes, I'm angry. I mean, he knew it is wrong. He deserves it. He deserves jail, and a few fine. Why? Because if you are a burglar or thief, and you go inside a home and you steal a thing, whatever it is, you go to jail. The thief doesn't pay on what that thief stole.

Sadly, those companies are lucrating with those cases than letting artists have MORE time to make DECENT productions. I've heard artist that went into Independent productions since they don't have time to make good songs. I don't want the usual "This CD owns the hit "OMG", featured in the popular series "Being Obama for a day"." and hear 13 more tracks of pure :daisy:

I am sure I'm wrong, but I wonder why some bands and some singers had so deep thought songs, and now we have... HANNAH MONTANA! JONAS BROTHERS! WTF, seriously! Just people that sell songs because they look well.

Thanks for letting me going out this rant.

FactionHeir
08-01-2009, 21:52
He added he will file for bankruptcy if the verdict stands.


i.e. he almost won't have to pay a thing.

Hooahguy
08-02-2009, 03:39
625k????
what the :daisy:
thats rediculous!

Aemilius Paulus
08-02-2009, 05:24
Not as bad as that single mother in the news who had to pay 1.92 million USD for 24 songs. (http://www.theage.com.au/technology/single-mother-music-pirate--ordered-to-pay-24m-20090619-cn4u.html)

BTW, her case was more questionable and she did not distribute the music, just DL-ing it for personal use, something that is legal in many countries. But not US, of course.

Which is why I never DL popular films or songs, other than due to the fact I loathe that prolefeed myself.

Lord Winter
08-02-2009, 05:48
I'm glad that modern technology is quickly making recording companies obsolete.

Aemilius Paulus
08-02-2009, 05:52
I'm glad that modern technology is quickly making recording companies obsolete.
Yeah, but not the teeth, nay, jaws of their legal action. That is all to painfully modern...

aimlesswanderer
08-02-2009, 06:24
Why give the pesky customers what they want (cheap, easily downloadeable music), when you can sue them and get loads of negative press instead? Much easier to do that than to move with the times and become less dinosaur like. So far they deserve to die because they have failed to evolve. Sadly they still have lots of $, and therefore influence, and can persuade silly politicians to enact dubious laws.

Aemilius Paulus
08-02-2009, 06:30
Why give the pesky customers what they want (cheap, easily downloadeable music), when you can sue them and get loads of negative press instead? Much easier to do that than to move with the times and become less dinosaur like. So far they deserve to die because they have failed to evolve. Sadly they still have lots of $, and therefore influence, and can persuade silly politicians to enact dubious laws.
Because that is 1: change and 2: it makes sense. As someone whom I forgot remarked "worry not about others stealing your ideas, as if you have a truly great idea, no one will listen to you" (paraphrased). Exaggeration, but not by much. People are resistant to change and the best ideas always seem/are radical/unorthodox.

Lord Winter
08-02-2009, 06:36
Yeah, but not the teeth, nay, jaws of their legal action. That is all to painfully modern...

I was talking more about the rise of cheap yet professional quality recording equipment combined with the internet opening the door for many more truly independent bands and smaller record labels. Because of this the big labels will actually have some competition.

Beirut
08-02-2009, 14:33
Isn't all of this a clear violation of the 8th Amendment?

Aemilius Paulus
08-02-2009, 17:52
Isn't all of this a clear violation of the 8th Amendment?
Excessive fines are not defined as cruel and unusual. Nor are they excessive bail, which BTW, seems to have been ignored these days. By cruel and unusual the Founding Fathers meant no torture, such as the quartering or burning. They did not mean excessive psychological torture, big bills, or something as humane as an electric shock or a lethal injection. For them, hanging was as humane as it gets or should be.

rory_20_uk
08-02-2009, 17:57
Excessive fines are not defined as cruel and unusual. Nor are they excessive bail, which BTW, seems to have been ignored these days. By cruel and unusual the Founding Fathers meant no torture, such as the quartering or burning. They did not mean excessive psychological torture, big bills, or something as humane as an electric shock or a lethal injection. For them, hanging was as humane as it gets or should be.

Supposition. If they had wanted, they should have been explicit. As they haven't the term can be moulded to the time.

~:smoking:

Lord Winter
08-02-2009, 18:26
Excessive fines are not defined as cruel and unusual. Nor are they excessive bail, which BTW, seems to have been ignored these days. By cruel and unusual the Founding Fathers meant no torture, such as the quartering or burning. They did not mean excessive psychological torture, big bills, or something as humane as an electric shock or a lethal injection. For them, hanging was as humane as it gets or should be.



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

Excessive fines are clearly covered by the 8th amendment. Even the strictest originalist would agree.

ICantSpellDawg
08-02-2009, 20:19
Excessive fines are clearly covered by the 8th amendment. Even the greatest originalist would agree.


Unfortunately, "excessive" relies on a definition - usually that which is defined by law. The law set a fine for each offense, the court upheld it to a ludicrous total. I believe that the fine for downloading 1 song is absurd. I could be fined considerably less for breaking NYS insurance law. If I committed more than 5 instances I would not be liable for more than 2500 and having my license suspended or revoked (such as taking kick backs). This kid downloads songs and owes over half a mil? Utterly absurd.

Record companies are using the US legal system as a vehicle for injustice. It will catch up to them.

KukriKhan
08-02-2009, 20:23
What were the songs? Maybe they were worth the risk, and the price paid.







LOL

Aemilius Paulus
08-02-2009, 20:29
Excessive fines are clearly covered by the 8th amendment. Even the strictest originalist would agree.
But along the lines of what TuffStuffMcGruff said, the definition is altogether too hazy and I have never seen the "no excessive bail" part of the amendment reflected in the ludicrous multi-million bails they impose nowadays. Excessive is a relative meaning. What may be excessive for the heist of a car may be inappropriate for a debacle such as the Vioxx controversy.

Lord Winter
08-02-2009, 22:56
Unfortunately, "excessive" relies on a definition - usually that which is defined by law. The law set a fine for each offense, the court upheld it to a ludicrous total. I believe that the fine for downloading 1 song is absurd. I could be fined considerably less for breaking NYS insurance law. If I committed more than 5 instances I would not be liable for more than 2500 and having my license suspended or revoked (such as taking kick backs). This kid downloads songs and owes over half a mil? Utterly absurd.

Record companies are using the US legal system as a vehicle for injustice. It will catch up to them.

We have appellate courts for a reason. Let the issue be handled by them. He has a good case. Like you said there are severe proportionality issues with the fine handed out. The law he was prosecuted under was never intended to be used against private individual downloading a few songs. Instead the massive fines are meant to be a deterrent against corporate misuse of copyright. Instead of using this inapplicable law, the reasonable and proportional charge would be a charge equivalent to the stealing of a physical cd. Charge him for theft and it's constitutional, but taking away his whole livelihood and forcing him to spend the rest of his life paying for a couple of hours of music is not. While there isn't much established precedent for the excessive fines clause the one existing case is for him. If his attorneys can argue that the same gross proportionality exists in his fine as it did in United States V Bajakajian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bajakajian) then he has a good chance of winning the appeal.

@AP The bail clause is irrelevant we're talking about another part of the 8th amendment here. Besides the million dollar bails you talk about are for major offenses not petty theft. Also IIRC, you only have to post 10% to actually get out