Jury awards 675K in Downloading case v. 25 year old.

[LegalSmash]

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

[Flick]

Thats a scary thought. One minute you're just listening to music you got of the internet. The next your paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for it.

[b0red]

This is starting to get out of hand, why did he admit it? and is this only happening to people that upload the music?

[trakaill]

This is starting to get out of hand, why did he admit it? and is this only happening to people that upload the music?

thats why im a selfish bastard and never share once its on my comp I stop sharing!!!:laugh:

[b0red]

thats why im a selfish bastard and never share once its on my comp I stop sharing!!!:laugh:

ME TO!!!!!

[2 Dwarves, 1 Coat]

I'm having trouble seeing how he got caught, someone help me out.

[2 Dwarves, 1 Coat]

Here's an idea:

why not just demand the costs of how much the music would take to buy, rather than numbers pulled out of thin air?

I'll take that as sarcasm, as the obvious answer is "More money."

[Suffering Knave]

Well damn how that had to happen. But jeez don't get caught lol. I personally think the payments are outrageous. The music companies already have millions, if not billions of dollars.

[Italian Jew]

Well damn how that had to happen. But jeez don't get caught lol. I personally think the payments are outrageous. The music companies already have millions, if not billions of dollars.

The payments are meant to scare people out of downloading and distributing the music. The idea is that if you are downloading music illegally, you will fear being caught and having to pay a huge sum of money, thus making you stop your behavior. However, this doesn't really work as you can imagine that millions of people still download their music illegally.


Here's an idea:

why not just demand the costs of how much the music would take to buy, rather than numbers pulled out of thin air?

In order to actually make a profit from the proceedings, I don't think the general price of the song would be enough to pay for all legal fees associated with any given case. I support them trying to get more money than the music is worth, as that would at least make some people think about what they are doing. What I don't support are the hundreds of thousands of dollars owed because someone downloaded a handful or two of songs. Most people don't have that kind of money available and the outrageous penalties can encourage more music piracy.

[Hunt3r.j2]

I find that Itunes and all those other media players don't hold a candle to the simplicity of just pirating the music.

[JD0102]

hes retarted when you get music dont share it lol

[LegalSmash]

The payments are meant to scare people out of downloading and distributing the music. The idea is that if you are downloading music illegally, you will fear being caught and having to pay a huge sum of money, thus making you stop your behavior. However, this doesn't really work as you can imagine that millions of people still download their music illegally.



In order to actually make a profit from the proceedings, I don't think the general price of the song would be enough to pay for all legal fees associated with any given case. I support them trying to get more money than the music is worth, as that would at least make some people think about what they are doing. What I don't support are the hundreds of thousands of dollars owed because someone downloaded a handful or two of songs. Most people don't have that kind of money available and the outrageous penalties can encourage more music piracy.

Jew has part of it right, the actual list price of a song or the disc would be wholly insufficient to cover the expenses of litigation, however, the company is not out to make a profit in the proceeding. Figure the standard rate for a "biglaw" firm associate level attorney is 200-250 per hour USD, and that at least 20-40 hours will go into such a case from drafting the initial pleadings to requesting records from the ISP, to actually making a court room appearance and the prep associated with it. The legal fees must be through the roof, but a damage award in copyright infringement cases are not directed to attorneys fees, that is a separate issue generally decided by a judge, depending on certain factors. What IS covered in said award is the statutory damages for the infringement, which, depending on the nature of infringement, the willful nature of the act, and how the defendant appeared to the jury, the amount could be in the low 100-150K PER song, PER violation.

When I read this fellow's performance on the stand and his responses I wanted to facepalm... I can imagine his lawyer wanting to facepalm. Homeboy is an IDIOT of the first order.

Regarding whether the verdict will stick or not, taking into consideration his age, the amount of damages awarded, and his likelihood of just bankrupting his way out of it, I doubt the RIAA will ever see a red cent out of any such award, at least no sizeable portion of it anyhow.

The RIAA and its affiliates (the REAL Axis of Evil) seek to "make examples" out of people by suing the shit out of them for downloading a song off a third rate album from a 5th rate performer. The purpose of this is not to actually recover anything, because their recovery versus expense ratio must be horrifying, or they have an accountant who is as stupid as paris hilton is a whore. The point is to scare through litigation, fearmonger, and really, terrorize you, and everyone like you who downloads still.

