Student fined $675,000 for sharing 30 songs

The Fed can't fine you money you don't have. In this case, the best attorney might have been a Federal Defender. Federal maximum fines are set ridiculously high in the first place. It would be interesting to know the back story of this case. Because prima facia, it seems like our defendant really pissed somebody off big time.

The defendant was fined for "30" songs, but that just might have been all they chose to prosecute. Face it, all Al Capone went down for was income tax evasion.

There's sort of a moral here, the internet is a very public place. It's being monitored in real time for child pornography, people in my general area were just busted for it.The Assistant US Attorney said, we can monitor your downloads in real time, we have new technologly. Was the a psych job, just bluster? Maybe, maybe not. But, I think the Fed is casting a wider net than anyone suspects.

The same web crawlers can be used by the forces of good or evil.

One man bragged the he could rip "10,000 songs off the net in one night". For my part, I think sharing is something that is best done on a personal level, with friends, and in tasteful amounts.

I did not see that one....but i have to believe that this wont stand in an appeal....or maybe its just hope. This is some seriously orwellian stuff.

Isn't this the way tyranny is always supported? You, take somebody out into the town square, and hang them for next to no reason. The rest of the sheep bleat a bit of objection , then skulk home in abject fear.

What I can't seem to fathom, is why nobody for a minute thinks that the FBI has accounts on "Lime Wire". My guess is multiple accounts. Meh, I'm probably just paranoid.

I'd say his lawyer was one of the best daddy's money could buy, he's a harvard law professor, so I'm sure the fine will be met, I doubt he pissed anyone off , its like the drug laws , drugs will never be stamped out and neither will piracy , so all that can be done is inflict excessive punishment , in the hope people will stop doing it , they don't try address the reasons behind it

No, this quote from the article says exactly what I suspected, "Tenenbaum admitted to downloading and distributing music over peer-to-peer networks and was prosecuted and convicted on the basis of 30 shared songs." They only prosecuted for thirty songs, then enhanced the fine upward. And a Harvard law professor should have known that "fair use" wouldn't fly! So, yeah, they were pissed off at him. Fair use, would work on a CD you copied to back up, but not bloody likely on and open drive containing copyrighted material.

interesting edit , captcrank , so if its done on a small level , or for personal use , they probaly won't come after you , maybe they broke up a cinema camcorder ring they were tracking for a few years , sounds crazy but u never know , so are businesses who loss money able to direct our resources away from solving more serious crime , amazing !

trust the US to lie about only $500 fine. if it was true why did this kid get a $675000 fine? the us is full of bullshit thats why i live in Australia

the whole industry is over inflated , it gives rise to piracy, they charge to much for a bunch of songs , most artists don't make music for money alone the way the record companies do , but after they spend money on an image , make a deal that our rapper will only wear nike sneakers , they want a big return,

yeah, cuz the australian government would never do anything so intrusive....geezus
http://newsok.com/australias-intern...rs-activists-raises-questions/article/3333918

As I tried to explain earlier swapping music on the internet is stealing in full public view. One might speculate, that there's a vicious circle in play here. To wit, if they're that stupid and blatant, (the sharers), we're going to punish them for it.(The RIAA).

That fact that this kid's lawyer is a Harvard Law Professor, doesn't really impress me. First of all academic types many times are a bit too liberal thinking, and they're also pretty cloistered. As I said earlier, he would have been better off with a Federal Defender, they know the judges, they know the probation department, and in general, they're in a better position to wheel and deal on a defendant's behalf. As near as I can tell they made an example out of the "prof" in the process. Here's how not to be taken seriously, claim that it's really "fair use". "Fair use" is making yourself a backup, one copy.

This generation seems to be comprised almost exclusively of sociopaths. From what I can gather, people think they're entitled to share, keep, or steal whatever type of intellectual property they come across, and the worst part, blatantly, and in full public view.

Now, try and wrap your head around this. Just because the original artist may have in fact have a claim against the RIAA for not forwarding their royalties, that doesn't mean the any third party in entitled to steal the material. It still belongs to the original owner, and by extension the RIAA, the agent for enforcement of copyright.

Well, the RIAA didn't give the royalties to the artist, so that means I can make as many copies as I want because the RIAA is stealing from the artist. OK, I hope that sounds as stupid to you as it does to me. Not only that, but if I read that statement over and over, I don;t think I can brainwash myself into believing it.

I sincerely wish that anybody involved in the pro-unfettered sharing of other peoples property, would develop some intellectual property of their own. because then, I haven't got a shred of doubt, that they'd be preaching a different sermon!

I've done the file sharing thing, and frankly this is as much scary as this "." is on a 9 by 9 meter piece of paper. I do think its obsessive, but even so, just imagine if they caught all 20 million of us. lol. Barack Obama couldnt even save that kind of deficit.

Yeah, and he gets to say when the money's printed.

File sharing on the internet is sorta like s***ing on you neighbor's front lawn while a parade is coming down the street.
it's just the kind of thing that people are looking to come down on.

anyone know how they actually go about picking a target? and setup their 'sting' operation im assuming were not talking abscam here.

Just from what I've been looking at its through ISP's. Comcast isnt on that list, along with Rogers Network(Canada), also At&T. Passed that I'm not sure who they contact to get their info.

If I were the FBI, I'd enroll one of my younger agents in computer science and a frat in the local college. Open up accounts in Lime wire and elsewhere. And run plenty of web crawlers. You can get them (I think) as freeware. I saw one at "Softpedia" I think. "Find out if your software is on the web", was the sales pitch. Christ, just go to, "isohunt.com". and work from there.

Think about Macafee's "Site Adviser". It has to track your every move, to tell you which sites are good or bad. So, basically there's a tool that knows, "who's been naughty" and "who's been nice".

I guess what im getting at is where is the privacy, or invasion thereof argument come down?

I agree, but if isp's are worried about business being compromised they wont give information, that imo was the biggest drawback in the issue arrising years ago when supposedly isp's were going to supply the information to "catch" the offenders. If you can only fine 150k per item confirms and admitted, how does that compare to losing 50k customers over a 5 year period. Not much.

If you believe the Bush administration's telling, or rather non telling of it, at moot point. In any event in any legal venue, the only privacy issue that >> might <<prevail, is illegal search and seizure. But, since the internet for all intents is a public venue, and copyright violation and or theft of goods and services, rises to the level of a felony, an individual or a group is not entitled to invoking a privacy claim during the commission of said felony. In fact. I'm actually wondering why the don't tack conspiracy on more than they do. But that's probably because the FBI doesn't like the RIAA thinking that it's the RIAA's trained attack dog!

Idealism is fine in it's place and purpose. But since when do you need an ISP's permission to install Limewire software. The only reason that they were bullying the ISPs is so they could have the information handed to them on a silver platter, with minimal effort on their part. They're just flat out, too f***ing lazy, to do their own police work. This unauthorized and unreasonable search and seizure is in national security interests, now loosen up your trousers. So, that when we are "looking for terrorists", and then we "stumble upon" copyright violators, this is a public place. There's no expectation of privacy, and the evidentiary rules of no search warrant being needed for, "articles found in plain sight", attaches! Or at least can be molded to apply.

I notice in my town dvd players with divx built in , how does that happen , isn't divx probaly the most common format for pirated material , and now dvd makers are enabling pirated material to be viewed more easy.