I remember when this STARTED to be questionable, back when DSL first got into fashion when I was in high school, and it was METALLICA and dre that were crying. Back then, no one was really doing much more than crying about it on TV. Now, despite all reasonable evidence pointing to the fact that IPOD, MP3 players, and nondisc format has taken the market (and the disc companies, record producers, etc are BAAAWWWWWing about it), the RIAA, its subsidiaries, affiliates, parent and subordinate companies REFUSE to accept that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE their entire loss of revenue and sales is due to them selling a technologically obsolete product. The last time I used a CD player was 05, because I was too broke to afford an Ipod my first year of law school. Go figure, I was probably one retard at the ENTIRE school that had a CD player in his bag.

Now rather than learning the valuable business lesson here (don't sell wind up prop planes when we have supersonic jets in the market), they insist on spending MORE of their money on suing old ladies, indians, 6 year olds, and the occasional 25 year old smart ass who cannot figure out how to act apologetic on the stand.

If they had ANY sense, they'd lobby for statutorily imposed fines of 100-1000 dollars for infringement by the FCC, like a parking ticket, and that would likely cull down the problem massively.

They are not that smart.

[PotshotPolka]

If they had ANY sense, they'd lobby for statutorily imposed fines of 100-1000 dollars for infringement by the FCC, like a parking ticket, and that would likely cull down the problem massively.

They are not that smart.

About sums up it, but for the FCC to take that large a regulatory stance in the internet business, even if it was just targeting tracker sites for torrents, there would be a SHITSTORM heading their way.

[BOOWY]

Suing for only how much the songs are worth(99 cents or more each) and legal fees is bullshit, for one reason. Most of the time, these guys nab you because you're uploading, not downloading.

I'm absolutely against these monstrously large sums of money because they're completely baseless, but people make a living out of suing other people so there's no sense whining about that stuff. What some of you aren't taking into account is how much he might have uploaded. In a perfect world, for me, a fair suit is to find out how much you uploaded and figure out how much you owe from that, plus legal fees. If you've got a 3 megabyte song and you've uploaded 12 megabytes of that song, in my eyes(and in that perfect world), you're liable for the cost of that song times 4... plus legal fees.

What really pisses me off is what they said in the article: "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."

That is a load of bullshit because if that were truly the case then he wouldn't be paying $600K out of his pockets. I don't dispute that artists and record labels and all that need to be payed what they're owed, I dispute the amount. Being sued $150K for a $0.99 product is asinine unless you really did upload that much(which works out to 450~ish gigabytes of uploading for that one song assuming your song is 3 megabytes and rounding the cost up to a dollar).

[Hunt3r.j2]

It may set precedent, but are these people stupid? There are upload and download limits now, dude.

[LegalSmash]

It may set precedent, but are these people stupid? There are upload and download limits now, dude.

and the act is still a violation of the copyright acts of the holders.

[SoulKeeper]

Wow.
Yes, lets charge someone for a type of "sound" we've made!

Some companies are really greedy...
I'm waiting for the day they'll go on youtube and demand moneys for their music being used.

[LegalSmash]

Wow.
Yes, lets charge someone for a type of "sound" we've made!

Some companies are really greedy...
I'm waiting for the day they'll go on youtube and demand moneys for their music being used.

They already do. Did you read the thread or article at all, or do you just come in to get your post count up?

[PotshotPolka]

They have a right to be greedy, the RIAA may be retarded, but their actions are justified, albiet, grandiose and overzealous in there executions.

[Slavic]

Wow.
Yes, lets charge someone for a type of "sound" we've made!

What!?!

So music artists shouldn't be compensated for their creative products?

[Jewpiter]

Apparently since the RIAA can't make a profit off of a dying format they will now be manufacturing and marketing fear and compliance.

[Slavic]

Apparently since the RIAA can't make a profit off of a dying format they will now be manufacturing and marketing fear and compliance.

sounds like middle management

[ReGIONALS]

Here's an idea:

why not just demand the costs of how much the music would take to buy, rather than numbers pulled out of thin air?

this is obama's solution to our declining economy

[Toxin]

this is obama's solution to our declining economy

First of all, worst bump ever.
Second of all. What the fuck? That money is going to already over wealthy music producers who have more money to spent than the average American citizen with a Ph. D. will make in his lifetime.

[TheTruth]

bumps are like lumps in the way they rime and are often unwanted!

also that amount of money is rediculus are they crazy?

Soooo why did you bump this?

[LegalSmash]

bumps are like lumps in the way they rime and are often unwanted!

also that amount of money is rediculus are they crazy?

Please kill yourself.

[Veggie]

Stop bumping month old threads, lock this ty.